No, Socialism is Not “Nationalism”

You often hear these socialist wignats say this:

“You can’t have nationalism without socialism.”

Of course you can. You can easily have an economy that is 90% privatized that also has closed borders and regulations in place to protect your local jobs and industry from foreign competition, and other precision regulations to weed out bad behavior. That’s what apartheid South Africa was. That’s what the US and England were pre-1950s.

And you can have socialism without nationalism, like it existed for 70 years in the Soviet Union where identifying as a “race” was outlawed, racial/ethnic in-group preference was deemed barbaric and antiquated, ancient traditions were abolished, religion was abolished and the values of international solidarity with “workers of every race” was espoused as policy.

Nationalism is about a preference for one’s own kind above others, for one’s own nation above others, and the preservation of one’s kith, kin and traditions. Economic socialism is little more than a program of absolute income equality and gibs infinity. It’s completely unrelated to in-group preference. Any negro or jew can be a socialist and many are. Any queer can be a socialist and few are nationalists, even fewer are racialists.

If it were the case that socialism equals nationalism then why are all these publicly-run institutions in the West preaching the exact opposite? Public healthcare institutions like the NHS in England spread the doctrines of diversity and have diversity hiring programs. State-run BBC says ancient Britons were black. Public schools and unis are dominated by anti-White Marxians preaching hatred of our race, queer theorists glorifying sodomy and gender bending, dykes preaching feminist supremacy. All of the major socialist unions, socialist parties and socialist politicians support the same shit. So where’s this magical link between economic socialism and nationalism of the racial kind? If the two were so inextricably linked then every one of these institutions would be supporting White racialism but they’re doing the opposite.

Nationalism in itself is vague and not sufficient because it can be hijacked by egalitarians who just believe in “shared values” and place no emphasis on race, hence civic nationalism. Even queers can be “nationalists” by draping themselves in a flag.

The socialist impulse is towards egalitarianism, uplifting the weak and vulnerable and putting them on a level playing field with those above them, so socialists will inevitably lean towards supporting queers, refugees and immigrants. Very few would reject that kind of altruism, which is baked into the socialist cake.

I’m not even against public schools or healthcare in principle. I’m just pointing out that making something “public” in a White country does not make it magically agree with White nationalism at all. Forcing a company to become a “worker co-op” that shares its profits with workers does not magically make the employees become racially aware, if they are even White to begin with. Just ask Vaush.

Our altruism should be an in-group version that rejects out-group sympathies. And our solidarity should extend to our kin around the world, not just to the Whites in your particular country.

You don’t need a Leninist command economy to pursue any of that. Things like social programs for the unemployed or elderly are already widely accepted and implemented throughout the West, to the point where those programs alone do not define what “socialism” is. Socialism is a command economy, where private business and property are eliminated entirely or severally restricted. Attempts to redefine socialism as generic charity or social assistance programs are disingenuous ways to shoehorn pure Communism through the backdoor.

7 thoughts on “No, Socialism is Not “Nationalism”

  1. Capitalism means owning many things that you don’t really need. Useless crap. You have fallen for the trick of capitalism: “Buy now, last chance!”

    It made you poorer and itself richer. What price did you pay? The highest you could ever pay: your irreplaceable lifetime spent working to pay for all this crap.

    1. Capitalism means owning many things that you don’t really need.

      Who decides what I “really need”? You? The government? Technically I only need a 4×8 prison-sized cell and bread and water and can survive on that. You didn’t really need to eat that nice juicy steak, you could have settled for a bowl of plain rice instead! Technically you don’t need a washing machine, so hand wash your clothes instead you greedy bastard! Technically you don’t “need” an oven, so start cooking on a fire pit! You greedy capitalist pig, you! I like to bodybuild, so I need to eat quite a bit more than I “need” to sustain my muscle mass. Let me guess, you’d tell me I can’t do body building because I don’t “need” to look jacked. Ok commie!

      Useless crap.

      Only wealthy people can afford to buy a bunch of stuff they don’t “need” or even use. Normal income people are forced to ration their income for things they most need first (food, shelter), and then things they want to complement their basic necessities. And what makes these things “useless”? These products are of use to someone, otherwise nobody would buy them. Is a refrigerator, washing machine, telephone, computer, air conditioner, ipod, running shoes, watch, all useless? Under your communist system, all that would be available to people are whatever the faceless bureaucrats decided you “need” (which they would decide arbitrarily) not on the genuine preferences of people.

      It made you poorer and itself richer.

      It made you richer too by giving you a product that you find useful or that helps you in some other way, like a dishwasher or washing machine that save you precious time to do something more enjoyable. No capitalist entrepreneur makes a dime unless he provides something that people want. What’s the point of just sitting on your money and not purchasing anything with it? Does it make you happier to have wads of cash sitting under your bed or using that money to get things that make your life more enjoyable? Money can also buy useful things like a house, a car, a boat, a college degree, etc.

      The highest you could ever pay: your irreplaceable lifetime spent working to pay for all this crap.

      Nobody works just to “buy crap”. They work to eat. That’s life and there’s no system in which you don’t work to put food on the table, even your beloved socialism. There’s no free lunch in this world. I guess going to the grocery store every week to buy food makes me a hapless “consooomer” lining the pockets of greedy capitalist farmers! You live in a retarded communist fantasy world where we all just go to work in order to pay for “something we don’t need”, when most people don’t do that at all.

      1. You claim “only rich people buy useless things”, I think you have no idea how many people are in debt because they buy things they can’t afford. Do you want to deny this social fact? What is your social critique anyway? That the majority is too stupid to use the capitalist economy intelligently? And what is your oh so wise conclusion: Do you want to train them in it or even force them to use their money smart and clever? There are millions of people who cannot pay off their own houses. Do you mean to tell me that the houses of our race are not stuffed with material garbage, which make only the Jews rich? I don’t know what your point is, that is borderline disorder.

        1. You didn’t answer any of my queries. Why eat steak if you can eat a simple bowl rice? Why live in a house when you can live in a car or a tent? Is this evil greed? Are these decisions that the capitalist overlords have foisted upon us or are they the genuine preferences of people?

          You claim “only rich people buy useless things”, I think you have no idea how many people are in debt because they buy things they can’t afford.

          So your argument is that because some morons are fiscally irresponsible and take out loans to buy things they can’t afford, so we should ban everything that you think people don’t “need”? Where does it end? Will you ban telephones, washing machines, toaster ovens, televisions, computers? All of those things will exist in your beloved socialist economy too, just inferior versions of the ones produced by the private sector. Are you honestly suggesting the government should regulate our purchases?

          As for loans, even then it’s pretty self-regulating. Some irresponsible bum with no job can’t get a credit card because the bank doesn’t have confidence he’ll pay back the debts. I remember when I first applied for a credit card and it was rejected even though I had a minimum wage job. No bank will loan to anyone unless proof is provided that the loan can be repaid. Unless they want to face a bunch of defaults and never get paid. Loaning still happens in your precious socialist economy, it’s just the government lending out people’s taxes to other people.

          That the majority is too stupid to use the capitalist economy intelligently?

          Why are we assuming that’s not the case? Or are we assuming that everybody is living way above their means and drowning themselves in “junk they don’t need”? Most students are in pretty big student loan debt, which is exclusively given out by government. Were they all unintelligent oafs for taking out those government loans to get an education? I guess they were. Maybe they should have went to trade school instead of that liberal arts degree. Are we going to control everyone’s education choices too?

          And what is your oh so wise conclusion: Do you want to train them in it or even force them to use their money smart and clever?

          I think it’s the parents job to instill fiscal responsibility into their kids. I guess schools can teach about it too. What is your solution, have the government monitor and control everyone’s purchases? So you want the technocratic police state that Klaus Schwab wants.

          There are millions of people who cannot pay off their own houses.

          If that’s the case then they probably purchased a home that they couldn’t afford. Who’s fault is that? Or are we going to give “free houses” to everyone which has never worked anywhere?

          Do you mean to tell me that the houses of our race are not stuffed with material garbage, which make only the Jews rich?

          I don’t know many people who’s houses are “stuffed with material garbage”. And how is that defined? I’m using a computer right now, is that “material garbage” too? Because some moron on the internet says I don’t need a computer I shouldn’t have one? Most people buy stuff they need first and want second.

          You literally have the consoooomer meme stuck in your head and are projecting it onto everyone. Even NS Germany had consoooomer goods. Didn’t Hitler try to get everyone a car? BBUT BUT they don’t NEED cars! They can ride a bike! That’s consumer greed! Why do they even need a bike, when they can WALK! Didn’t he do schemes so they could go on cheap holidays? BUT BUT they don’t NEED vacations, that’s mindless consooomerism!! Only the travel companies get rich off that!!!

  2. Capitalism constantly talks about “growth”. But cancerous tumors also grow constantly. What should be fabulous about it?

    Capitalism, however, never talks about population growth of national ethnic groups. But National Socialism did talk about it.

    1. Capitalism constantly talks about “growth”. But cancerous tumors also grow constantly. What should be fabulous about it?

      So do socialists. Communists when they defend the USSR, talk about how it grew its industrial capacity rapidly, was constantly churning shit out of factories and destroying the environment to do so. Socialists are not minimalists who just want everyone to “live off the land” in some hunter-gatherer type lifestyle. They do much of the same stuff as free market economies, but just have the state micromanaging which projects get off the ground and which don’t. Don’t the Hitler fans talk about how he “grew the economy” and started mass producing cars, war materials, and other things? Didn’t he invade Eastern Europe to attain more farm land to create “Lebensraum” for Germans? Growth is not exclusive to capitalism. Every economy must grow to improve the standards of living of people.

      Capitalism, however, never talks about population growth of national ethnic groups. But National Socialism did talk about it.

      That’s why capitalism on its own is not much of a worldview and I’ve never claimed it alone is sufficient for White people to thrive. Ultimately my worldview is race-first. And that would include sacrificing profits for the preservation of our kind, which is why I believe there must be restraints put on the wealthy and their influence. The point I make about capitalism is really just that it’s superior to socialism in a number of ways. That’s it.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

MEMBER LOG-IN

Subscribe

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

CLICK HERE TO BECOME A MEMBER

Archives

Alex Jones Alt-Right Australia Blacks BLM Brandon Martinez Canada China Communism Coronavirus Dugin Europe Fags feminism Germany Globalism Immigration Islam Israel Jews Jordan Peterson Kalergi Kalergi plan Leftism Migrants Muslims nationalism Palestine Politics Power Putin Race Richard Spencer Russia Spain Trump UK Ukraine US USA White genocide White Nationalism Whites Women Zionism

Categories

PRIVACY POLICY
TERMS OF USE POLICY

Martinez Perspective