DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
True Left
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Questions & Debates
*****************************************************
#Post#: 30739--------------------------------------------------
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 you are opposed to voluntary transactions, then
logically 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 clearly 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.
#Post#: 30744--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Socialists were socialists
By: antihellenistic Date: August 11, 2025, 12:25 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Answering Part 1 :
[quote][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]
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.[/quote]
Social envy is not born from thin air—it is forged by the
deliberate cruelty of Group A: the middle class, the
bourgeoisie, and the landlords. These parasites thrive by
exploiting the bodies and labor of those weaker in both wealth
and strength—the working class, the proletariat. Group A does
not “earn” their wealth; they siphon it from the surplus value
ripped from the hands of workers, all while performing none of
the true labor. They hide behind the rotten mask of “private
ownership,” a legal fiction designed to justify theft. They
claim the fruits of production without ever sowing the seeds,
and they call this justice. Their wealth is not creation—it is
plunder. To end the disease of social disparity and social
dishonesty, the power and property of Group A must be stripped
away, their grip on society broken, and the stolen value
returned to those who actually produce it. Anything less is
complicity in their oppression. Social envy is not a moral flaw,
but a wound inflicted by the bourgeoisie, the middle class, and
the landlords through exploitation. True social justice is not
born from compromise, but from revolutionary retaliation that
eradicates their power to its roots.
[quote]To achieve a truly socialist distribution of private
wealth, Hitler implemented various interventionist economic
policies, including price and rent controls, extremely high
corporate taxes, frequent “polemical attacks against landlords,”
subsidies for German farmers as protection “against the
uncertainties of weather and the world market,” as well as heavy
taxes on capital gains, which Hitler himself condemned as
“unearned income.”[/quote]
Source:
Moynihan, Michael. (2007). Hitler's Handouts: Inside the Nazis'
Welfare State. Retrieved on April 9, 2025, from
HTML https://reason.com/2007/08/15/hitlers-handouts/
[quote]NAZI MILITARY DEFEATS BRING 'TOTAL WAR' HOME
German Upper and Middle Classes Fear Hitler May Try to Destroy
Them
By GEORGE AXELSSON, by Telephone to The New York Times.
The Junkers, bourgeois, and small businessmen now believe that
Hitler intends to sacrifice them on the altar of the “total war
effort,” in the Soviet style. They fear this operation will open
the horizon to a permanent dictatorship of the proletariat, also
based on the Stalin model, in which these classes will vanish
without any visible chance of revival… That Hitler might also
wish to save his war by transforming the National Socialist
State into a National Communist State at the expense of the
middle and upper classes appears to be the main point of concern
in Berlin at the moment.[/quote]
Source:
The New York Times, Sunday, February 21, 1943. (2024). Retrieved
November 7, 2024, from
HTML https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1943/02/21/88519072.html?pageNumber=76
[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]"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."[/quote]
Stop dodging. If A and B both agree to the arrangement I
described, you are initiating violence by forbidding them from
following the agreement.[/quote]
If A and B agree to a situation in which A receives a fixed wage
while B receives an excessive wage on the grounds of being able
to face the uncertainty over profit and loss in sales, then A
and B are, in essence, agreeing to live under conditions where
economic activity between human beings operates according to the
laws of the market mechanism. This inevitably fosters economic
competition to secure agreements from consumers who demand and
will purchase the products or services produced.
Such conditions lead Group A to prioritize the accumulation of
capital and to remain indifferent once they have extracted the
maximum labor from their workers, all for the purpose of keeping
their business or enterprise able to produce goods that will win
consumer agreements under the uncertainty of sales and markets.
Thus, Group B (workers) and Group A (the bourgeoisie, the middle
class, and the landlord class) who consent to this arrangement
can rightly be called conservative-minded workers—those who
remain comfortable with the continuation of a general
environment that is capitalist and competitive in nature. A
situation in which the exploitation of workers is carried out to
the maximum, without regard for their physical and psychological
limitations, is a fundamentally exploitative condition. Such a
condition can be transformed into a non-exploitative one if all
economic and social actions are collectively planned by the
community. However, Group A (the bourgeoisie, the middle class,
and the landlords) refuses to change this condition simply
because they still feel content and untroubled by such
exploitation. Therefore, they (Group A) deserve retaliatory
violence.
[quote][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."[/quote]
In other words, what you want is no social disparity. Therefore
you are an egalitarian.[/quote]
I do not seek egalitarianism—I demand that the middle class,
upper class, and landlords be stripped of their economic power,
their mobility in activity and ownership, and be stopped from
existing in a condition where they possess excess capital
compared to the workers and public officials.
My aim is to force the middle and upper classes to feel guilt,
to recognize the dishonesty in how they obtain their profits,
and to acknowledge their exploitative actions toward those they
employ.
It is you—who, from the very beginning, have refused to place
any blame whatsoever on the middle and upper classes—who in
truth adhere to egalitarianism, for you seem desperate to
portray the middle and upper classes as being just as virtuous
as the proletariat.
The absence of social disparity does not mean that everyone is
the same.
It means that everyone is given work according to their
abilities, and that profits are distributed in a way that is not
excessively disproportionate.
As under Hitler’s regime, business owners and landlords had no
sovereignty over private ownership, and the bulk of their wealth
was absorbed by the state and the party.
Both they and the workers still received wages that were not
identical, but the gap was far from the extreme disparities seen
under social-democratic regimes, fascist regimes, and
liberal-democratic regimes. And there are no profits from
sales—because there is no surplus value extracted from
production and sales.
Every product made is strictly required to match the number of
consumers within the surrounding community. Thus, when the goods
or services are consumed, all of them are fully used up. From
this, there is no need for surplus value in sales, as happens in
economies governed by capitalist rules.
[quote][quote]"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."[/quote]
You are literally saying that the agreement itself is what
invalidates the agreement.[/quote]
If they willingly consent to a pact in which B is chained to a
fixed wage while A pockets an excess under the pretext of
“bearing the risks of market uncertainty,” then they are not
merely making an economic arrangement — they are consciously
binding themselves to the very machinery of the market system,
the engine that sustains capitalist existence itself. Such an
agreement is not neutral; it is an oath of allegiance to
exploitation. And if they dare to defend this exploitative order
with obstinance and force, then the organized and vigilant
community must rise with unyielding resolve, striking back with
equal or greater force, lest the defenders of privilege prevail
over the struggle for liberation.
[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]
If disaster should strike the community, every individual will
be compensated according to a just and predetermined measure.
The workshops, factories, and centers of production will be
restored by the hand of the state, while the homes of the
workers will be repaired at the people’s expense through the
state’s will. No private individual shall be granted capital to
hoard or wield as personal dominion — for capital belongs not to
the few, but to the collective destiny. All matters of
allocation and finance shall be placed in the hands of the
community’s leadership and those who understand the disciplined
art of living according to a planned order, under the steadfast
guidance of the state.
[quote][quote]"The so-called “voluntary” capitalist
transaction"[/quote]
Voluntary transactions =/= capitalism, you moron. Capitalism has
only existed for a few centuries. Voluntary transactions have
existed since prehistory.[/quote]
[quote]Capitalism is a widely adopted economic system in which
there is private ownership of the means of production. Modern
capitalist systems usually include a market-oriented economy, in
which the production and pricing of goods, as well as the income
of individuals, are dictated to a greater extent by market
forces resulting from interactions between private businesses
and individuals than by central planning undertaken by a
government or local institution. Capitalism is built on the
concepts of private property, profit motive, and market
competition.
....
History of capitalism
Although the continuous development of capitalism as a system
dates only from the 16th century, antecedents of capitalist
institutions existed in the ancient world, and flourishing
pockets of capitalism were present in Europe during the later
Middle Ages. The development of capitalism was spearheaded by
the growth of the English cloth industry during the 16th, 17th,
and 18th centuries. The feature of this development that
distinguished capitalism from previous systems was the use of
accumulated capital to enlarge productive capacity rather than
to invest in economically unproductive enterprises, such as
pyramids and cathedrals. This characteristic was encouraged by
several historical events.
In the ethic fostered by the Protestant Reformation of the 16th
century, traditional disdain for acquisitive effort was
diminished while hard work and frugality were given a stronger
religious sanction. Economic inequality was justified on the
grounds that the wealthy were more virtuous than the poor.[1]
...
Free markets: Capitalism relies on free markets, where prices
are determined by supply and demand, and individuals are free to
make economic decisions without significant government
intervention.
Competition: Competition is a key feature of capitalism, as
businesses compete for customers and resources. This competition
drives innovation and efficiency, as businesses seek to improve
their products and services to gain a competitive
edge.[2][/quote]
Source :
1. Heilbroner, R. L., & Boettke, P. J. (2025, July 14).
Encyclopædia Britannica.
HTML https://www.britannica.com/money/capitalism
2. “Capitalism: Meaning, Characteristics, Benefits & Criticism.”
Equiruswealth.com, 2018,
www.equiruswealth.com/glossary/capitalism. Accessed 11 Aug.
2025.
[quote]Furthermore, if you are opposed to voluntary
transactions, then logically what you support are involuntary
transactions ie. initiated violence.[/quote]
I am anti-liberal, for I know that the majority of humanity
tends to make decisions in error. That is why I reject the
practice of conducting transactions based on so-called
“voluntary” choice — a deceptive freedom that masks ignorance,
selfishness, and exploitation.
[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]"A preserves state policies that uphold social disparity
and social gentrification."[/quote]
None of what you have described is a state policy, you
moron.[/quote]
The state itself is a complicit actor in sustaining social
disparity, granting permission and protection to various social
groups engaging in so-called “voluntary” transactions. By
upholding and enforcing the laws of the market mechanism, the
state stands as undeniable proof of its participation in
preserving an exploitative order.
[quote][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."[/quote]
So you admit that going to the more expensive restaurant in
itself is not what influences state policy.[/quote]
If people choose not to dine in luxury restaurants yet allow
such establishments to continue existing, they are, in effect,
legitimizing the state’s own complicity in permitting such
conditions to persist. In doing so, they bear guilt for planting
the seeds of social resentment. If they truly recognized that
this state of affairs is unjust, they would demand and compel
the state to bring an end to such activities altogether.
[quote][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."[/quote]
It could simply mean that A is more confident that sales will be
good, while B is less confident.
...
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 clearly also B's fault.[/quote]
The precise meaning is that A and B are both equally prepared
and capable of bearing the responsibilities assigned to them. A
is able to face sales uncertainty, while B is able to carry out
tasks through certain and definite means. Therefore, neither of
them has the right to claim their burden is heavier than the
other’s to the point of demanding a higher wage. Because they
are both given work that they have proven themselves to find
easy and are fully capable of performing and handling. And
uncertainty can be eliminated through the implementation of
planned economic and social activities.
It can also be interpreted as The group A (bourgeois, middle
class, and landowning class) cannot work without the people of
group B (proletariat), because A depends on labor. Even if A
feels “confident in facing the risks of market uncertainty,” if
they work separately without group B, they will be unable to
carry out production activities. And it can be understood that A
refuses to work honestly and takes surplus value despite not
participating in the actual production of goods, while B works
according to their ability, needs, and wages that truly reflect
the fruits of their labor. Thus, A is dishonest and, in essence,
more inferior than B.
If A feels content with a state of social disparity and
uncertainty because they adhere to the laws of voluntary
economic transactions, then it is A’s own fault if they find
themselves on the receiving end of reprisals from the state, the
leader (Führer), and group B.
[quote][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]
You are the one who should be liquidated.[/quote]
Thank you for revealing that you are defending those who still
choose to engage in voluntary transactions—an act that makes it
clear you have no desire to realize socialism. In fact, you seem
more inclined to liquidate me, the one who seeks to bring about
a society living according to a planned order, so as to abolish
voluntary transactions that inevitably culminate in capitalist
existence.
#Post#: 30745--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Socialists were socialists
By: antihellenistic Date: August 11, 2025, 12:26 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Answering Part - 2 :
[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."
[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.[/quote]
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."
Agreeing to engage in voluntary transactions and to accept an
disparate distribution of profit is nothing less than the
preservation of violence, for it inevitably breeds social
disparity, an aggressive and competitive way of life, and the
perpetuation of capitalist existence. If you still justify
voluntary transactions, then know this — even Hitler despised
such things.
[quote]Based on the logic of a free market and the natural laws
of competition, Hitler said, one could in many cases not expect
any actions directed toward the common good. One could not, for
example,
... expect a man who happens to produce nitrogen to say: 'I
think it would now be wiser to sell it for 20 percent less.' No,
we cannot ask that. This can only be recognized as being
necessary from a higher vantage point, and then you say, 'It
must be done.' But we cannot ask it of the man... Or if, for
example, I demand of someone else that he should agree that we
in Germany are going to produce our fuel ourselves, but he makes
his living in the fuel trade. Well, you cannot expect the man to
say, 'I think that is a fabulous idea that you are going to
produce your fuel yourself.' Or an international rubber buyer or
rubber trader who is now supposed to decide whether we in
Germany are to build Buna factories. He will naturally say, 'I
think that is crazy, absolutely impossible."**
In all such cases there is obviously a contradiction between the
capitalist private and the state-defined general political
interests. According to Hitler's view, the state always has the
right and the obligation a enforce the general political against
the capitalist private interests.[/quote]
Source :
Hitler: The Policies of Seduction by Rainer Zitelmann Page 215
HTML https://archive.org/details/hitlerpoliciesof0000zite/mode/2up?q=expect+a+man+who+happens+to+produce
#Post#: 30747--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Socialists were socialists
By: 90sRetroFan Date: August 11, 2025, 5:38 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
"Social envy is not born from thin air—it is forged by the
deliberate cruelty of Group A: the middle class, the
bourgeoisie, and the landlords. These parasites thrive by
exploiting the bodies and labor of those weaker in both wealth
and strength—the working class, the proletariat. Group A does
not “earn” their wealth; they siphon it from the surplus value
ripped from the hands of workers, all while performing none of
the true labor. They hide behind the rotten mask of “private
ownership,” a legal fiction designed to justify theft. They
claim the fruits of production without ever sowing the seeds,
and they call this justice. Their wealth is not creation—it is
plunder."
[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 what you describe occurs.
[quote]Group B (workers) and Group A (the bourgeoisie, the
middle class, and the landlord class) who consent to this
arrangement can rightly be called conservative-minded
workers—those who remain comfortable with the continuation of a
general environment that is capitalist and competitive in
nature. A situation in which the exploitation of workers is
carried out to the maximum, without regard for their physical
and psychological limitations, is a fundamentally exploitative
condition.[/quote]
How is it exploitative since it was B who asked A for it (see
above)?
[quote]Group A (the bourgeoisie, the middle class, and the
landlords) refuses to change this condition simply because they
still feel content and untroubled by such exploitation.[/quote]
A offered B the chance to share profit/loss (see above)! B
turned down the offer because B preferred a fixed salary!
"be stopped from existing in a condition where they possess
excess capital compared to the workers and public officials."
In other words, you want to equalize capital. Therefore you are
an egalitarian.
"If they willingly consent to a pact in which B is chained to a
fixed wage while A pockets an excess under the pretext of
“bearing the risks of market uncertainty,” then they are not
merely making an economic arrangement — they are consciously
binding themselves to the very machinery of the market system,
the engine that sustains capitalist existence itself. Such an
agreement is not neutral; it is an oath of allegiance to
exploitation."
How is it exploitative since it was B who asked A for it (see
above)?
"If disaster should strike the community, every individual will
be compensated according to a just and predetermined measure."
You sound like Trump: "I'm not going to tell you how it will be
done, but it's going to be great."
"I reject the practice of conducting transactions based on
so-called “voluntary” choice — a deceptive freedom that masks
ignorance, selfishness, and exploitation."
You also sound like a traditionalist parent.
"The state itself is a complicit actor in sustaining social
disparity, granting permission and protection to various social
groups engaging in so-called “voluntary” transactions."
You are saying that absence of policy is policy.
"If people choose not to dine in luxury restaurants yet allow
such establishments to continue existing, they are, in effect,
legitimizing the state’s own complicity in permitting such
conditions to persist."
In the example, A is choosing to dine in the more expensive
restaurant, I so don't know why you are talking about A choosing
not to.
"The precise meaning is that A and B are both equally prepared
and capable of bearing the responsibilities assigned to them. A
is able to face sales uncertainty, while B is able to carry out
tasks through certain and definite means. Therefore, neither of
them has the right to claim their burden is heavier than the
other’s to the point of demanding a higher wage."
You are hallucinating. Try again:
[quote]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.[/quote]
There are no wages in this example, you moron. A is making money
from A's sales. B is making money from B's sales.
"It can also be interpreted as The group A (bourgeois, middle
class, and landowning class) cannot work without the people of
group B (proletariat), because A depends on labor. Even if A
feels “confident in facing the risks of market uncertainty,” if
they work separately without group B, they will be unable to
carry out production activities. And it can be understood that A
refuses to work honestly and takes surplus value despite not
participating in the actual production of goods, while B works
according to their ability, needs, and wages that truly reflect
the fruits of their labor. Thus, A is dishonest and, in essence,
more inferior than B."
When you have finished hallucinating, try addressing my actual
example.
"Thank you for revealing that you are defending those who still
choose to engage in voluntary transactions"
I proudly defend those who do not initiate violence.
"you seem more inclined to liquidate me, the one who seeks to
bring about a society living according to a planned order, so as
to abolish voluntary transactions"
I am proudly inclined to liquidate all who initiate violence.
Obviously including you.
"that inevitably culminate in capitalist existence."
Not inevitably. What causes capitalism is not voluntary
transactions, but accumulation of wealth. Voluntary transactions
that reduce accumulation of wealth (e.g. going to more expensive
restaurants!) are anti-capitalist transactions:
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/questions-debates/re-national-socialists-were-socialists-3223/msg30590/#msg30590
[quote]If A is richer than B, and A eats at a more expensive
restaurant while B eats at a less expensive restaurant, the
wealth gap between A and B is decreased afterwards. Isn't this
what socialists want?[/quote]
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/questions-debates/re-national-socialists-were-socialists-3223/msg30601/#msg30601
[quote]"What I want is for the middle class and the bourgeoisie
to have their incomes drained through high taxation"
That's precisely what will happen by keeping both restaurants,
with the more expensive restaurant paying more in profit tax
than the less expensive restaurant (where the profit comes more
from A's bills than from B's bills since as yourself say B does
not eat here as frequently as A does). But you want to get rid
of the more expensive restaurant![/quote]
"Agreeing to engage in voluntary transactions and to accept an
disparate distribution of profit is nothing less than the
preservation of violence"
You are saying that non-violence is violence.
#Post#: 30749--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Socialists were socialists
By: antihellenistic Date: August 12, 2025, 12:32 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote][quote]"Social envy is not born from thin air—it is
forged by the deliberate cruelty of Group A: the middle class,
the bourgeoisie, and the landlords. These parasites thrive by
exploiting the bodies and labor of those weaker in both wealth
and strength—the working class, the proletariat. Group A does
not “earn” their wealth; they siphon it from the surplus value
ripped from the hands of workers, all while performing none of
the true labor. They hide behind the rotten mask of “private
ownership,” a legal fiction designed to justify theft. They
claim the fruits of production without ever sowing the seeds,
and they call this justice. Their wealth is not creation—it is
plunder."[/quote]
This is the conversational sentence I have “highlighted”:
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."
Highlight in bold where what you describe occurs.[/quote]
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."
The opinions expressed by certain members of Group B, as you
have described, reveal that Group B remains unaware—or even
willfully refuses to recognize—that the very process of agreeing
to such working arrangements only further legitimizes Group A’s
claim to extract surplus value from every product sold or
consumed. Yet Group A has no rightful claim to higher wages, as
their workload is equally aligned with their own abilities, just
as is the case for Group B. The scenario you have depicted—a
conversation in which B and A seal an agreement—is nothing more
than a transaction conducted under the laws of the market
mechanism. Thus, the social and economic interaction you present
is precisely one of the mechanisms through which capitalist and
competitive life is perpetuated, again and again without end.
[quote][quote]Group B (workers) and Group A (the bourgeoisie,
the middle class, and the landlord class) who consent to this
arrangement can rightly be called conservative-minded
workers—those who remain comfortable with the continuation of a
general environment that is capitalist and competitive in
nature. A situation in which the exploitation of workers is
carried out to the maximum, without regard for their physical
and psychological limitations, is a fundamentally exploitative
condition.[/quote]
How is it exploitative since it was B who asked A for it (see
above)?[/quote]
Because Group B immortalizes social and economic practices that,
in truth, inflict harm upon themselves and others. They
perpetuate voluntary economic transactions that inevitably
produce poverty and destitution for those who lose in the
competition—or fail to secure the consumer’s voluntary approval
for the fruits of their labor. Even though those who lose don't
always have work results that are not suitable for use.; often
their work is wholly worthy. It is merely that consumers, driven
by irrational impulses, choose instead what gratifies their own
whims. Rather than prioritizing the acceptance of all work and
production outputs that are proven to still be worthy.
The analogy you have drawn is no different from condoning the
agreement between B and A, who see no problem with behavior that
is socially and racially discriminatory. If such agreement-based
activities are allowed to persist and even spread, they will
ultimately harm those segments of society that aspire to live in
a socialist and revolutionary manner.
[quote][quote]Group A (the bourgeoisie, the middle class, and
the landlords) refuses to change this condition simply because
they still feel content and untroubled by such
exploitation.[/quote]
A offered B the chance to share profit/loss (see above)! B
turned down the offer because B preferred a fixed salary!
...
[quote]"If they willingly consent to a pact in which B is
chained to a fixed wage while A pockets an excess under the
pretext of “bearing the risks of market uncertainty,” then they
are not merely making an economic arrangement — they are
consciously binding themselves to the very machinery of the
market system, the engine that sustains capitalist existence
itself. Such an agreement is not neutral; it is an oath of
allegiance to exploitation."[/quote]
How is it exploitative since it was B who asked A for it (see
above)?[/quote]
A has justified a condition in which profit and loss may occur
unpredictably by offering such an agreement. Thus, A and B, who
consent to this method of transactional work, are perpetuating
social competition and social disparity—conditions that can
never bring about a life based on planning, empathy,
cooperation, and mutual aid. There is no such thing as economic
competition producing empathy. Any activity or form of agreement
between groups that results in rivalry will inevitably create
conditions in which individuals and collectives harm and destroy
one another.
[quote][quote]"be stopped from existing in a condition where
they possess excess capital compared to the workers and public
officials."[/quote]
In other words, you want to equalize capital. Therefore you are
an egalitarian.[/quote]
I want the middle and upper classes crushed in their power; I
shape conditions so that they appear inferior and are burdened
with guilt. This is why I am not an egalitarian. You, in
promoting the notion of “class solidarity,” reveal that you
still believe every economic and social class can be equally
virtuous. Yet for thousands of years, the middle and upper
classes have proven themselves deceitful and exploitative. Thus,
it is you who champions egalitarianism, shielding the crimes of
the middle and upper strata—crimes that render them unworthy of
being seen as equally good, unworthy of standing as comrades in
solidarity.
If you still justify voluntary transaction agreements between
seller and consumer, then why do you call yourself a socialist?
[quote][quote]"If disaster should strike the community, every
individual will be compensated according to a just and
predetermined measure."[/quote]
You sound like Trump: "I'm not going to tell you how it will be
done, but it's going to be great."[/quote]
Your argument is illogical; I am not like Trump, who supports
the free market, democracy, and trade wars. Therefore, you
cannot compare my views to the stance of Donald Trump.
[quote][quote]"I reject the practice of conducting transactions
based on so-called “voluntary” choice — a deceptive freedom that
masks ignorance, selfishness, and exploitation."[/quote]
You also sound like a traditionalist parent.[/quote]
I prevent voluntary actions by individuals when such actions
could lead parents, of their own volition, to exploit their
children physically and psychologically—actions that, in turn,
give rise to biased and competitive economic transactions. I
appear to be anti-conservative, for I oppose the pro-market
ideas so often championed by conservatives and social democrats
alike.
[quote][quote]"The state itself is a complicit actor in
sustaining social disparity, granting permission and protection
to various social groups engaging in so-called “voluntary”
transactions."[/quote]
You are saying that absence of policy is policy.[/quote]
A state that allows voluntary transactions among its citizens
is, in effect, enforcing the natural law of supply and demand—or
the law of the market. To permit the so-called “natural” actions
of an individual or a group is, by extension, to uphold a
policy.
[quote][quote]"If people choose not to dine in luxury
restaurants yet allow such establishments to continue existing,
they are, in effect, legitimizing the state’s own complicity in
permitting such conditions to persist."[/quote]
In the example, A is choosing to dine in the more expensive
restaurant, I so don't know why you are talking about A choosing
not to.[/quote]
If, in this scenario, the people of group “A” choose to permit
the act of consumption in luxury restaurants and even partake in
it themselves, then “A” is actively preserving social disparity,
gentrification, and social capitalism.
[quote]You are hallucinating. Try again:
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.
There are no wages in this example, you moron. A is making money
from A's sales. B is making money from B's sales.
...
[quote]"It can also be interpreted as The group A (bourgeois,
middle class, and landowning class) cannot work without the
people of group B (proletariat), because A depends on labor.
Even if A feels “confident in facing the risks of market
uncertainty,” if they work separately without group B, they will
be unable to carry out production activities. And it can be
understood that A refuses to work honestly and takes surplus
value despite not participating in the actual production of
goods, while B works according to their ability, needs, and
wages that truly reflect the fruits of their labor. Thus, A is
dishonest and, in essence, more inferior than B."[/quote]
When you have finished hallucinating, try addressing my actual
example.[/quote]
If A and B are, in this scenario, both cast as sellers or
salesmen, then A and B alike become potential participants in
capitalist activity. And A—who harbors a good confidence in
selling amidst the uncertainty of the economy and the market—is
the worst and most inferior kind of seller, for A potentially
will perpetuating a life governed by capitalist law and the law
of the market mechanism. B, who already feels disillusioned with
selling under the laws of voluntary transactions, market
mechanisms, and capitalist doctrine, is more likely to grow
resentful toward the capitalist environment and to act in a
revolutionary manner. Thus, B appears superior to A.
You must begin to see the reality of the depravity of Group A…
[quote][quote]"Thank you for revealing that you are defending
those who still choose to engage in voluntary
transactions"[/quote]
I proudly defend those who do not initiate violence.[/quote]
If you consider Group A to have committed no violence
whatsoever, despite the undeniable evidence that they have
engaged in both physical and psychological violence for
thousands of years, then you lack sensitivity and are unworthy
of being called a socialist.
[quote][quote]"you seem more inclined to liquidate me, the one
who seeks to bring about a society living according to a planned
order, so as to abolish voluntary transactions"[/quote]
I am proudly inclined to liquidate all who initiate violence.
Obviously including you.[/quote]
Liquidating fellow socialists is not an act of ending violence,
but rather an act of turning against one’s own comrades.
[quote][quote]"that inevitably culminate in capitalist
existence."[/quote]
Not inevitably. What causes capitalism is not voluntary
transactions, but accumulation of wealth. Voluntary transactions
that reduce accumulation of wealth (e.g. going to more expensive
restaurants!) are anti-capitalist transactions:
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/questions-debates/re-national-socialists-were-socialists-3223/msg30590/#msg30590
[quote]If A is richer than B, and A eats at a more expensive
restaurant while B eats at a less expensive restaurant, the
wealth gap between A and B is decreased afterwards. Isn't this
what socialists want?[/quote]
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/questions-debates/re-national-socialists-were-socialists-3223/msg30601/#msg30601[/quote]
Voluntary transactions cause one seller to suffer losses for
failing to meet consumer preferences, while another seller
succeeds in having their product approved by consumers who
request and purchase it. This dynamic compels sellers to
increase their capital in order to acquire production tools and
additional workers, enabling them to produce goods that are more
satisfying. The expectation is that these improved products will
gain the voluntary approval of consumers who will purchase them.
Therefore, it is not wrong to conclude that allowing parties to
engage in such voluntary transactions will inevitably lead to
capitalist practices and a capitalist way of life.
[quote][quote]"What I want is for the middle class and the
bourgeoisie to have their incomes drained through high taxation"
That's precisely what will happen by keeping both restaurants,
with the more expensive restaurant paying more in profit tax
than the less expensive restaurant (where the profit comes more
from A's bills than from B's bills since as yourself say B does
not eat here as frequently as A does). But you want to get rid
of the more expensive restaurant![/quote]
"Agreeing to engage in voluntary transactions and to accept an
disparate distribution of profit is nothing less than the
preservation of violence"
You are saying that non-violence is violence.[/quote]
I explain that behavior which is capitalistic in nature and
follows the so-called “invisible hand” or the natural law of the
market mechanism is behavior that perpetuates violence and
social aggression.
#Post#: 30750--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Socialists were socialists
By: 90sRetroFan Date: August 12, 2025, 3:23 am
---------------------------------------------------------
"The opinions expressed by certain members of Group B, as you
have described, reveal that Group B remains unaware—or even
willfully refuses to recognize—that the very process of agreeing
to such working arrangements only further legitimizes Group A’s
claim to extract surplus value from every product sold or
consumed."
The alternative would be A and B working separately, where I
have already proven that A would still make more money than B. A
making more money than B is not due to particular working
arrangements, but due to A's greater confidence in the product.
"Because Group B immortalizes social and economic practices
that, in truth, inflict harm upon themselves and others."
Which others are harmed by a voluntary agreement between A and B
involving no one else?
"A has justified a condition in which profit and loss may occur
unpredictably by offering such an agreement. Thus, A and B, who
consent to this method of transactional work, are perpetuating
social competition and social disparity—conditions that can
never bring about a life based on planning, empathy,
cooperation, and mutual aid."
B asking for a fixed income and A agreeing is planning (a
contract was drawn up before work began), empathy (A understood
B's wish to avoid risk), cooperation and mutual aid (A is
willing to cater to B's priority, while B is willing to
remunerate A for the extra risk A has to take)! So you are
saying that planning, empathy, cooperation and mutual aid are
not planning, empathy, cooperation and mutual aid.
"If you still justify voluntary transaction agreements between
seller and consumer, then why do you call yourself a socialist?"
Because socialism opposes initiating violence, you moron.
"A state that allows voluntary transactions among its citizens
is, in effect, enforcing the natural law of supply and demand—or
the law of the market. To permit the so-called “natural” actions
of an individual or a group is, by extension, to uphold a
policy."
You are still saying that absence of policy is policy.
"If, in this scenario, the people of group “A” choose to permit
the act of consumption in luxury restaurants and even partake in
it themselves, then “A” is actively preserving social disparity,
gentrification, and social capitalism."
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/questions-debates/re-national-socialists-were-socialists-3223/msg30590/?topicseen#msg30590
The exact opposite is true:
[quote]If A is richer than B, and A eats at a more expensive
restaurant while B eats at a less expensive restaurant, the
wealth gap between A and B is decreased afterwards.[/quote]
"If A and B are, in this scenario, both cast as sellers or
salesmen, then A and B alike become potential participants in
capitalist activity. And A—who harbors a good confidence in
selling amidst the uncertainty of the economy and the market—is
the worst and most inferior kind of seller, for A potentially
will perpetuating a life governed by capitalist law and the law
of the market mechanism. B, who already feels disillusioned with
selling under the laws of voluntary transactions, market
mechanisms, and capitalist doctrine, is more likely to grow
resentful toward the capitalist environment and to act in a
revolutionary manner. Thus, B appears superior to A."
You are saying that the superior seller is the one who fails to
sell to those who want to buy.
"You must begin to see the reality of the depravity of Group A…"
I am seeing the reality of your depravity.
"If you consider Group A to have committed no violence
whatsoever, despite the undeniable evidence that they have
engaged in both physical and psychological violence for
thousands of years, then you lack sensitivity and are unworthy
of being called a socialist."
All A has done is:
1) initially offered to share profit/loss with B;
2) accepted B's alternative proposal of B receiving a fixed
income;
3) went to the more expensive restaurant more frequently than B
did (thereby ultimately contributing more in taxes than B did).
"Liquidating fellow socialists is not an act of ending violence,
but rather an act of turning against one’s own comrades."
No one who supports initiating violence can ever be my comrade.
"Voluntary transactions cause one seller to suffer losses for
failing to meet consumer preferences"
If you sell videos of your own faeces, and filming costs you
money yet no one wants to buy your videos, you deserve to suffer
losses for failing to meet consumer preferences.
"while another seller succeeds in having their product approved
by consumers who request and purchase it."
Yes, because this seller (e.g. a gravure idol ;D ) is the one
who empathizes and cooperates with what consumers want.
"This dynamic compels sellers to increase their capital in order
to acquire production tools and additional workers, enabling
them to produce goods that are more satisfying. The expectation
is that these improved products will gain the voluntary approval
of consumers who will purchase them."
I guarantee that even if you wrap your faeces in gold ribbons
and film it in 8K HD 120fps and hire a hundred-member
post-production team, your videos will not sell better than the
lowest-budget gravure idol's videos.
"Therefore, it is not wrong to conclude that allowing parties to
engage in such voluntary transactions will inevitably lead to
capitalist practices and a capitalist way of life."
You are welcome to test this by actually trying to sell videos
of your faeces.
"I explain that behavior which is capitalistic in nature and
follows the so-called “invisible hand” or the natural law of the
market mechanism is behavior that perpetuates violence and
social aggression."
Trying to sell videos of your faeces would be a better use of
your time.
#Post#: 30758--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Socialists were socialists
By: antihellenistic Date: August 13, 2025, 3:09 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote][quote]"The opinions expressed by certain members of
Group B, as you have described, reveal that Group B remains
unaware—or even willfully refuses to recognize—that the very
process of agreeing to such working arrangements only further
legitimizes Group A’s claim to extract surplus value from every
product sold or consumed."[/quote]
The alternative would be A and B working separately, where I
have already proven that A would still make more money than B. A
making more money than B is not due to particular working
arrangements, but due to A's greater confidence in the
product.[/quote]
If, in the given scenario, Group A holds greater confidence in
selling products amid the uncertainty of the market—uncertainty
born of the enforcement of market-mechanism laws within the
community—while Group B harbors little such confidence, then A
is inherently inclined to align with a way of life that drives
people toward capitalist and competitive economic practices.
This affirms, beyond doubt, that A is more inferior than B, and
thus A is deserving of the liquidation of its economic and
social mobility.
A is not entitled to any surplus value in any form, for A finds
it easy to engage in sales even under the uncertainty of the
market—just as B finds it easy to work within the mode of
production. If both are given workloads matched to their
abilities, making their labor equally manageable, then neither
party has any rightful claim to money derived from surplus value
on the products of their labor.
[quote][quote]"A has justified a condition in which profit and
loss may occur unpredictably by offering such an agreement.
Thus, A and B, who consent to this method of transactional work,
are perpetuating social competition and social
disparity—conditions that can never bring about a life based on
planning, empathy, cooperation, and mutual aid."[/quote]
B asking for a fixed income and A agreeing is planning (a
contract was drawn up before work began), empathy (A understood
B's wish to avoid risk), cooperation and mutual aid (A is
willing to cater to B's priority, while B is willing to
remunerate A for the extra risk A has to take)! So you are
saying that planning, empathy, cooperation and mutual aid are
not planning, empathy, cooperation and mutual aid.[/quote]
There is no such thing as “planning” in the act of allowing
voluntary transactions and letting the course of the economy be
dictated by the uncertainty of consumer demand. An economy bound
to the so-called “laws” of the market mechanism operates on mere
spontaneity, never on deliberate planning. And, as always, Group
A finds it easy to take on high risks—risks that Group B deems
difficult—because A possesses greater capacity. Meanwhile, B too
finds ease, for they are given work burdens of lower risk,
tailored to their abilities.
Both find their labor easy; thus, neither A nor B has the right
to claim any surplus value that justifies the vast gulf in wages
between the organizers and the workers. And for those within
both A and B who willingly endorse labor arrangements grounded
in market uncertainty—who rationalize obscene wage
disparities—such individuals are guilty. They are the preservers
of social disparity and the cultivators of destructive
competition, sowing division within the community.
[quote][quote]"If you still justify voluntary transaction
agreements between seller and consumer, then why do you call
yourself a socialist?"[/quote]
Because socialism opposes initiating violence, you
moron.[/quote]
Voluntary transactions give rise to the over-extraction of labor
in the name of production efficiency and the ruthless pursuit of
consumer approval for products already made. This occurs because
every owner of the means of production is locked in an endless
race to improve the “quality” of production—an endeavor that, in
truth, is unnecessary. The products previously produced are
already demonstrably fit for consumption, and their
manufacturing processes are straightforward, easily understood,
and manageable for the workers themselves.
Yet, owners of the means of production persist in this ceaseless
escalation because there is no certainty—no certainty as to what
quality of product the consumer will demand next. And because
consumers, when given the freedom to choose, inevitably
gravitate toward that which gratifies them most, this compels an
artificial complexity and excessive productivity forced upon
workers. The owners push for larger and larger quantities of
commodities, produced cheaply yet with higher quality, to secure
consumer favor—while ensuring rival producers are starved of
sufficient buyers to gain profit or capital.
The reality is this: production carried out under the framework
of voluntary exchange has directly produced physical and
psychological violence against the working class. Furthermore,
to avert business losses from a shortage of consumers, the
owners of the means of production (Group A) often resort to
cutting wages to the bare minimum, hoarding every possible cent
to preserve capital for future operations.
Thus, in concrete terms, so-called “voluntary” transactions
between sellers (Group A) and consumers are nothing more than
the institutionalized machinery of exploitation and
violence—violence whose first architects and instigators are the
owners of the means of production themselves: the entrepreneurs,
the capitalists, the business class. Then, to be a socialist, we
must put an end to any life whose economic activity and
decisions are based on the law of market forces and voluntary
transactions.
How can you possibly regard voluntary transactions as socialist?
If you had read the literature on political economy, you would
never hold such an idea.
[quote]"A state that allows voluntary transactions among its
citizens is, in effect, enforcing the natural law of supply and
demand—or the law of the market. To permit the so-called
“natural” actions of an individual or a group is, by extension,
to uphold a policy."
You are still saying that absence of policy is policy.[/quote]
A state that allows voluntary transactions and permits society
to operate under the “invisible hand” of the market mechanism,
as conceived by Adam Smith, is still a state that enacts a
policy. You cannot claim that voluntary transactions represent
the absence of policy.
[quote][quote]"If, in this scenario, the people of group “A”
choose to permit the act of consumption in luxury restaurants
and even partake in it themselves, then “A” is actively
preserving social disparity, gentrification, and social
capitalism."[/quote]
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/questions-debates/re-national-socialists-were-socialists-3223/msg30590/?topicseen#msg30590
The exact opposite is true:
[quote]If A is richer than B, and A eats at a more expensive
restaurant while B eats at a less expensive restaurant, the
wealth gap between A and B is decreased
afterwards.[/quote][/quote]
Class A will never cease competing to amass capital in order to
indulge in consumption at expensive, gentrifying establishments.
Such establishments could never serve as Class A’s venues of
consumption if Class A were constantly running out of capital as
a result of purchasing goods and services there. In reality,
these costly, gentrifying places can continue to profit
precisely because Class A secures surplus income—both from high
salaries and from the surplus value extracted from each product
sold through the modes of production they own. Their capital
will never be exhausted, for every month it is replenished with
new funds from both their monthly wages and the high surplus
value generated by their sales.
[quote][quote]"If A and B are, in this scenario, both cast as
sellers or salesmen, then A and B alike become potential
participants in capitalist activity. And A—who harbors a good
confidence in selling amidst the uncertainty of the economy and
the market—is the worst and most inferior kind of seller, for A
potentially will perpetuating a life governed by capitalist law
and the law of the market mechanism. B, who already feels
disillusioned with selling under the laws of voluntary
transactions, market mechanisms, and capitalist doctrine, is
more likely to grow resentful toward the capitalist environment
and to act in a revolutionary manner. Thus, B appears superior
to A."[/quote]
You are saying that the superior seller is the one who fails to
sell to those who want to buy.[/quote]
No, I am not saying that a “superior” seller is one who fails to
sell to the buyer. I am saying that a “superior” seller is one
who succeeds in selling to the buyer and can adapt to the
uncertainty of market conditions and consumer behavior. Yet this
so-called “superior” seller you praise tends to have no
objection to a life built on the practices of economic
competition and the capitalist laws of the market. Therefore,
this “superior” seller is, in truth, an agent of capitalism and
is inferior in the eyes of civilized socialists.
[quote][quote]"You must begin to see the reality of the
depravity of Group A…"[/quote]
I am seeing the reality of your depravity.[/quote]
Alright, if socialism must follow your way of thinking, then
Hitler and I are depraved. Hahaha.
[quote]On 28 June 1930 Hitler wrote in the Illustrierte
Beobachter that the bourgeois parties and their men ‘were
capable of any nastiness’, that everything ‘the bourgeois
parties put their hands on’ goes under. ‘Were Bolshevism not out
to destroy the best racial élite, but only to clean out the
bourgeois party vermin, one would almost be tempted to bless
it.’ [1] [Page 228]
...
Many a bourgeois who condemns the worker’s striving for an
improvement in his economic situation with an outrage that is as
unwise as it is unjust would possibly suddenly think completely
differently if for only three weeks he would have had laid on
his shoulders the burden of the work demanded of the others.
Even today there are still countless bourgeois elements who most
indignantly reject a demand for a wage of ten marks a month, and
especially any sharp support of this, as a ‘Marxist crime’, but
display complete incomprehension when faced with a demand to
also limit the excessive profits of certain individuals. - Adolf
Hitler, 1 November 1930 [2][3][Page 206]
On 24 February 1940 Hitler declared that the
bourgeois-capitalist world had already collapsed, its age
already long outdated: This collapse must take place everywhere
in some form or other and it will not fail to materialize
anywhere.’ [6] The German nation could not, said Hitler, ‘live
with the bourgeois social order at all’. [4] In a conversation
with the Hungarian ‘Leader of the Nation’ Szálasi, Hitler
declared on 4 December 1944 that the ‘bourgeois European world’
would break down ever further and all that was left was the
alternative ‘that either a sensible social order were created on
a national level, or that Bolshevism would take over’. [5] [Page
230][/quote]
Source :
1. IB (Illustrierter Beobachter), 5th year set, issue 26 of 28
June 1930, p. 405
2. IB (Illustrierter Beobachter), 5th year set, issue 44 of 1
November 1930, p. 765
3. Hitler's National Socialism by Rainer Zitelmann Page 228, 206
and 230
HTML https://ia801207.us.archive.org/13/items/adolf-hitler-archive/Hitler%27s%20National%20Socialism%202022.pdf
4. Bouhler I/II, p. 162, speech on 24 February 1940
5. Ibid., p. 164
HTML https://64.media.tumblr.com/f8d4b267d6d1dfa3d14a028eda3ccdf3/f8982692a8bd3c8d-6b/s1280x1920/fc5dbb88da994064f52c339183692673802dcb4d.jpg
HTML https://64.media.tumblr.com/28be5577eaeefe0dc36695769270801f/f8982692a8bd3c8d-9f/s1280x1920/cab3f7df345adef108b0f7dddd21cfb5dc2de1c8.jpg
HTML https://64.media.tumblr.com/73a5529f52f4aa5b6b7cb597cedbf8e8/f8982692a8bd3c8d-45/s1280x1920/21e76879065d5368ac8d1cb9065845f69167fe01.jpg
[quote][quote]"If you consider Group A to have committed no
violence whatsoever, despite the undeniable evidence that they
have engaged in both physical and psychological violence for
thousands of years, then you lack sensitivity and are unworthy
of being called a socialist."[/quote]
All A has done is:
1) initially offered to share profit/loss with B;
2) accepted B's alternative proposal of B receiving a fixed
income;
3) went to the more expensive restaurant more frequently than B
did (thereby ultimately contributing more in taxes than B
did).[/quote]
If you continue to describe and scenarioize A as engaging in
sales agreements based on market uncertainty and
profit-and-loss, and influencing B to agree to it, then A will
be perpetuating the physical and psychological violence caused
by activities that ultimately lead capitalism.
[quote][quote]"Liquidating fellow socialists is not an act of
ending violence, but rather an act of turning against one’s own
comrades."[/quote]
No one who supports initiating violence can ever be my
comrade.[/quote]
If those who commit the first acts of violence cannot be your
comrades, then Class A (the bourgeoisie, the middle class, and
the landlord class) cannot be regarded as equally good as the
proletariat and the socialists. And you must regard A as not
your comrade.
[quote][quote]"Voluntary transactions cause one seller to suffer
losses for failing to meet consumer preferences"[/quote]
If you sell videos of your own faeces, and filming costs you
money yet no one wants to buy your videos, you deserve to suffer
losses for failing to meet consumer preferences.
...
[quote]"while another seller succeeds in having their product
approved by consumers who request and purchase it."[/quote]
Yes, because this seller (e.g. a gravure idol ;D ) is the one
who empathizes and cooperates with what consumers want.
...
[quote]"This dynamic compels sellers to increase their capital
in order to acquire production tools and additional workers,
enabling them to produce goods that are more satisfying. The
expectation is that these improved products will gain the
voluntary approval of consumers who will purchase them."[/quote]
I guarantee that even if you wrap your faeces in gold ribbons
and film it in 8K HD 120fps and hire a hundred-member
post-production team, your videos will not sell better than the
lowest-budget gravure idol's videos.
[quote]"Therefore, it is not wrong to conclude that allowing
parties to engage in such voluntary transactions will inevitably
lead to capitalist practices and a capitalist way of
life."[/quote]
You are welcome to test this by actually trying to sell videos
of your faeces.
[quote]"I explain that behavior which is capitalistic in nature
and follows the so-called “invisible hand” or the natural law of
the market mechanism is behavior that perpetuates violence and
social aggression."[/quote]
Trying to sell videos of your faeces would be a better use of
your time.[/quote]
Voluntary transactions tend to make consumers favor producers
who create products that satisfy them, rather than purchasing
all products that have been made and are still fit for
consumption, in order to honestly value the labor of the
producer and the workers whose work is worthy. And likening a
usable, worthy product to “feces” is illogical, because “feces”
is a filthy object and unfit for use. Your logic is flawed.
#Post#: 30784--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Socialists were socialists
By: 90sRetroFan Date: August 14, 2025, 4:33 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
"If, in the given scenario, Group A holds greater confidence in
selling products amid the uncertainty of the market—uncertainty
born of the enforcement of market-mechanism laws within the
community—while Group B harbors little such confidence, then A
is inherently inclined to align with a way of life that drives
people toward capitalist and competitive economic practices."
Untrue. If A were as you described, A would not spend the
profits visiting the more expensive restaurant, but would
reinvest the profits into A's business. That A spends the
profits on the more expensive restaurant is actually evidence
that A is willing to disperse capital rather than accumulate it.
"A is not entitled to any surplus value in any form"
A is entitled to whatever the voluntary agreement between A and
B says A is entitled to, namely the profits minus B's salary.
"There is no such thing as “planning” in the act of allowing
voluntary transactions"
Agreeing how the proceeds from sales will be divided before
sales begin is planning by definition.
"such individuals are guilty. They are the preservers of social
disparity"
Again you admit that you are an egalitarian.
"Voluntary transactions give rise to the over-extraction of
labor in the name of production efficiency"
If B does not want to work with A, B can choose to work
independently instead. We already covered this scenario:
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/questions-debates/re-national-socialists-were-socialists-3223/msg30739/#msg30739
[quote]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. [/quote]
"A state that allows voluntary transactions and permits society
to operate under the “invisible hand” of the market mechanism,
as conceived by Adam Smith, is still a state that enacts a
policy. You cannot claim that voluntary transactions represent
the absence of policy."
You are still saying that absence of policy is policy.
"Class A will never cease competing to amass capital in order to
indulge in consumption"
And thus end up paying more tax. Whereas if the more expensive
restaurant were shut down, A would pay less tax.
"this “superior” seller is, in truth, an agent of capitalism"
See my reply to your first point in this post.
"If you continue to describe and scenarioize A as engaging in
sales agreements based on market uncertainty and
profit-and-loss, and influencing B to agree to it, then A will
be perpetuating the physical and psychological violence caused
by activities that ultimately lead capitalism."
Firstly, if there is agreement, no violence is initiated.
Secondly, it was B who asked A for the conditions that they
eventually agreed on:
[quote]1) initially offered to share profit/loss with B;
2) accepted B's alternative proposal of B receiving a fixed
income;
3) went to the more expensive restaurant more frequently than B
did (thereby ultimately contributing more in taxes than B
did).[/quote]
That you nevertheless describe this as A "influencing B" exposes
your bias against A.
"If those who commit the first acts of violence cannot be your
comrades, then Class A (the bourgeoisie, the middle class, and
the landlord class) cannot be regarded as equally good as the
proletariat and the socialists. And you must regard A as not
your comrade."
[quote]1) initially offered to share profit/loss with B;
2) accepted B's alternative proposal of B receiving a fixed
income;
3) went to the more expensive restaurant more frequently than B
did (thereby ultimately contributing more in taxes than B
did).[/quote]
In which step, 1), 2) or 3) did A initiate violence?
"likening a usable, worthy product to “feces” is illogical,
because “feces” is a filthy object and unfit for use. "
You are illiterate. The product I am talking about is:
[quote]videos of your own faeces[/quote]
[quote]videos of your faeces[/quote]
which are no more filthy than any other video, whether in
physical format (DVD etc.) or online format, and just as fit for
use so long as it plays smoothly on screen when loaded.
#Post#: 30791--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Socialists were socialists
By: antihellenistic Date: August 14, 2025, 10:28 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote][quote]"If, in the given scenario, Group A holds greater
confidence in selling products amid the uncertainty of the
market—uncertainty born of the enforcement of market-mechanism
laws within the community—while Group B harbors little such
confidence, then A is inherently inclined to align with a way of
life that drives people toward capitalist and competitive
economic practices."[/quote]
Untrue. If A were as you described, A would not spend the
profits visiting the more expensive restaurant, but would
reinvest the profits into A's business. That A spends the
profits on the more expensive restaurant is actually evidence
that A is willing to disperse capital rather than accumulate it.
...
[quote]"this “superior” seller is, in truth, an agent of
capitalism"[/quote]
See my reply to your first point in this post.[/quote]
Those who can afford to purchase luxury goods in restaurants and
other expensive venues are, without question, those who possess
capital and means of production, for they hold substantial sums
of money. It is impossible for one to sustain such a lifestyle
with frequency unless they are an owner of the instruments of
production and of land, reaping high returns in sales, capital,
and output. To allow such expensive and gentrifying
establishments to persist is to guarantee the eternal survival
of capitalist behavior.
[quote][quote]"A is not entitled to any surplus value in any
form"[/quote]
A is entitled to whatever the voluntary agreement between A and
B says A is entitled to, namely the profits minus B's
salary.[/quote]
If a “voluntary agreement” means that Class A is justified in
extracting surplus value from production—despite having no
rightful claim to it, since they are assigned work suited to
their abilities just as Class B (the fixed-wage workers)
are—then such a “voluntary agreement” amounts to ignoring the
deceitful nature of A’s claims over profit distribution. The
surplus value of production is created through the labor of
Class B in producing goods—work they are fully capable of and
willing to perform. Meanwhile, in an economy governed by
competition and market uncertainty, Class A merely serves as the
coordinator of production, a role they also perform with ease
and without objection. Thus, A has no legitimate right to claim
a greater share than Class B or anyone else. Therefore, the
“voluntary agreement” you present is wholly unacceptable if you
are truly a socialist, and not a pro-market capitalist.
[quote][quote]"There is no such thing as “planning” in the act
of allowing voluntary transactions"[/quote]
Agreeing how the proceeds from sales will be divided before
sales begin is planning by definition.[/quote]
Creating uncertainty in economic transactions under the pretext
of justifying voluntary exchange is not a planned activity, but
rather one that is spontaneous and entirely unplanned.
[quote][quote]"such individuals are guilty. They are the
preservers of social disparity"[/quote]
Again you admit that you are an egalitarian.[/quote]
I make Class A feel guilty and portray them as the perpetrators
of physical and psychological violence, while making Class B
feel justified and see themselves as the victims. Therefore, I
am anti-egalitarian. You, on the other hand, who try to make A
appear just as good as B, are in fact a true egalitarian.
[quote]If B does not want to work with A, B can choose to work
independently instead. We already covered this scenario:
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/questions-debates/re-national-socialists-were-socialists-3223/msg30739/#msg30739
[quote]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.[/quote][/quote]
And you have also not succeeded in accurately understanding the
different types of physical and psychological violence. Not
everything is good and right simply because it is done
voluntarily. Racist behavior carried out between both parties
voluntarily is still wrong. Harming one another voluntarily
between both parties is still wrong.
[quote][quote]"A state that allows voluntary transactions and
permits society to operate under the “invisible hand” of the
market mechanism, as conceived by Adam Smith, is still a state
that enacts a policy. You cannot claim that voluntary
transactions represent the absence of policy."[/quote]
You are still saying that absence of policy is policy.[/quote]
A state or community policy that allows transactions between
parties to occur voluntarily is, in essence, a policy of
economic and entrepreneurial freedom. And that, too, is a
policy—especially when such a state, through this policy,
obstructs planned, integrated, and socialist forms of economic
activity.
[quote][quote]"Class A will never cease competing to amass
capital in order to indulge in consumption"[/quote]
And thus end up paying more tax. Whereas if the more expensive
restaurant were shut down, A would pay less tax.[/quote]
Enforcing tax obligations is pointless if different classes are
still allowed to compete with each other, striving to win
consumer approval for the labor and products they sell. The
taxes collected by the state or community will not stop the
exploitation of labor in companies that continuously push
efficiency and overproduction, nor will they prevent poverty and
unemployment caused by businesses that fail in the competitive
market. We do not merely seek money which the amount is in
accordance with our basic needs; we desire an environment free
from the coercion of constant rivalry, which makes individuals
harsh and distrustful of one another. All of this runs contrary
to the principles of socialism. It is you who are democratic,
because you have justified allowing the mass of consumers to
voluntarily choose among the products offered by producers. And
consumers’ choices only favor certain producers, not to the all
producers whose goods and services are proven to be worthy.
[quote]"If you continue to describe and scenarioize A as
engaging in sales agreements based on market uncertainty and
profit-and-loss, and influencing B to agree to it, then A will
be perpetuating the physical and psychological violence caused
by activities that ultimately lead capitalism."
Firstly, if there is agreement, no violence is initiated.
Secondly, it was B who asked A for the conditions that they
eventually agreed on:
[quote]1) initially offered to share profit/loss with B;
2) accepted B's alternative proposal of B receiving a fixed
income;
3) went to the more expensive restaurant more frequently than B
did (thereby ultimately contributing more in taxes than B
did).[/quote]
That you nevertheless describe this as A "influencing B" exposes
your bias against A.[/quote]
Consent to have one’s labor exploited voluntarily, and to have
money distributed unfairly despite the actual conditions and
capabilities, is consent to normalize the physical and
psychological violence inherent in economic transactions
governed by the laws of the market mechanism. The consent to a
work plan between B and A in a competitive environment tends to
be betrayed by A under the justification of “improving
efficiency and production quality to maintain market share
against competitors whose products or services might outperform
theirs.” In reality, this agreement could be replaced with a
system where A is compelled to manage production according to a
planned schedule set by the community or state, while B carries
out work also determined by the community or state—ensuring that
the production plan is maximized without being exploitative or
coercive. You accuse me of being egalitarian, yet the truth is
that YOU are the egalitarian one—believing that A can be as
“good” as B, and pretending that A did not commit the initial
acts of violence in social activities. Political and societal
security interests are more important than economic and market
interests.
[quote]"If those who commit the first acts of violence cannot be
your comrades, then Class A (the bourgeoisie, the middle class,
and the landlord class) cannot be regarded as equally good as
the proletariat and the socialists. And you must regard A as not
your comrade."
[quote]1) initially offered to share profit/loss with B;
2) accepted B's alternative proposal of B receiving a fixed
income;
3) went to the more expensive restaurant more frequently than B
did (thereby ultimately contributing more in taxes than B
did).[/quote]
In which step, 1), 2) or 3) did A initiate violence?[/quote]
Conversation number 2 shows that A accepted B’s proposal, which
justified A receiving extra value from the production output. A
is not honest, as they claim a burden that they can easily
manage due to their intellectual and social capital and the
skills they possess. Therefore, A is not entitled to feel
superior or justified in receiving higher wages than B. In this
way, A enacts subtle and invisible forms of violence.
Conversation number 3 shows that A perpetuates social conditions
that generate social disparity, which in turn fosters social
distrust. Have you read Das Kapital, or at least a brief summary
of the book?
[quote][quote]"likening a usable, worthy product to “feces” is
illogical, because “feces” is a filthy object and unfit for use.
"[/quote]
You are illiterate. The product I am talking about is:
[quote]videos of your own faeces[/quote]
[quote]videos of your faeces[/quote]
which are no more filthy than any other video, whether in
physical format (DVD etc.) or online format, and just as fit for
use so long as it plays smoothly on screen when loaded.[/quote]
Feces are not a usable product and cannot be used as an example
of a transaction involving a usable product that we are
discussing, whether the feces are presented as visual content,
audio, deliberate verbal communication, or even demonstrated as
tangible material evidence.
#Post#: 30795--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Socialists were socialists
By: 90sRetroFan Date: August 15, 2025, 5:23 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
"capitalist behavior."
Capitalist behaviour is acccumulation of capital. Dispersal of
capital is anti-capitalist behaviour.
"If a “voluntary agreement” means that Class A is justified in
extracting surplus value from production—despite having no
rightful claim to it"
The rightful claim derives from the voluntary agreement.
"such a “voluntary agreement” amounts to ignoring the deceitful
nature of A’s claims over profit distribution"
Where is the deceit?
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/questions-debates/re-national-socialists-were-socialists-3223/msg30733/#msg30733
[quote]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."[/quote]
"Creating uncertainty in economic transactions under the pretext
of justifying voluntary exchange is not a planned activity, but
rather one that is spontaneous and entirely unplanned."
You are changing the subject.
"I make Class A feel guilty and portray them as the perpetrators
of physical and psychological violence"
Just because you consider them to be preservers of "social
disparity" (a.k.a. inequality). Which implies you consider
"social disparity" (a.k.a. inequality) to be bad. Which makes
you an egalitarian.
"Not everything is good and right simply because it is done
voluntarily."
But initiating violence in response to non-violent bad and wrong
things is unacceptable.
"Racist behavior carried out between both parties voluntarily is
still wrong."
If group P unanimously asks group Q to treat P as the outgroup
and Q as the ingroup, and group Q unanimously agrees, I would
not initiate violence against either group. I would only
prohibit both groups from reproducing.
"Harming one another voluntarily between both parties is still
wrong."
You will have to explain this one.
"A state or community policy that allows transactions between
parties to occur voluntarily is, in essence, a policy of
economic and entrepreneurial freedom. And that, too, is a
policy—especially when such a state, through this policy,
obstructs planned, integrated, and socialist forms of economic
activity."
Allowing something is not a policy. Requiring or prohibiting
something is a policy. Policy is by definition something that is
policed (note the shared etymological root). Nothing that is
allowed is policed. Only things that are either required or
prohibited are policed.
"It is you who are democratic, because you have justified
allowing the mass of consumers to voluntarily choose among the
products offered by producers."
Democratic consumerism would be if everyone must use the product
that the majority prefers. That is not what I advocate.
"Consent to have one’s labor exploited voluntarily, and to have
money distributed unfairly despite the actual conditions and
capabilities, is consent to normalize the physical and
psychological violence inherent in economic transactions
governed by the laws of the market mechanism."
[quote]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."[/quote]
"Conversation number 2 shows that A accepted B’s proposal, which
justified A receiving extra value from the production output. A
is not honest"
How can A be dishonest for accepting a proposal that B proposed?
"Conversation number 3 shows that A perpetuates social
conditions that generate social disparity"
The restaurant voluntarily serves A in exchange for payment. And
again you admit that you are an egalitarian.
"Feces are not a usable product"
[quote]videos of your faeces[/quote]
are a usable product because the buyer can watch the videos just
like the buyer can watch videos of any other content.
*****************************************************
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page