A hot take: Socialism is a more advanced form of government fit only for advanced races

submitted by casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter from self.debatealtright

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]NayenezganiNot alt-right 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

Socialism however, would and has completely failed in the middle east and Latin America.

Your CIA niggers were responsible undermining socialist movements across the world and eliminated people like Allende in order to install right-wing dictators like Pinochet. I am holding the USA responsible for the destruction of Project Cybersyn.

Also, if I were European I would not care much for the alt-right because barely any people are economically literate. There are no realistic and comprehensive economic programs being advocated, only vague notions that things will sort themselves out once racial demographics are adjusted. Much like how delusional first-world Marxists think we only need to vote in socialist government to achieve economic justice, or Trump supporters believing everything will be alright once the swamp is drained.

Even when I delve into fascist theory, there is a lack of clarity regarding economics.

[–]Nombre27 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Even when I delve into fascist theory, there is a lack of clarity regarding economics.

My understanding is that this is because economics is a lower priority when it comes to fascist/third position societies. This is often a shock to people that lean towards mainstream conservatism and GDP worship. Get the other pieces in position first and then see what kind of economic system they allow/favor. The economic policies are more a la carte than a total subscription to one system. If you want answers to your economic questions, you have to first ask a question and then weigh various options and responses.

From my understanding, often having guilds or corporations where their mandates have to be aligned with the good of the individual and the good of the state (now that these have been aligned). Markets obviously have benefits but there probably shouldn't be a market for everything. Social safety nets are good but should they be available for everyone or should they require reciprocation? The laissez-faire liberal near-total free-for-all obviously isn't working, or at least isn't optimal in our opinion. So if you'd like some answers, then you need start asking the questions. The answer isn't total capitalism or socialism, hence why it's called the third position.

Just a guess, but you sound like you have an overemphasis on economics and that seems to be the problem here. It can result in a paralysis by analysis since you seem to be getting caught up on what is perceived as a more minor issue, i.e. you aren't approaching this with the proper frame of mind. Are you libertarian by any chance?

[–]NayenezganiNot alt-right 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

Sure. I'm not even disputing much of what OP suggests, but what I was commenting about -- dearth of concrete details or depth -- was also observed in socialist communities.

As a former socialist, I was primarily irritated by dogmatic adherence to ideology (when two of the most successful Marxist-influenced regimes tailored their policy to their respective pre-regime conditions), and how the discourse was centered on goals rather than how to achieve them. I still support universal healthcare (and so should the private sector since it efficiently maximizes workforce productivity), but it was difficult to even find left-wing people with solid ideas on how the funding model should work. Does a single-payer or entirely tax-funded healthcare system suit the US, considering its history and political structure? Many European countries opt for a mixed-funding model involving private and public entities. Not to mention basically all Western European countries are much more centralized and have a significantly smaller population, which makes it so much easier to implement universal healthcare. + the USian healthcare insurance industry was instrumental in preventing universal healthcare legislation in the 1990s, even when many US citizens supported it.

Now I am more influenced by non-fascist variants of "third way" economics (French dirigisme, East Asian state-sponsored capitalism). Clearly the free market is not sufficient to determine optimal resource allocation, though it should also be noted that Communist regimes in the 20th century had more irregularities with economic production. Not to mention that onerous production targets encouraged a culture of exaggerating output and cutting corners, which was partially responsible for the stigma that Chinese-manufactured products had. I feel like some Communist governments in Eastern Europe focused too hard on certain industries (which also wrought significant ecological damage). Part of their downfall came from their inability to technologically pivot and catch up to the West in the latter half of the 20th century.

What alienated me from the most successful fascist regimes were privatization and rewarding private entities on the basis of prior collaboration, when economic output and international competitiveness can be improved by supporting businesses that are already successful in exporting internationally.

I'm not really ideological. Perhaps you may call me center-left. I focus on strategies with proven successes, though obviously there have to be historical failures to learn from. You can see the differences in social outcomes between Pakistan and India, when the latter had a much more comprehensive land reform while the former still has a semi-feudalistic social structure in some rural areas. I suppose some of the more traditionalist people here will be interested in distributist and geoist ideas. (Topical due to BlackRock, but also eternally relevant. Land and natural resources are the basis of everything.)

Land allocation, energy policy, and universal healthcare are my main priorities. Not really GDP, but I think it would make a good case study if a socialist country dominated a capitalist country in economic competition, though there would inevitably be international manipulation and sanctions. It would be an epic refutation if a socialist nation could beat the capitalists at their own game. Also I feel like people don't explore market socialism enough. + a lot of universal healthcare advocates should also promote preventative measures, since the diet and urban environment of the average USian is greatly detrimental to health. There also needs to be labor reform, good labor conditions > better health > better labor.

Final comment, I am not a libertarian but we should work harder on efficient government design. It needs to be streamlined and there are too many gay tax laws (and laws in general) riddled with loopholes, which the rich often exploit.

Edit: Typo.

[–]Nombre27 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

Thanks for your thoughtful and descriptive post.

Regarding the ecological damage of communism, I recall this article on whaling quotas, worth a read if you're not familiar. Quite sad.

https://psmag.com/social-justice/the-senseless-environment-crime-of-the-20th-century-russia-whaling-67774

What alienated me from the most successful fascist regimes were privatization and rewarding private entities on the basis of prior collaboration, when economic output and international competitiveness can be improved by supporting business that are already successful in importing internationally.

Yeah, the politicking never seems to end. I agree with you on utilizing established infrastructure and systems, it makes the most sense. No point square-pegging round holes, but you also wouldn't want to put opponents in important positions, or at least keep them on a very short leash.

There also needs to be labor reform, good labor conditions > better health > better labor.

Current immigration policies negate having to do this.

It is hard to tell what the outcomes of certain policies would actually have been without negative external intervention. I recall arguing with some conservatives a long time ago about Cuba and the sanctions the country had and how they at least contributed to the outcomes of that country but all I got in return was typical braindead responses about how socialism is bad/doomed to fail.

Thanks again for your comment.

[–]NayenezganiNot alt-right 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Unfortunate, and yet not exceptional. I'm too blackpilled regarding nature/environmentalism but in normal circumstances I would have regretted what occurred in Eastern Europe under Communism. Though, I do imagine West Africa could have been a significantly better place if Thomas Sankara wasn't assassinated. I don't care that much about black people either way, but it seems like a lot of people in alt-right communities just want to recycle the same conversations about racial differences in IQ for the sake of their own ego. Same thing that alienated me from race-realist communities even if it does seem like the subject matter is valid. Why would I care that much if a certain race had a lower IQ on average?

Thanks again for your comment.

No problem.

[–]Nombre27 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Why would I care that much if a certain race had a lower IQ on average?

It's a matter of proximity and proportion. As one group grows in number while another shrinks, you'll start to see the problems manifest, e.g. all those terrible democrat (!) controlled cities that appear to be corrupt shitholes, Rhodesia/Zimbabwe, and South Africa. As this proportional demographic shift grows and spreads, so too will the problems.

Hence why acquiring an autonomous territory for our people (likeminded and voluntary) is a priority.

[–]NayenezganiNot alt-right 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

I live in an area (outside the first world) where the black population is almost nonexistent. They will be mostly staying off my lawn while I (hopefully) get to reap the benefits of doing business with them in the future. I know that compassion is alarmingly disjunct from intelligence, and my cynicism compels me to believe that most stupid people would apply genius in malicious ways if they had it. Dumb psychopaths occupy prisons while smart psychopaths occupy, heh, Wall Street. It seems to me that most people only think of two things when they consider others: 1) Is this person useful? 2) Is this person willing to be useful to me? The stereotype content model is probably one of the most succinct descriptions of human interaction. The basis is not love/hate, but admiration/pity/envy/loathing.

And those who are worthy of admiration are so abnormally few. I think the alt-right could be more aggressive in competing for their support. Make them an offer they can't refuse. Someone on your side needs to research and draft functional policies down to the most minute details, no AOC-tier vagueness. I think you might have heard of John Coster-Mullen, the truck driver who somehow reverse-engineered Little Boy and Fat Man as a hobby. Imagine that dedication invested into drafting a hypothetical model for universal healthcare or something. Most people who would respond to the type of discourse here are probably already in the movement, show society in general a good alternative to the current government. I don't have skin in the game but I would support anyone who could produce a technical plan on how to restore social and economic equilibrium to the USA, even if they are a group I would not like to associate with normally.