Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old July 23rd, 2009 #61
Mike Parker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,311
Mike Parker
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
Everybody wants to distribute, nobody wants to produce.
That's a good way of putting it. What do Goldman Sachs, Blackstone, PIMCO and McKinsey produce? Finance capitalism is distributism for the rich.
 
Old July 23rd, 2009 #62
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,436
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Parker View Post
The Jew benefits from things being centralized under Jew control. The Jew benefits most from white individualism. The Jew did not prosper under German NS.
Not under it, but certainly from it.

The thousand-year Reich lasted 12 years. Hitler was not good at running a dictatorship, was he?

Quote:
Hitler's government shut down the Institute for Social Research (of the Frankfurt School) within 6 weeks (IIRC) of taking power. The capitalist Kwa welcomed those neo-Marxists with open arms and they remain highly influential today in our marketplace of ideas even after being thoroughly refuted.
So instead of ending kikes as a threat to our race, Hitler flushed them, and allowed them to become a problem for others. The irony is that the things Hitler is famous for doing are exactly what he didn't do but should have done.

Quote:
I'll take the Austrian Hitler over the Austrian Mises, and Lincoln Rockwell over Lew Rockwell.
The only thing Whites need collectivized is racial defense. Collectivization beyond that reduces white men to the status of white ants.

Last edited by Alex Linder; July 23rd, 2009 at 12:59 PM.
 
Old July 23rd, 2009 #63
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,436
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Igor Alexander View Post
Third Reich did not have a capitalist economy. Even the Soviet Union made its share of innovations.

Technological innovation is a product of race, not of economics.
No, it's a product of both. The Third Reich was, for the most part, a capitalist economy. Hitler combined all the labor unions and dictated the use of raw materials he needed for war, but beyond that he did not attempt to create giant state enterprises like the communists did. There's a thread on this in the 'Nazis: the facts' subforum, guy wrote a long paper on it.

Hitler's uneconomic ideas were more from his private tastes - he wanted every big city to have a giant opera house and didn't care where the funds came from. None or very few were built, but that was how he thought. It is clear he was never troubled in the slightest by forcing others to pay for his private whims.

Quote:
Yes, but how did they give way to better conditions? Rick says the labor movement had nothing to do with it. Well if not the labor movement, then what? Neither you nor Rick have answered that.
Have unions ever come up with new products or innovations? Heck, no. Unions are all about getting their members more for less. What actually improves conditions for people is the thinking set figuring out how to produce X or Y more efficiently or cheaply. That's where the real benefits come in for the rest of us, that's what raises the general material level of society.

Quote:
And the stereotypes about evil corporations aren't always unfounded. I could tell you some stories about my phone company.
Yeah, see, the difference is you can choose another phone company if you're unhappy; I can't choose a different central government. Government never goes out of business though it fails at everything it does.
 
Old July 23rd, 2009 #64
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,436
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Igor Alexander View Post
What I am saying is that the working class at one time had valid complaints against their employers, and that much of the progress that was brought about by the labor movement is being taken for granted today by guys like you. I can't believe anyone would think it was a good idea to return to the types of working conditions that existed 100+ years ago in the name of some libertarian ideal.
Straw man not worth responding to.

Quote:
What I am saying is that there are many socialist institutions, like municipal fire departments, that most people take for granted today, that are good. There is no advantage to privatizing something like a fire department, especially in an urban or suburban environment where if my neighbor's house catches on fire, there's a good chance mine will as well. I'd rather not leave it to my neighbor to decide whether he should pay into the services of a private fire department or not.
There are very few fires. Mostly firemen just sit around and figure out how they can sleep with their buddy's wife. When they're not doing that, they count the years until they can retire with a ridiculous pension, drawn off the public teat, of course. Beyond that, they try to take over the local ambulance business because there aren't any real fires to fight, and like all incompetent bureacracies, they want to expand their range. The only other thing they have to do is figure out how best to plead for a new fire station and new equipment, even though they don't need it.
 
Old July 23rd, 2009 #65
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,436
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Parker View Post
That's a good way of putting it. What do Goldman Sachs, Blackstone, PIMCO and McKinsey produce? Finance capitalism is distributism for the rich.
They're able to do what they do because financial and other powers are consolidated in the national government, just as you advocate. If the feds had hard money and allowed monetary competition, which they do not, none of the thievings and bailouts would be possible. Decentralization of power is always the answer, except for defense. Not only that, it's the only arrangement that fits the nature of White men - they are thinking individuals who can come up with and act on their own plans, without needing authority.
 
Old July 23rd, 2009 #66
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,436
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
No argument here. Canada's health care system is trash and is falling apart, just as many of the ones in Europe are. Certainly non-white immigration (i.e., muds using the system but not paying into it) is a contributing factor, but socialized health care isn't a good idea to begin with.
Socialized medicine is a demonstrable failure everywhere it's been tried, but far too many people are dumb enough that they fall for the old "free and universal" lie.

The average person believes in magic, not evidence and logic. It is the tragedy of the west that Christianity became the dominant religion, since it perverts faith into the service of magic and the supernatural rather than reason and reality.
 
Old July 23rd, 2009 #67
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,436
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Ronsavelle View Post
"Do you not perceive the difference between being offered something and being forced to do something at gunpoint?"

The left doesn't know, and doesn't want to know. The companies are oppressive, the state liberating. "Satanic inversion." Or, orthodox Marxism.
It's a lack of imagination and respect. The left wants to act as though all the good material things in this world were preexisting, and some how da ebil white man capitalists got there first and grabbed them all, and only the strivings of the heroic laborites and commies got any back fo' da po' folks.

The fact is, material progress that benefits everybody, comes out of the head of a tiny, creative minority, a delicate flower the mass cattle and the demagogues stampeding them are only too likely to trample.
 
Old July 23rd, 2009 #68
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,436
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
It's like a lifeboat, where there is truly is fixed supply of goods. Let's say one person on such a boat hides food while others are asleep. This leads to starvation of at least one other. The person that hoarded the food represents the capitalist screwing of the others. . .The capitalist gets an unfair share, causing misery and poverty. This has to be remedied by Robin Hood type programs. . .This is the class struggle of Marx. . .
This mentality is common to all too many among the non-productive classes: NEA teachers, Catholics leftists, commies - anyone who can't produce anything anyone else actually wants is likely to hold these views. They will be found using phrases like "giving back" to the community. It's a combo of greed combined with lack of imagination: a lot of these white nitwits are essentially niggers. Niggers believe government is omnipotent. They believe it can produce money and goods at will. The only reason government doesn't make every nigger a millionaire is "racism." These beliefs sound ridiculous when you spell them out, but they are what niggers actually think. And pretty close to half of white people think more or less the same as niggers.

Capitalism is not a zero-sum game. A guy invents, say, an air conditioner. Whether he did it for Jesus, Satan, or love of profits he thought he would make from it, we all enjoy the benefits. For, say, $200 a unit, we get the solace of chilled air courtesy of an appliance not one of us ever could have devised. Instead of showing gratitude for the inventor and the market that distributed his wares, the leftist feels only anger that some people have bigger and better air conditioners than, say, the average Eskimo.

Last edited by Alex Linder; July 23rd, 2009 at 01:02 PM.
 
Old July 23rd, 2009 #69
Rick Ronsavelle
Senior Member
 
Rick Ronsavelle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 4,006
Rick Ronsavelle
Default

"Can you not say that both groups are contributors to our success? Where would the coal mine be without the miner? Where would the skyscraper be without the welder on the 12th floor I-beam?"

>>"Marxism is the name for a set of political and economic ideas. The base of these ideas comes from the works of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. They have had a lot of influence in many countries. Very often, both authors are named, as it is difficult to say which of the two wrote what piece of the theory.

From Marxist thought, other political views came to be, such as Social Democracy and Reformist Socialism (both believe that the ideas that Marx and Engels portrayed can be achieved through what Marx called 'Bourgeois Democracy.')

Many Marxists say that modern "Communism" is not Communism at all. That nations such as the U.S.S.R, The People's Republic of China, Venezuela, Cuba, Vietnam etc are different forms of Capitalism, often with heavily "nationalized" industries. One of the biggest proponents of these ideas in Marxist thought was Tony Cliff, who wrote that states like the U.S.S.R and Communist China (before 1980) were "State-Capitalist." Not all Communists, Socialists or Marxists agree on this question, but many hardened Marxists generally agree that Socialism is workers' democratic control over economic decisions and social justice, while production is based on what people need, and that Socialism will wither away into Communism when Capitalism is defeated. With that idea in mind, Marxists have a tendency to discredit most of the listed regimes.

Modern Communism claims to be based on Marxist ideas, but many Marxists disagree about whether Communist countries have understood Marxism correctly.

[change]
The working class and the capitalist class

Marxism says that people in the world are organized into different groups or classes based on their relationship to how things are made. Most people are called "workers" because they work in factories or offices or farms for money. They belong to the "working class" (or "proletariat"). Another group, who are not as big as the working class are "capitalists", because they own the factories, land and buildings that the workers have to work in and also own all of the tools the workers have to use. Marx calls Capitalists the "Ruling Class" because they live off of the work of all the workers. He also says that the Capitalists own the government, army and courts. In Marxist views, Capital is the "means of production" and money which the Capitalist can invest in different places of business so that they can "profit" or gain more Capital.

Most workers work for companies owned by Capitalists or "Petite-bourgeois" (small business owners). The capitalist pays a wage to the worker in exchange for the worker's time. The capitalist has bought a period of time from the worker which the worker must then use to labor for the Capitalist, which according to marxist economic thinking is the only thing that can create value in a commodity, and then exploits the time of the worker as much as they can. The capitalist amasses capital by paying the worker less wealth than they make for the Capitalist. Marxism says that commodities (products) have different values. One value is called "use-value" which changes from person to person. Use-value is determined by whether something is useful. "Exchange-value" is the value of a commodity when compared to other commodities. For example if 10 nails are traded for 10 boot laces, the exchange value of the nails is 10. Finally, "Labor Value" or Value, is determined by the amount of labor needed to create a product. Value is created by adding work to something. A products Value is determined by the average work needed to create the product for the market. Value can be described as the amount of labor time used to create a commodity.

As an example: Peter and Bob and Carl are all shoe makers. It takes Peter half a day to make 20 shoes, and it takes Bob half a day to make 20 shoes and it takes Carl half a day to make 20 shoes. The average labor-time to make the shoes is half a day, and that means each shoe contains half a day's labor value.

Peter, Bob and Carl now work for James. James owns a shoe factory that can make 60 shoes in half a day. Between Peter, Bob and Carl, 60 shoes are made. Peter, Bob and Carl are paid only as much as they need to live at socially accepted standards. Peter, Bob and Carl each get 20 dollars a day in wages, however James sells the shoes for 2 dollars each. 120$ is made and James pays the workers (Peter, Bob and Carl) their wages. The remaining wealth is called "Profit" or "Surplus Value." In other words, Peter, Bob and Carl earn enough to provide for themselves within half of their working day. The rest of the day they are creating profit for their boss, James, which is called Surplus Value.

It is this Surplus Value, or Profit, which Marxism thinks as an exploitation of labor. This exploitation allows the smaller class (Capitalists) to live without laboring, while the bigger class (Workers) have to work for the Capitalists to survive.

Marxism says that Factories, tools and work places cannot create new value on their own. Similar to how a blue berry bush has no value on its own. That value can only be created with the use of labor. For example, someone spends a day picking blue berries. Those blue berries are now able to be traded or eaten because of the invested labor time to pick them.

Marxist thinking claims that Capitalists and Workers are in a constant state of struggle, which they call "Materialist Dialectic." Marxism says that in order for Capitalists to generate profit quickly, and to maximise their rate of profit, they have to exploit the workers as much as possible, and lower their wages as much as possible. Workers, on the other hand, have to struggle to keep their wages up, to keep the "rate of exploitation" low, so that they can live more peaceful lives. This is what Marxism calls "Class Struggle" where Workers and their Bosses fight against each other to gain for themselves.(R.R.- There is the zero-sum idea, that the gain on one comes at the expense of the other.)

Marxists think that all of written human history has been divided by economic classes. They think that the progression of history has been pushed forward by class struggle. Marxism says that it is from this struggle that Capitalism was born and that it is from this struggle that Communism (or Socialism) will be born. For example: Feudal Society (a society controlled by feudal Lords and Nobles) rested its Ruling Class on the labor of peasants (farmers). But, as peasants demanded more and more for themselves small shopkeepers and tradespeople began to appear. Many of these people appeared in Guilds as well, and eventually began to employ workers to independently accumulate wealth. It was this historical progression that created Capitalists/Capitalism.

In the same way, Marxism says that Capitalism will give way to Communism, as the struggle of the workers becomes more and more revolutionary."<<

Let me ask a question. What is the standard of living of a floor sweeper during the middle ages? What is the standard of living of a floor sweeper (recently, in the West)? Higher? Why?

The "labor theory of value" or "exploitation thesis" is the basic underpinning of socialism. It means that those doing the physical labor create ALL value, and that profit comes from underpaying labor. The wage would fall to the subsistence level. Humanitarian laws would stop this stealing from the worker. This is why unions were allowed to use violence and not be prosecuted.

>>Those wanting to combine communism with radical individualism- one side based on force, the other voluntary. What does the force side have to offer? btw It's quite possible to have group activity in a fully free society.

Combining the two is called the third way. We've already got it- it'z the 'Kwa!! Just expels the jews and niggers. . .
These programs like the great society are continuations of the earlier labor movement. . .
 
Old July 23rd, 2009 #70
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,436
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by richyrichard View Post
Can you not say that both groups are contributors to our success? Where would the coal mine be without the miner? Where would the skyscraper be without the welder on the 12th floor I-beam?
I'm talking about unions, not about workers. Of course the guy who does the physical labor deserves respect.
 
Old July 23rd, 2009 #71
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,436
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
I'm becoming convinced that hardcore libertarians are just as tardy and out of touch with reality as the Marxists.
They're out of touch with racial reality, not economic reality.
 
Old July 23rd, 2009 #72
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,436
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Igor Alexander View Post
Could someone here explain to me what would be the advantage of privatizing a local fire department or water works? I don't know if Alex or Rick go as far as advocating that, but Murray Rothbard certainly did.
I would like to see where he did. I can well believe there's an argument for it, based on what I have observed here locally. From what I have seen, firemen/departments are always:

1) overpaid, with benefits and pensions ridiculously out of line with the private sector;

2) have basically nothing to do since there are few fires

3) are always trying to expand their role into emergency services, putting private ambulance services out of business if possible

4) are always pleading for more money for yet more equipment and bigger, bushier firehouses.

It's very easy to believe private arrangements could perform better than public fire departments for a fraction of the cost.
 
Old July 23rd, 2009 #73
Rick Ronsavelle
Senior Member
 
Rick Ronsavelle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 4,006
Rick Ronsavelle
Default

"The northern California city of Vallejo is facing a possible bankruptcy given a massive budget shortfall. According to the LA Times, “Police and firefighters account for 80% of Vallejo’s budget, city officials say, due to ballooning overtime bills and lucrative union contracts that have boosted base salaries, benefits and retirement plans.”

More than 10 fire employees earn more than $200,000, and they receive exceptional pensions. In Orange County, the average pay and benefit package for all categories of firefighter is $175K.

The unions have ratcheted up the pay to unconscionable levels, and the bill for massive pension benefits will be paid by our grandchildren. This is the result of unionization, shameless politicians who curry favor with unions at the expense of taxpayers and a public that is easily bullied by union activists who always play the hero card."

Then, some very apropos blog postings:

"You seen the typical security guard? I wouldn't want those guys protecting my parking space, let alone me and my family.

Yes, damn those unions! Let's go back to the 80 work week at $3 an hour like before they came along. And while we're at it, lets bring back child labor too."

"No problem, here you go.

Look at the numbers they tossed around back when they first declared bankruptcy, then look at their own human resources website. The City Council says they pay firefighters $171K a year in salary and benefits; a fire captain $206K a year; a police captain supposedly gets $306K."

http://forums.mercurynews.com/topic/...y-and-benefits
 
Old July 23rd, 2009 #74
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,436
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Name three groups you never see described as greedy and overpaid:

cops, firemen, NEA teachers.

The media flip reality. "Public servants" are the greedy hogs. Private employees are the productive and the useful.
 
Old July 23rd, 2009 #75
Rick Ronsavelle
Senior Member
 
Rick Ronsavelle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 4,006
Rick Ronsavelle
Default

I guess Brimelow must have a pretty strong union.
 
Old July 24th, 2009 #76
Mike Parker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,311
Mike Parker
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
So instead of ending kikes as a threat to our race, Hitler flushed them, and allowed them to become a problem for others.
Hitler ended the German kikes as a threat to Germany. The capitalist, liberal US always gave refuge to Europe's kikes so they could be a threat to Europe and the US. The reason is that liberalism and capitalism are individualistic (and naive). Meaning vulnerable to the Jew. The Jews were liberals before they were Marxists or Zionists. For good reason. The quintessential liberal is Lewpus. The Jews pursue the most brazen, transparent group strategy, and he insists it's not happening, that we're all just individuals.

Quote:
The only thing Whites need collectivized is racial defense. Collectivization beyond that reduces white men to the status of white ants.
Race, nation, tribe are extended families. When you cooperate with your family you're not supposed to feel like an insect. Tribalism is the answer. Iran doesn't have a big problem with its Jews. They're an annoying minority that's tolerated and even humored, but they don't invent the culture or dictate public policy. The reason is that Iran is what MacDonald calls a "segmentary society," illiberal and clannish. That defeats Jewish crypsis. The Jews have a member of parliament, but he can't pull a Lieberman and pretend to be an Iranian patriot. Now in the unlikely event the "reformers" get their way and bring in capitalism and liberalism, stressing individual rights and absence of coercion, next thing we'll be hearing about "Iranians of the Jewish faith," and soon they'll be running the place. And in the future some of those reformers or their kids, marginalized in their own land, truly ants, will gather on some Farsi VNN and conclude that those nasty, backward Ayatollahs weren't so bad after all.

Last edited by Mike Parker; July 24th, 2009 at 12:51 PM.
 
Old July 24th, 2009 #77
Mike Parker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,311
Mike Parker
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
They're able to do what they do because financial and other powers are consolidated in the national government, just as you advocate. If the feds had hard money and allowed monetary competition, which they do not, none of the thievings and bailouts would be possible.
I don't recall advocating anything, but I didn't say anything about bailouts. I asked about production. I don't see much of it. I see lots of lending, gambling and consulting. They're simply more lucrative than production: a middle manager in manufacturing doesn't get a million dollar bonus. The long-term tendency of capitalism is for the real economy to be dominated by the financial sector, and the financial sector by its most speculative parts. Rothschilds and Lehmans dominated the world's economies under the gold standard, Goldman Sachs and Quantum without it.

Quote:
Not only that, it's the only arrangement that fits the nature of White men - they are thinking individuals who can come up with and act on their own plans, without needing authority.
Kevin MacDonald is very clear on this. The normal character of white societies is "muted individualism" and "hierarchic harmony."
 
Old July 24th, 2009 #78
Rick Ronsavelle
Senior Member
 
Rick Ronsavelle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 4,006
Rick Ronsavelle
Default

"You have reached the blind alley of the treason you committed when you agreed that you had no right to exist. Once, you believed it was “only a compromise”: you conceded it was evil to live for yourself, but moral to live for the sake of your children. Then you conceded that it was selfish to live for your children, but moral to live for your community. Then you conceded that it was selfish to live for your community, but moral to live for your country. Now, you are letting this greatest of countries be devoured by any scum from any corner of the earth, while you concede that it is selfish to live for your country and that your moral duty is to live for the globe."

Care to guess who said that?
 
Reply

Tags
austrian school, chinese exclusion act, libertarianism is jewish, ludwig von mises, socialism

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:32 PM.
Page generated in 0.17108 seconds.