>>544203247
I'd like to see them properly defined.

File: Angel.png (426 KB, 602x800)

426 KB PNG

Capitalism
While I reject the no true scottsman fallacy as a strawman against communism, I think capitalism more closely aligns with nature (unequal outcome, etc) and it creates a harmonious relationship between groups of people (make something people love, and you get rewarded)

Nationalism
This is basic self-preservation. We naturally want what's best for ourselves, and so we form groups to work together. In a world of finite resources, this group simply can't encompass everyone

Imperialism
Self preservation taken to the next level. If there is a god, then He clearly loves the strong the most. We can see this in how He formed nature

File: lolcommies2.jpg (104 KB, 540x410)

104 KB JPG

>>>/pol/
Kill yourself, faggot.

>>544203248
Ask AI. If you don't consider it's output a proper explanation, post it here and tell us why

>>544203250
What are you arguing against exactly?

>>544203247
Nationalism is constantly confused as referring to a designated territory when the origins are the opposite, lands are named for the tribes that reside there.
This seems to have been quite warped to cater to the economic whims of the owners of land deeds where everyone can now be english.

>>544203253
Can you unpack that? I take nationalism to simply that a government is obligated first and foremost to its citizens, even at the expense of non-citizens

>Capitalism
Against. The commodification of land, labor, and time reduces the flowering of human life to numbers on a spreadsheet. It is the triumph of crass materialism over all things spiritual and beautiful.
>Nationalism
For. The nation is the ideal level of organization whereby a group may most likely withstand a hostile world. Any larger level of organization dissolves the interests of the group to the whole, and any smaller level of organization is almost certainly incapable of protecting its interests. (I am a fan of provincialism, parochialism, and localism, and other such increasingly focused degrees of chauvinism, but nationalism is the broadest resolution acceptable.)
>Imperialism
For. War is the natural state of mankind, and those more capable in war should be in power over those less capable, since the reverse is self-defeating. Imperialism allows healthy societies to become richer, and in doing so, they often become decadent and fail, thus ensuring the continual regeneration of the state and the natural condition of man.

>>544203255
Since there are now four separate uses of 'nationalism' in this thread, I shall define how I used the terms.
>Capitalism: the commodification of land, labor, and time. Saying capitalism is just the free market is wrong because the free market has long predated capitalism, which only really emerged in the 1800s.
>Nationalism: the promotion of the interests of the nation over all competing interests. The nation can be variously defined as people of a common ethnic identity or people of a common civic identity. The former sees extreme ethnic chauvinism and the latter extreme patriotism.
>Imperialism: The military rule or dominance of one nation (in either of the above senses) over another, with some degree of resource or monetary extraction, though often accompanied by some form of state-building.

>>544203247
Capitalism breaks down all natural social order while commodifying everything, and imperialism spreads this to the ends of the earth while bringing nothing but war and endless bad consequences. All for plutocrats enrichment at that as well. These forces destroyed Europe and made it a husk today.

>>544203255
>Against capitalism, for imperialism
Harvesting slaves from conquered nations, and offering slave-backed UBI to the citizens is an interesting idea. Other than that, the only answer is a non-industrialized society or the government deciding the value of labor. Both seem very bad

>>544203257
>capitalism is what made Europe a non-entity on the world stage
Huh? Where would the 2 superpowers be without capitalism

>>544203252
Faggots.

>>544203254
Well that's because you're thinking in terms of nationstates, originally the state where a nation of people resides, while a nation is more accurately a people and their culture.
These differing modern interpretations of what nationalism mean seem intetional obfuscation to serve the whims of finance.

>>544203247
I'm a Deleuzian Globalist. I think anyone who is part of the first world should not have children and instead dedicate their lives to helping uplift third-world countries.

capitalism doesn't really exist
we have financialisation though which hostile outsiders sought to takeover every function that seved the nation

>>544203263
Capitalism is just a form of socialism. Bank accounts are socialism. Everything capitalists need to make their money are social systems that society created so they can earn their money.

>>544203261
>people and their culture
Policies that benefit this fit any definition of nationalism. I can't think of any form of nationalism that benefits the whims of finance

>>544203262
Can you back this up with an argument?

The problem is in excess. Imperialism is more easily negative as it often necessitates force, dominance and subjugation or exploitation of another, but in some cases may be necessary to acquire resources, and in a more benign form they may exercise it through trying to strike advantageous trade deals or some sort of partnership where they benefit but also convince the other nation it is in their interest, that may broadly be a sort of imperialism, exercising diplomacy to advance your state's interest compared to others in a competitive sort of hierarchy/international environment. Nationalism and even capitalism aren't necessarily dependent on this, as nationalism can manifest in the form of basic self identification, self-preservation, self-defense, emancipation (colonial liberation movements were nationalist movements), or at worst in the context of supremacism/dominance. Capitalism can be used constructively for the gains to be channeled for the social good instead of purely privatized, while the market economic mechanism remains intact, as in many European countries pursuing welfare policies.

> Nationalism
Tribalism formalized into a group identity that a cultural institution or a state creates and organizes into a coherent entity. It is often built around language, cultural experience, kinship, historical continuity, or a sense of shared geographic identity and physical resemblance (race). Nationalism is the state acting as the exoskeleton for the impulsive drive for biological and cultural continuity. To demand a group abandon its ingroup loyalty is to demand it commit biological suicide in essence, and we do indeed see this attack perpetrated on the indigenous peoples of Europe and their diaspora.


> Imperialism
An awareness of the finite nature of resources. Space is limited. Your people's needs must be met. You have a duty to acquire resources for your tribe. The primary motivation is to provide for needs, protect and preserve the future of your offspring, and defend the group. Living things multiply until they hit the wall of scarcity. A healthy population expands. It produces excess sons, requires more calories, and consumes more raw material. When a collective’s vital energy exceeds the carrying capacity of its indigenous geography, it faces a binary: contract, starve, and turn inward until you rot, or expand outward at the expense of someone else. Imperialism is the visceral recognition that human competition is a zero-sum game part of the ecological food chain like the rest of the ecosystem, and manifesting that impulse to preserve for your children and ensure continuity.


> Capitalism
As an economic system, a reflection of the individual aspiration for a private sphere, for autonomy (the freedom to act as one pleases), and for the desire to maximize the accumulation of resources. Individuals have a natural propensity for capitalism, the capitalist system and its conventions were developed over time for practical reasons and to ensure the protection of property rights, manifest of the mammalian drive for territoriality. Every creature with a central nervous system seeks to carve out a perimeter of autonomy. A system that rejects the social norm of nationalism and imperialism for pure liberal capitalism misses the fundamental core of human/animal nature. One cares infinitely more about their own bloodline and immediate sphere of control than they do about the abstract "common good" or a hostile figure from a rival tribe. The urge to accumulate, hoard, and signal status is a core reproductive driver. Capitalism must be used to serve the collective organism and body politic, the tribal organization that the nation state was supposed to be centered around, but now with the Westphalian nation state decoupled from the national tribe, the social contract becomes severed and the proposition more incoherent. You can pretend these laws don't exist, but the civilizations that believe they have "evolved" past biology are simply the ones preparing themselves to be conquered by the alleged barbarians. Already we see it unfold.

Nationalism is for losers who have nothing to take pride in so they take pride in something like they were born on a certain spot. Instead of being a nationalist one should be a patriot, you can appreciate your culture and customs and the small things about the nation without being an ass about it.

>>544203266
>Imperialism is more easily negative as it often necessitates force, dominance and subjugation or exploitation of another
I don't think we should take it a blind truth that forceful domination is bad, even if it's not "necessary". Conquest is morally just insofar as it benefits the nation. Why should something that brings net benefit ever be considered a negative?

Sidenote, but I really wish Trump doubled down on Venezuela instead of going for Iran. There is zero chance in an effective colonial effort in a muslim country

>>544203268
>without being an ass about it
This is you needing to built a strawman
Brzezinski & Kissinger are 2 examples of foreign born American nationalists

>>544203270
and they are both burning in hell

>>544203247
>Capitalism,
Laissez Faire Yes. Anything Intermediate, like Neo-Liberalism, NO. The pragmatic (and narrow-minded) reason for it is that any amount of central planning squanders wealth. The real philosophical reason behind it is that individuals making deals on their own, when two party argue, is always more adapted to the spontaneous and immediate situations people are confronted with, general rules brought by a middle man always fail, if there are "principles", they need to be applied by either the customer or the producer for their self-benefit; Typically a government regulation will serve neither part of a transaction but a third interested party, it's just extortion. Also, nature has made things right, because a feeling of total control over your shit will grant you the best happiness, compared to being a half-slave.


>Nationalism,
I think the truth of it is that individuals like those who resemble them, choose those who resemble them as friends and partner, and can better cooperate with those who resemble them, and genes matter a lot for determining your character and sensibilities, so I am Endophilic (I like my own). But "Nationalism" is more of a term for the democratic formation of people into states, and it comes with a sense of obligation, a duty, towards those who resemble you, which is stupid because you don't become happy through duty but through loving and choosing. I hate Equality and Socialism, Equality is a wrong metaphysical notion, Socialism is a wrong ethical proposition, that we'll fair better by supporting others as a duty and supporting the "common good", but the "common good" is always ill-defined as material security, not happiness, and it always becomes ill-defined because Equality values The People, and the people are retarded and will vote/support whatever dictator/president who promises them material security.


>& Imperialism
Imperialism, I view it as merely a self-preservation mechanism, I don't think much of it. The Roman Empire extended to match the large ambition of its elite, and it continued to expand because it had a natural civilization project contained in its heart which required the taking of all Europe and the Mediterranean to fulfill that dream.

But I don't believe in Empires, I believe in micro-states, micro-communities, maybe naturally forming aristocracies, but more like free associations. Large states always end up trending towards Equality, and equality fails against nature eventually, because Laws that are too general become absurd, either because time passes or because they apply to more people than they should, they fail in space or in time, and no amount of "balance of power" or "other law that says that law shouldn't run more than X amount of years" can work because you cannot beat Laws with more Edicts, the Laws are broken by the will and the strength to say no, that's why if you want to beat the current States you should work on technology, weapons and tools.

those are made up words trying to loosely describe what is already there but with a false sense of ideal peppered on top, they don't really exist in any meaningful sense which is why debates about them never stop

>Capitalism
I'm on a quest to find out (any book recs welcomed). In any case free-market capitalism is fucked and has to be augmented with corrective distributions. I don't think those who had contingencies go their way should be rewarded hundredfold with respect to those who were born with bad luck in terms of natural talent or circumstances.

>Nationalism
Seems increasingly at odds with liberalism. Considering that we have nations and their cultures which differ and are unique in place I'm ok with protecting the existing ones. I think I could be persuaded for nationeless world but I haven't read any.

>Imperialism
Against. I'm against using people's as means to an end and you can figure out the rest

>>544203255
You make the argument that capitalism is bad on the basis that it shits on human flourishing which I agree with but then you advocate for constant war not on the basis of flourishing but "naturalness". I don't see how you can make any jump from something existing (eg. being natural) to how things should be. I think its VERY clear from history, intuition and the opinions of individuals during our age and the previous ones that war is undesirable in itself if you consider human flourishing

>>544203274
>something existing (eg. being natural) to how things should be
The is/ought distinction collapses the moment you look beyond the present.
>during our age
Industrialized war, where the leaders consider the lives of soldiers and concepts like honor and duty to be disposable per se (ie capitalism applied to war), is undesirable, since it destroys human flourishing. War in which individual bravery, prowess, and intellect determine the outcome is a positive good. It selects against deficiencies in moral virtue and allows for flourishing when officers/soldiers retire from war and return home to govern their nation/households.

>>544203275
>>The is/ought distinction collapses the moment you look beyond the present.
I don't know what you mean by this. Can you elaborate?

>War in which individual bravery, prowess, and intellect determine the outcome is a positive good.
Don't you think that humans can flourish in ways that don't involve the killing of other people eg. competition in music, sports, art, virtue? Also the war you are describing is already utopian since it presumes some kind of mutual pact between states to not use technology, hierarchy and automation to exterminate the other. It sounds like your "war" is more akin to a sports event at mass scale except you don't get to choose if you participate or not and the result for failure is death. Also I find it highly suspicious if this ideal war even selects for the virtues that you are seeking to promote.

>>544203264
Then what even is capitalism?

>>544203247

>Capitalism
Retarded term that describes all existing economies. The actual distinction is Market Economy and Palace Economy. Communism is a highly dysfunctional Palace Economy with an illegal Market Economy underneath it. "Liberal Capitalism" is a Market Economy with a highly dysfunctional Palace Economy set on top of it, the only real difference being that the Market Economy isn't illegal most of the time. I dislike the term "Capitalism" because it implies that there is some alternative to the exchange of goods and services, which there is not.

>Nationalism
Only Nationalists are human. If you do not feel in-group loyalty you are a dysfunctional person who should've been killed on an ice sheet 50,000 years ago. Nationalism is entirely rational and will be more important, rather than less, as we move forward.

>Imperialism
The antithesis of Nationalism. Forcing multiple nations under a single government is a horrific and anti-human idea. It fails precisely because it rejects national self-determination in favor of a nebulous national collective--this always, without exception, creates resentment between ethnos which lasts for generations if not centuries.

>>544203247
>Capitalism
Terrible. But there is no realistic alternative. Communism is even worse.
>Nationalism
Necessary, at least for the White race. Wouldn't care for it if third world mass migration wasn't happening.
>Imperialism
Garbage.

>>544203278
Yeah, this pretty much. I didn't even need to write anything.

>>544203249
>Nationalism
>This is basic self-preservation.
You say this, but every country in the past 200 years which fell for nationalist politics (italy, germany, yugoslavia) destroyed itself through warfare.

>>544203271
There aren't many recent examples of note. A decade ago the dominant party in America decided to make nationalism a pejorative. This attitude doesn't really cultivate the nationalist impulse in newcomers

>>544203280
Are you implying China isn't a nationalist country, or America up until recently wasn't?
Every country is inherently nationalistic. It seems like only first world, western countries have begun to try to reject the idea.

Also seems like you're confusing nationalism with imperialism

>>544203247
>Capitalism
Only economic system that actually acknowledges the universal human response to financial incentive and rewards progress proportionately
>Nationalism
People need to band together for mutual assistance and defence, against the natural environment if not against other nations, and it is best if they have the same shared values and lifestyles. That's all a nation really is. And it's not possible to have a nation with strongly divergent or incongruous values. That's when
>Imperialism
happens, which comes in two flavours: either to subjugation of an unwilling dominion by force for resource extraction, which is immoral; or a more mutualist transaction in which the dominion is grown and nurtured and fed (perhaps buying its growth with resources) until the day it is strong enough to leave the empire or even overthrow it, which is stupidity on the part of the Empire. Why would you grow your own potentially-hostile rival? The resources would not be worth it.

Or in short: if you have a willing client population, incorporate them into your nation. If you don't, they are future rivals and enemies, and you should have nothing to do with them.

>>544203249
>capitalism more closely aligns with nature
Correct
A farmer is a capitalist; seed, fertiliser, soil, sun, time, knowledge, and effort is his capital. He invests it in the Earth and it yields a variable reward or not at all depending on certain uncontrollable factors. The more he invests the more likely a better positive outcome is gained. If he invests nothing, he gets nothing, Nature is not a socialist.

>>544203247
They're all spooks.

>>544203274
>corrective distributions
All well and good, until you reach the problem of who decides upon the quantum of the distributions, and try to solve the question of where they come from, and why the people who generate disproportionate wealth should give them freely away

And then you find you have created an authoritarian centrally-planned economy in disguise. Like how everyone is trying to hush up that France in 2026 has the planned-economy structure of the USSR in 1990 (just with extra steps to launder the fact)

>>544203267
>To demand a group abandon its ingroup loyalty is to demand it commit biological suicide in essence
Only if you consider highly homogenically ethnic nations like Israel. This stops making any sense if you consider something like the USA that is highly varied in terms of ethnicities. If we look at cultural disturbances to the continuity then here also the whole world has basically been raped by USA's cultural influence during the past 100 years. So a kind of cultural suicide has already happened in Europe and Asia to a massive extent.

>Imperialism
Your notion of imperialism makes sense only in a world where real scarcity of land is an issue which is not the world we live in today.
>Living things multiply until they hit the wall of scarcity
At the national level the wealthiest countries are dying slowly at the moment so that wasn't true as there are more factors to consider here. Indeed the healthiest populations by your metric are actually India and various african countries. Considering from the point of view of the wealthiest countries currently, we have no need or justification for imperialism currently as there is no population crisis or food crisis for that matter. Considering also the fact that humans are capable of trading, we could reasonably assume that natural resources and intellectual resources can be traded between nations thus eliminating the reductionist view of a zero sum game.

>>544203284
>who decides upon the quantum of the distributions
that would be the state
>try to solve the question of where they come from
Taxation
>why the people who generate disproportionate wealth should give them freely away
Here I would propose the Rawlsian original position. On top of this you could argue that massive wealth disparities create discontent which is also not in the interest of the wealthy.
>And then you find you have created an authoritarian centrally-planned economy
No I am merely leveling some of the clear injustices that contingencies in starting positions and people's lives create. Democracy is fine and we do not have to force pricing.

File: 1783392180487995.png (340 KB, 719x908)

340 KB PNG

>>544203247
The first reason I'm against capitalism is because it simply doesn't work. It "works" in that it technically functions but what I mean is that it doesn't even do what it's supposed to do. It actually generally does the opposite of what it's supposed to. It's like saying a refrigerator that heats stuff up "works".

The point of capitalism is that you give people strong incentives and you let them own stuff so they're supposed to race to the top out-competing each other.
What happens is the exact opposite. Corporations gamed the system and took over and now they race each other to the bottom trying to abuse the good will of the populace as much as they can get away with.
T
he most capitalist nations can barely get anything done that actually benefits the population they just sort of pretend to while bleeding them dry in increasingly sneaky ways. Because of corporate control not only do things get slowed way down there's always some "catch" on top of everything.
Now in the non-capitalist countries (which in reality are still relatively capitalist in this age) they have certain downsides as well but at least it seems like the system is roughly doing what it's supposed to.

>>544203247
none of these are philosophical concepts

>>544203286
>that would be the
small number of oligarchs in government whose main qualifications for the role were convincing a million idiots to vote for them

>taxation
In other words, give us money or we kill you

>Rawlsian original position
Which is?
>massive wealth disparities create discontent
In other words, give us money or we kill you
There's your Communist morality for you

I have a better answer, actually: because it is good to be charitable to the poor up to a certain extent, in order to encourage them to better themselves. But that says nothing about disparity. The sanctity of life means that people deserve to live; they don't deserve to have the comforts of that livelihood be tailored to the richest people. Otherwise we reach the unjust absurdity, as we have now, where "poor" people receive massive amounts of resources (dwarfing the ones actually struggling to survive) simply because they refuse to work yet their lifestyle must be maintained within a certain stipulated percentage of others, at the expense of people who do work.

>merely
You may think you are, but every financial statistic shows we have gone way into excess so that the stability and indeed survival of the whole body is now in severe doubt. And they still hold their hands out for more.
The injustice is really on the other foot.

>>544203287
>unjust systems are better at being unjust
Amazing insight

>>544203290
Humanity is "unjust". The idea of capitalism is that you don't need morality to create utopia. "Greed is good". By going with the flow of the selfish "unjust" nature of humanity you would hypothetically get more benefits than by fighting against the tide. But capitalism could not achieve that. Hence it doesn't do what it's supposed to and is strictly worthless.

>>544203276
"is" is the state of things. "ought" is the preference of one possible state of things over other possible states, and the realization of that preference must occur along the temporal dimension. Any state, barring the heat death of the universe, includes within itself the potential for another state or a certain set of other states. States that are stable are preferable (this is an ought statement) to states that necessarily collapse into the potentiality of another state of being. For instance, standing on a roof is a stable state and has the potentiality to climb down or jump down, among others. Falling through the air is an unstable state and has no potentiality but the necessary outcome, the state of having gone splat.
In relation to the current discussion, war is a stable state, since it is self perpetuating, that can lead various potential states: victory, negotiated peace, defeat and enslavement, etc. The hegemony of a stronger nation over a weaker nation is also more or less stable, but the unstable reverse naturally results in the overthrow of the weaker master by the stronger slave. The period of decadence in late-stage empire is an unstable state with limited potentiality and usually results in war or depression. Mass enslavement is also a stable state, but with limited potentialities. The ideal state of being has both high stability and high potentiality, and states with low potentiality or low stability are not preferable. Therefore, war.

Humans can flourish in ways beyond combat, but without real connection to hard necessity, the hardest of necessities being war, art eventually parodies itself and becomes decadent (see above). War is not utopian, but the current industrial model of war (hinted in the Civil War, fully apparent in WWI and WWII, obvious now in Ukraine; models like Vietnam or GWOT do not quite rise to actual warfare, more like counterinsurgencies) is an unfortunate stage, though possibly necessary. Broadly speaking, the Homeric hero had many chances for personal glory and virtue; the phalanx that succeeded him had fewer, but there was more glory for the polis and commander; the phalanx was succeeded by the Roman legion, with fewer personal opportunities for glory (though still coronae graminea et civica et muralis), but increased glory for their imperatores and Rome; then you had various forms of cavalry (more personal glory), then pike & shot, then linear/Napoleonic warfare (including aspects of the American Civil War), where individual bravery could still turn the tide of battle, then industrial (trench then blitzkrieg). The pendulum swings between personal glory/virtue and glory afforded to the state and thence officers (see my thoughts on nationalism for collectives). Modern industrial warfare selects against personal bravery both on the battlefield (eg British junior officers having a 17% casualty rate to the average 12% rate) and off (mass butchery of men being the required strategy of Haig).

>everyone that can form a coherent argument itt is 'right wing'
What does this mean?

>>544203292
>"is" is the state of things. "ought" is the preference of one possible state of things over other possible states,
Correct
>States that are stable are preferable (this is an ought statement) to states that necessarily collapse into the potentiality of another state of being.
Yes that is an ought statement which does not demonstrate in any way that is/ought gap is collapsed. In any case this is kind of beside what we are arguing here so unless you want to continue I'll leave it here.

>States that are stable are preferable & self-perpetuation
First off then your definition of "stable" would exclude purely a purely static system with no change in it. Secondly it seems that making any value judgements on the desirability of states for humans by this metric can justify absurd states of being for humans. Thirdly its completely as there is no criterion along which the self-perpetuation is measured that leads to indeterminacy.

To elaborate on my second point. Let's take from your first post
>It is the triumph of crass materialism over all things spiritual and beautiful.
Considering the self-reproduction it seems that we could consider a worldwide eugenics planning where all the people are to be such that the number of people is kept stable and it is made sure that they cannot hurt each other since this could create unpredictability in terms of reproduction of the species. It looks like this is preferable to the state of war if we consider the self-reproduction of the system. Now these would undercut all acts of heroism and beauty but there can always be self-reproductive states that are antithetical to human flourishing. Moreover its completely indeterminable if we should strive for one state over some other if these states are equal in their capabilities of self-reproduction. It also seems ironical that capitalism looks like the highest preferable system since it reproduces itself effectively despite massive amounts of cultural variability.

>potentiality
If by this you mean the highest available states possible then war already closes arguably more states than what liberalism does. Also you started speaking of necessity but necessity is the highest limiter on potentiality possible. If everyone is at war at all times you destroy possibilities by: limiting time, limiting resources, limiting the various possibilities of people choosing otherwise, limiting any other expressions of beauty that come not from war, limiting possibilities of collective cooperation over nation-states etc forever.

>In relation to the current discussion, war is a stable state, since it is self perpetuating, that can lead various potential states: victory, negotiated peace, defeat and enslavement, etc.
But there is a contradiction already in this sentence since war can end.

I still don't think you've given me any reason to prefer war over peace. Also since modern warfare is antithetical to your ideal one; isn't it precisely an utopia? You didn't answer that one.

>>544203247
>Capitalism
voluntary exchange for profit is a good concept, but there needs to be a safety net
>Nationalism
not good enough, confederacies are better, due to the sheer amount of shared resources and allies.
>Imperialism
a natural conclusion of a superior race, though it does breed resentment.

>>544203294
>First off then your definition of "stable" would exclude purely a purely static system with no change in it.
Not the anon you're responding to, but within a changing world, a lack of change is in itself unstable

>>544203292
>art eventually parodies itself and becomes decadent
very suspect statement to say the least. Are you trying to argue that ALL the great works of history have necessarily been born out of war? Throwing Mozart and Rembrandt in the frontlines seems like they'll be just dead in an instant in your ideal war. Untold losses of human capital just so that someone can be a homeric hero. I would argue the opposite. Only in times of relative stability and prosperity can true works of art be born. Even if I were to grant you that suffering breeds great works of art why would it be that WAR is needed and not some other calamity at an individual level.

>>544203292
Where can I be directed to more of your writing

File: 1785004531288055.png (376 KB, 700x518)

376 KB PNG

>>544203255
>Nationalism
>For.
>Any larger level of organization dissolves the interests of the group to the whole

>Imperialism
>For.
>those more capable in war should be in power over those less capable
> Imperialism allows healthy societies to become richer, and in doing so, they often become decadent and fail

am I dumb or I just don't get this? Why wouldn't you just want a nation to get to point A and be happy there, instead of going beyond point A, imperialism, becoming decadent and failing?

>thus ensuring the continual regeneration of the state and the natural condition of man.
When has a (nation) state ever regenerated to a good/happy point? Genuinely curious. Looking at what Germany went through WW1-postwar-WW2-postwar division-what it is now it doesn't seem like it "regenerated." The Soviet Union fell apart and most of the former SSR's don't seem like very happy nations.

>>544203294
>would exclude purely a purely static system
Yes, that would be the heat death of the universe and is irrelevant.
>can justify absurd states
Absurdity is merely a matter of perspective. You may consider state-enforced male slavery to be absurd, but those who grew up in such a society would consider ours absurd. Constant strife limits absurdity because any state absurd from the perspective of nature eventually fails, including the perspective that considers nature absurd.
>Thirdly
I do not quite understand. A state is self-perpetuating if it can return to itself from itself. It may be able to produce other states, and it must be able to produce at least one lest it be the final state, but it must return to itself.
>global eugenics program
This is why I included in the preferred state both high stability and high potentiality. Avoiding unpredictability in the species' reproduction is not a good thing, because we will never be able to predict every threat. There could be a disease, a genetic mutation, extreme seismic activity, a Carrington event, an asteroid collision, or possible extraterrestrial or extradimensional invaders. If the system is so sensitive that violence between members of the species could disrupt it, then how would you safeguard against a lightning strike or a heart attack? Locking people in pods and harvesting male sperm for implantation in female wombs? Would you alter every human's physiology to present violence? What happens if the editing makes one person really violent or we have to fight against the robots on which we rely? You are increasing stability but drastically reducing potentiality. The above scenario is functionally identical to mass enslavement, as I mentioned, and sure, the chains are stable, at least until they rust, but what happens when you need to go where the chains do not let you in order to survive? You die, the final stable state. I want countless different people and peoples seeking countless different futures/potential states, with redundancies and inefficiencies and chauvinisms, because such a state is self perpetuating and it has the highest numbers of potentialities. Therefore, war. Capitalism is stable, but by translating all things to a dollar value, it reduces potentiality to the next quarter's earnings.
cont.

>>544203294
>>544203300
>war closes more states
War restricts short term potentialities for an increased number long term potentialities. Resources are spent to obtain more, or, in defensive wars, to retain what resources already exist. Of course, wars can be lost and prewar appraisals of a territory's resources may be faulty, but war sacrifices the short term for the long term. Liberalism/capitalism does the opposite. You have so many potentialities in the short term. You can sell your family house. You can risk all your money on the stock market. You can strip mine your country and poison your rivers. You can grind every spark of creativity from the youth for good grades. You can build machines to mass produce slop. And what does the future a hundred years hence look like? Massive fortunes being spent on what little resources remain.
>necessity
Necessity is simply what happens when the number of potentialities available to a given state are reduced to one.
>everyone is at war at all times
I think we might be misunderstanding each other. I do not mean child soldiers and women and the elderly should be fighting all the time, even if only for the fact that you will need soldiers in twenty years. A nation sufficiently successful at war, as in my first post, will become richer, will have more leisure, during which they can create art, and will, unless refortified by war, become decadent. Any activity will limit some potentialities, but a preferable activity will lead to more potentialities. I believe war has the potential to lead to the highest number of stable potentialities, many of which may also lead to stable potentialities. War can, and does, lead to collective cooperation of nation states (eg Congress of Vienna, Treaty of Versailles, NATO), and those situations naturally degrade into more war, making war self-producing. But I see no evidence of collective cooperation necessarily leading to more collective cooperation through the path of war. Therefore, I consider war the natural state of mankind, out of which and into which any possible state of human affairs may develop.
>contradiction
War is a high potential, high stability state. The latter means it can be self perpetuating, and the former means it can produce many other states out of itself. A single conflict may end, but the hostility between nations naturally continues, and thus war is eternal.
>utopia
Industrial warfare may be the current state, but I do not consider it the form of warfare that is most natural or most likely to be the future model of warfare. However, that relies on my is/ought understanding, which we can not continue.

>>544203297
No, I am not arguing that. I am sure you could find one or two whose births were not derived from war (maybe). My 'ideal war' prizes personal virtue; there would be no need to conscript those whose talents are better suited elsewhere, especially if they produce art that increases the prestige of the nation and the patriotism afforded it by their soldiers. And I have very clearly opposed industrial war on the basis that it indiscriminately wastes 'human capital.'
>in times of relative stability and prosperity
You would not - in good faith - expect the artist to create his art on the battlefield. These times of stability and prosperity follow successful wars (see my first post for war allowing societies to become richer). For instance, Classical Athens (Persian Wars), the Augustan Age (following fifty years of civil conflict ended by Augustus), Elizabethan era (English expansion in Ireland and conflict with Spain), Dutch Golden Age (following revolt from, conflict with, and independence from Spain; Rembrandt included). These periods may also follow unsuccessful wars, as with the Renaissance, when refugees from the Fall of Constantinople kick started Western European appreciation of Greek culture. (Note, Joseph II, Mozart's patron, spent his reign picking a fight with anyone he could).
>other calamity at an individual level
It can, but what other calamities produce art? Gulags, sure. The Holocaust? If you consider Schindler's List high culture.

>>544203298
Sorry, anon. All my important writings are handwritten and kept in a box.

>>544203299
>getting to point A instead of going beyond
If a nation can keep itself healthy, then it should. But no one in history has figured out how to keep a nation from going past point A. Therefore, war ensures that decadence is punished and virtue is rewarded.
>When has a state regenerated?
The idea is that decadence invites hostility and defeat. The nation may not return to the previous high water mark, but if it survives, it will be forced to adopt austerity and virtue. Germany is the largest economy in Europe, though of course the martial taboo is still strong. If you consider Russia the successor to the USSR, the career of Putin does suggest a return to the martial disposition eschewed by Yeltsin.

>>544203247
aura and hype edits.

>>544203247
You form a company, accumulate capital selling things that people want to buy and use the capital into making more things that people want to buy
What's not to like about it?

>>544203249
>make something people love, and you get rewarded
Oh, I wish this was true, anon.

File: Screenshot from 2026-10-0(...).png (110 KB, 307x307)

110 KB PNG

>>544203250
>

>>544203305
It can be true. But you have to learn how to appropriate the proceeds of what you make. And that's a different set of skills from actually making the things.

>>544203253
Nationalism is when you give your butthole to the bourgeoisie so they keep your privileges

>>544203247
>Capitalism
Capitalism is the organization of society that protects and guarantees the process where all human labor, or means of producing things, are abstracted into value which can be used to gain more control over other people's labor, i.e capital. This is a decentralized runaway process, which makes it very productive but also very unstable, unjust, irrational and destructive (both culturally and ecologically). I believe mankind's greatest strength and greatest task is to become more self-conscious, more in control of our own fate. Letting your existence depend on an uncontrolled and unstable runaway process, and simply accepting the negative side effects as necessary or part of some inherent 'human nature' rather than doing something about it is antithetical to that.

>Nationalism
An interesting example of an attempt at a greater self-conscious unity, but a flawed one that arises out of the contradictions of class society and of the threat of war. so this is also where its limits lie: the international stage remains ununified and becomes a cruel, lawless stage of national actors, while inside the nation, the state is mostly just used to repress uprisings and maintain a state of injustice. Both problems will have to be overcome in a higher, more democratic organizational form, although i have no idea how that new form will look like.

>Imperialism
Imperialism is the product of the problems with Capitalism and Nationalism listed above. Capitalism is a runaway process that needs to keep expanding forever to keep working. Nationalism is the highest organizational form we have, and is cruel and lawless on the international stage, so you get nation states expanding its capitalism through dominating weaker states. This process is one of the greatest causes of suffering in human history, and probably the greatest indictment of both Capitalism and Nationalism.

File: IMG_2249.jpg (113 KB, 1024x805)

113 KB JPG

>>544203247

Because I follow the news and have seen what Fascism/ Imperialism/ Nationalism is doing in Europe. I am just a Paleoconservative though so not opposed to capital.

>>544203247
The inherent contradictions that form of the capitalist system lead to inefficiencies and boom and bust cycles. It works for a long time but eventually it reaches a point of diminishing returns.
Imperialism is merely the highest stage of capital in which territories are divided and subdivided in accordance with capital and its movements.
Both again have contradictions.
There is nothing wrong with nationalism in it of its self in the world's current stage.

>>544203305
In what case is it not true? Obviously the dollar amount scales with the number of people/how much people love it, but it's now easier than ever to turn to turn the enjoyment of others into money

>>544203311
>eventually it reaches a point of diminishing returns
When will these diminishing returns start?

>>544203312
Now.
Look at the stagnation of innovation. Competition has effectively died out and its a race to bottom to produce as much slop as possible even though half of it goes into the trash.

>>544203312
He doesn't know what he's talking about because the only interaction he has likely had with the production of material life is by consuming goods and reading what other clueless leftist wordcels write about it.

>>544203313
>stagnation of innovation
>Competition has effectively died out
A 5 year old company, with a rapidly improving 5 year old product, is about to have the largest IPO in history
While I agree that innovation in the world of atoms (as Thiel would say) needs to accelerate, innovation in the world of bits is in overdrive. The way I do my job has completely changed in the past 10 months.
A robot chef / maid is maybe 5 years away. Robot construction, maybe 10 years. It seems like we're at the lower end of a J curve

>>544203314
The amount of doomerism on this website is sad to see. The bright side is that this is the level of willpower that you're competing against in life

>>544203315
I agree to but look at the even the current slopification of AI. That will get worse and worse. Then yeah there might be another technological leap but again the same thing will happen.

>>544203316
I see your quints, but there are a lot of examples of quality AI memes
Taking videogames as an example, every single game made from a large studio from now onward will be primarily coded with AI. The only effect gamers will notice from large studios is games having a quicker dev time (instead of 6 years, it could be 3 with the same human effort). An increase in indie/mod slop seems irrelevant, and presumably quality indie games increase at a similar rate

This ends with work being optional, which seems to enrage the cattle.
There was a UBI study, and the result was those with UBI ended up earning an average of $1k less after some number of years than those without UBI. When this came out, a lot of people took the opportunity to mock the idea of UBI. I think the reality is:
• we live in a society centered around jobs
• most people are followers
• it takes a special personality to start something new
If no one needed to get a job, those people would create work that was meaningful (e.g. educating themselves), and others would be able to follow and pursue meaning that way. I think we'll find community and be less consoomer than we are now

>>544203302
Can I get your email then, sir?
In general, I'd like to get in touch with multiple people itt. We should start a club of sorts

>>544203317
>• most people are followers
>• it takes a special personality to start something new
I object to these points
regardless we can see this same trend at numerous times in history, advent of motion pictures, radios, tv, computers, internet, the efficiency gained from these could be much more but they all gave slop. Their potential was undermined. Now im glad we have had time to get to points where rhey have lead to today's rechnology but it seems the race to the bottom is continuing.

>>544203319
>I object to these points
So most people are leaders that start new things?

>>544203247
Do you mean American-style free-market capitalism or just the existence of markets and private property? I'm against the former, but for the latter. Social democracy demonstrably leads to the highest quality of life as seen in Norway, Iceland and Switzerland

>>544203268
Nationalism is basic applied game theory. Patriotism is for cattle.

>>544203302
>whose births were not derived from war
I am arguing that just about none of them were and that war is completely unrelated to any of these works' births.

Also since war is misery, trauma and loss of human capital unless we are considering your ideal scenario of an antique war with only willing participants you still haven't given me the answer how this is not completely utopian in the world we live in. I presume that you are advocating for this but like I said, the closest you could get is through international sports. Do you first of all not think that austerity and bravery could not be gotten in ways that don't involve untold suffering?

>The idea is that decadence invites hostility and defeat. The nation may not return to the previous high water mark, but if it survives, it will be forced to adopt austerity and virtue.
Considering the case of Germany, the outcome was the opposite after both wars... on top of this when I look at war, it breeds non-virtues of torture, rape, looting, chaos and degradation.

>>544203247
vulgar expressions of power and exploitation

>>544203322
What defines nationalism and can that not be applied to the level of the state? At least insofar as the citizen has fully adopted the shared culture and history of the state

>>544203325
>shared culture and history of the nation**

>>544203247
I love Jesus Christ and therefore must reject all authorities that are not God. I can support none of these systems in good conscience.

>>544203320
People pick up leadership roles at various times when needed. The situation creates leaders.
If I had a kid tomorrow I would become a leader a father.
However I still take classes as a student so there I am a follower.
When day I hope to finish grad school and teach there i will be a leader.

One can be a follower to a code too and also be a leader.

Look at the church the priest is a leader of his church but still a follower of christ.

>>544203248
>Capital
Marx
>Imperialism the Highest Stage of Capitalism
Lenin
>Marxism and The National Question
Stalin

>>544203328
Ok, I'll concede most men lead in some areas, but they're still net followers.
In their careers, of which they spend most of their waking hours in service to, they generally work for someone else and settle for a job that pays less and is less fulfilling than they could get elsewhere.

The follower mentality is even more prevalent in the average person that doesn't work. They sit around consooming all day.
That's my point: giving random people (the study actually focused on lower class / underemployed people) UBI isn't indicative of how society will be when most don't need to have a job. Otherwise productive people, once they're jobless, will create a new status quo for how we live our lives

File: libfreak.jpg (22 KB, 427x427)

22 KB JPG

>>544203306

>>544203330
By that logic. I think its the situation that sorts ones into leaders or followers. Both workers and NEETS are followers in large aspects of their lives because of the profession/not profession. I think we can agree it is increasingly harder to come into leadership in the business world these days. Running a small business is very difficult, alot of the aspects of whether that business fails is out of the owners hand too. These leaders are then followers of the banks and property owners they rely on. So again we lead or follow based on our circumstances.

>>544203332
I skimmed your second point. I am honestly not knowledgeable about UBI. I dont think it will solve the contradictions within capitalism, it might heighten them as i infer from your post

>>544203333
UBI would not, as it wouldn't alter the existing hierarchy of property relations, and the market would adjust to the baseline. UBI is less marxist and closer to a crude distributism (except distributists believed in giving people the direct resources to translate into productivity, UBI is just a simple cash handout) or Keynesianism which is still capitalism

>>544203247
Against all three of them. Also Capitalism IS imperialism.

>>544203335
no it isn't

>>544203247
>Capitalism
I like it only because I know of no other method of dispersing resources that contradicts human nature less.
>Nationalism
I find it ridiculous because I don't recognize administrative areas as endemic to my nature, and I think of traditions as peer pressure from dead people.
>Imperialism
Predictable consequence of the human mind and the way it structures hierarchies.

>Nationalism
I don't really have many things in common with the people of my nation so I don't like it

>>544203247
Capitalism is the most efficient method of resource allocation ever devised.
Nationalism is for insecure retards with an incomplete knowledge of their country's history.
Imperialism is the greatest civilising force the world has ever seen.

If the goal is capital accumulation rather than social stability or ecological sustainability, capitalism is rational within that framework, though not for other ends. There is an economic principle stating that competition, when it runs its course, leads to the elimination of rivals, thereby creating oligopolies that stifle the "rational" free market. In an anarchic international system, states must organize internally to ensure collective security. The "nation" serves as the fundamental unit of political organization for the provision of public goods and the establishment of legal frameworks. Social cohesion is essential, and evidence shows that a shared identity (nationalism) reduces governance-related transaction costs while fostering the trust necessary for large-scale social cooperation. Capitalism demands constant expansion. This expansion inevitably encroaches upon the sovereignty of others. imperialism is therefore a logical consequence of capitalism. Advanced capitalism necessitates the pursuit of new markets and raw materials to avert domestic economic stagnation, inevitably leading to territorial or economic hegemony. The nation represents the most prudent form of organization: since other nations and tribes will seek to dominate you, you must establish means of defense and self-sufficiency.

As for nationalism, I consider ethnic nationalism and racial nationalism necessary for a civilization's long-term survival. Multiculturalism relies on economic stability, but it collapses when resources become more contested and scarce. Race is real, and unavoidable. The concept is rooted in the family and kinship, survival. Kin selection and the innate human need for belonging and social identity come into play here. The fact that a system is a "social construct" does not invalidate it, as most fundamental human structures such as laws and language are also constructed. In challenging the legitimacy of nationalism, the liberal fails to propose a viable alternative for social organization. Human beings cannot survive in a state of total atomization, we require scalable groupings to ensure our security and cooperation. Dunbar’s number illustrates the cognitive limit on the number of people with whom humans can maintain stable social relationships. Nationalism serves as a "macro-identity" allowing individuals to extend their loyalty and cooperation beyond the immediate village to a larger but clearly defined and comprehensible collective. The origin of a group, whether it stems from a construct or a biological drive, matters little compared to its function. If nationalism provides stability and identity, it is functionally valid, regardless of its "constructed" nature. Just as the family is a "construct" (defined by man-made roles and rules), it is rooted in the "natural" bond of blood and care. Dismissing the family as an "invalid construct" would be absurd, it is equally illogical to pass such judgment on the nation.

>>544203340
Very fallacious argument.

If kin selection were the only reason people cooperated, the idea of a "nation" wouldn't make any sense. It’s too big. Where do you actually draw the line? If that were true, we would only trust our closest cousins or immediate blood relatives. Some guy who was born in a country my great great great grandfather lived in that I otherwise have no connection to isn't closer to me than a guy down the street who's Chinese or whatever.
You also ignore how fascist states got outclassed by civic nationalist states. Strong governments are more effective at organization and national power than ethnic purity or eugenics. Look at the US becoming the most powerful country with a diverse ethnic base, or the multiracial Singapore. These states work because of legal frameworks and shared economic goals, not because of some mythical ideal.

>>544203341
The US was not multiracial, for the majority of its history and the US government and state's founding it was composed predominantly of Europeans who shared similar cultural ties and kinship to create a shared macro-identity, that is no longer sustainable as it is divorced from an ethnic continuity. Singapore is a city state that is an anomaly.

>>544203342
Moving the goalposts.

>>544203342
>similar cultural ties and kinship
Well you said it yourself. It is enough that people share the same cultural values.

Also considering the current problems of US, my point is basically proven, for the largest divide in US is between liberals and conservatives who have dug themselves into trenches and wont budge. There is a cultural-political division that goes over ethnic differences. There is no deep unstabilizing divide between asian-americans, mexicans, blacks that is somehow playing out in the cultural battleground.

I reject warfare for it's own sake as well as traditional capitalism (which centralizes wealth in corporations) and state socialism (which centralizes wealth in the bureaucracy and corrupt party cadre). For me, the state's role is to guarantee minimal property rights and the core essentials of food, shelter, and land for autonomy. Anti-monopoly laws must be aggressive. Small businesses, family-owned enterprises, artisan craftsmen, and localized co-ops should form the bedrock of the economy and money needs to be used as a means for living and not something to be pursued for it's own sake. We need the forces of production shielded by regulations that prevent wealth from pooling at the top. A strong state needs to ensure access to land or equity in business, universal healthcare, strong infrastructure and institutions are guaranteed. Technology and automation must be leveraged by the state to reduce labor hours rather than consolidate elite control. There is no divine plan or historical inevitability, no "invisible hand" of the market or rational foolproof logic to save us. We have freedom of choice to construct a state and government according to the values we wish to see. This choice defines our authentic existence and creates our personal essence in a reality devoid of predetermined purpose. The state's duty is to provide the material floor so that citizens can actually exercise this freedom. We as a society can only ensure survival of ourselves and our community.

capitalism and communism are both two sides of the same materialist coin. they forget humanity for commodities

Liberalism, nationalism, capitalism, and imperialism are heads of the same beast, operating to create a Eurocentric framework that is designed to funnel wealth to a select few nations in North America and Western Europe. This framework positions the wealth and luxury of the "center" (the imperial core, the West, "developed" economies) as the dominant force, inevitably entailing the systemic misery and exploitation of the "periphery" (colonized territories, working class, Global South). The illusion of individual choice is exposed as a form of coercion dictated by various tactics and modes of warfare, and the notion of universal prosperity is rejected in light of extreme wealth disparities and the existence of designated sacrifice zones in Africa, China, Vietnam, India, Latin America, Eastern Europe etc.

The West's mask of benevolence outsources the violence required to sustain their standard of living to those they deem lesser. The imperialist capitalist center relies on violence to perpetuate itself; it requires the existence of subjects to use and abuse in order to feed upon them parasitically. This prevailing order is maintained through state violence, and any impulse that conflicts with corporate profit margins must be eradicated or controlled. The West has created a system that constitutes a parasitic cycle, incapable of surviving without the existence of an enslaved class.

>Capitalism
Against. It becomes a race to the bottom by opening up society to degeneracy, corruption, and foreign influence either directly or indirectly through relying on trade too much.

>Nationalism
For. It's an essential instinct, a necessary part of being a healthy human with a healthy society. It also preserves something beautiful. I'm an ethnopluralist.

>Imperialism
Against. An empire is a failed state, it directly contradicts the goals of nationalism by putting multiple nations in the same state, the outcome of which can only be either strife or mixing and either way that's a destruction of the nation.

>>544203347
Remember when Japan had a booming economy in the 80s so much so that it threatened US markets. But the prosperity of an imperial periphery couldn't be allowed at the expense of the system that made that prosperity possible to begin with. So the US tanked Japan economy.

Liberalism, Libertarianism and "free" trade has always been a bad joke.
>existence of designated sacrifice zones in Africa, China, Vietnam, India, Latin America, Eastern Europe etc.
This is also spot on. Consider the situation of cocoa farmers in ivory coast.

>>544203345
You sound like you're talking about distributism more or less. Distributism sounds great in theory but it's a half-assed solution and inevitably can only be enforced by statism, which will cause it to mutate into a corporatism and likely fascism, espeically since they insist on incorporation of Catholic social ethic, which turns it into a religious conservative ideology.

Capitalist market logic demands perpetual accumulation, which necessitates imperialism for pursuit of maximum growth, and renders nationalism obsolete past a stage of economic growth.

>>544203350
What would even work then? Mutualism? Everything is shit and there's no decent alternative, it seems.

>>544203352
Things working is fascism. Liberation is when everything fucking sucks

>>544203352
Any serious alternative must accomplish two non-negotiable tasks
>Strip private speculators and tech oligarchs of their ability to hoard the basic infrastructure of human survival like food, shelter, education, labor, health, etc.
>end the cycle of conspicuous consumerism and center society in meaningful collective purpose, whether that purpose is organized around worker control, national industrial sovereignty, ecological stewardship, tradition, whatever it is - there needs to be a coherent structure and meaning that liberalism has failed to provide and something that allows for meaning

It is hard to determine what that can be

Maybe pairing economic nationalism, more encouragement of natalism with generous family benefits, strict border controls, and labor protections to shield domestic workers from the exploitative nature of global labor arbitrage, while also shifting capital away from speculative vehicles like crypto/hedge funds/financialization, nationalization of essential infrastructure like energy, telecoms, tech, transport, defense and investment more in domestic industry/energy.

>>544203354
europe tried this, not working

>>544203247
I'm going to qualify my opinions with my own personal definitions of each term, which may differ from yours.
>Capitalism: that system wherein the average worker owns his labor but not the means of production.
Don't like it. In 1900, 50% of Americans were self-employed. Today, it's taken for granted that a man must be dependent on a boss for the right to work. Eventually, capitalism probably evolves into something which is indistinguishable from communism. It is becoming increasingly unfeasible for a man to meaningfully own any property at all, and a time may come when the ruling class tries to solve the imbalances of the system by implementing UBI along with involuntary labor.
>Nationalism: that condition wherein people live in and recognize nations, usually consisting of people who share a language and culture
Common sense. People will organize into ingroups whether you like it or not, and the best way to minimize conflict is for similar people to group together. Attempts at cosmopolitanism always end in ethnic violence.
>Imperialism: the attempt, usually initiated by one powerful nation, to bring several nations into one state
Bad idea. It ends just as poorly for the main imperial nation as it does for everyone else, if not worse. Inevitably, the ruling class comes to view the homeland as just another province to be exploited, resulting in mass migration and the destruction of the original national identity.

>>544203351
yes
that is the issue. capitalism's material abundance and production creates a high standard of living, but it is not sustainable without continuous growth and resources to supply the production that creates the wealth required for such standards. the hybrid of liberal capitalist consumerist decadence with racially homogenous states we saw in mid century europe could not last, especially with the reality of colonialism as well, and the spread of consciousness of these systems to the colony which heightened their awareness of the imperialist subjugation. the ethnic nationalist state could not be maintained under a capitalist liberal framework inherently

>>544203247
Spooks.

File: 1295115301389.jpg (33 KB, 362x351)

33 KB JPG

>>544203285
>This stops making any sense if you consider something like the USA that is highly varied in terms of ethnicities
Correct, but this was also proven wrong by Pearl Harbor.
If this is going to get proven wrong again, is to be seen. But following the 9/11, then yes, its still wrong.

>>544203267
>The urge to accumulate, hoard, and signal status
While that is correct in a vacuum, its also not possible to do so without a private army to enforce it. And the upkeep to keep said private army is why Feudalism is what it is, and wealth in itself was meaningless.

As such, any argument or logic put up in that post, is going to fall flat explaining the ideology.
Having significant ownership but without needing to privately pay for it, is what Capitalism is. Its a effect of scale. Its also why basic enterprise is harder in failed states, because the maintainers of the current infrastructure is acting like gate keepers trying to rent seek.

>>544203346
They're abstract economic systems. "Muh humanity" is outside their remit.
Is mathematics to be dismissed because it "forgets humanity?"

>>544203351
>Capitalist market logic demands perpetual accumulation
Wrong. Even capitalists have limited lifespans. And towards then end of those lifespans, they become philanthropists. They return their wealth to society.
The public library system is the creation of a wealthy philanthropist. Bill Gates is presently engaged in giving away his fortune to charitable causes. Many such cases, past and present.
The wealthy are concerned with their legacy, and use philanthropy to secure it.

>>544203361
How is this reconciled with the post-AI economy and the fantasies held by techno-optimists and oligarchs regarding a future defined by the absence of work and by abundance, particularly among those who have heavily flirted with NRx ideologies rooted in inequality?

>>544203362
They mistakenly believe they are acting altruistically by fulfilling their duty of managing AI and preventing it from going rogue. Even these ambitions are driven by a desire to leave a legacy where they view themselves as responsible for humanity's future. Whether this is true is open to debate, and I myself believe that in many respects they are living in a fantasy, that is how they perceive the situation.

>>544203362
>bundle of unsupported ideological assumptions posed as a question
Why do commies always do this? A debate in good faith with these bug-eyed loons is impossible. That's why violence has always been preferable.

>>544203364
AI peddlers have made it clear that they envision a future without work in which humanity is rendered obsolete, and many of them subscribe to ideologies associated with Bay Area rationalist cults or NRx circles. You don’t need to be a detective to read between the lines and see what their intentions are.

>>544203365
>they envision a future without work in which humanity is rendered obsolete
Do they? Do they really?
>You don’t need to be a detective to read between the lines
But being paranoid certainly helps.

>>544203360
How exactly do man-made systems that organize society and directly affect the quality of life of humanity exist outside the remit of humanity?

>>544203367
They're literally just methods of allocating resources, nothing more. It's society that selects the method it prefers.
Communists are free to self-organise along communist lines (funny how that never works out in real life) while capitalists are free to establish corporations and employ the masses (which has been the basis of economic growth, and improving standards of living, since the Industrial Revolution.)

>>544203361
You don't understand how money works. Money is not just some tender to buy stuff you need. It's an instrument of control. The wealth of the rich is not about consumption but about control. None of them are capable of spending the money that they have. If Elon Musk liquidated all his wealth he'd be thrown in jail. Their "charity" is them returning what never functionally belonged to them in the first place.

>>544203368
>They're literally just methods of allocating resources
Midwit take that obfuscates the exploitation and misery caused by capitalism.

>>544203260
Strange that LGBT movment is the strongest in the most developed Capitalist countries. America, western europa, israel. And the Capitalist elite is mostly that. Faggot masonic pedophiles.
You are either a shill, that desperately tries to break any real comprehension, or an idiot.
Also you totally miss the concept of infiltration, and controlled opposition. (controlled by the Capital). It's like this doesn't exist in your dumb mind.

>>544203361
>Bill Gates is presently engaged in giving away his fortune to charitable causes.
That's tax exemption scheme you midwit.

>>544203247
Capitalism: Allows wealthy (((foreigners))) that want you dead to take control of your country with their wealth. Also allows poor foreigners to flood your country and depress your wages, while skyrocketing the housing prices.
>Nationalism: No issue with this one. In fact, I support it.
>Imperialism: You are wasting money developing third world shitholes for no reason. It's much better to genocide or otherwise remove all the shitskins and send your own people afterward to settle the land and rebuild from scratch without the niggerness.