lol imagine being a "man" on the left
Neck yourself degenerate scum
Only if the communists/socialists get killed first
Why do those people want to kill the ones they are marching with?
(and why don't they get on with it already?)
Good, start by killing yourself
Verpiss dich. Mit euch Schwuchteln wird noch früh genug abgerechnet.
Top kek. Are you saying that the Germanic tribes should have just applied for a green card, while a horde of bloodthirsty Huns were kicking off the GREAT MIGRATION? Rome degenerated and destabilized itself through nonstop hedonism and infighting anyway. The fleeing tribes just killed what was already dead. Who's at fault? The bullet, or the guy firing the gun?
>>370>the 4th crusade
Read a book, or at least a wikipedia article, please. There were no german leaders and hardly any german crusaders involved. Only greedy Venetians and a lot of frenchmen.
>calling out the corruption and other catholic scams = bad. >translating the bible so that priests couldn't just make shit up = also bad.>calling out the Jews and their lies = super bad
Martin Luther was fucking based and a lot of countries knew that. An uprising against catholic oppression would have been unavoidable even without him imo.
>crippled Kaiser is retarded
Yes. Nothing to refute here. Kaiser Wilhelm II. was the original boomer, taking everything his predecessors did for granted and blew it all away. Bismarck: ,,I unified the german people and forged alliances with everyone but the french. My job here is done, no more meddling with the status quo."
Wilhelm II.: ,,Screw you old man, you're fired! I'm gonna make Germany a super power by ruining all your hard work and provoking the Brits (a real super power), risking war with everyone."
>>370>fighting against the dude who tried to save Europe from bolshevism and ZOG>cucking out of ,,Operation Unthinkable" to end bolshevism yourself and establish Anglo supremacy>blaming Hitler afterwards that communism and ZOG are destroying their nations
Do I even have to comment on this? I feel sorry for the Poles though. Poles are white and white solidarity is important to survive the choking grasp of ZOG. I admit #HitlerDidSomethingWrong.
>IM ERIKA aka Angela Merkel
She's globohomo albino-nigger commie scum and the brainwashed masses voted her into power. I refuse to acknowledge her as a fellow German. Fuck her and fuck the EU.
*>cucking out of ,,Operation Unthinkable" which was intended to end bolshevism and could have established Anglo supremacy (no cold war)
Martin Luther is the reason why this country will never prosper, and culturally advance again.
Germany has prospered culturally and historically in many ways after Martin Luther. From Bismark to Hitler; Goethe to Beethoven. Not to mention scientifically. Germany is the only reason America got to the moon!
Hidenburg and Von Braun!
What do you mean Germany has never prospered? Can you not open a history book?
Germany has prospered and will again; this period of Kali Yuga like all things will pass.
Because it has to.
No that's Communism. Trying the same thing over and over again expecting different results.
>>610>Trying the same thing over and over again expecting different results.
Have you ever tried trowing a dice :^)
also Communism turned Russia, a backwards agrarian nation into a world power, there are many criticisms that can be made to stalinism, but I don't think "it didn't work" is one of them
By murdering working farm owners because Lenin was retards and caused the scussoeing effect so Stalin blamed the landowners and stole their land.
Lol, National Socialism could of indstralized it faster and with not so many mass starvations and deaths.
Communism; Not working
Factory Workers; Want to be paid
Farmers; Want to be paid.
Stalin; Slavery time!
Comminism made Russia a world power!
>>612>Lol, National Socialism could of indstralized it faster
What do you mean? National Socialism requires a nation to be industrialized, it requires a strong bourgeoisie that's scared of communism taking over
and the Nazi economy was capitalist, if I remember corectly the word privatitzation was created to descrive the Nazi economic policies.>with not so many mass starvations and deaths.
Both Russia and China suffered mass starvations regularly before communism ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_famines_in_China
) ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Droughts_and_famines_in_Russia_and_the_Soviet_Union
), it is also interesting to note that with communism they had their last famine and then the food problem was solved.
It is also relevant to say that both the soviet union and china were able to industrialize in only a generation, contrasting this with the capitalist nations that had much more time to industrialize. That being said, the industry was being invented at the same time the capitalists were industrializing so they were not on equal grounds.>>613
The soviet union was a world power, denying it is delusional.
And I keep saying this, but the Soviet union/China have lots of things that can be criticised for, but your reasons are literally 4chun/pol/ tier arguments
>>618>And I keep saying this, but the>but
>Requires a nation to be industralized
No? In what way is this true?
No, that's Communism you are thinking of.
Infact National Socialism is made with a decreasing pouplation and industry in mind.>National Socialism was capitalist
Incorrect. National Socialist economics is simply centered around whether or not the majority of the pouplation is fed housed and not indebt. Not simply the endless procuring of capital.>Industralization
In what terms? Forcing your people to work is what Stalin did and his five year plan is what industralized the Soviet Unioun.
Sure Communism can temporarly "industralize" but it is quickly eclipsed or adopts a market economy as China did.
National Socialism runs by a "centrally directed" not centrally planned economy.
So by instance through removing all forms of "profit by possesion" the prices of various raw materials aren't hiked up and are simply bought by anyone who wishes to compete in the market and provide a product.
As long as this product is >needed >not harmfull>not produced in quanties to inflate demand
It is allowed. And this good can be produced for much lower prices than in Capitalist countries and if people need it it is accepted and the person is well rewarded for filling the demand by the market.
That's what Communism lacks >insentive and >good direction which is why a National Socialist economy will always industralize faster.
Yes famines existed in Feudal times to a degree but neither of us are Feudalists are we?
Mao had such a "Great" famine it was named after him and killed Five Million People. The Soviets had a similar one that killed 12 million.
These aren't minor hiccups as you imply these are a staple of Communism'a forced collectivism and central planning.>Central Food Planning
It is impossible to centrally plan all the food for an entire nation. There are simply to many factors; Pouplation, Types of Food, Transportation time, Grain Exports ect
A localized hiccup might result in you getting tomatoes from Kroger's instead but a hiccup on the part of the state leads to wise spread famine. This is why a localized agrainarian economy is better.>Forced Collectivism
Shooting farmers for being good farmers and replacing them with people who's only qualification is that they are underqualified results in mismanagment.
Paying a farmer who is great and produces a good yield the same as the man who makes all his potatoes into vodka can only resut in deinsentiving the skilled worker and making him produce less while holding the same land. Resulting in the demand not being filled and oh famine again?
>>622>No? In what way is this true?
National Socialism was a product of it's time, it appeared in the right time in the right place. It appeared on a highly industrialized country such as Germany, with a powerful bourgeuise that was scared of the recent growth of communist. So they supported the nazis as a reaction to that.
I higly doubt that on any other situation Nazism would have risen to power.
>No, that's Communism you are thinking of.
While communism was originaly thought to appear in an industrialized nation, history has proven this wrong.
This has made it necesary to adapt the marxist theory to the material conditions therefore making communism to not necesarily require an industrialized nation.
>>625>Infact National Socialism is made with a decreasing pouplation and industry in mind.
I don't know if it is because I'm too tired or too dumb, but I trully can not understand the point you were trying to make here.>Incorrect. National Socialist economics is simply centered around whether or not the majority of the pouplation is fed housed and not indebt. Not simply the endless procuring of capital.
Capitalism is not "the endless procuring of capital">Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit. (wikipedia)
This was true under Nazism therefore it was capitalist. Same way nordic countries are capitalist even though they have social-democrat goberments.
Also as I have stated in my post before the term privatitzation was created to descrive the Nazi economic policies ( https://coreyrobin.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/bel-2010-nazi-privatizations1.pdf
) ( https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jep.20.3.187
)>In the mid-1930s, the Nazi regime transferred public ownership to the private sector. In doing so, they went against the mainstream trends in western capitalistic countries, none of which systematically reprivatized firms during the 1930s.
>Forcing your people to work
This is litterally the same in capitalism, if you don't work on capitalism you don't have the money to buy stuff you need to live (even more on those times). How is this diferent? You can argue that "he can choose to not work and starve", but is that really a choice?
>Sure Communism can temporarly "industralize" but it is quickly eclipsed
There was a referendum on the USSR and to continue united won, it was still dissolved. The USSR didn't die, it was killed.
>National Socialism runs by a "centrally directed" not centrally planned economy.>etc…
Do you have any sources that can prove that this was true in Nazi germany?
Would be interested in reading those
>>625>>626>>627>>623>Yes famines existed in Feudal times to a degree but neither of us are Feudalists are we?
That is correct, I know that you are not a feudalist, I was just stating the material conditions wich the communists found themselves when they reached power.
>Mao had such a "Great" famine it was named after him and killed Five Million People.
As I have stated before famines in China were usual, that year the weather was horrible and this was helped by the fact that Mao was destinging more people to work on factories to industrialize. That being said, I am not going to defend what Mao did, because not even himself did, he later critizised his own policies. You see maoists are big on self-criticise.
>These aren't minor hiccups as you imply these are a staple of Communism'a forced collectivism and central planning.
Since I've already stated the material conditions these countries had I want to remind you that central planning isn't an inherent thing in socialism, if capitalism is "the private ownership of the means of production" socialism is the "(…) social ownership of the means of production and workers' self-management of enterprise (…). Social ownership can be public, collective or cooperative ownership, or citizen ownership of equity." It is entirely plausible to have a market economy and socialism.
>>625>>626>>627>>628>Central Food Planning
1.A localized agrarian economy is factible under socialism (in fact I am in fabour of it)
2.After that famine (that, let me reming you, were common untill socialism arribed) central food planning feed half of eurpe and asia
That is a valid criticism, during the Collectivitzation there was a lot of missmanagement.
>Paying a farmer who is great and produces a good yield the same as the man who makes all his potatoes into vodka can only resut in deinsentiving the skilled worker and making him produce less while holding the same land. Resulting in the demand not being filled and oh famine again?
Socialism =! being paid the same, this point is litterall cold-war propaganda.
Let me ask you something, do you belive that (((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((jews)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) controll the goberment, hate western civiltzarion, etc etc?
Do you realize that most of the people 4chan/pol/ considers jews are actually white right?
Hardly. You could argue politically in that era of time but you would still be wrong. It was mostly workers who joined up after the economic depression as National Socialism is against the investment banking that caused the crash in the first place and works to guarentee employment through the state and worker's rights through the goverment mandated unioun.>Employment
The economy works through a state mandated guarentee of employment this is where the German Labour Front (DAF) comes in.
All things such as roads, trains, healthcare or public works projects that are good for the national whole. The goverment sets those unemployed to work on, expanding the scope until all unemployed are absorbed. Private companies can also help by taking fulltime jobs and splitting them into coorsponding fractions of part-time wages to absorb even more unemployed. Under this system employment becomes a choice.
FDR even copied part of this system in his "New Deal" but he missed an important part that Göttfried Feder lays out in his Mainfesto for Abolition of Intrest Slavery… (running out of space)
*unemployment becomes a choice
You may ask "How are these workers payed?" in a Capitalist country this happens through taxes paying intrest on bonds the goverment is issues by private banks.
In a National Socialist economy the soultion is simple. A labour backed fiat currency; essetiantly the state prints money (not private banks) which backed by the minimum worth of labour.
The worth of each worker is then caculated (as already happens in public workers) by the value of their labours and are given coorsponding wages and raises based on that.
The goverment then pays this out to the workers and public sector who in turn pay it out to the private sector. Insuring;>All who want to be employed are employed>All are payed a fair wage or ("square deal" ;)>The private sector remains forever auxillary to the private sector
Essetiantly it does it's job; providing goods and services needed by the nation.>And that it isn't open to outside control and only goes up when the productivity of a nation does
More in detail view;https://federsgenuis.wordpress.com/
>>618>Socially Owned>Market Economy
If you mean to say socially owned as in owned by the indivials who work the land and who are free to sell their goods to markets. National Socialism supports this.
We support private property but not unrestricted enterprise on privately owned land.
"To the right to hold property… is attached the obligation to use it in the national intrest . German land may not become an object of finacial speculation, nor may it proivide an unearned income for it's owner. It may only be accquired by him who is prepared to cultivate it himself." - Gottfried Feder
We break up anyone who is owning vast amounts of land without putting work into it and who only profits by holding the land in vast quantites to spike it's price.
By being against this land speculation and abuse of land for private reasons. We secure the farmer the right to cheap unmortaged land he can own.>Capitalism is slavery
Communism in pratice is slavery; you are saying that I should work to feed a man who I will never see? To put his lights on and secure his home while he chooses to sit on his ass instead of work?
Being disabled through your labours is one thing. But choosing not to work while the goverment is more than willing to guarentee your employment should not be encouraged nor is it moral to abuse the hard workers who are working and take bread out of their mouths to feed to these social parasite.
The Soviet Unioun didn't have adesentralized agarian economy and China adopted "state capitalism" to deal with it's famines.
The famines were not a result of wheather they were a direct result of mismanagment and collectivism.
>>629>Socialism doesn't equal being paid the same
Do you give people the same material goods (bread, clothing ect) back regardless of what they put in? And take from each man to pay for these goods?
And Marx wanted to do away with capital of all kinds. Capital; money. Your reward and medium of exchange for goods and services which can be in turned used to acquire property. If you get rid of that how would you ensure people are paid fairly? By what medium of exchange would you reward people based on their level of productiveness?>4pol
Yeah 4chan is dead to me. It went to the dogs long ago, I really don't care what they label as a Jew or Not.
Yes I dislike international Jewry; I am a National Socialist. Someone who is biologically of "Abraham's Blood" is a Jew and this includes all Semites and those of semetic heritage. Jews are not White, some have mixed and appear that way but we are two different peoples from two different lands.
Sure there were weather factors but the
"Great Famine" happened directly becuse of Mao's Great Leap Forward a campgain that included shooting private farmers and stealing their land. Much like Stalin's famine eariler.
Collective farming of any kind results in the devauling and deinscentivism of the farmer's labours and results in their enslavement to a system of Communistic appropation of the product of their labours.
This can result in nothing but death and safety as it has every single time it has been implemented.
They critized Mao yes. And they also dumped his whole system in the trash a major part of which was Communism.
not to mention as I have already pointed out >>623
the goverment can't even redistribute the good of their labours effeciently. It's impossible.
Even in Russia the while famine only dropped because Lenin introduced private land ownedship which rebuilt the agarian sector. The problem was that the industrial sector was still nationalized so it recovered at a much slower pace leading to the scissor effect. Lenin "fixed" this through price fixing, making the agarian goods artifically lower which of course resulted in agarian producers (who were producing just fine before hand) being forced to hoarde food or or starve as the needed industrial goods were now artifically more expensive. Stalin later used as an excuse to steal their land and shoot them all.
I still can't get over how he looks exactly like Trump.
Oh, looks like we'll be able to post again cool.
Due to me not having as much free time as I wished I'll take a while to reply.
Expect my posts around two weeks from now
Sorry about that :-\
Vale, communist pen-pal. It seems Nordchan is not dead yet.
Because Hitler lost (for being a strategic fool, never should have declared war on the USA at the very least), this the sad truth nya~>>596
Patton was the last American hero, too bad he was more like an anti-hero (for fighting for the Jews) before he realised the truth and then was killed for it.
All politics are irrelevant before the power of demographics of race, sex, and age. The greatest casualty of WW2 was the complete abandonment
of Eugenics and the embracement of mass dysgenics nya~https://shamik.ooo/nya/518273?last=100#bottom
Hitler was fine it was his generals who got in the way. Like turning towards Moscow instead of taking the Caucases first. War with America was inaviatable and it was Japan who declared war first. Germany joined as per the agreement of the Triparte Pact.
I hope the rapefugees kill the fascists.
Yeah and then they will turn around like in Haiti and kill all of you and any other pro-refuge white they find.
File: 1584154106225.jpg (Spoiler Image, 1.43 MB, 2100x1600, 0af5cff62aed29b5c3f135953d….jpg)
Sorry that last bit was for you, mind-broken cuck
>>640>It was mostly workers who joined up after the economic depression as National Socialism is against the investment banking that caused the crash in the first place
It is true that it was mostly workers who joined the nazi party due to the promises they made about fixing the depression and to stop the injustice of the treaty of V. As it was seen to be the one to blame to for the problems of germany. >and works to guarentee employment through the state and worker's rights through the goverment mandated unioun
You do not need to be that smart to realize that the goverment mandated union was to stop socialists from gaining more power with the working class and to controll the population even more.
It's like if I stated that everybody having to join the comunist party in north korea was to allow everybody to have a voice on how the country is run. It is simply not true.
>>640>The economy works through a state mandated guarentee of employment this is where the German Labour Front (DAF) comes in.
What you descrived can also be inplemedented trough succdem reforms (in the US language, Bernie Sander's Democratic Socialism) that convined with an ethnostate.
Therefore this is still capitalism, as I've stated before Capitalism reffers to the private ownership of the means of production. (The concentration or massing of capital in the hands of a few; also, the power or influence of large or combined capital.) from the diccionary>>641
You are stating thinks that make no sense, capitalism does not require banks to print money.
I think you're confusing definitions.
Also you're providing no sources with your statements. From what I know you're arguing with your feels>More in detail view;
>>642>If you mean to say socially owned as in owned by the indivials who work the land and who are free to sell their goods to markets.
That's right, that would be market socialism>We support private property but not unrestricted enterprise on privately owned land.
Nice quotes and shit, but can you provide a source that that really happened?
I did my homework and gave you researches that talk about the privatitcation under nazi rule. Can you please disprove my sources? Otherwise I'll assume that I am right on the subject.>Communism in pratice is slavery; you are saying that I should work to feed a man who I will never see?
That's litterally what capitalism is.
For example You work for 8 hours, now in 3 hours you produce producec value to live (or what you get paid), and the rest of the time you spend working will go to your boss. This is called Surplus value and is one of the pillars of marxism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surplus_value
In socialism, the workers earn all the value they produce, since they own the means of production. therefore they are not stolen.
It is important to note that the soviet union was state socialist. A type of socialism that is heavily debated if it can be considered as such. You have probably heard of the phrase "not real socialism" but it has a reasoning behind it.
>>643>Fuck this word limit
heh, yeah it sucks>The Soviet Unioun didn't have adesentralized agarian economy and China adopted "state capitalism" to deal with it's famines.>The famines were not a result of wheather they were a direct result of mismanagment and collectivism.
Do you have any source to back that up or do you simply feel strongly about it?>>644>Do you give people the same material goods (bread, clothing ect) back regardless of what they put in? And take from each man to pay for these goods?
No. Marx even stated in "the Critique of the Gotha Program" (I think it was there) that complete equality was impossible, and that those who wanted it were idealists. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/Marx_Critque_of_the_Gotha_Programme.pdf
link to the article, I'll re-read it later to confirm if this was where he said that>>644>Yes I dislike international Jewry; I am a National Socialist.
Do you make a distinction between "a jew" and "international Jewry"?
And why do you hate jews(or the international jewry if you preffer to say it that way)?>Someone who is biologically of "Abraham's Blood" is a Jew and this includes all Semites and those of semetic heritage.
Even if I have jewish ancestors but, let's say 4 or even more generations ago, would I still be considered a jew under your distinction?
Also, what are your thoughts on the word "race"? Most cientists argue that race is an outdated concept https://www.unl.edu/rhames/courses/current/readings/templeton.pdf
and also this quote from the pdf>(…) indicating that most human genetic diversity exists as differences among individuals within populations (…)
>>645>They critized Mao yes
Uhh… did you read my post? MAO CRITIZISED HIMSELF
Also, you posted no source on the claim that colective farms produce less than non-colective farms, therefore I must ask again.
Do you have any source to back that up or do you simply feel strongly about it?>>730>Aryan empire that was Rome
Shittest take I've ever read. Rome was not an Aryan empire in the slightest, and they had a very different concept of "race" than ours as can be seen in History of Rome by Titus Livius
The US is collapsing, no one cares, and you're not allowed to talk about it.
I assume are talking about forced collective farming, which in the Soviet Unioun directly lead to the later famines as a direct result of Stalin's quotas where the Soviet State took more from the farmers then some of them were producing in total. Leaving little for surplus, thus nothing to eat. The State should never be forced to take food from farms and "redistrubute" it to the nation. That is the job of the market. It is impossible for the State to guess the demand, leading to shortages and surpluses resulting in either starvation or a waste of the finite arable land of a nation resulting in lower productivity and farm efficenity;>http://www.uni-kiel.de/market/research/download/The20%evolving20%farm20%structure.pdf>http://academic.oup.com/erae/artical-abstract/26/3/331/424359
And on the side of land ownership and efficenity it's simple, there is no reason the man producing the crop which fufills the demand should not own more land. No-one is equal, some are better and worse farmers than others. Artifically splitting farm estates between people who might not even be qualified results directly in a lower production standard as you simply have less skilled people using land that could be put to better use by those more skilled. Imagine giving an experinced artist the same tools you give an elementary schooler. The people who deserve the land, these tools of production, are the ones who prove themselves already able to skillfully meet the demand of the Market earning more money through that venture to buy more land. This system is better as it gives those most fit to work the land, more land and those least fit less. It's simple if they can't fufill the demand they don't deserve more land or even an equal amount.
Communism doesn't involve the proccuring of capital between privately owned buisnesses does it? China has privately owned buisnesses, like Dashang Group or Huwei. This makes China a mixed-market economy and "capitalist" in Marx's eyes.>Semites
I define a Jew as a Jew, someone who is ethnically Jewish. It depends on the concentration I suppose, if either of your parents is a Jew you are a full one. Grandparents you are a "mischling".
I define it as anyone who has Jewish ancestory within six generations. Past that and it's to small of an amount to matter.>Race
Ah, this again. Yes there is differences between members of the same race, but as a whole there is more difference between two members of different races. Not only phenotype (bone structure, skintone ect) but genotype (MAOI, and other genes that influence behaviour).
You can not sit here and tell me a Croation looks more like an East Asian than a Serb.
I've yet to hear a biologist say race doesn't exist, they just try and downplay the effects of race. It's simply biologically impossible for two species to evolve in different seperated areas, geography and climates and not evolve differently. >inb4 Haldane's rule
Yes races can "interbreed" (before being shot) but so can gibbons and chimps, pintails and mallards, coyotes and dogs. It doesn't make them the same.>Complete Equality is impossible
Well I agree, so is partial equality or any equality at all as man is unequal.
And? Hitler fufilled his promise and ended the depression and eliminated unemployment. Looks like the worker's chose right, mean while in the Unioun it was the opposite.
In the Mein Kampf Hitler praises the Unioun system infact attacking the conservatives for not using it and the Socialists for abusing it.
Protecting worker's rights was not something the Socialists ever did with the Unioun system, as that would destroy their voting base. Hitler on the other hand used the Unioun system to greatly increase the quality of life of the Worker (even sponsoring a cruise), I don't see your bone of contention with Hitler's use of the unioun system?
Should this not be the one thing we agree on?
Bernie's "reforms" have little to nothing to do with the Labour Front as he ignored the most important part. A labour backed currency which insures the worker is payed directly from the state what he earns and in accordance to his level of productivity.>Privatization
You're being vague, yes land was privately owned that does not mean it was allowed to be abused or speculated upon.>Surplus
A man opens a buisness, making his own tea at first before becoming sucessfull earning more money. He uses this money to hire workers and more of a share of the means of production to produce more tea to fufill the demand and is well rewarded for this.
Why do his workers deserve the same amount he makes? They don't he is the one who opened the buisness taking the risk, manages it in whole and does his job fufilling the demand.
It's not slavery to be paid for your labours in accordance to your value and skill.
The economy's job is to reward those who are more productive. You provide labour so the manufactor can provide a product, you are given a share of the profits in accordance to your productivity and valubility.
There is nothing wrong with that. >Capitalism
This is just schematics at this point, you're trying to fit me into a defintion so you can attack that instead of my actual points. "Capitalist" is a vague term anyways;
National Socialism is an Centrally Directed Mixed-Market Economy.
Is that a good defintion for you?
To further on my point; It is not the market economy or "capital" that is slavery. The slavery is the crippling debt that is required to be taken out in every stratum of society simply because a few have profited by accumulating intrest on loans or speculation of land. This even effects the goverment as their procurring of money is tied to the intrest rates on bonds handled by private holders, and this system where non-producing shareholders control everything results in a perfectly good producer being taken from him his means of production and buisness. Even Bill Gates was put out of a job by these shareholders.
Once this had been abolished and intrest slavery of all kinds no longer exists, the slavery inherent in our current economic system will no longer exist.
All matter of labour not tied to work must be abolished (one of the twenty one points) and man must be given what he directly earns according to his ability. Fullstop.
Thus ensuring everyone is given their just share of the finite resources and their share for extracting and putting to use of these resources.
I say Marxian Socialism is slavery as that is what it results in; "From each according to his ability and to each according to his need"
This is a broken concept to unfairly take from those who labour and give to those who don't is slavery. Which applies to wealth distribution OF ANY KIND, and Stalin's economics were straight up slavery. What else do you call those "work quotas". Sure you should put in to get out, and in a Market economy you have a choice to put in and unlike Marxist-Lennism you actually get out what you deserve for putting in.
Hopefully Americans unite and attack the 1% who are the real enemy when Civil War 2.0 starts instead of having a war between the Nazis and Commies or having a race war.
Everyone has a role to play during the US collapse.
Will you be a traitor who stays silent, works hard, and pays taxes to the ruling powers?
Will you drop out and go Galt or become a monk?
Will you be a patriot who attacks the globalists, politicians, Gestapo, soldiers, and government buildings?
What will you do when the ruling class blocks the road to your house to stop food deliveries? What will you do when you're forced to board a train to the FEMA camps because the government said Ebola is dangerous or the Russians are coming? What will you do when a black van pulls up to your house and DHS agents break down your door during a no-knock raid looking for guns?
Americans scream globalism is wonderful, but globalism isn't working out too well for Europe.
Europeans are immoral, drunks, can't get married, are dependent on welfare, and overrun by illegal aliens now.
Stealing is legal in Europe, but knives and free speech are not.
Greece is in debt and can't devalue their currency to increase exports because Greece uses the Euro.
Europe is flooded by illegal immigrants and has an epidemic because no country can have borders.
Closed borders didn't work out too well for North Korea, but why can't the US have free trade like Hong Kong does?