Is there a single flaw in the ideology of National Socialism? Not only do I think it is the best ideology, I think it is the perfect ideology, what thousands of years of human civilization were leading up to. Questions on morality, metaphysics, and theology were already answered 100 years ago.
Is there a single flaw in the ideology of National Socialism? Not only do I think it is the best ideology...
Grayson Edwards
Other urls found in this thread:
theanarchistlibrary.org
twitter.com
Chase Thomas
no there is not, normies will tell you that there is but as soon as you ask them for arguments they shut up
Nathaniel Carter
Nope
Julian Flores
>Is there a single flaw in the ideology of National Socialism?
They lost against Belorussian potato farmers.
James Wright
The only flaw in national socialism is the same as the inherent flaw of all authoritarian states - an absolute reliance on incredible competency to keep the state functioning with an endless series of highly competent actors for leadership.
Matthew Scott
here's what happened, germans came and told potato niggers to not do partisan work, they were warned that if they did the whole family of the perpetrator will be executed and if he has no family randoms will be picked up, what do belaniggers do? they did exactly what they were warned not to do, they also had their population deported by stalin, they were sent to the meat grinders without weapons and even then they praised the ussr, after the independence they started crying about muh 1/4 population was killed when in reality they just committed suicide themselves
Justin Morales
It's because National Socialism is not an "ideology", it's a lifestyle. Humanity has flung itself against the grindstone of nature for thousands of years, and we have done some pretty spectacular things. We have removed ourselves from said grindstone, and we have grown dull. Look at how quickly the dullness of Weimar was eliminated.
National Socialism is, at it's core, the voluntary sharpening of humanity. The specific details always change a little depending on where and when, but the ideal remains.
Levi Green
producing leaders of virtue may not have been the primary goal of nazi governance, but doing so would a usurpation of the peoples power
Carson Long
>questions on metaphysics, and theology were already answered 100 years ago
The human understanding of physics could can be shattered in an instant, at a moments notice, should something extra-terrestrial or non-Euclidian make its presence known. Morality is entirely subjective though, more-often than not being a tool attributed by religion rather than for religion.
This.
Ian Jackson
I've contemplated this. It is the problem of the Bad King - three Good Kings can go down in the history books, but a single Bad King can tear everything down. Which form of government best balances power and risk? Almost tempted to say direct democracy so the incompetent never give way to the most incompetent.
Brandon Young
>is there a single flaw in [any ideology]?
Jezum Crow, my fucking brain.
===
the late ’50s, I began to read widely in economic “science” (or speculation) again, a subject that had bored the bejesus out of me since I overthrew the Marxist Machine in my brain ten years earlier. I became fascinated with a number of alternatives — or “excluded middles” — that transcend the hackneyed debate between monopoly Capitalism and totalitarian Socialism. My favorite among these alternatives was, and to some extent still is, the individualist-mutualist anarchism of Proudhon, Josiah Warren, S.P. Andrews, Lysander Spooner and Benjamin Tucker. I do not have a real Faith that this system would work out as well in practice as it sounds in theory, but as theory it still seems to me one of the best ideas I ever encountered.
This form of anarchism is called “individualist” because it regards the absolute liberty of the individual as a supreme goal to be attained; it is called “mutualist” because it believes such liberty can only be attained by a system of mutual consent, based on contracts that are to the advantage of all. In this Utopia, free competition and free cooperation are both encouraged; it is assumed persons and groups will decide to compete or to cooperate based on the concrete specifics of each case. (This appeals to my “existentialism” again, you see.)
...
Julian Lee
...
Land monopolies are discouraged in individualist-mutualist anarchism by abolishing State laws granting ownership to those who neither occupy nor use the land; “ownership,” it is predicted, will then only be contractually recognized where the “owner” actually occupies and used the land, but not where he charges “rent” to occupy or use it. The monopoly on currency, granted by the State, is also abolished, and any commune, group, syndicate, etc., can issue its own competing currency; it is claimed that this will drive interest down to approximately zero. With rent at zero and interest near zero, it is argued that the alleged goal of socialism (abolition of exploitation) will be achieved by free contract, without coercion or totalitarian Statism.
===
theanarchistlibrary.org
Julian James
Ecumenicalism failed (Pope hatched several assassination plots). Hitler should have taken his own advice.
Colton Reed
If you can prevent subversion, it is entirely possible for society to be set up in such a way that candidates are scouted for leadership and trained to be extremely competent.
The flaw would be that after a long enough time, such a successful society may become decadent and lazy, allowing corruption to take hold. Eternal vigilance must be taught.
Aiden Martinez
best of luck ressurecting that nazi beast
Brayden Martinez
>because it believes such liberty can only be attained by a system of mutual consent, based on contracts that are to the advantage of all
Human-nature, and more-over greed would make such a system not only impractical, but completely irrelevant and unstable the minute someone in power decides to utilize one of these "contracts" not for the good of man around him, but for himself.
>Land monopolies are discouraged in individualist-mutualist anarchism by abolishing State laws granting ownership to those who neither occupy nor use the land; “ownership,” it is predicted, will then only be contractually recognized where the “owner” actually occupies and used the land, but not where he charges “rent” to occupy or use it.
This is just thinly veiled Marxism done-up in a way to look special. It's not.
>The monopoly on currency, granted by the State, is also abolished, and any commune, group, syndicate, etc., can issue its own competing currency; it is claimed that this will drive interest down to approximately zero. With rent at zero and interest near zero, it is argued that the alleged goal of socialism (abolition of exploitation) will be achieved by free contract, without coercion or totalitarian Statism.
Coercion and totalitarian are the only ways to enforce a system like this. There has been no attempt at removing a central currency and replacing it with pseudo-money produced individually by groups or communes because doing so defies value itself. You're picturing a utopia, which, in theory may work, but falls apart completely when met with the reality of human nature.
Elijah Ward
yeah, the flaw is us. no system has ever worked be ause of us. we love cutting each other's throats and stabbing each other in each other's backs. we love being hyper-competitive when it's not necessary and not just outcompete our "enemies" but destroy them. also, we are never all going to be equally smart or fast or capable, so how does natsoc fix this? what is natsocs solution to people who aren't fast or capable enough even reach a lower middle class existence? people who can't even work in construction or in factories due too the too high demands? how is natsoc on their side? how can natsoc give these literal untermencsch people a nice life?
Caleb Young
Depends if you think Antifa is cool. There idea of communism is national socialism.
Connor Martinez
Genocide. If you're genes aren't good enough to contribute to society, remove them from the pool. Plato and Darwin would agree with Hitler, though not to the radical degree.
Robert Hall
Lmao nice try you circumcised golem.
Justin Richardson
Too soft on jews.
Cooper Smith
well, that's not a very nice thing to do. that doesn't really sound particularly patriotic and brotherly to me. doesn't the natsoc ideology owe it's lower classes people a bit more than that? because extermination seems to be a pretty easy and lazy solution to this problem, doesn't it? don't you think natsoc by definition has a responsibility to find a better solution to this problem? after all, natsoc's defining selling point is "come to us whiteys, we'll be nice to you and be on your side when no one else is", so they kind of owe their members to find proper solutions to these problems, don't they?
Thomas Barnes
more lies