DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
True Left
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Questions & Debates
*****************************************************
#Post#: 30717--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Socialists were socialists
By: antihellenistic Date: August 6, 2025, 4:23 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote]Have I ever once asked you for advice?[/quote]
I don't need to wait for you to ask to give advice
[quote][quote]"The State shall assume responsibility for
compensating affected segments of the population with material
support, calibrated according to previously established
standards of dignified living. All damages incurred in the realm
of production shall be covered by public funds, strictly for the
purpose of restoring functional means of production. Under no
circumstance shall compensation include any form of surplus
value, profit, or private gain for the owner or proprietor of
said means. Upon restoration, the individual formerly recognized
as owner, manager, or business operator shall receive
compensation in the form of wages equivalent to that of a
lower-class mechanical laborer, with no special privileges or
wage differentials permitted. This provision reflects the
principled abolition of class-based economic hierarchy and
affirms the supremacy of socialized production under the
authority of the State"[/quote]
In that case, businesses would be incentivized to fake destroyed
stock in order to guarantee income without sales, you
moron.[/quote]
A person who pretends to suffer losses by engaging in black
market activities and deliberately disposing of production goods
will be sentenced to execution by the authorities.
[quote][quote]"Class 'A' can cease their psychological
degradation of Class 'B'—the proletarian working class—only if
they willingly allow the state and the party to appropriate the
majority of their assets and financial holdings."
...
[quote]"I am creating a condition in which the middle class and
the bourgeoisie no longer possess property or financial power
beyond that of the lower class."[/quote]
I am creating a condition in which the Class With Legs no longer
possess body parts or mobile power beyond that of the Class
Without Legs.[/quote]
Class With Legs can cease their psychological degradation of
Class Without Legs only if they willingly allow the state and
the party to cut of their legs.
...
[quote]"the solution is clear: liquidate the middle class, the
bourgeoisie, and the landowning elite! After all, even if they
are compelled to consume more affordable goods, they will still
live decently."[/quote]
The solution is clear: cut off the legs of all walkers, joggers
and sprinters. After all, even if they are compelled to use
slower wheelchairs, they will still move decently.[/quote]
To make the situation less disproportionate does not mean making
them (The Class A) disabled. They are still supported to
maintain a proper standard of living. You cannot equate the
policy of socializing individual ownership with making people
disabled and taking away their arms.
[quote][quote]"It is entirely the fault of Class A for allowing
unstable shifts in market share, which have led to heightened
risks of declining sales revenue."[/quote]
So B asks A to take risk on B's behalf, A does as B asks, it
turns out well for A, and now B jealous of the outcome says A
should never have allowed the risk to exist in the first place
(even though A has no power to prevent it and even though B did
not bring up this issue when originally asking A to take risk on
B's behalf).
...
[quote]"compelling Class A to adopt the consumption patterns of
Class B still allows them to live decently, while also ensuring
that they, too, experience restraint and worthiness in
access"[/quote]
Compelling walkers to adopt the transportation patterns of
wheelchair users still allows them to move decently, while also
ensuring that they, too, experience restraint and worthiness in
access.[/quote]
Group A possesses the means and awareness to recognize the
structural injustice and social instability created by the
dominance of market mechanisms in economic life. With their
financial influence, they are in a position to push the
government to abandon these exploitative systems. Yet, they
consistently refuse to act on this responsibility. By continuing
to uphold capitalism, economic competition, and liberal economic
democracy, they forfeit their claim to unchecked wealth and
privilege—and thus, the liquidation of their economic power and
social mobility becomes a justified political necessity.
Likewise, Group A, with their talents and capabilities, is able
to handle burdens with greater risks than those faced by Group
B. And yet, they experience these challenges as manageable—just
as Group B handles their own. Therefore, both Group A and Group
B are capable of carrying out what needs to be done without
undue difficulty. As such, Group A does not deserve higher wages
or greater rewards. If they continue to protest, they are
betraying the principles of socialism.
[quote][quote]"Taxation alone on the middle and upper classes
does not compel them to ease access to higher-value goods for
the lower class."[/quote]
It doesn't have to. All that matter is the wealth gap is
decreased as a result.[/quote]
The vision you propose will never come to fruition. The middle
class, emboldened by their ability to access “higher-quality”
goods and services, will inevitably develop a sense of
superiority over the working class. This fosters contempt, not
solidarity—and worse, enables them to more easily shape state
policies in their favor. What begins as a socialist project will
be derailed by the irrational demands of the bourgeoisie and
landlord class, steering the state away from planned economic
protection for the people and toward appeasing those who thrive
in a system of market logic, cutthroat competition, and
policy-making driven by democratic bartering rather than public
welfare which enforced by the state and the revolutionary party.
Do not become a social democrat—an opportunist serving the
insolent ambitions of the middle class!
[quote][quote]"They continue to maintain a system in which they
could, if they chose, consume more modest products like the
lower class—to reduce social resentment—but instead persist in
consuming high-value goods."[/quote]
Social resentment caused by jealousy should not be reduced. The
jealous deserve it.[/quote]
What you’re saying echoes the rhetoric of capitalists—and I
don’t take their words seriously.
[quote][quote]"This deepens the injustice, as the lower
class—those who already contribute to the state by producing the
essential goods for human survival—are left feeling permanently
excluded from attaining a higher standard of living, simply
because their wages have always remained low."
...
[quote]"No, because Class A preserves social disparity and
perpetuates the very conditions I have explained time and time
again in my previous writings. The convenience enjoyed by Class
A does not translate into convenience for Class B."[/quote]
B asked A to provide these conditions! B wanted the convenience
of a fixed income, A gave it to B, but now B also wants the
convenience of profit share that A is getting. B cannot have it
both ways.[/quote]
B asked A to give B a fixed income! B is now complaining about
it![/quote]
B demands that A recognize their greater capacity, not as a
basis for superiority, but as a responsibility—to carry heavier
burdens with the same ease that B carries lighter ones. In
acknowledging this, A ultimately concedes that they have no
rightful claim to a larger share of value from goods and
services, for both classes, in truth, face their tasks with
equal competence and resilience.
You cannot dismantle racism and white supremacy while continuing
to grant high-IQ white individuals—and other elite racial
groups—the unchecked freedom to pursue upward economic and
social mobility. Such freedom inevitably fuels class
stratification and power consolidation. These groups, armed with
intellect, property, and capital, will leverage their influence
to resist any socialist transformation.
As a leader, you will fail if you allow them to retain these
tools of domination. Political power grows from economic
footholds, and unless dismantled, the old order will reproduce
itself under a new name. This is precisely why the Hitler regime
did not limit its focus to race and culture alone—it also
targeted class structures as a central part of its ideological
struggle.
[quote][quote]"Preventing sexual deviance is an act of
disciplining those who disrupt the moral and mental focus of
society. Therefore, regulating pornographic actors and
pornography itself is an act of resistance against the initial
psychological violence imposed upon the public."[/quote]
There is nothing "imposed upon the public" unless the video is
being played in public places. If you try to ban private
viewing, you are initiating violence.[/quote]
Porn enthusiasts and those who are attracted to both women and
men tend to say the same things you're saying. I don't take
their opinions seriously.
[quote]...we also see the socialist character of the Reichsbahn
in something else. It is a warning about the exclusive claims of
the doctrine of private capitalism. It is the living proof that
it is very possible to run a nationalized enterprise without
private capital tendencies and without private capital
management.[/quote]
- Adolf Hitler
Source :
Hitler : the Policies of Seduction by Rainer Zitelmann Page 251
HTML https://archive.org/details/hitlerpoliciesof0000zite/page/250/mode/2up?q=run+a+nationalized+enterprise+without+private+capital
#Post#: 30718--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Socialists were socialists
By: 90sRetroFan Date: August 6, 2025, 5:49 am
---------------------------------------------------------
"I don't need to wait for you to ask to give advice"
Thank you for admitting that your advice is unwanted.
"A person who pretends to suffer losses by engaging in black
market activities and deliberately disposing of production goods
will be sentenced to execution by the authorities."
Then the authorities could accuse those who have actually
suffered losses of pretending in order to execute whomever they
want, you moron.
"You cannot equate the policy of socializing individual
ownership with making people disabled and taking away their
arms."
I will keep doing it until you admit your stupidity.
"Group A possesses the means and awareness to recognize the
structural injustice and social instability created by the
dominance of market mechanisms in economic life."
A and B can both choose between a more expensive restaurant and
a less expensive restaurant. There is no injustice. Jealousy is
not evidence of injustice.
"The vision you propose will never come to fruition. The middle
class, emboldened by their ability to access “higher-quality”
goods and services, will inevitably develop a sense of
superiority over the working class. This fosters contempt, not
solidarity—and worse, enables them to more easily shape state
policies in their favor. What begins as a socialist project will
be derailed by the irrational demands of the bourgeoisie and
landlord class, steering the state away from planned economic
protection for the people and toward appeasing those who thrive
in a system of market logic, cutthroat competition, and
policy-making driven by democratic bartering rather than public
welfare which enforced by the state and the revolutionary
party."
Illustrate this using only the example of A, B and the two
restaurants. How does A going to the more expensive restaurant
lead to A being able to shape state policies in A's favour?
"B demands that A recognize their greater capacity, not as a
basis for superiority, but as a responsibility—to carry heavier
burdens with the same ease that B carries lighter ones. In
acknowledging this, A ultimately concedes that they have no
rightful claim to a larger share of value from goods and
services, for both classes, in truth, face their tasks with
equal competence and resilience."
A's rightful claim derives from the fact that A and B agreed on
it beforehand, you moron.
"You cannot dismantle racism and white supremacy while
continuing to grant high-IQ white individuals—and other elite
racial groups—the unchecked freedom to pursue upward economic
and social mobility."
Not even if I prohibit them from reproducing?
"Such freedom inevitably fuels class stratification and power
consolidation."
Not if they do not reproduce.
"**** enthusiasts and those who are attracted to both women and
men tend to say the same things you're saying. I don't take
their opinions seriously."
Thank you for revealing that your true concerns have absolutely
nothing to do with ethics.
#Post#: 30719--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Socialists were socialists
By: 90sRetroFan Date: August 6, 2025, 5:50 am
---------------------------------------------------------
"I don't need to wait for you to ask to give advice"
Thank you for admitting that your advice is unwanted.
"A person who pretends to suffer losses by engaging in black
market activities and deliberately disposing of production goods
will be sentenced to execution by the authorities."
Then the authorities could accuse those who have actually
suffered losses of pretending as an excuse to execute whomever
they want, you moron.
"You cannot equate the policy of socializing individual
ownership with making people disabled and taking away their
arms."
I will keep doing it until you admit your stupidity.
"Group A possesses the means and awareness to recognize the
structural injustice and social instability created by the
dominance of market mechanisms in economic life."
A and B can both choose between a more expensive restaurant and
a less expensive restaurant. There is no injustice. Jealousy is
not evidence of injustice.
"The vision you propose will never come to fruition. The middle
class, emboldened by their ability to access “higher-quality”
goods and services, will inevitably develop a sense of
superiority over the working class. This fosters contempt, not
solidarity—and worse, enables them to more easily shape state
policies in their favor. What begins as a socialist project will
be derailed by the irrational demands of the bourgeoisie and
landlord class, steering the state away from planned economic
protection for the people and toward appeasing those who thrive
in a system of market logic, cutthroat competition, and
policy-making driven by democratic bartering rather than public
welfare which enforced by the state and the revolutionary
party."
Illustrate this using only the example of A, B and the two
restaurants. How does A going to the more expensive restaurant
lead to A being able to shape state policies in A's favour?
"B demands that A recognize their greater capacity, not as a
basis for superiority, but as a responsibility—to carry heavier
burdens with the same ease that B carries lighter ones. In
acknowledging this, A ultimately concedes that they have no
rightful claim to a larger share of value from goods and
services, for both classes, in truth, face their tasks with
equal competence and resilience."
A's rightful claim derives from the fact that A and B agreed to
it beforehand, you moron.
"You cannot dismantle racism and white supremacy while
continuing to grant high-IQ white individuals—and other elite
racial groups—the unchecked freedom to pursue upward economic
and social mobility."
Not even if I prohibit them from reproducing?
"Such freedom inevitably fuels class stratification and power
consolidation."
Not if they do not reproduce.
"**** enthusiasts and those who are attracted to both women and
men tend to say the same things you're saying. I don't take
their opinions seriously."
Thank you for admitting your obsession with what other people do
in private.
#Post#: 30730--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Socialists were socialists
By: antihellenistic Date: August 9, 2025, 8:17 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote][quote]"I don't need to wait for you to ask to give
advice"[/quote]
Thank you for admitting that your advice is unwanted.[/quote]
The more you ignore my advice, the more you reveal yourself as a
revisionist of socialism—and that is unacceptable!
[quote][quote]"A person who pretends to suffer losses by
engaging in black market activities and deliberately disposing
of production goods will be sentenced to execution by the
authorities."[/quote]
Then the authorities could accuse those who have actually
suffered losses of pretending as an excuse to execute whomever
they want, you moron.[/quote]
At the very least, the weaknesses of a planned economy still
allow for the creation of a society that lives in an organized
manner—free from the oppression of labor by the bourgeoisie and
the middle class, and free from the exploitation of workers
under the guise of high productivity and efficiency for the sake
of preserving market share. This stands in stark contrast to the
state order you dream of, which remains blind to the absolute
crimes of the middle and upper classes, and to their deceitful
maneuvers of economic mobility. Hitler chose Stalinism, and so
should you if you still claim to uphold Hitlerism…
[quote]"You cannot equate the policy of socializing individual
ownership with making people disabled and taking away their
arms."
[quote]I will keep doing it until you admit your
stupidity.[/quote][/quote]
If you keep acknowledging all of that—despite it being wrong and
illogical—you are still making a blunder in presenting
socialism. You come across like a capitalist pretending to be a
socialist.
[quote][quote]"Group A possesses the means and awareness to
recognize the structural injustice and social instability
created by the dominance of market mechanisms in economic
life."[/quote]
A and B can both choose between a more expensive restaurant and
a less expensive restaurant. There is no injustice. Jealousy is
not evidence of injustice.[/quote]
Group B (the worker/proletariat) cannot enjoy higher-quality
products in the way that Group A—the bourgeoisie, middle class,
and landowning class—does. It is impossible for all people to
experience what Group A enjoys, because it is impossible for
everyone to work as highly paid administrators. The reality is
that there must be those who work under direction, and those who
direct.
If such a situation is left unchecked, it will inevitably
produce discriminatory behavior by Group A toward Group B,
because Group A, with its more materialistic lifestyle, tends to
feel superior to Group B. Yet it is Group B that performs the
essential tasks for human survival, and they deserve neither
physical nor psychological degradation.
It is an act of absolute violence to preserve social
disparity—where certain classes receive greater dignity while
others are left with lesser dignity. All people, across all
classes, have worked according to their abilities and ultimately
find their tasks equally manageable; therefore, it is unjust for
workers of a particular class to receive “higher-value wages”
under the pretext of “working more professionally and with
greater complexity.”
Stealing surplus value under the guise of economic class
superiority—which in reality is nothing more than a form of
false consciousness—is, in truth, an act of both physical and
psychological violence. The sense of outrage, and the will to
dismantle the middle and upper classes, is a manifestation of
healthy instinct and socialist patriotism.
[quote][quote]"The vision you propose will never come to
fruition. The middle class, emboldened by their ability to
access “higher-quality” goods and services, will inevitably
develop a sense of superiority over the working class. This
fosters contempt, not solidarity—and worse, enables them to more
easily shape state policies in their favor. What begins as a
socialist project will be derailed by the irrational demands of
the bourgeoisie and landlord class, steering the state away from
planned economic protection for the people and toward appeasing
those who thrive in a system of market logic, cutthroat
competition, and policy-making driven by democratic bartering
rather than public welfare which enforced by the state and the
revolutionary party."[/quote]
Illustrate this using only the example of A, B and the two
restaurants. How does A going to the more expensive restaurant
lead to A being able to shape state policies in A's
favour?[/quote]
A preserves state policies that uphold social disparity and
social gentrification. Socialism will fail in an environment
shaped by such conditions. Because Group A tends to possess both
economic power and high intellectual capacity, they can easily
influence the state to enact policies that serve their own
interests rather than prioritizing the security, relief, and
safety of the proletariat and the lower-class informal workers.
Group A is generally untroubled by a society governed by the
laws of supply and demand—laws that perpetuate social and
economic competition again and again—because they remain
confident they will always win and are indifferent to the
suffering inflicted on the people by such a corrupt order.
As a result, the socialist way of life that the state and the
party attempt to build is repeatedly defeated by the strength of
the mobility and capital of the middle class, the landowning
class, and the bourgeoisie.
[quote][quote]"B demands that A recognize their greater
capacity, not as a basis for superiority, but as a
responsibility—to carry heavier burdens with the same ease that
B carries lighter ones. In acknowledging this, A ultimately
concedes that they have no rightful claim to a larger share of
value from goods and services, for both classes, in truth, face
their tasks with equal competence and resilience."[/quote]
A's rightful claim derives from the fact that A and B agreed to
it beforehand, you moron.[/quote]
If Group A insists on maintaining bargaining policies that
spread false consciousness to Group B, as you have described,
then the state has every right to liquidate both A and those in
B who act in such a way. Members of Group B who approve of A’s
false-consciousness tactics are what we call “conservative
workers” or “petty bourgeois,” whose tendencies firmly place
them within the ranks of the middle class.
[quote][quote]"You cannot dismantle racism and white supremacy
while continuing to grant high-IQ white individuals—and other
elite racial groups—the unchecked freedom to pursue upward
economic and social mobility."[/quote]
Not even if I prohibit them from reproducing?[/quote]
Even if a society is filled with people whose bloodlines incline
them toward empathy and sensitivity, the rot of aggression and
condescension toward the innocent lower classes will still
fester. This poison will not vanish until the ability to hoard
capital and indulge in consumption that breeds social disparity
is crushed entirely. Such parasitic privileges—most often
wielded by the middle class, the bourgeoisie, and the
landlords—must be dismantled without mercy, for they are the
root from which all social domination and oppression grow
[quote][quote]"**** enthusiasts and those who are attracted to
both women and men tend to say the same things you're saying. I
don't take their opinions seriously."[/quote]
Thank you for admitting your obsession with what other people do
in private.[/quote]
It is no matter if intervention into private affairs serves to
discipline human beings to remain empathetic and to keep their
hatred of capitalism alive.
#Post#: 30733--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Socialists were socialists
By: 90sRetroFan Date: August 9, 2025, 8:03 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
"a revisionist of socialism"
This is the point of the original topic, you moron:
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/colonial-era/national-socialism-is-revolutionary-not-reactionary/msg10612/#msg10612
[quote]The True Left must reframe the relationship to accurately
contextualize Marxist Socialism as merely one type of Socialism
among many(?) possibilities.[/quote]
"At the very least, the weaknesses of a planned economy still
allow for the creation of a society that lives in an organized
manner"
Stop changing the subject.
"Group B (the worker/proletariat) cannot enjoy higher-quality
products in the way that Group A—the bourgeoisie, middle class,
and landowning class—does."
Those without legs cannot enjoy higher quality mobility in the
way that walkers, joggers and sprinters can.
"It is an act of absolute violence to preserve social disparity"
Again you admit you are an egalitarian.
"it is unjust for workers of a particular class to receive
“higher-value wages” under the pretext of “working more
professionally and with greater complexity.”"
This is not the example we are discussing. In the example we are
discussing, A and B agreed that B would receive a fixed income
irrespective of how the product sells while A makes profit or
loss depending on how the product sells. Please stick to this
example only.
"A preserves state policies that uphold social disparity and
social gentrification."
How does A do that by going to the more expensive restaurant?
"Because Group A tends to possess both economic power and high
intellectual capacity, they can easily influence the state to
enact policies that serve their own interests rather than
prioritizing the security, relief, and safety of the proletariat
and the lower-class informal workers."
What does this have to do with going to the more expensive
restaurant? Especially when going to the more expensive
restaurant uses up more of A's money! A using up more money on
the restaurant is what you should want if you want to prevent A
from bribing politicians!
"If Group A insists on maintaining bargaining policies that
spread false consciousness to Group B, as you have described,
then the state has every right to liquidate both A and those in
B who act in such a way. "
A did not insist! B asked A for it! Here is how it went:
A: "So should we just split the profit or loss from sales in
half every month?"
B: "I don't want to risk losing money. How about I receive a
fixed salary instead, and the net profit or loss can be all
yours?"
A: "OK."
And for this you want to liquidate both A and B.
"Even if a society is filled with people whose bloodlines
incline them toward empathy and sensitivity, the rot of
aggression and condescension toward the innocent lower classes
will still fester. This poison will not vanish until the ability
to hoard capital and indulge in consumption that breeds social
disparity is crushed entirely. Such parasitic privileges—most
often wielded by the middle class, the bourgeoisie, and the
landlords—must be dismantled without mercy, for they are the
root from which all social domination and oppression grow"
Even if a society is filled with people whose bloodlines incline
them toward empathy and sensitivity, the rot of aggression and
condescension toward the innocent legless will still fester.
This poison will not vanish until the ability to have legs and
indulge in walking that breeds social disparity is crushed
entirely. Such parasitic privileges—most often wielded by the
joggers, the sprinters, and the marathon runners—must be
dismantled without mercy, for they are the root from which all
social domination and oppression grow
"It is no matter if intervention into private affairs serves to
discipline human beings to remain empathetic and to keep their
hatred of capitalism alive."
Thank you for admitting your willingness to initiate violence
and to make excuses for yourself while doing so.
#Post#: 30734--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Socialists were socialists
By: 90sRetroFan Date: August 9, 2025, 8:03 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
"a revisionist of socialism"
This is the point of the original topic, you moron:
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/colonial-era/national-socialism-is-revolutionary-not-reactionary/msg10612/#msg10612
[quote]The True Left must reframe the relationship to accurately
contextualize Marxist Socialism as merely one type of Socialism
among many(?) possibilities.[/quote]
"At the very least, the weaknesses of a planned economy still
allow for the creation of a society that lives in an organized
manner"
Stop changing the subject.
"Group B (the worker/proletariat) cannot enjoy higher-quality
products in the way that Group A—the bourgeoisie, middle class,
and landowning class—does."
Those without legs cannot enjoy higher quality mobility in the
way that walkers, joggers and sprinters can.
"It is an act of absolute violence to preserve social disparity"
You are an egalitarian who calls inequality "violence".
Substituting "inequality" with "social disparity" is fooling no
one. Social disparity is not evidence of social injustice. There
is social disparity because people are disparate.
"it is unjust for workers of a particular class to receive
“higher-value wages” under the pretext of “working more
professionally and with greater complexity.”"
I never said anything about professionalism or complexity. In
the example we are discussing, A and B agreed that B would
receive a fixed income irrespective of how the product sells
while A makes profit or loss depending on how the product sells.
Please stick to this example only.
"A preserves state policies that uphold social disparity and
social gentrification."
How does A do that by going to the more expensive restaurant?
"Because Group A tends to possess both economic power and high
intellectual capacity, they can easily influence the state to
enact policies that serve their own interests rather than
prioritizing the security, relief, and safety of the proletariat
and the lower-class informal workers."
What does this have to do with going to the more expensive
restaurant? Especially when going to the more expensive
restaurant uses up more of A's money! A using up more money on
the restaurant is what you should want if you don't want A
bribing politicians! If you shut down the more expensive
restaurant, A would have to go to the less expensive restaurant,
and thus have more money left over which could be used to bribe
politicians with!
"If Group A insists on maintaining bargaining policies that
spread false consciousness to Group B, as you have described,
then the state has every right to liquidate both A and those in
B who act in such a way. "
A did not insist! B asked A for it! Here is how it went:
A: "So should we just split in half the proceeds from sales
every month?"
B: "I don't want to risk losing money. How about I receive a
fixed monthly salary of [insert amount here] instead, and the
proceeds - profit or loss - can be all yours?"
A: "OK."
And for this you want to liquidate both A and B.
"Even if a society is filled with people whose bloodlines
incline them toward empathy and sensitivity, the rot of
aggression and condescension toward the innocent lower classes
will still fester. This poison will not vanish until the ability
to hoard capital and indulge in consumption that breeds social
disparity is crushed entirely. Such parasitic privileges—most
often wielded by the middle class, the bourgeoisie, and the
landlords—must be dismantled without mercy, for they are the
root from which all social domination and oppression grow"
Even if a society is filled with people whose bloodlines incline
them toward empathy and sensitivity, the rot of aggression and
condescension toward the innocent legless will still fester.
This poison will not vanish until the ability to have legs and
indulge in walking that breeds social disparity is crushed
entirely. Such parasitic privileges—most often wielded by the
joggers, the sprinters, and the marathon runners—must be
dismantled without mercy, for they are the root from which all
social domination and oppression grow
"It is no matter if intervention into private affairs serves to
discipline human beings to remain empathetic and to keep their
hatred of capitalism alive."
Thank you for admitting your willingness to initiate violence
and to shamelessly make excuses for yourself while doing so.
#Post#: 30735--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Socialists were socialists
By: Failure2Sea Date: August 9, 2025, 10:26 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
The only real questions to ask an Aryanist, or an Aryan, are:
"If I perform this action in the material realm is it 'initiated
violence' or 'retaliatory violence', and how do I escape this
cycle of violence permanently and achieve true freedom? What is
freedom? What is communication?
#Post#: 30736--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Socialists were socialists
By: antihellenistic Date: August 10, 2025, 2:55 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote]The True Left must reframe the relationship to accurately
contextualize Marxist Socialism as merely one type of Socialism
among many(?) possibilities.[/quote]
If we claim to create the possibility of a socialist life while
still allowing modes of production that generate social envy,
then the reality is that we are lying to ourselves—we are not
engaging in any revolutionary action whatsoever
[quote][quote]"At the very least, the weaknesses of a planned
economy still allow for the creation of a society that lives in
an organized manner"[/quote]
Stop changing the subject.[/quote]
Errors in the execution of individuals who fail to conduct
themselves in an orderly manner within the economic sphere—such
as those belonging to Class A (the middle class, bourgeoisie,
and landlords)—are errors that can be rectified by disciplining
the enforcers of the law and by providing them with the
necessary instruments to conduct accurate and comprehensive data
collection on the economic activities of the populace.
[quote][quote]"Group B (the worker/proletariat) cannot enjoy
higher-quality products in the way that Group A—the bourgeoisie,
middle class, and landowning class—does."[/quote]
Those without legs cannot enjoy higher quality mobility in the
way that walkers, joggers and sprinters can.
...
[quote][quote]"Even if a society is filled with people whose
bloodlines incline them toward empathy and sensitivity, the rot
of aggression and condescension toward the innocent lower
classes will still fester. This poison will not vanish until the
ability to hoard capital and indulge in consumption that breeds
social disparity is crushed entirely. Such parasitic
privileges—most often wielded by the middle class, the
bourgeoisie, and the landlords—must be dismantled without mercy,
for they are the root from which all social domination and
oppression grow"[/quote]
Even if a society is filled with people whose bloodlines incline
them toward empathy and sensitivity, the rot of aggression and
condescension toward the innocent legless will still fester.
This poison will not vanish until the ability to have legs and
indulge in walking that breeds social disparity is crushed
entirely. Such parasitic privileges—most often wielded by the
joggers, the sprinters, and the marathon runners—must be
dismantled without mercy, for they are the root from which all
social domination and oppression grow[/quote][/quote]
Once again, we reject the false equivalence between the working
class and those rendered crippled in limb. The proletariat is
socially functional, yet they have been crushed under centuries
of calculated physical and psychological discrimination — born
of the chaotic, exploitative production schemes dictated by
Class A: the bourgeoisie, the middle class, and the landlords.
These parasites cling to a fraudulent belief that they are
entitled to greater profit than the very workers whose labor
sustains society. This is a lie. Both Class A and Class B work
according to the capacities they possess and can bear, which
grants them equal ease in meeting their duties. Therefore, it is
not only unjust but an act of open theft for Class A to claim a
higher wage. This is not an economic difference — it is a crime
against the principles of social justice, and it shall not
stand.
To liken the working class to a person with a broken leg is an
illogical and fundamentally flawed analogy. Such a comparison
reveals not only a misunderstanding of the structural realities
of class oppression but also a lack of intellectual rigor in
addressing the argument at hand. Therefore, you hold no rightful
position to brand me as “stupid.” On the contrary, I find your
repeated, yet consistently unconvincing attempts to refute my
position to be a source of great amusement.
[quote][quote]"It is an act of absolute violence to preserve
social disparity"[/quote]
You are an egalitarian who calls inequality "violence".
Substituting "inequality" with "social disparity" is fooling no
one. Social disparity is not evidence of social injustice. There
is social disparity because people are disparate.[/quote]
I do not adhere to egalitarianism; rather, I seek to create
conditions in which the middle class, the bourgeoisie, and the
landlord class are subjected to commensurate punishment and
rendered socially degraded. They must experience a deterrent
effect proportionate to the centuries—indeed, millennia—of
social disparity and labor exploitation they have inflicted upon
the working class.
Let it be declared: social disparity is not an abstract
inevitability, but the deliberate construct of the middle and
upper economic classes—parasites who have, for centuries,
exalted material accumulation above the alleviation of human
suffering and the preservation of life itself. They are not the
vanguard of civilization, but its saboteurs, deserving not
admiration nor equality, but the full weight of historical
justice.
[quote][quote]"it is unjust for workers of a particular class to
receive “higher-value wages” under the pretext of “working more
professionally and with greater complexity.”"[/quote]
I never said anything about professionalism or complexity. In
the example we are discussing, A and B agreed that B would
receive a fixed income irrespective of how the product sells
while A makes profit or loss depending on how the product sells.
Please stick to this example only.[/quote]
In any economic arrangement wherein Class A possesses the
capacity to withstand the risks of uncertain sales, and Class B
bears a stable, constant workload within a singular mode of
labor, there exists no legitimate basis for Class A to claim
superiority or greater hardship. Class A, having the means to
endure such risks and the burdens inherent to their position,
cannot plead greater merit; likewise, Class B, having been
assigned work suited to their capacity, stands as their equal in
the social contract of labor.
Both parties, A and B, having mutually agreed to these terms,
nullify any moral or economic claim of Class A to receive
greater wages or to appropriate surplus value beyond that which
is equally due to all.
Furthermore, the uncertainty of sales can—and must—be abolished
through the imposition of a planned economy, wherein production
and distribution are not left to the voluntary, unregulated
transactions between seller and buyer. The so-called “voluntary”
capitalist transaction inevitably produces consumer agreements
that skew demand in favor of those producers whose goods are
subjectively preferred, rather than in recognition that all
producers whose goods remain fit for consumption deserve
equitable remuneration and purchase of their labor’s output.
[quote][quote]"A preserves state policies that uphold social
disparity and social gentrification."[/quote]
How does A do that by going to the more expensive
restaurant?[/quote]
When Class A engages in the continual purchase of high-priced
luxury dining, such conduct affirms the legitimacy and
perpetuation of those establishments and their economic
operations in the spaces they occupy. This practice entrenches
the psychological condition whereby the lower classes
internalize a sense of permanent inadequacy in regard to
higher-valued consumer goods.
If left unchallenged, such a condition fosters a material-based
superiority complex within Class A, inevitably manifesting in
social brutality—expressed through both physical and
psychological discrimination—against the lower classes. This is
not merely a question of personal preference in consumption, but
a systemic reinforcement of class hierarchy and the degradation
of human dignity. As a socialist, you should not pretend to be
unaware of the harmful impacts of social gentrification and the
presence of high-value material goods within society.
[quote][quote]"Because Group A tends to possess both economic
power and high intellectual capacity, they can easily influence
the state to enact policies that serve their own interests
rather than prioritizing the security, relief, and safety of the
proletariat and the lower-class informal workers."[/quote]
What does this have to do with going to the more expensive
restaurant? Especially when going to the more expensive
restaurant uses up more of A's money! A using up more money on
the restaurant is what you should want if you don't want A
bribing politicians! If you shut down the more expensive
restaurant, A would have to go to the less expensive restaurant,
and thus have more money left over which could be used to bribe
politicians with![/quote]
Class A tends to continue influencing state policies through
their material power and the persuasive force of their verbal
and intellectual abilities. They maintain this influence even
while spending on luxury restaurants, owing to their substantial
wealth. Look at the reality that unfolds...
The way to address this reality is to emasculate the financial
power of Class A and impose strict limits, ensuring that only
ideological individuals lead the state—not those who merely come
from Class A backgrounds and wield material or financial power.
[quote][quote]"If Group A insists on maintaining bargaining
policies that spread false consciousness to Group B, as you have
described, then the state has every right to liquidate both A
and those in B who act in such a way. "[/quote]
A did not insist! B asked A for it! Here is how it went:
A: "So should we just split in half the proceeds from sales
every month?"
B: "I don't want to risk losing money. How about I receive a
fixed monthly salary of [insert amount here] instead, and the
proceeds - profit or loss - can be all yours?"
A: "OK."[/quote]
The agreement you describe between Class A and Class B actually
indicates that Class A also feels capable and at ease facing the
risks of uncertain sales. Class A enjoys the same ease as Class
B, though Class B works under different burdens suited to their
capacities. Class A has no rightful claim to surplus value from
production, let alone to earn more than Class B. Both face their
workloads with similar ease, just as Class B does.
If Class A genuinely struggles with difficult tasks yet
willingly continues to perform them despite the challenge, only
then may they deserve higher wages. However, those who persist
in difficult work usually know deep down that the tasks will
become manageable and that their workload will eventually be
easy for them. This understanding ultimately disqualifies them
from deserving higher pay than any other worker.
[quote]And for this you want to liquidate both A and B.[/quote]
Classes A and B, some of whom continue to endorse competitive
labor that breeds capitalist social disparity, must be
disciplined. And if they resist or act aggressively, they must
be liquidated.
[quote][quote]"It is no matter if intervention into private
affairs serves to discipline human beings to remain empathetic
and to keep their hatred of capitalism alive."[/quote]
Thank you for admitting your willingness to initiate violence
and to shamelessly make excuses for yourself while doing
so.[/quote]
Regulating private activities that lead to psychological and
physical violence, as well as capitalist, competitive, and
democratic ways of life, is not an act of initial violence.
Rather, it is a form of resistance against ongoing practices of
violence. Thank you for revealing who you truly are in the realm
of politics!
#Post#: 30737--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Socialists were socialists
By: antihellenistic Date: August 10, 2025, 2:56 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Failure2Sea link=topic=3223.msg30735#msg30735
date=1754796370]
The only real questions to ask an Aryanist, or an Aryan, are:
"If I perform this action in the material realm is it 'initiated
violence' or 'retaliatory violence', and how do I escape this
cycle of violence permanently and achieve true freedom? What is
freedom? What is communication?
[/quote]
Preserving the middle and upper classes is the initial act of
violence. The only way to break free from this cycle of violence
is to end the conditions that allow such preservation to
continue.
#Post#: 30738--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Socialists were socialists
By: 90sRetroFan Date: August 10, 2025, 1:14 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
"If we claim to create the possibility of a socialist life while
still allowing modes of production that generate social envy,
then the reality is that we are lying to ourselves—we are not
engaging in any revolutionary action whatsoever"
Social justice is about giving everyone what they deserve.
Social envy is social justice in that the envious deserve all
the suffering their envy causes them.
"Errors in the execution of individuals who fail to conduct
themselves in an orderly manner within the economic sphere—such
as those belonging to Class A (the middle class, bourgeoisie,
and landlords)—are errors that can be rectified by disciplining
the enforcers of the law and by providing them with the
necessary instruments to conduct accurate and comprehensive data
collection on the economic activities of the populace."
And who does the disciplining, you moron? Can ICE be trusted to
investigate crimes commited by ICE agents?
"The proletariat is socially functional, yet they have been
crushed under centuries of calculated physical and psychological
discrimination — born of the chaotic, exploitative production
schemes dictated by Class A: the bourgeoisie, the middle class,
and the landlords. These parasites cling to a fraudulent belief
that they are entitled to greater profit than the very workers
whose labor sustains society. This is a lie. Both Class A and
Class B work according to the capacities they possess and can
bear, which grants them equal ease in meeting their duties.
Therefore, it is not only unjust but an act of open theft for
Class A to claim a higher wage."
Stop strawmanning.
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/questions-debates/re-national-socialists-were-socialists-3223/msg30734/#msg30734
[quote]In the example we are discussing, A and B agreed that B
would receive a fixed income irrespective of how the product
sells while A makes profit or loss depending on how the product
sells. Please stick to this example only.[/quote]
"They must experience a deterrent effect proportionate to the
centuries—indeed, millennia—of social disparity and labor
exploitation they have inflicted upon the working class."
In other words, what you want is no social disparity. Therefore
you are an egalitarian.
"In any economic arrangement wherein Class A possesses the
capacity to withstand the risks of uncertain sales, and Class B
bears a stable, constant workload within a singular mode of
labor, there exists no legitimate basis for Class A to claim
superiority or greater hardship."
Stop dodging. If A and B both agree to the arrangement I
described, you are initiating violence by forbidding them from
following the agreement.
"Both parties, A and B, having mutually agreed to these terms,
nullify any moral or economic claim of Class A to receive
greater wages or to appropriate surplus value beyond that which
is equally due to all."
You are literally saying that the agreement itself is what
invalidates the agreement.
"Furthermore, the uncertainty of sales can—and must—be abolished
through the imposition of a planned economy"
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/questions-debates/re-national-socialists-were-socialists-3223/msg30634/#msg30634
[quote]What if there is a earthquake/hurricane/flood/etc. that
destroys the stock of finished products before it was able to be
sold, you moron?[/quote]
"The so-called “voluntary” capitalist transaction"
Voluntary transactions =/= capitalism, you moron. Capitalism has
only existed for a few centuries. Voluntary transactions have
existed since prehistory.
Furthermore, if are opposed to voluntary transactions, then what
you support are involuntary transactions ie. initiated violence.
"When Class A engages in the continual purchase of high-priced
luxury dining, such conduct affirms the legitimacy and
perpetuation of those establishments and their economic
operations in the spaces they occupy. This practice entrenches
the psychological condition whereby the lower classes
internalize a sense of permanent inadequacy in regard to
higher-valued consumer goods.
If left unchallenged, such a condition fosters a material-based
superiority complex within Class A, inevitably manifesting in
social brutality—expressed through both physical and
psychological discrimination—against the lower classes. This is
not merely a question of personal preference in consumption, but
a systemic reinforcement of class hierarchy and the degradation
of human dignity. As a socialist, you should not pretend to be
unaware of the harmful impacts of social gentrification and the
presence of high-value material goods within society."
[quote]"A preserves state policies that uphold social disparity
and social gentrification."[/quote]
None of what you have described is a state policy, you moron.
"Class A tends to continue influencing state policies through
their material power and the persuasive force of their verbal
and intellectual abilities. They maintain this influence even
while spending on luxury restaurants, owing to their substantial
wealth."
So you admit that going to the more expensive restaurant in
itself is not what influences state policy.
"The agreement you describe between Class A and Class B actually
indicates that Class A also feels capable and at ease facing the
risks of uncertain sales."
It could simply mean that A is more confident that sales will be
good, while B is less confident.
Imagine if, instead of collaborating, A and B worked separately.
A, being more confident, would produce more of the product to
sell, while B, being less confident, would produce less of the
product to sell. Then when the product ends up selling well, A
would also make more profit than B.
In this scenario, if B feels jealous of A, it is clearly B's
fault.
Similarly, if B feels jealous of A in the original scenario, it
is also B's fault.
"Classes A and B, some of whom continue to endorse competitive
labor that breeds capitalist social disparity, must be
disciplined. And if they resist or act aggressively, they must
be liquidated."
You are the one who should be liquidated.
"Regulating private activities that lead to psychological and
physical violence, as well as capitalist, competitive, and
democratic ways of life, is not an act of initial violence.
Rather, it is a form of resistance against ongoing practices of
violence."
[quote]A: "So should we just split in half the proceeds from
sales every month?"
B: "I don't want to risk losing money. How about I receive a
fixed monthly salary of [insert amount here] instead, and the
proceeds - profit or loss - can be all yours?"
A: "OK."[/quote]
Highlight in bold where the violence occurs.
*****************************************************
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page