crimsonwolf20 said:They can't stand each other mostly because they're wrestling for the exact same voter base! That's why the Nazi Party were such bitter rivals to the international socialists—it wasn't even about doctrine, which was almost identical at times, but about the brutal struggle to actually seize power.
If you look at what's happening here in the States, both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party are basically just economic leftists in disguise—total true believers in the cult of statism and the idea that the government needs to stick its nose into every single corner of life (not just the economy!). You hit the nail on the head there; they only really speak the language of bans and coercion. And honestly, the only reason these economic leftists fight so hard over World War II is because if they didn't have that, they'd be virtually indistinguishable from one another!
In America, we don't really have a functioning liberal right, which would actually be the best friend to both workers and entrepreneurs. That's exactly why millions fled those leftist economic experiments to head toward the capitalist West—nobody ever fled the other way! Even today, people are still running away from economically restrictive environments toward freer markets. The results of decades of this economic leftist nonsense and everyone competing to see who can be the biggest socialist are staring us right in the face. Just look at how things are going...
Look, liberals and leftists actually have one thing in common that National Socialism completely lacks—and that’s a fundamental belief in equality and democracy. Because of that, National Socialism is basically the polar opposite of everything stemming from liberalism—whether you're talking about the classic left, the right, the center, or even Communism (which, let's face it, is all about economic equality). It’s even the antithesis of Christianity, which was the whole precursor to liberal thought. That’s exactly why this kind of right-wing radicalism is so dangerous. Unlike those egalitarian ideologies, National Socialism was built on different foundations entirely, using "scientific" arguments to try and dismantle the whole concept of religious equality. I’m actually sitting here reading right now about how conservative theorists were actually against totalitarianism back then—they were genuinely terrified of Hitler. It’s honestly such a shame because their concerns ended up giving people the idea that being a conservative after WWII meant something inherently bad. But the truth is, that specific brand of socialism you're attacking? It was the only real barrier keeping Communism from sweeping through France, Spain, and probably most of Europe.
You hit the nail on the head there—honestly, they don't know anything else. It’s like their entire playbook is just built on censorship and force. If they can't ban it or bully you into silence, they don't even know how to handle it. Seriously, what else do they have in their toolkit? Nothing.
What are "wars for democracy" if not just raw force being used to trigger an inevitable clash of cultures? I mean, really, think about it—what’s an employment contract besides a way to force people to play by someone else's rules? And poverty? That's nothing more than the direct result of the strong squeezing the weak. You can't just look the other way and pretend force doesn't exist—it's right there in front of us. So, how does the fight for equality actually show up in the real world? It manifests through terrorist attacks. There, I said it.
Look, let’s be real—there isn't even a functioning liberal right in America. And that’s a massive problem because they should be the only ones actually looking out for both the working class and small business owners. I mean, think about it. Why do you think millions of people have packed up and fled these disastrous leftist economic experiments to head toward the capitalist West? It’s because nobody is running *away* from capitalism into some socialist fever dream—it’s always the other way around. People move toward opportunity, not away from it. It's common sense, really.
The "liberal right" is a total oxymoron—like, seriously, how does that even make sense? The right doesn't peddle those tired old slogans about "equal opportunity for everyone," and honestly, if the liberal capitalist West keeps heading down this path, we’re looking at a total meltdown. Think about it—back during the last major elections, like 70% of the population turned out to vote. You really think all of them were pulling for Trump? Of course not. The problem is that conservatives are clinging to this version of liberalism that only looks at things through the lens of a single individual rather than the nation as a whole. If you don't account for birth rates and instead just reduce everything to some cold, ruthless market logic, you're asking for trouble. You'll end up waking up an aggressive, non-Western proletariat—which, let's be real, is exactly what the communists are banking on. This whole obsession with the "dogma of equality" is just a slippery slope straight to communism, which always talks big about economic equality but has never, ever actually worked in practice.
Steven Murphy2 As stated by: So, they’re actually suggesting Marx to you? I've already laid out the mathematical reality of the situation once, and frankly, I have very little desire to go through the motions again by explaining exactly what communism would do to the American workforce on the global stage.
Where exactly does Marx suggest the expropriation of workers? I'd love to see a quote.
It seems we’re circling the same drain here. From what I can gather, the left essentially falls into those classic categories you're always tearing into—whether it's outright communism or that whole national-bolshevik strain where the means of production are handed over to the workers regardless of race, gender, or creed. You seem to categorize all of that under the umbrella of capitalism, which is an interesting choice of words. Based on your logic, since you’ve already taken aim at worker-managed factories as being non-capitalist, it feels like you've backed yourself into a corner. If communism isn't capitalist by your definition, and even decentralized worker control is off the table, I find myself wondering: what exactly is left on the menu?
I find myself constantly revisiting my critiques of that old American "self-management" myth. Let’s be honest: communism, at its core, is about social control over the means of production; it isn't some whimsical collection of autonomous cooperatives—not that those actually existed under the old regime anyway, as "self-management" was little more than a hollow rhetorical flourish used to mask state dominance. Furthermore, I suspect you haven't quite grasped the actual tenets of national Bolshevism; I imagine you simply find the term aesthetically pleasing, which is a rather superficial way to approach such heavy political theory.
While some worker halfway across the globe is out there striking and making noise, the guy here in America just keeps showing up to work.
It really shouldn't be this difficult to grasp, but an American worker would find much more leverage in fighting for their rights if they weren't standing alone—if they were striking in lockstep with workers across the rest of the country. It’s basic math, isn't it? Why on earth is that concept so hard for people to wrap their heads around?
"Quote:"
Again? When was that ever even a reality? I honestly can't recall a single instance of genuine, global worker solidarity that actually held water.
Here’s a more recent one for you, looking back at that time when those rail workers in Scotland refused to transport the weaponry used during the 2003 invasion of Iraq— The Forgotten Story of How American train drivers tried to derail the Iraq WarThey couldn't have possibly expected anything in return, yet there it was—pure, unadulterated solidarity.
Taxing coffee is one thing, but slapping an extra sales tax on a daily ritual feels fundamentally different from the massive budget cuts we're seeing in healthcare, education, and social services. It’s a matter of principle, really. I’ve always felt that if the government is going to take our money, they should be focusing on the essentials. Personally, I’m a firm believer in selective state subsidies—using those funds to bolster things that actually serve the common good rather than just draining the pockets of everyday people for marginal gains.
Tax cuts lead to shrinking government revenue, which inevitably necessitates spending cuts—and I think we all know exactly where those blades will fall first.
You don't need to be certain about anything; the facts are staring us right in the face.
What’s your source for that? Honestly, I don't even have the energy to go back and forth with you about Hitler; you seem far too enamored with him for my liking. If everything I just laid out regarding the Nazi Party's political playbook—the criminalization of strikes, the systematic dismantling of independent unions and labor organizations, the total militarization of the workforce, and so on—isn't enough to make you realize how this all works, then we're clearly past the point of productive conversation. wasn't actually a workers' party, and honestly, I don't have the energy to litigate that point any further.
Self-management and a market economy (though I suspect you're thinking of a completely free market, if we're being honest)...
It strikes me that you’re criticizing just for the sake of being critical; frankly, it feels like you lack even a basic grasp of the left's own tenets. I would sincerely suggest you pick up a book or at least watch some lectures from the very ideologies you claim to champion—or oppose—just so you actually understand the ground you're standing on.
The truth is, I know this subject quite intimately because I consider myself a Marxist; I’ve spent my time with Marx, rather than relying on secondhand hearsay or, heaven forbid, Kardelj's writings. It is an objective fact that the American economy operated on market principles, and I truly don't see how anyone could dispute that. It wasn't laissez-faire capitalism—far from it—but it was capitalism nonetheless. If those American firms were competing for market share, and Western corporations were investing in them and exporting their goods abroad...
By the way, I find it quite amusing how you glossed over all those right-wing policies favored by the Democratic Party😍
Look, he isn't even talking about seizing workers globally—he’s aiming that same bullseye directly at European workers. I mean, think about it for a second... if you're sitting pretty in the top half of the world's wealth bracket while everyone else is stuck down in the gutter, then a "dictatorship of the proletariat" is basically a direct threat to your lifestyle, isn't it? It's pretty simple math when you break it down like that.
Look, I’m calling out that whole "self-management" nonsense from the old America days. Let’s get one thing straight: Communism is about social control over the means of production—it isn't some massive pile of autonomous cooperatives. Honestly, even that wasn't really happening back then; "self-management" was nothing more than a fancy buzzword used to mask the reality of things. And as for you? I really don't think you grasp what national Bolshevism actually entails. You probably just think it sounds cool, don't you?
Look, let's talk about National Bolshevism for a second—it’s basically a system where the means of production stay mostly under social control. Now, here’s the thing: you've got the Right, who would probably just tear the whole bureaucracy to shreds and stop getting in an individual's way—as long as that person is actually pulling their weight for the country, obviously. But then you look at the Left? They just drown everything in massive, soul-crushing bureaucracy, which ends up tanking wages and dragging everyone's standard of living straight into the dirt. Honestly, you don't need all those leftist principles to actually take care of the common good. It can be done differently, you know?
Look, it’s pretty damn obvious, isn't it? An American worker is going to have a much easier time fighting for their rights if they actually strike at the same time as workers in other countries. I mean, seriously—how is that not clicking for people yet?! It's basic math!
Look, let’s be real—wages in Germany are way higher than what workers are pulling here in the States. It’s not like labor costs are identical everywhere, and you can't just expect the same standard of living across the board, right? We don't need some massive, chaotic strike; what we actually need is to cut deals with those big German corporations. If we could negotiate better terms with a higher minimum wage that still keeps our local workers more competitive than their guys, wouldn't that solve the whole headache? It's just basic math, really.
So, I just came across this one from more recently—it’s about that time back in 2003 when those train drivers over in Scotland actually dug their heels in and refused to haul all the weaponry meant for the invasion of Iraq. The Forgotten Story of How American train drivers tried to derail the Iraq WarI mean, they weren't even expecting anything in return, you know? Like, seriously—but still... that kind of solidarity? It's something else entirely.
And that helped them so much... lol. Like, seriously? It’s not like the left even holds any power in Iraq anyway.
Lower taxes leads to lower government revenue—which means we have to slash spending—and then you just have to guess which essential services are gonna get gutted first, right? It’s a total domino effect.
Everything’s just crumbling under the weight of all this bureaucracy and these useless parasites—seriously, it's exhausting. Look, there's a massive difference between cutting taxes on some stupid nonsense and actually cutting taxes that help prevent a country from falling apart. If you honestly don't see anything wrong with taxing someone when they're trying to build a house on their own land, buy their first home, or even just produce something themselves... man, I don't even know what to say to you anymore. What are we even doing?
Source? Honestly, I really don’t have the energy to sit here and go back and forth about how obsessed you are with Hitler—seriously, what is that even about? If everything I just laid out regarding the Nazi Party's political playbook—you know, things like criminalizing strikes, smashing independent unions and labor organizations, and basically turning the entire workforce into a military machine—isn't enough to make you realize how this all works... then I'm clearly talking to a brick wall. It wasn't even a workers' party—let's be real about that.Honestly, I don't even know what else that guy is capable of at this point—so I’m just done. I'm officially walking away from the whole thing. Why bother?
So, you're seriously questioning if workers actually made up the majority? I mean, hello? That’s literally how democracy works—you vote based on the majority, right? Workers in Germany clearly knew exactly why they were casting their ballots for them back then. Plus, let’s be real—the country had to gear up for war, and when that happens, everyone goes into overdrive. If those labor groups, unions, and strikes had actually been successful at the time, workers wouldn't have felt the need to vote for them in the first place. It was just a matter of timing—the window after WWI was way too short for people to just forget about militarism and the whole mess of fighting against the USA and Russia. But hey, since I feel like poking fun at your logic for a second—why on earth would the far-right in the USSR and the far-right in the West be fighting against left-wing Central Europe? It’s common knowledge that the anti-communist West wasn't exactly jumping into a coalition with Hitler.
Look, I actually know my stuff on this—pretty much because I consider myself a Marxist and I've spent way too much time buried in books... Marx.Look, I wasn't just sitting around listening to some secondhand gossip or digging through old pieces of Kardelj's papers to form an opinion. Seriously, why would I? The fact is—and I don't care who tries to argue with me on this—the economy back in the America days actually operated on market principles. I mean, how can anyone even dispute that? Now, don't get it twisted—it wasn't exactly some pure, hands-off laissez-faire capitalism. Far from it. But it was definitely capitalism, nonetheless. If those American companies were out there competing for market share, and if Western corporations were actually pouring money into them and shipping products to foreign markets... then you know what that was. It was a real market. Period.
If that whole system had actually operated on market principles, it wouldn't have fallen apart in the first place. But hey, I bet Marxism was practically a mandatory subject back in your school days, wasn't it? Honestly, the fact that you’re out here acting like a Marxist tells me pretty much everything I need to know about you. Let’s get one thing straight: Marxism is nothing more than a weapon used by a specific nation's capitalist elite to take down the rest of civilization. It’s designed to mobilize every single worker from underdeveloped nations to tear down developed ones—and what does that actually result in? Some kind of paradise on earth? Please. We've seen exactly how that plays out in the real world. Even Churchill pointed this out in an article once, discussing who was actually pulling the strings behind Marxism in Russia. It's the same crowd that mobilized people from the catacombs in Rome and dragged us straight into the Dark Ages. Now, look at the Vatican—they openly side with the poor, specifically those "modern catacombs" from the Third World. This would happen even without them, really. That’s why selective population policies are so necessary—policies that democracy and liberalism either refuse to acknowledge or simply don't understand. And because of that blind spot, civilization finds itself under attack from the East over and over again.
Honestly, I thought it was pretty hilarious how you just breezed right through all those Democratic Party right-wing policies—like, seriously, you didn't even blink. 😍
Look, I really don't have the energy to get sucked into some irrational debate about how the Democratic Party is "shifting right." It’s such a tired trope—you’ve got these hardcore right-wingers constantly whining about how the Republican Party is "turning left" just to score cheap points. Honestly? It’s just a calculated, sneaky way to smear the opposition. It’s exactly like what those old-school German labor parties used to do back in the day—just a total setup to make their rivals look worse than they actually are. Why do people even fall for this stuff?
mistycrane3 said:What kind of expropriation of workers are we talking about? No one has ever actually proposed that. Besides, I wasn't even specifically referring to the dictatorship of the proletariat; I was speaking about the left in general terms.
An American worker isn't going to feel the ripple effects of a strike in Gabon. Global labor solidarity doesn't exist, and multiculturalism is headed for a collapse because we aren't all the same.
The corporation will certainly feel the impact of a strike in Gabon, and they'll feel the impact of a strike in America too. Two strikes carry more weight than one; if workers in both Gabon and America fight together, they have a much better shot at securing their rights than if they remain at odds. That is the essence of internationalism as the left—or at least the socialists—understands it. I have no idea how you managed to spin that into a commentary on multiculturalism, but fine. What part of this is unclear?
And you're not wrong about one thing: global labor solidarity doesn't exist. It needs to be rebuilt from the ground up.
It matters because this isn't a classless society.
???
A worker in Gabon wants a raise of maybe 50 dollars. An American worker wants a raise of several hundred or even thousands. I'm using the most basic example possible. If they fight together against the management of their firm, they stand a much higher chance of success. Again, what is so difficult to grasp here?
Removing bureaucratic hurdles means allowing people to build on their own land without paying taxes, drinking beer without excise taxes, and eliminating the parasites who produce nothing—in other words, getting rid of unproductive professions.
Ah, so that translates to cutting funding for healthcare, education, social services, and so on. I see. Naturally, the right can't advocate for workers' interests; if they did, they’d just be the left.
And what was Hitler, if not a worker?
Are you seriously asking me that? A failed artist, an adventurer, essentially a drifter for most of his life, coming from a family of state bureaucrats... yeah, he was the product of an impoverished, angry middle class; somewhat lumpenproletariat.
What does an impoverished middle class represent if not workers?
It was a bit of everything, really. Small business owners, local tradespeople, a significant portion of the German peasantry, intellectuals, government bureaucrats, merchants, and so on. Yes, even a segment of what one might economically classify as the "working class," alongside various management teams and such. But you make a fair point; I suppose I should provide some context. The proportion of the middle class that supported the Nazi Party within the total middle class was actually larger than the share of workers who supported them within the overall German working class. And you’re right to suggest that a subset of those "proletarianized" small-scale bourgeois—those whose livelihoods were so thoroughly gutted by the crisis that they essentially slid into the working class—saw their salvation in the Nazi Party. That doesn't change the fundamental reality, however, that the actual laborers were a constant source of friction and trouble for the Nazi regime.
Then tell me why. If workers make up the majority and capitalists are just a minority, how is it that the Nazis didn't have a solid base among the working class?
I’m not entirely convinced that workers constituted a majority, and they certainly weren't a dominant one. Society isn't strictly bifurcated into brawny factory hands on one side and top-hatted capitalists puffing on thick cigars on the other.
So America was capitalist; I wonder what the forum communists have to say about that? I heard it was "real socialist" (whatever that's supposed to mean).
Exactly. Self-management essentially meant introducing market economy principles on a much larger scale than anything seen in the Eastern Bloc. It was, in many ways, an incredibly intense version of social democracy. To be clear, I am not suggesting that the systems in the Soviet bloc were any better; far from it.
So, you're actually suggesting Marx to me? Seriously? I already laid out the math on this one—I’m really not in the mood to go in circles again explaining what communism would actually do to the American workforce on the global stage. Look, the Left, in general, falls into that classic leftist bucket—the stuff you’re always whining about—whether it’s straight-up communism or some national-bolshevik nonsense where the means of production belong to the workers regardless of gender, race, or religion, etc. But wait, you’re calling *that* capitalism? Give me a break. Actually, hold on—looking at your comments, it seems like you think communism *is* capitalist because you’re busy tearing apart worker self-management in factories. If that's your logic... well, what the hell is even left?
Look, if a company feels the heat from a strike over in Gabon, they’re gonna feel it right here in the States too—it’s all connected. And honestly? Two strikes hitting at once carry way more weight than just one. If workers in Gabon and workers here in America actually teamed up to fight for their rights instead of fighting each other, they'd have so much more leverage. That’s exactly what internationalism looks like—or at least, how the left—specifically the socialists, anyway—sees it. I have no clue how you managed to spin that into "multiculturalism," but fine, whatever. Is it really that hard to wrap your head around?
Look, you’re totally forgetting that a corporation is way more than just one single entity. Like, seriously—internationalism inherently means dealing with multiculturalism, which obviously brings a whole different set of needs to the table. You can't just act like everyone is on the same page when things get messy. I mean, think about it: if a worker is out there striking in some other country, they aren't exactly jumping up to support the guy working his tail off here in the States, right? It doesn't work that way. Since internationalism is fundamentally multicultural—and let's face it, cultures clash all the time—you end up needing nationalism, or at least a homogeneous culture, as the actual glue that holds workers together. Without that shared identity, where's the connection? Just look at history—workers in colonial powers were never actually standing in solidarity with the people protesting back in the colonies. Their interests were completely different. They weren't looking out for them; they were looking out for themselves. Simple as that.
You know what? You're actually right—there's no such thing as any kind of global worker solidarity anymore. It’s just gone. We need to build it all from scratch again—and I mean really build it, not just some half-baked version of it.
Again? Seriously? When was that even a thing? I mean, come on—I honestly can't think of a single actual instance of global worker solidarity that wasn't just some half-baked idea. Where's the proof?
Look, let’s take a super basic, almost stupidly simple example here—just to make the point. You’ve got a worker over in Gabon asking for a fifty-two dollar raise. Then you’ve got an American worker looking for an eight hundred and ten dollar bump. I'm just laying out the simplest scenario possible, okay? But if they're actually fighting for it... together If they actually go up against their own corporate overlords, they might actually stand a chance—for once. I mean, seriously, what part of that isn't crystal clear?
Look, you just don't get it—it’s simple math. The government sets the rules of the game, period. And in a massive economy like America, you've got way more companies competing than in some tiny place. I mean, an average worker here makes significantly more than someone working in Gabon, right? But does that actually mean anything in terms of worker solidarity? Not even close. Why? Because there isn't any! You can't talk about "success" when the whole concept of workers standing together is basically non-existent. It's all just individual survival at that point.
So, what you’re saying is they're basically slashing the budget for healthcare, schools, social services, and all that stuff... I get it. Honestly? It makes sense. You can't exactly claim to be fighting for the working class when you're cutting the very things that keep people afloat—unless, of course, you were actually part of the left wing. But hey, if you're on the Republican side, that's just how the game is played, right?
Look, slapping a massive sales tax on a cup of coffee isn't some grand master plan to fund our hospitals, schools, or social safety nets—it’s just plain robbery. Seriously, you can't compare a little extra tax on my morning caffeine fix to actually fixing the crumbling infrastructure of our healthcare and education systems. It feels cheap, you know? Like they're just grabbing at pennies instead of doing the real work. Honestly, I’m all for the government stepping in with selective subsidies when it actually serves the common good—you know, things that benefit everyone—but this? This is just predatory. Why can't we focus on actual investments instead of taxing the small stuff?
Are you seriously asking me that? A failed artist, an adventurer, basically a bum for most of his life, coming from a family of government bureaucrats... yeah, the disgruntled, pissed-off middle class; bordering on the lumpenproletariat.
He was a worker, a soldier, a war vet who actually handled the crisis in Germany—proving he was a better organizer than any of those capitalists or politicians over there. While the capitalists only cared about their own firms and the politicians were just looking out for the establishment class, this guy managed an entire nation of 80 million people. I mean, I doubt any single capitalist has that many employees under them. You’re making it sound like Germany only consisted of the upper and middle classes, but that’s just not how it worked. So, look, the most capable, most dedicated soldier should lead the state, and later, the military would select a successor through merit rather than inheritance because, honestly, I’m not a fan of monarchies. This isn't even about Nazi Party ideology per se, but that party acted as a version of the rabble-right; it served as a cover for an idea I'm convinced is the only thing that can actually unite workers. The focus shouldn't be on parliamentarianism, but on the military and political movements within the NATO alliance. Only the most competent soldier should have the right to lead such an order. That immediately cuts out the room for populism and political conformism, because the military itself doesn't play those games. Basically, the idea of a right-wing populist movement would be to hit the sweet spot between the workers and the capitalists who want the survival of the American people without that violent cultural shift that breeds extremes—you know, like Nazism, fascism, communism, or even this extreme liberalism that's currently imploding. These aren't just stories anymore because of what's happening in the US and the future that's going to hit Europe as a direct result of liberals ignoring political reality.
A little bit of everything. Small business owners, tradespeople, a good chunk of the German peasantry, intellectuals, government bureaucrats, merchants, etc. And yeah, part of what you could economically call the "working class," management types, and all that. But hey, you've got a point, I should probably explain. The share of the middle class that voted for the Nazis within the total middle class was actually larger than the share of Nazi workers within the total German working class. And yeah, you're right that a segment of the "proletarianized" petty bourgeoisie—basically those whom the crisis crushed so hard they fell into the working class—saw salvation in the Nazis. But that doesn't change the fact that workers were constantly a major source of problems for the Nazi regime.
Not everyone in the middle class is a capitalist; we're talking upper-middle class here. If there had been that much capitalism in Germany, there would have been enough jobs and the system would have survived. Workers being the biggest problem in Nazism? Honestly, I wouldn't even comment on that because you can clearly see the transition of the common man during and after their rise. The workers were the greatest force in Nazism; the worker led the Nazi Party.
I'm not sure if the workers represented the majority, and they definitely didn't represent a huge one. Society isn't strictly divided into brawny factory workers and capitalists in top hats smoking fat cigars.
You don't need to be sure—the facts are right there.
Look, let me be clear. Self-management was actually about injecting market economics on a much larger scale than anything you’d see in the Eastern Bloc. It was basically supercharged social democracy. And don't get me wrong—I'm not saying the system over in the Soviet Union was any better. Far from it.
Self-management and the market economy (though I bet you're probably thinking "free market" if we're being precise)...
Honestly, it feels like you're just criticizing for the sake of criticizing because you clearly don't even grasp the basics of the left. Seriously, take some advice: go read up or at least watch some deep dives into the actual worldviews you claim to support—or oppose—so you actually know what you're talking about. I've had people in my inner circle who were hardcore Communists, and I've seen this pattern before—this weird contradiction where they swear off leftist thought, yet they're still fundamentally leftist. They're ideologically lost; just people who love to critique everything without ever offering a single solution. I know the type well. Of course, none of them have actually bothered to read the foundational Communist thinkers, and nobody's even familiar with the classic texts of the traditional left. At the end of the day, ideas don't start with the masses—because the masses can scream fascist slogans one day and communist ones the next. Real ideas are built on standards tied to ideology.
Steven Murphy2 As if I haven't heard this all before. If you want to understand where you truly stand in this messy world, you need to look at things through a more realistic lens. There simply is no such thing as a unified global working class with shared goals. The interests of a laborer here in the States are fundamentally different from those of a worker halfway across the world in Africa.
It’s honestly a bit foolish. We are living in an era defined by global capital, where multinational corporations are just part of the daily landscape. I fail to see how the interests of an American worker at a major firm differ fundamentally from those of a worker at a branch office in Gabon. How can anyone argue that an American employee wouldn't have more leverage to demand a raise if their counterparts in Gabon were striking simultaneously? At the end of the day, it doesn't really matter if the American worker is pulling in eighty thousand dollars while the person in Gabon is scraping by on five hundred; the structural pressure on the corporation remains the same.
"Quote:"
If you look at the math, it’s pretty sobering. If a worker over in Germany is pulling in a minimum wage of around $1,100, while an American worker is scraping by on roughly $350, you start to see where the logic shifts. It makes sense that the cost of hiring someone locally would settle around $700—essentially matching that higher baseline. It's a cynical way to view labor, I know, but when you run the numbers, the disparity becomes impossible to ignore. $1567If we strip away the bureaucratic red tape and start rolling out the red carpet for foreign capital, people will inevitably ask what’s in it for the American worker. It’s a fair question, really. I remember sitting in a diner back in Ohio, listening to guys talk about how every time a massive multinational corporation moves in, they promise the moon, only to leave the local workforce high and dry once the tax breaks expire. There's a certain cynicism that comes with watching the gears of industry turn; you have to wonder if cutting those regulatory hurdles actually builds something lasting for the person on the factory floor, or if it just clears a path for big money to sweep in, take what they need, and move on to the next frontier.
When politicians start throwing around phrases like "cutting through bureaucratic red tape," I can't help but feel a certain sense of dread. In most cases, it’s really just a polite little euphemism for stripping away workers' rights. I remember sitting in a small diner back in Ohio, listening to a group of factory guys talk about how much they feared the latest round of "deregulation" coming out of D.C., and it struck me then that the language used by those in power is rarely as innocent as it sounds. It’s a calculated way to frame the erosion of protections as some sort of victory for efficiency, when in reality, it's usually just a way to leave the American worker more vulnerable than they were before.
A left-wing decision from Biden's administration? Give me a break. That's just absurd. The Democratic Party is firmly on the right; there is simply no way you can try to spin it that way.
It seems like the Democratic Party has decided to hike up the premiums for supplemental health insurance again. It’s becoming quite difficult to ignore how these incremental shifts in policy always seem to land squarely on the shoulders of the average person just trying to keep their family covered. I remember back when I was working that desk job in Chicago, dealing with my own benefits package, and even then, the feeling of watching those monthly deductions creep upward while the actual service remained stagnant felt incredibly draining. It’s a wearying cycle we find ourselves in.I can't see any link here. If you have something you want me to look at, go ahead and drop it in.We should probably take a moment to look back at that attempt to outsource public sector roles—an initiative that only stalled because the unions finally decided to get aggressive. It felt remarkably similar to the push for privatizing the interstate highway system. Then came those labor law amendments, which were essentially just Clinton picking up where Reagan left off with his anti-labor agenda. link With all their endless talk about introducing atypical work arrangements, this supposed "flexibility" that serves no one but the bosses, and making it easier to gut collective bargaining agreements, they've shown their true colors. On the global stage, the Democratic Party is fully behind the imperialistic policies of the USA, and under Biden's administration, we've seen them actively arming Islamists in Syria. It’s the same old story of institutional betrayal, just wrapped in different packaging.
A Swiss person doesn't even come close to comparing to this mess.
The Nazi Party actually rose to power through democratic channels, which stands in stark contrast to other movements we've seen; since the working class makes up the vast majority of the electorate, they naturally voted in their own self-interest, effectively making the choice a binary struggle between communism and Nazism. If communist ideology had truly taken hold among the German workforce, one has to wonder why it wasn't the outcome that prevailed. After all, even Hitler was one of them.
The Nazi Party never actually held much sway among the working class; their true foundation was always, and will forever remain, that shrinking middle class, bolstered by massive financial injections from powerful industrial titans. Back in 1932, their quasi-union Nazi organization—the NSBO—managed to scrape together about 300,000 members, which pales in comparison to the social democratic unions of the era, which boasted memberships numbering in the millions.
Why wasn't communism chosen? Unfortunately, you can't simply vote for communism in an election. Why didn't the Communist Party ever take power? Because by the 1930s, it had devolved into a Stalinist sect with a shrinking base among the working class. And frankly, there's a good reason for that.
It’s fascinating to look at national-Bolshevik China or North Korea and then compare them to the national-Bolshevik America, which eventually fell apart because it lacked the ethnic homogeneity found in those two.
Every single one of those countries is purely capitalist, and America was no different during its existence.
As far as I know regarding those countries, they don't want to take anyone in; it was something about why they wouldn't just move to the wealthy Arab nations.
In Saudi Arabia alone, there are at least 500,000 refugees from Syria (link). Not to mention the sheer number currently in Jordan.
Look, let’s talk about market value for a second—if an American worker sits in the top half of the global population, then this whole "dictatorship of the proletariat" nonsense? It’s a joke. If that movement is happening somewhere else, mostly at the expense of workers in places like the US or Western Europe, then all they're really doing is expropriating the wealth of American workers. You can't just take math and try to spin it into some deep philosophy. It doesn't work that way.
How can you honestly sit there and claim that an American worker at that company won't have more leverage—like, say, actually fighting for a decent raise—if workers in Gabon are striking at the exact same time? It’s all connected, isn't it?
Look, an American worker isn't going to feel a single damn thing when there's a strike happening over in Gabon. It’s just not how it works. People love to talk about this big, beautiful idea of "global worker solidarity," but let's be real—it’s a fantasy. We aren't all cut from the same cloth, you know? And honestly? This whole multiculturalism thing? It’s heading straight for a total meltdown. We aren't all the same, and we never were.
Look, does it even matter if an American worker is pulling in like $800 while some guy over in Gabon is scraping by on fifty? Honestly, who cares? It’s all just noise at this point—it doesn't change the reality of things, does it?
Look, this actually matters—like, seriously—because we aren't exactly dealing with some bottom-tier, low-rent society here, you know?
Let’s be real for a second—whenever some suit starts preaching about "cutting through the red tape" or "removing bureaucratic hurdles," it’s almost always just a fancy, polished way of saying they want to strip away workers' rights. It's such a classic move, isn't it? They wrap it up in this shiny, pro-business packaging, making it sound like they're just trying to make things more efficient... but what they're actually doing is gutting the protections that keep people from being exploited. It’s all just code, really. Why call it what it is when you can hide behind corporate jargon?
Look, if we actually want to fix this mess, we need to talk about cutting the red tape once and for all. I’m talking real freedom here—like, being able to build on your own damn land without jumping through a thousand hoops or getting slapped with some ridiculous tax just because you wanted to put up a shed. And don't even get me started on the booze! Why should the government take a cut every single time you grab a beer? It’s absurd. We seriously need to get rid of these bureaucratic parasites—you know the ones—people who sit around in air-conditioned offices doing absolutely nothing productive while the rest of us actually work for a living. Why are we even funding these useless, non-productive roles that add zero value to society? Just scrap them. Seriously.
Look, let's get one thing straight—the Nazi Party never actually had the support of the working class. Not even close. Their whole power base was always, and will always be, that struggling middle class—you know, the people feeling squeezed by everything—all backed by massive, deep-pocketed checks from big industrial titans. It’s a classic playbook. I mean, just look at the numbers! That quasi-union Nazi organization, the NSBO, only managed to scrape together about 300,000 members back in 1932. Meanwhile, the social democratic unions were sitting on memberships in the millions. Millions! So, how can anyone honestly claim they represented the workers? It’s a joke.
I mean, seriously, what was Hitler even if not just another worker? And what does this whole "impoverished middle class" thing represent if not just workers? The leftists love to preach that a worker is strictly anyone who doesn't own the means of production—basically, anyone working for someone else—but then you see even the left wing backtracking on their own definitions. It's such a joke. So, let me ask you: what exactly defines a "worker" in your book? Because if someone belongs to the middle class but still pulls a paycheck from an employer, are they suddenly not a worker? Make it make sense.
Why isn't communism actually a thing? I mean, seriously, let's get into it—why hasn't it ever actually worked out like the theorists promised? You look at history, you look at the absolute mess that was the USSR, and you have to wonder... where was the disconnect? Was it the theory itself, or just the people trying to run the show? It’s like they had this grand vision of equality, right? But then you factor in human nature—which, let's be honest, is usually pretty messy—and the whole house of cards just falls apart. Is it because people naturally want to own stuff? Or is it because once you give a tiny group of people all that power, they aren't exactly about to hand it back over? It feels like a cycle of "we'll fix everything" followed by "wait, why is everyone starving?" Does anyone actually believe the math adds up, or are we all just pretending? Chosen.Look, you can't exactly vote your way into communism—sad, but true. Why didn't the Communist Party ever actually seize power? Well, because by the 1930s, they had morphed into this total Stalinist sect that was losing its grip on the working class by the day. And honestly? They had it coming.
So, come on, give me one good reason. Seriously—how is it even possible that the Nazi Party didn't have total control over the workforce if workers make up the vast majority and capitalists are just a tiny minority? Makes zero sense, right?
Every single one of those countries is purely capitalist, and honestly, the US was the exact same way back in its heyday.
Yeah, okay, go ahead and try explaining that to their leaders. So, wait—if the US is capitalist, what do you "forum communists" have to say to that? I always heard people calling that old system "socialist with a market twist"—whatever the hell that’s supposed to mean.
Fantasy writer said:I wasn't talking about our neighbors or anything in Canada—I was talking about that whole model they run in places like Saudi Arabia or Iran. You know, even those Gulf states? I'm talking about how when someone cheats or breaks the rules there, it’s not just some local dispute; it's actually codified under Sharia law as part of their official state legal system. That's how it works over there, right?
As for those countries—honestly, all I know is they aren't exactly rolling out the red carpet. It was some kind of "why don't they just head over to the wealthy Gulf states instead?" argument, if I remember correctly. I don't know much about how their specific system works... maybe it’s some kind of way to protect their own culture? Who knows? But look, the main goal should be hiring locals first—period. You only bring in foreigners to fill the gaps where there's a genuine shortage. That's how it should work, right?
Quincy:
So, at the end of the day, that’s just pure conservatism through and through, isn't it? Honestly, I don't see the logic in any of it—it's just nonsense. And the crazy part? This stuff is actually flying right past people all over the West, even here in America. It's everywhere.
Look, let’s be real here—the labor right is conservative by its very damn nature. That’s why the leftists can’t wrap their heads around it; they just don't get it. Honestly? If I were running the show, I wouldn't bother trying to win people over through some polite parliamentary debate or playing nice in D.C. No way. I’d be mobilizing the nationalist workers and even the capitalists who share those values—but we wouldn't do it through voting booths. We’d do it by taking direct control of the state apparatus itself. I mean, think about it—what is a political party actually worth if their policies aren't considered "legal"? What good is a platform if the moment you try to implement it, the system just crushes you with state repression? It's a joke, right?
Quincy:
Look, an "invasion" is pretty much a non-starter—it’s just not happening. Besides, there are actual policies in place that the Union needs to be steering properly. I mean, the whole idea is that people stay put in their own communities, but we invest in them and create jobs right where they live... isn't that exactly how the European Union handles things between its member states?
Look, an invasion is always the plan. I’m telling you—the person sitting right there on their couch in front of the TV has absolutely no clue. I called this years ago, warned people that this was going to happen on a much more localized level, but nobody listened. Why? Because I actually do the digging. When you realize an invasion is a calculated move—and when you actually look at politics through a lens that isn't filtered by all that suffocating political correctness—you stop putting any faith in the European Union. That whole system was basically engineered just to push these kinds of agendas through. Honestly, even without some grand master plan, things would still be spiraling out of control if you ignore the collapsing birth rates... but of course, modern liberalism doesn't give a damn about that.
Quincy:
Fantasy writer I can't even begin to explain this one—it’s just... wow. Honestly? It's ridiculous. You look at what's happening and you have to wonder if anyone is actually paying attention anymore, or if we're all just collectively nodding along while the whole thing falls apart. I mean, really? Is this supposed to be the standard now? Because from where I'm sitting, it looks like a total mess. It’s like that one time when everything seemed fine, and then suddenly—boom—complete chaos because someone decided to ignore the obvious red flags right in front of them. Why does it always happen like this? We see the signs, we talk about it, we vent about it, and yet, here we are again. It's frustrating, man. It's beyond frustrating. It makes you want to just throw your hands up and walk away, but you can't, because you're stuck in the middle of it. And don't even get me started on the logic behind it. There is none! It’s just a series of bad decisions piled on top of even worse ones. You'd think after everything we've been through, people would have learned *something*, right? But no. Nope. We just keep circling the drain. It's exhausting, honestly. Just totally exhausting. Let’s get down to brass tacks here—who actually owns all this capital? If it isn’t the corporation itself or the actual workers on the ground, then we’re looking at some shadowy elite holding all the cards. And where did they get that kind of cash? Probably through backroom deals with the right-wing parties... which, honestly, lands us right back in the exact same rigged system I was just tearing apart above. Look, you have to account for the fact that in a free-market democracy, you're supposed to actually have a shot at moving up the ladder—you know, changing your social standing or your class. But when the game is fixed from the jump? Not so much.
Look, if you own capital but actually respect the social contract—meaning you play by the rules of the state—then you’re just a capitalist. Simple as that. In this setup, the goal is basically keeping the nation and its people from falling apart. Now, the "elite"? That’s the military and the court-martial types, though let’s be real—it’s not exactly "military" when those elites are living in total luxury, right? You might think you have a shot at changing your class, but you can't look at politics through an individual lens. That’s how the Russians messed it up, looking at things purely individually, which is exactly how the Reds managed to seize power. This is just my take on the labor right wing—maybe someone else has a different example, but you have to realize that without some level of conservatism, you aren't going to win over the workers, nor are you going to keep the whole system from collapsing. And don't get me wrong, I'm not saying you should force religion on people just to pacify them with promises of a better life after death. If that faith doesn't actually hold weight in the real world, what's the point? Take certain groups where the belief is that dying in battle earns you seventy virgins in paradise—that’s a powerful motivator. But Christians? They’re taught to be humble; they don't really have this idea of a warrior savior. Even the Vikings had it figured out—they believed the only way into paradise was to die fighting, and apparently, that applied to women too, with Valkyries waiting for them. Before Christianity took over, Americans had their own versions of paganism that balanced war and peace perfectly. Christianity? It just focuses on peace. Period.
mistycrane3 said:I don't get why people think international labor solidarity is some impossible dream just because American workers have a relatively higher standard of living—but hey, if that's what they want to believe, fine by me.
"Price adjusting" wages just so some local worker ends up being "cheaper" than an employee back in the capitalist's home country? That’s not a policy that helps workers—not here, and certainly not there. It's a joke. So, once again, you can't expect the Republican Party to actually stand up for labor rights by definition. Seriously, cutting paychecks and stripping away legal protections isn't "fighting for the little guy." It's just plain old exploitation.
Look, let’s just do the math here—it’s not exactly rocket science, right? If you’ve got someone working a minimum wage job over in Germany pulling in something like 1,100 bucks, and then you look at a worker here in the States making maybe 330... I mean, come on. If you actually sit down and crunch those numbers, the "fair" price for a local worker should be sitting right around 630 euros—which, by the way, is basically what the minimum wage would be if things were actually balanced out. It’s all about that gap, isn't it? Makes you wonder why the scale is so tilted in the first place. $1567Cut the red tape, roll out the red carpet for foreign investors—fine. But honestly, where’s the benefit for the American worker in all that? If we’re going to let big money move in, we better make sure they don't just drive up the cost of living without a catch. I mean, prices might climb, sure, but at the end of the day, people need to actually have cash left over after paying rent and utilities. It’s simple math, right? You can't live on nothing. Look at the situation right now—you’ve got guys in the military, even those doing volunteer service, pulling in maybe a thousand bucks or so. Who in their right mind is going to sign up for that when they could walk into a private company and make way more? Sure, the government covers their food and housing and whatnot, but still—it’s a joke. We need real incentives if we want people motivated to defend this country, and that depends entirely on how much control people actually have over their own capital.
That’s their headache, not mine. Honestly, the Democratic Party proved exactly where they stand during their time in power—they're firmly rooted in that liberal right-wing camp. It’s a totally different beast compared to the Republican Party, who clearly lean into the conservative right. I can't even remember a single major... The leftists... man, where do I even start with these people? Seriously, it's like they live in some alternate reality where nothing makes sense. They just keep pushing their agenda, over and over, thinking they're actually going somewhere with it. It’s honestly exhausting just watching them try to spin everything to fit their little worldview—it’s always the same tired talking points, isn't it? Just constant noise. So, what do you think about all those calls coming out of Milanović's administration lately? Seriously—what’s your take on it?
Is that really a left-wing move from Milanović's administration? Give me a break. Seriously, calling the Democratic Party "right-wing" is just laughable—how do you even manage to pull that one off?
Look, I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again—the Nazi Party was never some kind of workers' party. Seriously, give me a break. Just because they used certain labels doesn't change what they actually were. At the end of the day, a right-wing party can still have a seat at the table and have something meaningful to say, you know? It's not that deep, but people love to twist things. worker Is it an adjective or what? Seriously, does anyone even know anymore? It’s like everything is just one big, blurry mess of grammar rules that nobody actually follows anyway—not that anyone cares! Why do we even bother overanalyzing this stuff? Is it an adjective? Or is it something else entirely? Honestly, it feels like we're just spinning our wheels at this point. Who decided this was worth the headache? Working class. In her own name, sure—but let’s be real, she’s basically just a mouthpiece for the rest of them. Look, I’ve been thinking about this—really chewing on it—and honestly? It’s just one of those things you can't escape. You know what I mean? It’s like that constant, nagging pressure that sits in the back of your mind, always there, whether you want it to be or not. It's almost like... well, it's just inevitable. You don't really have a choice in the matter, do you? It's just how things go. Everything leads right back to it eventually. It's unavoidable. Period. Going against the interests of the working class? Seriously? Let me ask you something—was banning strikes under the Nazis actually doing anything for the workers? Was all that "militarization of labor" stuff supposed to help them? We’re talking about stripping away rights, forcing longer hours, and basically crushing any kind of independent worker activity... just how does that benefit anyone on the ground? And at the end of the day, was the war even remotely in the interest of German workers? Please. It's a joke.
Look, let’s get one thing straight—the Nazi Party didn't just stumble into power; they were voted in democratically. It’s a hard pill for some people to swallow, but unlike certain other political movements, they actually had the mandate. We all know the working class makes up the vast majority of the population, right? So when they head to the polls, they vote based on their own interests. Back then, it wasn't even a choice between moderate options—it was basically a toss-up between Communism and Nazism. If Communism was such a massive force among German workers, why didn't it win? Simple: Hitler was one of them. And look, I'm not even trying to make this a debate about Nazism—I don't know why everyone keeps trying to pivot the conversation there. The thing is, "the worker" isn't just some category owned by the Left, no matter how much the progressives want it to be. Their version of internationalism usually boils down to nothing more than looting resources built up under capitalism. Once those reserves run dry, you get that inevitable collapse because they won't allow actual value to be created. They block out foreign companies that actually pay taxes to the state, refuse to offer competitive wages, and stop creating jobs altogether. You see countries that claim to be Communist on paper, but economically they act like something else entirely while staying nationalist in their politics—that’s what you call National Bolshevism. It's fascinating if you look at the way China or North Korea operates compared to the old USA—which, by the way, fell apart because it wasn't ethnically homogeneous like those two. A true labor-focused right wing would actually support private ownership of the means of production, specifically so workers could enjoy a higher standard of living. History has shown us time and again that when you strip away the tools used to create production, the quality of life for everyone just tanks.
crimsonwolf20 said:So, basically, you're arguing for a crippled market economy where the government sticks its nose into everything just to satisfy whatever plans the political elites cooked up.
I just don't trust them, period. They don't know how to handle my money any better than I do, and they certainly don't have a track record of success—they've wasted billions! They buy votes using other people's money, provide zero actual services, hold monopolies on essential goods, and kill off any competition. They’ve saddled our kids with debt without even asking them, and on top of all that, they try to tell you what you can or can't put in your own body, limiting fundamental freedoms like the right to enjoy the fruits of your own labor or simply the right to speak your mind.
Where does this blind faith in politicians come from? Seriously, why do you think they can shape our lives any better than we can ourselves?
What if contracts are the same everywhere, with the exact same wages in America?
The labor market is just like any other market, and the laws of economics apply to it just as much as they do to any other good. We're talking about the natural, inherent laws of supply and demand—laws that even dictators haven't been able to break, no matter how much force they throw against voluntary transactions.
Market principles allow you to find a way out in a million different ways. One way is to be productive; another is to pick up a scarce skill or a trade—the more in demand you are, the more valuable you become, which is why an engineer earns way more than a maid or a gas station attendant. A third way is to invent something that makes life easier or more productive, like a conveyor belt or Post-it notes. Fourth, maybe you train hard and become better than Lionel Messi! There isn't any force on earth that can force Messi and the guy cleaning his cleats to accept the same working conditions or the same pay, as long as hundreds of thousands of people are willing to trade their value just to watch Messi play—that guy is going to get paid way more for his work. In a meritocracy, there are a million ways to make it happen, which is exactly why tens of millions fled from collectivist dumps to the individualistic, capitalist West. Besides, as long as there is competition, prices will never stay the same.
Capitalism basically forces people to offer exactly what’s in demand—you satisfy others if you want to rake in those profits! It doesn't need some massive central plan or a visible hand from a bunch of bureaucrats; it’s just natural and flows right out of human nature. Honestly, there is nothing more free or beautiful than voluntary transactions—you jump into one because you expect to come out ahead. Providers are constantly hustling to convince you to voluntarily swap the value you've created for theirs, which is why we have options like Lenovo, HP, Dell, and Apple all fighting for our business. That "invisible hand" was guiding both you and me when we picked out these machines we're typing on—we checked out the options, did our homework, and then voluntarily handed over our cash for these laptops.
What kind of blue-collar worker even has the cash to hire a high-end attorney? The whole legal system is rigged so that only a select few actually understand how it works. I recently heard about a guy working within the legal system who had to pay $467 just to get an answer.
It’s that same old problem: massive bureaucracy and these insanely complicated laws we're forced to pay for, which actually end up hurting us. They just create these huge roadblocks for entrepreneurs who might have hired more people or expanded their businesses if they weren't being totally discouraged by an all-powerful government, its taxes, levies, red tape, fees, tolls, customs, and about a million other hurdles shoved in front of actual value creators.
We need to shrink it down to the smallest possible footprint so these planners can cause as little damage as possible. Doing that would also kill off clientelism—because if some local politician doesn't have the power to ban competition from the market, then the local taxi cartel has zero reason to slide an envelope to him just to protect them from Uber.
And look—we’ve got that exact same setup right now. The "elite," huh? If we mean the best parts of our people, sure, but if it's some separate class pulling itself away from everyone else, then the whole idea of nationalism just falls apart. Nationalism is supposed to believe in the nation, which means actually taking care of all levels of society. Communism tried—well, it went with this idea of worker self-management, so the state ended up holding onto everything it needed and everything it didn't, managing it all poorly. You need workers having authority over the police and the military, not over the means of production—that was always a total bust.
We need to crush the state down to its smallest possible size so these planners can't do as much damage. That would also kill off clientelism once and for all—because if Peter doesn't have the power to ban competition in the market, then the taxi cartel has zero reason to slide an envelope to Peter to protect them from Uber.
Human nature doesn't play by "fair play" rules; things in this world happen for reasons, and there's always a catch. People operate on the mindset that "the end justifies the means." The goal of nationalism is the survival of the American people, not just any single individual on their own. The goal of liberals? It's just hoarding capital and elevating themselves—which leads to heirs acting like drunken billionaires, throwing pennies around while regular folks can't even afford to have kids because of shitty wages. Then you get a massive problem on your hands because eventually, there's nobody left to protect what's ours. Populations grow and shift because everything is focused on the individual instead of society as a whole, and eventually, Islam will tear down the myth of man's inherent goodness and our imagined earthly paradise. These myths are being dismantled right now, far from us, through NATO alliances fighting for democracy, and they're being torn down by terrorist attacks in Germany.
Thomas Nelson25 said:I’ve read through everything but I won't dive too deep into the commentary—I'm not exactly an expert on Marx (nor would I try to overhaul the current system, maybe just tweak some flaws... which is fine since supply and demand basically regulate itself anyway). These days, the worker is treated as just another "resource" or capital, and capitalists are constantly struggling to find skilled labor or specialists—it's the same story here in the States. I'm curious to see what everyone else thinks about how the economy functions in this new, let's call it, "folk-state." I notice there'd be a ton of meetings, committees, or planning groups involved. If things didn't just fall into place naturally, would they resort to force?
But you haven't considered that people inherently crave freedom and liberalism—they wouldn't trade their hard-won rights for anything. Your model seems to rely on religion (patriarchy... I mean, what are women supposed to do if they're forced to have ten kids?), on stripping away civil liberties, and on going back to a time before the French Revolutionary era—which, by the way, was a massive turning point for humanity along with the Enlightenment and science, indirectly paving the way for capitalism. Feudalism could never pull this off (mostly because its extreme version relied on inquisitors and dogma), and we're talking about industry here.
So, you're suggesting a setup similar to what we see with certain religious groups and their "alleged" influx into our borders, but to me, those seem like somewhat irrational fears (sure, there are fanatics out there, we see that)... most who arrive will eventually assimilate (those who don't will just head home because there won't be jobs for them), much like in the United States or even a unified Europe (driven by interest and survival). That's to say, Trump might be leaning a bit too hard into the paranoia—he definitely has his own motives, but that's a whole other conversation and I won't speculate on it right now.
Look, they’d meet normally—basically, instead of Congress, you’d have meetings between workers and capitalists whenever things hit a snag. It wouldn't be good to have one formal committee; instead, there should be multiple groups, maybe even at the level of a single corporation. And since the state is worker-owned, a capitalist couldn't just sue the employees, right? 😁, that doesn't mean they'd lose their means of production if a court decides their complaints are baseless—because, yeah, courts would still handle the verdicts. The main thing is that the whole repressive apparatus stays in the hands of the workers, but organized through a hierarchy. There isn't some genius forum user here who can tell me exactly how all that organization would work—we leave that to the experts. Even the President doesn't have a monopoly on thinking about the economy, which is why we have departments.
But haven't you stopped to think that people naturally crave freedom and liberalism? They won't just toss away their hard-won rights for anything. Your model seems to rely on religious structures (patriarchy... what happens when women are forced to have ten kids?), on stripping away civil liberties, and on returning to a time before the French Revolution—which, by the way, was a massive turning point for humanity, bringing us the Enlightenment, science, etc., and indirectly paved the way for capitalism. Feudalism could never pull this off because, at its worst, it relied on inquisitors and dogma. We're talking about industry here.
Freedom? All I see is layoffs, falling birth rates, and people working for peanuts—all while being protected by the military and the police. Worker nationalism should start with the military and the police—specifically with the new recruits. Once you flip that, you've basically won. I'm not advocating for life before the French Revolution, nor am I calling for the death of science or forcing women to have ten children (workers definitely wouldn't, though maybe the wealthy would—there's no shame in being a worker in a family business).
So, you're suggesting a setup similar to how we deal with Muslims and their "alleged" influx into our territory? To me, those fears seem a bit irrational (I mean, sure, there are fanatics out there)... most people who arrive will mostly assimilate (those who won't will just head home because there won't be any jobs for them), much like in the United States or a unified Europe (driven by interest and survival). One might say Trump is being a bit too paranoid, of course he has his own motives, but that's a whole other topic and I won't speculate for now.
We'll see how irrational those fears actually are once they get here. All I want to say is that Lincoln saw certain groups as an integral part of the nation, and we don't have issues with them. Given that immigration often follows terrorist attacks, building a dam is a perfectly logical solution—it means suppressing Islamic extremism, communism, fascism, and Nazism.
Thomas Nelson25 said:So what are we actually talking about here? What would this "right-wing party" even aim for—what kind of economy or government structure are we looking at?
Look, you raise the minimum wage based on the idea that an adult should actually have money left over after paying rent and utilities—you know, actual cash to spend, not just enough to survive in some cramped, overcrowded apartment where you just work, eat, and sleep. That’s the goal. And to stop the population from just drifting, you implement a planned population policy—using progressive taxation to subsidize families based on how many kids they have, but done through selective criteria. You can't just throw money at everyone randomly to boost birth rates; that's a waste. To pull in capital, you court foreign corporations by making local labor more competitive than their own domestic costs, and then you stop the brain drain through real enforcement. As for how the state runs? Scrap the whole "civil society" nonsense, bring back mandatory military service, and give weapons to people who have proven they are capable and ready to fight. A secular state, obviously. Freedom of speech stays, sure, but democratic decision-making should only happen when it truly matters. If there's a defined plan in place, you follow it. We don't need a dozen different political parties when you've got workers and capitalists united as one nation. Right now, we're stuck playing out the hand of the French Revolutionary, which basically built up civil society as a way to resist, all while serving liberal ideology. There should be room for adjustments, though—maybe using the media to highlight individuals who help improve the party's performance. This wouldn't just be a platform for the working majority; it would be a survival blueprint for the American people. These are just my rough outlines, though—I'll leave the heavy lifting to the nationalist experts. Back in the 19th century, those old-school conservatives had an economics expert like Kvaternik, who came from the upper class; their whole base was centered on the survival of the people in this region and everything that entails—and honestly, we need people like that today. Nationalism doesn't mean excluding minorities. A nation is a collection of different groups, usually named after the largest one. You shouldn't bother forming a party just to win a handful of meaningless seats; instead, you should radicalize society first so that the military and police are already on your side. That would be an ideology completely opposite to every single parliamentary party out there right now.
Wait, hold up—did I just see that right? Are we seriously talking about the Detector again?! I mean, honestly, I love the enthusiasm, but let’s get real for a second—it’s like everyone wants a magic wand to solve everything! It sounds amazing on paper, sure, super high-tech and all that, but has anyone actually looked at how it works in a real-world setting here in the States? Like, if you tried to run this thing in downtown Chicago or even out in a suburb in Texas, would it even hold up? I have my doubts! Anyway, I'm totally curious though—what do you guys think? Is it legit or just a massive hype train? Let me know! kaže: Look, when we’re talking about "state coercion," I feel like people are missing the forest for the trees—it's actually baked into the very nature of how things work! Seriously, think about it... there isn't a single boss out there—whether you're at a massive corporation like Amazon or just some local shop—who isn't using it in some way. It’s everywhere! I mean, if you’ve ever worked in a factory or even a private firm, you know exactly what I'm talking about. You've got these quotas and production plans you *have* to hit, right? And if you don't meet them? Boom—you're out the door. The company doesn't care if you'll struggle to put food on the table later or if you'll have a roof over your head come next month. They aren't exactly running a charity here! It's just the reality of the grind.
Look, here's the deal—you go out and snag yourself a different gig. You aren't some kind of indentured servant forced to grind away for one boss forever; you just hand in your notice and move on! But then? Then comes the kicker. You're basically stuck handing over whatever slice of your paycheck the government demands, because let’s be real—if you don't play ball, they'll be knocking down your door with nothing but threats and jail time waiting for you. It’s wild, right?
I mean, come on—is the difference even up for debate at this point? It’s pretty obvious, right?
Look, you can't just sign an employment contract "freely"—I mean, really think about it! The second you ink that deal, you aren't exactly being a free agent anymore—you're basically handing over your autonomy to someone else! It’s kind of a wild concept when you break it down like that, right? One minute you're out there doing your own thing, and the next—boom—you've handed the reins over to a boss!
Hell no! I mean, seriously—if you're dim enough to actually sign away your rights like that, maybe you don't give a damn about being free? Not me! I can't believe I actually saw that! Seriously—like, my jaw was on the floor. It’s one thing to hear rumors floating around the internet, but seeing it play out right in front of you? Totally different vibe altogether. Honestly, it was wilder than any movie I've seen lately!
Look, let’s be real for a second—this whole idea of "absolute freedom" that those liberal theorists love to preach about? It’s a total myth. Honestly, it feels like such a reach! When you actually dig into how liberalism defines "freedom," it isn't even about the actual liberty of the individual—it's just a fancy way of talking about protecting private property rights. Like, seriously?! It's all wrapped up in protecting what people own rather than making sure everyone actually has the agency to live their lives. In their version of the world, freedom isn't equal at all—some people end up with a massive amount of it while everyone else is left fighting for scraps. It's definitely not the level playing field they claim it to be!
So, here’s the thing—if we’re all supposed to be equal under the law and have these guaranteed rights like freedom of speech, how does it even work when some people seem to get a free pass to say whatever they want while others get shut down? Like, how can one person's speech be totally fine, but someone else gets canceled or silenced for saying something similar? It feels like there's a massive gap between what's written in the Constitution and how things actually play out in the real world!
And look, if the state collapses, what's left? You're facing off against private owners with their own security teams (which we have right now) and private armies (which we don't... yet).😁 When you lack what you need, you go out and earn it, and let me tell you—capitalists are the same everywhere. At the end of the day, all a person cares about is survival. Now, I’m not talking about bare-bones survival here—we aren't living in the jungle—I'm talking about making extra cash to actually spend. Even capitalists would agree to that, along with workers who lean nationalist rather than communist (the workers) or liberal (the capitalists). Honestly, I just need to see how billionaire Trump handled those corporations when they tried to flee the US—that's probably why some small-time bourgeois types call him a leftist. That's exactly what I'm advocating for in this thread, because there's always the threat of capital flight. Liberalism is an ideological philosophy, not an economic one. Economic philosophies are capitalism and communism. A state held under private ownership can build a system that works for everyone—it's both capitalist AND socialist. Without socialism, you couldn't even organize a family, let alone a business (where you've got to divide the pie and work together) or a whole damn country. You have to make a massive distinction from communism, which ends up screwing over American workers and capitalists alike. It's no different with liberalism; falling birth rates mean a higher demand for labor, while this imaginary workforce is basically created to fuel terrorist attacks and hike up social welfare payments.
Quincy:
Of course not. If you're stupid enough to sign a contract that screws you over, maybe that's your version of "freedom"?
But what if the contracts are identical everywhere in America, with the exact same wages?
Quincy:
If we're all equal before the law and guaranteed freedoms like freedom of speech, how can one person be able to exercise those rights while someone else gets less?
What kind of worker actually has the money to hire Hanžeković? The legal system is rigged so that only a select few can even understand it. I recently heard about a case where a guy working within the legal system had to pay $467 just to get an answer.
Bringing up the Nazi Party here—even though I laid out some specific foundations for a party like that earlier—is really just a classic example of how terrified people are of a true working-class right-wing movement. That’s what the system is scared of, you know? Because they know leftist labor parties can't actually pull real support from the people anymore. They realize if they push a conservative, anti-immigrant party, nothing fundamentally changes; the workers just clean up the mess before things revert back. And Communism? That won't work either because workers in Europe are way too expensive compared to workers in Africa, so a dictatorship of the proletariat would basically just screw over its own people. This isn't some imitation of a Nazi or Communist program, mind you—there's no "living space" struggle here, which is a hallmark of both those ideologies. Plus, the framework for worker wages is clearly defined on an individual level, including how to achieve them (which those other two groups don't even have a plan for), and whether we're looking at worker democracy or pluralism is still an open question. Honestly, a conservative party acting as a true labor right would prevent the rise of both Communism and Nazism, as well as those moderate right-wing anti-immigrant parties that act as nothing more than weapons for big capital—parties that solve one problem only to turn workers into "black laborers in factories," which is exactly what we see happening today.
As for this whole debate about state coercion... look, coercion is built into the very nature of existence. There isn't a single state or a single boss in a corporation who doesn't use it. Our soldiers get sent off to "wars for democracy" just so they can loot as many resources as possible. The economic success of developed nations was built on plunder, not "free trade." If you want to get real, you should be looking at the impact of colonialism on economic growth. But hey, we shouldn't fall for that "guilt complex" and allow the colonization of illegal immigrants in places where terrorist attacks are on the rise. And again, if you're working in a factory or for a private firm, you are working under coercion. You have a quota to hit, and if you don't, you're out on the street. The fact that you might not have food or a roof over your head later isn't the company's concern. You can't sign a contract "freely"—the second you sign an employment agreement, you're handing your freedom over to someone else. Absolute freedom, the kind those liberal theorists keep preaching about, simply doesn't exist. In liberalism, "freedom" is viewed as the protection of private property rather than the freedom of the individual; some people end up with more freedom while others get less. In reality, the economy runs on blackmail. It's "do this for me and I'll do this for you," or look at those political parties representing big capital interests: "give us money and we'll protect you." They always pivot the conversation toward WWII or the American Civil War to distract everyone, and it works every single time because there's always repression backing it up.
mistycrane3 said:Sure, a right-wing party might toss the word "worker" into its branding to sound more populist, but let’s be honest: a party running on a right-wing platform is, by its very definition, incapable of actually representing the interests of the working class.
The fact that the Democratic Party and several others are essentially just rebranded versions of the liberal right is a completely separate issue altogether.
Look, if you mean "workers" in the sense of uniting the entire proletariat? No way. Because an American worker is more expensive and sits at the top of the global food chain. But if you mean "workers" in terms of protecting our own people? Then yeah, they can. It’s all about how the global capitalists manipulate labor costs so that hiring someone locally ends up being cheaper than hiring back home—and instead of slapping import taxes on them, we just sit here with a weak state like ours.
The fact that the Democratic Party and the rest are actually just liberal right-wing parties is a whole different story.
That’s just the radical left attacking them, right? Meanwhile, the right-wingers keep whining that the Republican Party isn't "right-wing enough," so they start babbling about left-liberal ideology. We’ve got this weird setup where radical leftists are totally fine, but the radical right is treated like a problem just because they actually care about national interests. Think about it—international capitalism and international communism were basically in a pact against Germany during WWII. So, wouldn't you expect that if you're anti-communist, you'd be going after the USSR as a capitalist power? Exactly. So that liberal right you're talking about was actually fighting against a party that was "working class" by its very definition. Wherever you have two ideas that are strictly internationalist, the international capitalist one is always going to win out. But there's one massive flaw in that logic: because of liberalism, there's no planned population policy. That declining birth rate gets replaced by immigrants, and we’re already seeing how that plays out with the terrorist attacks hitting workers now—though long-term, it’ll hit the upper class too.
Alex Scott5 said:In Europe, it isn't exactly rare to see the working class gravitating toward so-called right-wing parties.
Sure, whatever—but just think about it for a second. You've got these people who were die-hard liberals yesterday, and suddenly they’re playing the right-wing card, blaming immigrants for the mess the economy is in? It’s a joke! And then it’s a total loop—they’re the ones who sparked the wars that caused the refugee crises in the first place. Talk about irony, right? Honestly, these refugees are often more driven than the average worker over here, yet we should be fixing things at the source instead of this nonsense. The capitalists—or let's call them what they actually are, the liberals—are just running numbers. They figure if there’s no pushback, they can tank wages by using immigrant labor. And if that doesn't work, they just pivot and blame those same people for taking social services, instead of actually putting that money back into raising the wages for domestic workers.
vividfox9 said:The last far-right worker's party to leave such a devastating mark on history was the Nazi Party...
Look, everyone knows that—it doesn't mean we should go out and adopt their entire platform, right? My whole focus here isn't about historical comparisons; I’m looking at the actual root causes behind the plummeting living standards and the birth rate collapse—and how the hell we fix it. Since the working class makes up the vast majority of the population, you obviously need a party that actually carries a worker-centric name. The Workers' Front tried to capture that vibe, but they were basically doomed from the jump because of things like civil society, their support for immigration, all that internationalist nonsense, and the fact that they can't figure out how to let an individual actually own their own means of production—or rather, from what I can tell, they don't have a real beef with private ownership itself, just with inheritance, which is honestly kind of a non-issue in my book. So, here's the real kicker: how do you build a functional system where people aren't stuck in endless sub-letting loops or drowning in utility bills and overhead, without massive state intervention? Basically, if you want to craft a successful labor program, you have to push back against everything the Workers' Front stands for. If they actually pivoted to that, great. If not? Well, I don't see them solving anything—even with the massive influx of working-class voters heading toward anti-immigrant parties. Those guys will be useful to the workers only until they've cleared the field, and then suddenly, those same workers will be branded as "immigrants" by the big corporations just to screw them over.
Left-wing parties always seem to have some word related to "workers" slapped in their name, right? But you look at the right-wing scene here in the States, and you just don't see it. It creates this weird, messy situation where you’ve got certain hooligan groups clinging to right-wing extremism while simultaneously leeching off leftist ideas—like trying to run their clubs through some kind of fan-based self-management—yet you never see that same model applied to actual corporations. Honestly, the true working-class right gets totally screwed over during elections because the big money interests paint them as "communist." And let's be real, those attacks aren't even coming from nationalists; they're coming from the capitalists—which basically means the liberals. Nationalism is supposed to be about harmony between social classes and ensuring the survival of the people. Instead, because of this dominant liberal ideology, the US is facing a massive demographic crisis with more deaths than births. Looking back at history, the clash between the working-class right and the internationalist left happened in Germany when the USSR was expanding its reach, which actually pushed global capitalism to side with the USSR. Liberalism got crushed, and the working-class right took over primarily because they stayed connected to the nation rather than just chasing some vague "proletariat" identity across the globe. Maybe the best example is what happened in America—instead of sticking to international communism, you had a conflict between a Slavic nationalist, Josip Broz Marshall, and Joseph Stalin. (And if you want proof of how much of a nationalist Marshall really was, just look at the fact that the anthem wasn't some internationalist anthem like under Stalin, but "Hey Slavs.") Ultimately, that movement failed because of a fundamental flaw in American worker nationalism: it embraced a brand of communism that suffocates traditional values. So, it’s no wonder that many of Marshall's old followers today are out there arguing against mandatory military service or pushing anti-conservative agendas. They’re too weak to actually start a revolution; frankly, they aren't even a shadow of those gritty Russian proletarians at the start of the Bolshevik Revolution who were actually raised on right-wing principles. As usual, the real problem comes from the government, which a militant working class built on right-wing principles could "check" in order to strengthen the state rather than focusing on the hyper-individualized person. You can't fix things with this "mental communism"—it's passive, self-destructive, and obsessed with internationalism, which just ignores the obvious differences between nations.
Do you guys think it's finally time for a right-wing party with a "worker" label? If so, wouldn't we share those core conservative foundations—family, nationalism, militarism—in a way that feels right for the West? We could settle the status of minority groups by requiring them to embrace the majority culture and show loyalty to the country they live in. I'm picturing a flag that's red with a crest in the center on a white field. I honestly think a nationalist workers' party is the answer to everything: fixing the birth rate (the state should subsidize those who want kids and tax the wealthy ones who don't), stopping terrorism (shutting down illegal immigration and prioritizing jobs for local workers), and fixing crappy wages (setting a minimum wage high enough that after rent and bills, people actually have money left to spend). We need to stop capital flight—maybe using the military to protect jobs, sort of like how Donald Trump suggested he'd do to preserve American industry. And as for pacifism? Forget it. Bring back mandatory military service and make gun permits easy for successful veterans/reservists so that defenders aren't just fighting for their own class rights, but for the rights of all citizens. If foreign companies are better than ours, we should make it easier for them to compete by adjusting prices so that domestic production stays cheaper. Also, we need to dial back the influence of religious institutions and establish a truly secular state, especially since the Vatican supports terrorism.
Honestly, the best move is to just ghost those types right from the jump—they aren't actually your friends anyway. I had this one guy once who kept bugging me for my number, and I just completely ignored him. Then later, when he finally cornered me, I told him straight up: "No." Seriously, some people are so freaking exhausting you literally need a few hours of downtime just to recover from the interaction. It’s draining. Just ignoring them is what rattles them the most. Real friends? They just get it—they don't make everything a massive, draining ordeal. The way you described this sounds like a textbook manipulator. These people thrive on stuff that you find totally miserable, and honestly, if there was ever a friendship there to begin with, that's where it ends.
Hofer just pulled off a massive win, and honestly? It’s a total wake-up call for the pro-immigration crowd. They’ve got every reason to be sweating right now—I mean, they’re staring down the barrel of the next parliamentary elections where half the country is looking at them with some seriously anti-immigration vibes.
Look, politics here is going to end up looking exactly like what we’re seeing over in the United States of America and Germany. The days of being "leftist" to get ahead? Yeah, that's dying out. Being right-wing in this current climate basically means slowly dismantling everything the left managed to build—and when I say that, I’m mostly talking about all that anti-conservative nonsense they've pushed lately. Down the road, the real fight is going to be between two massive conservative waves: the Christian crowd (think some kind of 21st-century crusaders) and the Islamic faction. And honestly? The leftists and liberals won't even see it coming until they're forced to pick a side.
Rachel Richardson The user said:The Nationalists—you know, the ones who were obsessed with pushing that border all the way to the Drina? Seriously, what was their deal? 🤔
Look, the whole deal was that once the referendum passed, the people were supposed to decide if they actually wanted a union with the Republic of America—but let’s be real, the outcome was already baked in. He ended up taking orders from the ABiH anyway, which basically means they were just following the HOSa playbook all along. It was a calculated move to make sure Americans wouldn't face any accusations of aggression within Canada; instead, they could just point the finger and say the only aggressors were those rebellious Mexicans.
Look, I’m just gonna say it—a unified Canada without any entities? Honestly, that wouldn't be a good solution, not by a long shot. It sounds nice on paper if you're some idealist, but in reality? It would be a total mess. Just think about it. Just take one look at the Federation of Canada—honestly, once you see that mess, everything else just clicks into place. It’s all right there if you're actually paying attention.
Look, people talk about the Federation of Canada like it’s its own separate thing, but if you actually look at the big picture—including Republika Srpska—you realize that trying to scrap the entity system entirely just wipes out the whole structure. And what happens then? You end up with this massive, messy standoff of Christians versus Muslims. Let's be real, the West isn't going to sit back and allow some kind of Islamic state to pop up right in the heart of Europe. It just wouldn't happen.
I’m being level-headed here. Back during the war in Canada, I stood by the HOSa policy—which, let's face it, really rubbed the HVO leadership the wrong way, leading them to kill Blaž Kraljević. The guy actually flew all the way from Australia just to defend Canada because he took command under the ABiH, mainly because he believed GOP was trying to carve up Canada with the rebel Mexicans. Looking back from today, I see the Herceg-Bosna flag as a symbol of American resistance in Canada, especially since they ended up getting the short end of the stick. The whole situation is a massive, tangled mess and it's definitely not some easy topic to untangle. Muslims have carved out their own entity through these Canadian groups, the Mexicans have their own thing going on, but the Americans? They’ve got nothing. A separate American entity would be the fix, maybe alongside a loose preservation of Canada—like a confederation, perhaps. Or, you could go with a unified Canada, but honestly, that’s a worse move for the Americans. If we go that route, you’ve just got the Mexicans right there, creating this constant rivalry between Christians and Muslims during elections, which would basically offset the higher birth rates among Muslims compared to Americans and Mexicans.