/mlpol/ - My Little Politics

>>174779
>There are no stable platforms just a constant re-balancing.
Correct.
And a re-balancing is on its way.

The problem isn't capitalism to me, the problem is that it is so easy for the jews to infiltrate and establish monopolies. If a society was righteous and balanced wants and responsibilities, capitalism works wonders and everyone benefits. But lo and behold the jew enters the equation. They start out infiltrate big companies and endorse materialism and other ideals to warp and change the morals of the people. Soon the people loose morals and the jews start to buy out more and more companies while paying off anyone who is looking at what they are doing, maybe even the government, Soon they get so big they are a mega corporation who is unstoppable and they can push whatever shit they want down people's throats and since they twisted and contorted the morals and ideals of the people, the people are too distracted with luxuries and materialism to even notice, thus enabling them to go bigger and bigger. And who is gonna stop them, the government? They already pay off congressmen and under the curtain they can plain whatever schemes they want. I think alot of capitalists fail to see this, I love capitalism as much as anyone but the fact is, it is just way too easy to infiltrate and contort from the inside. National Socialism had the right ideas of straight up removing such leeches but its too socialist for my liking. Maybe there can be an in between here.

Also this post is half assed and I'm not very good at debating so don't expect me to be a genius or a dumbass here cause this is more of a ramble than anything else.

>>174802
I've viewed National Socialism not so much as the end product but rather as a tool used to create the end product. Like you said, the problem with capitalism is that it's easy to infiltrate, but when it isn't kiked all to hell it makes for VERY prosperous societies.

I've thought of National Socialism as the way to build up a cultural bulwark against Jewish influences, then, once finished, reinstate a free market while the government keeps enough power to maintain said bulwark.

>>174776
I wouldn't call it bad. Its against what I value. Liberalism is against most things I value, besides volunteerism. Its materialism and liberal ideals to me are anti spiritual. Salgado, Codreanu, and Evola I think got this more right then Hitler did.
>>174802
Well liberalism in capitalism is about reaching a goal of interdependence through absolute gains in trade. That in itself is a more global model of working rather then regional. Jews didn't necessarily have to go into the system to lead it to where it is today, though I think their introduction did accelerate the ordeal.

Jordon Peterson makes something like $80k a month off patreon. Meritocracy can't be controlled. You can say they silence ppl but it's bullshit, capitalism causes things of worth to flourish and things of detriment to die.

>>174832
>You can say they silence ppl but it's bullshit
What would you call it when youtube or twitter shuts down someone on the far right?

>>174877
Cuz thats tots a function of capitalism and market demand, there's absolutely nothing else going on there

Here's the thing, capitalism addresses purely economic problems and seeks the greatest possible prosperity. It is not meant to provide a social solution and yet people complain that it doesn't do so. Hence the tendency to alter the economic system to "socially responsible capitalism" which is retarded. Altering the economic system to target specific social problems, when they are entirely different spheres, harms the economic system and often leads to unintentional side-effects socially.

>So we put women in the work force.
Only because women, polluted by feminism, demanded it. Feminism wasn't a call to work in factories, where men sacrificed their time and labor. It was for political and social power in a society organized along masculine ideals.

>So we open the borders.
Immigration is subsidized by the government. They are allowed in without purchase or sponsorship, commit crimes, alter the cultural character, and live off public services. In a better capitalist society companies would, in order to bring in any foreigners, would have to bear all responsibility and costs for crimes and burden placed on society.

>So we abolish trade protections
These are retarded. If a country can produce a certain type of goods more efficiently what's wrong with buying these in exchange for goods which you can produce more efficiently? Both sides are objectively better off than if they tried to produce everything themselves. Making everything reduces the standard of living.

And yes, there are significant economic problems that are often blamed on free trade, but these are often the result of governmental burdens that reduce employment mobility.

>So the right is silenced.
How is it that tradition is what offends people rather than attacks on tradition? Must have come from (((nowhere))). Certainly not the influence of progressives in government (and schools) for a century, the infiltration of media, and covert programs to shift public opinion.

>>174877
Keep in mind that alternative viewpoints are not what scare off advertisers, at least no more than "kids' videos." It's an excuse by the (((executives to practice what is "ideological capitalism))). It is ideological rather than pure capitalism as it loses money, just as Starbucks spent millions on "employee training" to not kick out bums so they can have social justice points.

Social problems are solved by social means, economic problems are solved by economic means. Capitalism is not the answer to everything but to think that a state-controlled economy can protect our way of life to any greater extent is mistaken.

>>174832
I usually see patreon as borderline begging.
Let alone some guys can make a career-paid budget with just one or two drawings.
A month.
Is like philantrophy for dummies.

I think the issue is not so much that capitalism is flawed as a system, but rather that private businesses can eventually grow to a size where they become international entities. Their loyalty is primarily to their organization, and they prioritize their shareholders over their nation. You could realistically argue that no international corporation even belongs to any nation in the traditional sense of the word at all, regardless of where they're headquartered or where the organization originated from.

When entities like this have the ability to influence or even control governments then nations become essentially meaningless except to the people who live in them. The reason globalism is bad is because it's much easier for a corporation to exist as an international entity than it is for an individual. Moving a factory from Idaho to Mexico is just a matter of crunching numbers, but for an individual employed at that factory to move to Mexico in order to keep his job, he would have to uproot his entire life, become a citizen of a new country, learn a new language, adapt to life in a new country, take a massive paycut, etc. It's not even remotely practical or desirable, so if you work in a factory and the factory moves, you have no choice but to find a new job. If there are no other jobs you can do, you're out of luck.

A company that designs microchips in California, manufactures them in China and sells them all over the world can make a lot more money than they would if they designed, built and sold their products exclusively in America. The stockholders make money, the engineers in California designing the chips make money, the corporate top brass make money. However, the guy in Idaho who lost his job and the gook making $1.50 an hour in Cheng Du probably aren't faring as well.

I fundamentally agree with >>174883 that neither corporations nor international trade are inherently evil, and both can be good to have around. However, corporations cannot be allowed to subvert or replace nations as political entities. The Nation, simply put, is the common man's representation and identity in the world. Nations need to exist as entities that serve their own people, not the needs of other nations or the needs of international businesses. Such businesses should be allowed to exist and make money as their operations can be mutually beneficial to everyone, but they can't be allowed to just do as they please, and they should not be permitted to influence governments in any capacity. They exist as extranational entities and should be treated as such by governments.

National governments should be controlled by men who have the interests of their own people in mind, and the right of Nations to regulate whatever goes into or comes out of their country, be it goods or people, should be inviolate. Which means if America decides the example company making microchips isn't operating in the interests of America, America should be able to impose any restriction it wants on that company to rectify the situation. The company as an entity doesn't get a say in the decision, in the form of either votes or influence. If America says Company X either manufactures 100% of its chips in America or it can't sell them in America, then Company X either adapts or finds a different country to sell microchips in, end of story.

Within the borders of the country, I tend to think businesses should be free to operate more or less as they please. I really only believe in government intervention in business when it crosses borders. It's why I've come to conclude that AnCap is an impractical idea, even though it appeals to me on some level. The desire to belong to something, a community or a tribe or a nation, is a human need. Nations need to exist, and they need to have governments to act on the behalf of the people when dealing with other nations, or with extranational entities like large corporations.

>>174894
Patreon makes me wish I'd learned to draw degenerate furry porn instead of going to college. In principle I believe in the spirit of capitalism, and tend to think that if you want to stand around with your hat out asking for free money and people are dumb enough to just give it to you there's no reason for me to intervene. However, I'd like to see Patreon criminalized or abolished just to sit back with a bowl of popcorn and have a hearty kek watching all the """"content creators"""" sperg out when their free money supply suddenly dries up and they realize they don't know how to do anything else.

>>174905
Well, you missed an spectacle when patreon stopped taking pre-paid pay-pal accounts.
Most lost like, what? $100 per month? But the problem was they literally lost their shit like if they cutted their rent and groceries paycheck

I believe Private Central Banking/debt backed currency to be the problem, those put capitalism in a neccesity for population growing to issue debt, even if you manage to close your borders and turn the west into a White ethno-state by international law, you will not save his economic demise until you shut those Central Banks down and create a goverment backed currency.

>>174776
>I'm not a communist
>BUT
Fuck off, commie fuck.

>>174776
Which is why 3rd position is the answer.