Capitalism leads to racism, Communism leads to racial equality

What do you mean?

 

Nope capitalism is a theory about how and why economic transactions occur within a free market.

 

Which parts of communism are against your beliefs?

Y'know, it's also occurred to me that if you really want ethnic purity in a country, then direct democracy without a constitution is probably the way to go. If you don't have a constitution, there's nothing to stop whatever ethnic majority you've got from just voting the minorities out. Not that I think this is a good idea, mind you, but it's good to remember what a constitution is for.

- - - Updated - - -

Capitalism is more than that. It's also a way of forcing people to transact in such a way as to benefit the privileged landowner class.

 

The economics. I believe people should be free to do whatever they want. I don't agree with government controlling the economy or making an economic decision.

I think a constitution is fine, but that race should be written into it. The purpose of the government should be to protect our race and our purity and it should be written down in the constitution. The basis of the government should be upholding our race.

Also, if we restricted office holders to one race, a white race, a white man, I think it will be highly unlikely you will have multiculturalist traitors like we had in the American Judeo Christian government like Emmanuel Celler.

 

But how are you going to maintain ethnic purity and maintain a white advantage in the economy without government intervention? If you've got no government controls, what keeps, say, Oprah from economic domination?

Do white people really need that much help?

 

Its not a goal to hold down other races. I agree with freedom. The only control the government will have is to control immigration. This will guarantee that our country is white. Then we will deal with our racial minorities. We will do this with programs, maybe like breeding top notch people. In other words eugenics, improvement of the race and encouraging or paying the minorities to resettle in other countries or have less children.

The only thing I will like to restrict from the non-whites in a white country is any political or government power/control they will have over whites. Like no non-white represenatives over white people. They can have their own government and rule over themselves but we are going to have our government be pure. Its incompatible to have multiple races ruling one another.

No, but I am not quite sure what you mean.

 

Well, you're setting up all these pro-white rules, right? As if white people can't maintain control without those rules to make sure that white people are in charge. What is it that you think will happen again if these rules aren't maintained? The white people will lose?

 

Yes, our society will become overrun with immigrants and non-whites, like what happened in America and Europe.

 

Communism didn't see the whole picture here. Why do the workers have an interest in overthrowing the ruling classes? It goes back to them promoting their own genetics. What do races have in common with each other? They have genetics in common with each other. So how can people be expected to fight the ruling classes to promote their own genes while simultaneously refusing to promote their own race, whom they share genes with?

This is certainly not the only problem with communism.

A capitalist meritocracy is the closest thing to a post-racial system because it doesn't care what your race is so long as you can make money.

 

So what is the flaw in white people that requires them to have so many advantages? If they already have all the power, then that should be all the advantage they need. Are black people better than white people, that they'll take over without even needing the advantageous starting position?

 

Don't we all share genes, regardless of ethnicity?

There's no such thing as a capitalist meritocracy, those are mutually exclusive terms. Unless you equate capital with merit ... which I suppose many people do. And if what you say in your first paragraph is true, then the economy can never be post-racial because the people in power will only share power with those they perceive as belonging to their own demographic.

 

I don't know what you mean.

The flaw in white people is greed, cheap labor, humanitarianism and having non-white traitors like Jews as part of a multiracial country.

We don't. The power is divided among ethnic groups with people of Jewish descent dominating like with control of the media and positions in government. This was a fata flaw of our society.

Non-whites outnumber us, and in a democracy this means they have power. We cant have our people elected because they have to agree with the non-whites.

I am not sure what you mean.

 

Not in the same way that people of the same "race" do. It's popular these days to say that race is "just a social construct" but that's sort of besides the point, gene clusters reoccur often enough to be immediately recognizable and people organize around these clusters as a way of promoting their own relatives. I don't think it will ever go away because that is just a fundamental part of being a biological creature. Over enough time, new "races" might form and on a long enough time scale race is clearly mutable but the conception of racial identity is never going to disappear.

That's why I said that capitalist meritocracy is the "closest thing." If your values do not involve making money then capitalism is certainly not a meritocracy because you see no merit in making money. Even so, most people see merit in making money since money can keep you and your family alive. I don't think that is going to change.

 

But the concept of racial identity does seem to be headed toward disappearance. I mean, that is the logical conclusion of the current trend, isn't it? That's what has all the various ethnic supremacists in a panic.

Man, see, this is why I wish that my Game of Thrones thread had caught on. There's this great bit where a riddle is posed: Say you've got four men -- a sellsword, a priest, a king and a rich merchant -- all in room. Who has the power?

 

Yes and no, now that we put women into higher education, the upper classes tend to marry each other. It used to be that doctors would marry nurses, lawyers would marry secretaries, this would spread out the wealth over generations. These days, lawyers marry other lawyers, doctors marry other doctors. It's one of the leading causes of household income inequality which is what all the leftists talk about because individual income inequality has not changed much and by some metrics has actually decreased. It's just that the leftists have a mental block on acknowledging what one of the leading causes of rising household inequality is because they don't want to admit that putting women into higher education could have some negative effects.

To answer your question, the higher education levels are almost entirely whites, east Asians and some upper class Indians and Arabs. The lower classes are predominantly blacks, mestizos, Muslims and other brown-skinned peoples. The lower classes will probably never mix but a new upper class of white-Asian hybrids would theoretically emerge over a long enough time frame and in theory with enough time they would develop their own racial identity.

That's a cute riddle, I'm presuming that the guy with the sword has the power, the thing is, the world isn't one room so I wouldn't apply the conclusion too liberally.

 

No it isn't that was a Marxian Idea and like most Of Marx's Ideas he was wrong. Adam Smith wasn't trying to create a new system in wealth of nations but to understand how economics had worked since cavemen first started to trade and to understand why suddenly England had become vastly richer than her land bound adversaries. You're confusing Mercantilism and capitalism. Mercantilism was a bastardization of capitalism and a complete misapplication of the principles Adam Smith discovered.

 

Communism requires a repressive police state to work.

The OP alleges that Communism brings racial equality.

Does racial equality require another NKVD?

 

I'm describing the American system in general. Both parties are guilty of it and often serve the same masters.

 

It is true that not all fascist regimes seek to conquer other states, but Franco definitely developed a culture of militaristic nationalism. Franco was also fiercely anti-communist, which is why we propped up his regime during the Cold War.

 

The Russians and the Chinese are also extremely militaristic as are the the North Koreans again the effective difference between the Nominally fascist states and the Nominally communist state is limited to how they treat Mr. businessman. And lest you forget In Russia WWII is called the Great Patriotic War which sounds pretty nationalistic to me. Hell Mussolini was on record as saying that he'd didn't see why one could not be both a good socialist and a good Italian. In the end it appears Stalin came to agree with that concept to some degree or the other.

 

Good for you. A lot of people work hard (harder than you even) and they don't end up in the top 0.3%. What's your point?

As I mentioned, I have relatives who own businesses.

I didn't work at a fast food place.

I wasn't fired. I left my previous job for a better paying job that fell through at the last minute.

Who is John Galt?

 

His ideas led to the likes of Lenin, Stalin and Mao. How did that work out for them? And for all the antisemitism he was born to Jews who converted because of--wait for it---antisemitism! He also married a wealthy woman.

 

I agree to an extent. While industry wasn't as nationalized by Franco as in Communist states, he still used government to maintain an oligarchy in business. Francoist Spain was far from being an open market. In a weird way, you could view modern Russia as being much like Francoist Spain. Russians have more personal freedoms than the Spanish had under Franco, but economically, the regimes are very similar in their cronyism.

 

This is a very enlightening thread. The leftist are extolling the virtues of communism. And deriding the capitalist model. Much like is coming from the democrats in office today. It's pretty clear now what the intentions of the democrat party are. However they are disguised as environmentalists at present imo.