The Far Left

goldenpuma84 said:Look, you're seeing things in black and white. The real world has a lot more shades to it...

The whole labor versus capital struggle defined the 19th and 20th centuries, and now crimsonwolf20 is just looking around at the world today like... what even is this? I don't get it. I just can't accept it...

It’s that classic move where some corporate shark grabs a massive stake in a major firm under shady circumstances, then starts bleeding that company dry just to plug holes in his other businesses... He stops paying the suppliers and guts the core strength of a solid brand with a huge presence across America, all while buying up luxury real estate and high-end cars. Eventually, you go from cutting transit benefits and meal allowances straight down to him not even paying people their wages...

Drop the ideological nonsense...

Historically speaking, the left started out fighting for workers while the right fought for capital. At first, they both wanted radical fixes like getting rid of private property entirely, but eventually, they just settled for working within the capitalist system...

When you produce a cake, you have to slice it up. That’s where the whole labor vs. capital conflict kicks in... right when you're dividing the pie...

You're totally missing my point...

The leftists just have too much free time on their hands. It’s not exactly hard work... It really comes down to how someone chooses to spend that time and what they actually value. Whether they want to live alone or start a family, if they believe in God or not, or if they think being American is defined by birth and culture... basically, whether they want an open society where you define your own good, or a closed one where the government does it for you...

That’s the real line between the right and the left. It isn't just about obsessing over the bottom line in every single scenario...

I doubt you’ll get this, but by those actual standards, the Nazi Party was a right-wing party. Purely right-wing.

Either way, your take is pretty avant-garde. Maybe you should write a paper claiming Hitler was actually a leftist and send it over to a political science institute in Germany. Who knows, maybe your theory uncovers some hidden peak of historical thought we haven't seen yet...

It’s also pretty obvious how obsessed you are with Marx. You view everything through an economic lens, like money is the only thing that matters and everything else is secondary. For me, it's about spirit and ideas; the economics are just extra. You don't even realize it, but you sound so Marxist. Just freaking Marxist.

The thing is, what you despise so much about Marx is actually just your own reflection. Like any mirror image, just slightly flipped...

Hold up—first you’re claiming economic repression doesn't matter to totalitarian regimes, and then when someone points out it’s actually the single most important tool for controlling society, suddenly they’re "obsessed with economics"? 🤣 Honestly, I’d say your view is what’s shallow and lacking nuance! How else do you explain someone arguing that managing the economy is some insignificant detail? This is absurd on an epic scale.

Economics is basically just a massive web of transactions where people swap value for value. It’s easily the most sophisticated system of human interaction ever—we're talking hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of rational people with their own needs, wants, preferences, skills, intelligence, and hard work—all exchanging that stuff with other people who are also driven by rational interests and contributing based on their own abilities. And look, Ekonomja isn't just "capital," nor is it some imaginary battle between "labor and capital" that collectivists from here to Venezuela love to chant like a mantra. Economics is everything! It's the food on your table, the roof over your head, your clothes, your shoes, your washing machine, even a thumb drive or your free time—it even reaches down to the well-being of your kids and everything that makes life easier or harder. At its core, it's the most vital thing in anyone's life; it's the line between a prosperous, comfortable life and worrying if your kids will go hungry tonight. Anyone who controls that holds the reins to the most important aspects of human existence. Calling that kind of control a "minor detail" or dismissing economic repression as "vulgar economizing" is just straight-up stupidity. I mean, seriously, do you think the economy was so irrelevant to the Nazis that their war industry just fell from the sky? No one had to pay for it through labor or capital, right? And don't even get me started on those old slogans about "God, Country, and Nation"—in your little fantasy world, I guess Mao and Stalin weren't nationalists because, hey, they were leftists. Talk about a black and white world.

And because of that control via central planning and repression, the whole point of the Left isn't "free time" or "advocating for workers"—those are just mantras for the naive. The actual essence of the Left is precisely the control of society through the forceful management of people and their preferences.

Without that control and the forced management of people and property, there is no "Left." By that logic, the National Socialist German Workers' Party was pure economic Leftism, just like the Nazis themselves claimed and as their own platform proves. Sure, they were racists and nationalists, but we have plenty of examples of leftist racists and nationalists—just look at communist China or the USSR.

So again, if things like nationalizing industry, state monopolies on healthcare, education, and pensions, a state-controlled central bank, government manipulation of prices, state interference in voluntary market relations, state-mandated wages, and production quotas set by planners are all considered "Right-wing"... then what on earth is the Left supposed to be, for God's sake? 🤷

goldenpuma84 said:There are actually two different axes you can use to map political parties from left to right, though the lines always get a bit blurry...

The first is the relationship between labor and capital, and the second is how they view tradition—basically, freedom versus authority and national identity.

On that first axis, the Nazi Party believed true individual value couldn't be found in a capitalist system driven by pure profit, since that's all just selfish interests. In reality, though, the big German capitalists were huge supporters of the Nazi Party because they saw them as a shield against Bolshevism. The Nazi Party never actually tried to nationalize industries or cut into profits; instead, the capitalists just used the German war machine to line their own pockets.

True value, in their eyes, came from devotion to the Fatherland, through sacrifice, unity, and shedding blood—both yours and others'. Real value meant sacrificing personal freedoms to defend a homeland that dictates everything. The individual is nothing; the State decides everything from what you wear to who you marry.

That kind of sacrifice has zero to do with the socialist mantra of messy government seizure and redistribution of wealth—which seems to be what bothers you, even though a true Nazi would see that as trivial and insignificant.

These values aren't leftist at all; they're purely right-wing. God, family, and Country—those are the three core pillars pushed to the extreme in the Nazi system. That’s why they’re right-wing.

But I guess for you, the economic sphere and the liberties attached to it are everything... for them, it was completely irrelevant.

You seem to assign "leftist" and "rightist" labels based on whatever suits your own narrative rather than how the division is fundamentally understood. Hitler was both a socialist and a psychopath, yet you stubbornly insist on tossing him into the right-wing circle just because of his nationalist ideas... He had nothing to do with faith or God; in fact, that’s exactly where he overlaps with what the Communists did back home in the States. The primary goal for both him and the Communists in America was separating the church from Vatican City.

Hitler wanted to create a German church with himself as the central figure—much like how Stepinac was expected to renounce Vatican City so the Party could maintain control over the Church's leadership. Regardless, under his regime, a vast number of both Catholic and Protestant priests were executed, especially since the Protestants were the ones involved in the assassination attempt.

Regarding this: [HTML]True value is found in devotion to the Fatherland—in sacrifice, unity, and in the blood shed by oneself and others. Real values consist of sacrificing personal liberties on the defensive line of a homeland that dictates everything; the individual is Nothing, and the State prescribes everything from how one dresses to whom one is permitted to marry[HTML]

Isn't that exactly the hallmark of Communism? Everything for the Party, everything for the system—to the point of betraying your own brother or mother. Who was the class of people that survived Communism? Those who were prepared to sacrifice everything for the sake of ideology...

Communism and Nazism are essentially brothers; during the 1930s, they even referred to one another as extreme fascists (the Communists) and extreme socialists (the Nazis).
The only real difference is that Hitler prioritized the nationalist idea, whereas Communism attempted to eliminate it—though many Communist nations later elevated that very concept. From the cult of personality to the use of repressive apparatuses to achieve it by purging anyone seen as a threat, they share far more similarities than differences.[/HTML]

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.

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!

Steven Murphy2 said: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.

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?

crimsonwolf20 said:

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.

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.

crimsonwolf20 said:🤣

And we all know exactly how that little experiment ended 👍

How did it end? Where exactly did the Germans screw up their economy?

crimsonwolf20 said:

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!

So what, I can just decide on my own that I’m only paying, say, two bucks in taxes this year?

Hell no. They aren't gonna let me dictate my own tax rate, goddamn them 😠

Steven Murphy2 said: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.

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.

David Vaughn75 said:How did it end? Where exactly did the Germans screw up their economy?

Government spending—if I remember correctly—and prepping for a massive war.
It’s like what happened with the Soviet Union after their wars; they spent everything on rebuilding and arming up, and then they just folded when they got hit by market economies—kind of like what went down in America.

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.

David Vaughn75 said:So what, I can just decide on my own that I’m only paying, say, two bucks in taxes this year?

Hell no. They aren't gonna let me dictate my own tax rate, goddamn them 😠

I mean, seriously, who’s actually working for whom here? Are they serving us, or are we serving them? It should be the other way around, obviously! The people should be the ones calling the shots on how these officials serve us—they work for *us*, not the other way around.

That right there is exactly where that whole leftist (though, let's be real, even some folks on the right fall for this too) delusion kicks in—where people start putting the government on a pedestal above the actual citizens.

Steven Murphy2 said: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.

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.

vividfox9 said:The last far-right worker's party to leave such a devastating mark on history was the Nazi Party...

It’s honestly no surprise that those who worship at the altar of Hitler are desperate for this kind of "leftist" movement.

Especially the idiots who can't tell the difference between left-wing and right-wing politics if their lives depended on it.

crimsonwolf20 said:Wait, so you're calling them right-wing *and* socialists? lol—does that mean the socialists over in the USSR were also considered "right-wing" too?

What’s the real issue here? Just look at your situation.
It suggests that absolutely anything can happen—wouldn't you agree?

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.

crimsonwolf20 said:I mean, seriously, who’s actually working for whom here? Are they serving us, or are we serving them? It should be the other way around, obviously! The people should be the ones calling the shots on how these officials serve us—they work for *us*, not the other way around.

That right there is exactly where that whole leftist (though, let's be real, even some folks on the right fall for this too) delusion kicks in—where people start putting the government on a pedestal above the actual citizens.

Let's be real, though: people can be pretty corrupt. If left to their own devices, most folks would grab everything in sight and wouldn't lift a finger to give anything back.

You need someone out there to actually reel in those low-level, selfish impulses.

David Vaughn75 said:Let's be real, though: people can be pretty corrupt. If left to their own devices, most folks would grab everything in sight and wouldn't lift a finger to give anything back.

You need someone out there to actually reel in those low-level, selfish impulses.

Oh yeah, totally! And the best people for that job would obviously be those super benevolent, big-hearted political cronies and parasites—because we all know they aren't corrupt or greedy at all, right? Just a bunch of "supermen" guided by pure love and integrity! 🤦

Walter Long7 said:You seem to assign "leftist" and "rightist" labels based on whatever suits your own narrative rather than how the division is fundamentally understood. Hitler was both a socialist and a psychopath, yet you stubbornly insist on tossing him into the right-wing circle just because of his nationalist ideas... He had nothing to do with faith or God; in fact, that’s exactly where he overlaps with what the Communists did back home in the States. The primary goal for both him and the Communists in America was separating the church from Vatican City.

Hitler wanted to create a German church with himself as the central figure—much like how Stepinac was expected to renounce Vatican City so the Party could maintain control over the Church's leadership. Regardless, under his regime, a vast number of both Catholic and Protestant priests were executed, especially since the Protestants were the ones involved in the assassination attempt.

Regarding this: [HTML]True value is found in devotion to the Fatherland—in sacrifice, unity, and in the blood shed by oneself and others. Real values consist of sacrificing personal liberties on the defensive line of a homeland that dictates everything; the individual is Nothing, and the State prescribes everything from how one dresses to whom one is permitted to marry[HTML]

Isn't that exactly the hallmark of Communism? Everything for the Party, everything for the system—to the point of betraying your own brother or mother. Who was the class of people that survived Communism? Those who were prepared to sacrifice everything for the sake of ideology...

Communism and Nazism are essentially brothers; during the 1930s, they even referred to one another as extreme fascists (the Communists) and extreme socialists (the Nazis).
The only real difference is that Hitler prioritized the nationalist idea, whereas Communism attempted to eliminate it—though many Communist nations later elevated that very concept. From the cult of personality to the use of repressive apparatuses to achieve it by purging anyone seen as a threat, they share far more similarities than differences.[/HTML]

Why is everyone so obsessed with communism? Is it really that hard to forget your family background? Screw communism.

So, based on your post, am I supposed to conclude that the groups still hiding behind Hitler throughout Europe today are actually leftists? Is Ante Pavelić a leftist? Were those hundred-odd Rightist parties actually left-wing groups?

The actual difference between left and right lies in the approach to nationalism—whether it's placed on a transcendental pedestal, or whether there's a focus on individual liberties. It's about whether things like abortion rights are considered personal choices, whether religious affiliation is a private matter, and whether individuals decide for themselves what constitutes a good life. It's about questioning nationalist myth-making, acknowledging that being part of a nation doesn't automatically make us right, and emphasizing equality among all people regardless of any single identifier.

By those standards, even that theoretical communism you're so fixated on (practice is a different story, as we see in America, where it's easy for a communist to become a nationalist—in fact, here, there's hardly a nationalist who wasn't once a communist) has absolutely nothing to in common with Nazism.

"All men are brothers," says the great communist, "except Aryans are the creators of culture, and everyone else is lesser," says the great Nazi. And that is a massive, unbridgeable gap. That's the essence.

Look, for the last time: the Nazis were a right-wing party. That's how they saw themselves, that's how neo-Nazis see themselves today, that's how the whole world sees them, and that's how they are presented in all academic literature and textbooks. The Nazis sit on the right side of the political spectrum; it's just you and people like you who see the world differently. Why? Because they weren't for liberal capitalism (which doesn't mean they weren't for capitalism at all).

Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it isn't there... The Left is all about being cosmopolitan and universalist, while the Right just isn't. That’s the core grievance. Most people on this forum seem to think the Left's biggest sin is just being too rootless...[/HTML][/I]