[Opinion] Socialism is a Political Philosophy made for Economically / Intellectually Inferior People. Liberal Socialism Destroys Societies

[ResidentHell]

I’m convinced that the consequences of the Industrial Revolution would have been mitigated if not totally avoided, if women weren’t allowed into higher education or / and access to safe & effective birth control methods. It would have prevented immigration crisis; it would have prevented the imposition of socialist policies, like the modern welfare state that forces male labourers to pay insane amounts of tax so women and lesser people from other ethnicities & cultures can benefit

Socialism can be summarized by the slogan “to each according to his need / contribution”. It basically opposes the concept of private ownership, it encourages education to be socialized on a mass-scale, and it suggests goods and services should be freely accessible to all people who “need it”. It looks like socialism as well seems to correlate with slave morality and belief systems that coincide with slave morality (e.g Christcuckism), as socialism is a political philosophy that evidently appeals to economically inferior / oppressed classes of people, and is usually administered by the prime authority


I think modern socialism is a consequence of Industrial Revolution. Socialism has never proven to lead to a long-term improvement in quality of life / prosperity in any country or state that implemented it

Practically every country that has implemented a socialist style of government, was either

(a) third-world country (at least when it was ruled by a socialist state)​

(b) a previously advanced country that later descended into decadence + deterioration in social infrastructure & quality of life​

I also think socialism can be practical, but only in very conservative societies. The only remaining socialist states that have a strong position in intercontinental economic influence (NK, China), all have one thing in common – They aren’t plagued by woke shit like feminism, LGBT, racemixing or multiculturalism. NK and China are the very few examples of an economically & scientifically advanced socialist state. Uncoincidentially, they are both fairly conservative states (i.e. they try to mitigate the influence of foreign cultures on their native people)

But non-conservative socialism, is a political philosophy made to cater to people that are of the subjugated class, or economically / mentally inferior classes. There has always been a categorical divide between people who support socialism and people who don’t. The subordinate classes of people, such as ethnics, women and faggots, are the biggest advocates of non-conservative socialism. This is not a coincidence


If you look at the supreme civilizations of human history, such as Ancient Egypt, Roman Empire, Ancient Greece Ottoman Empire etc. – Practically all of these civilizations operated under a pyramid-style of social order, like capitalism, oligarchism, aristocracy or monarchism. This doesn’t say that all great civilizations operated under a pyramid-style of social order. You can look at the history of civilizations in sub-Saharan Africa if you want examples where pyramid-style social order didn’t necessarily equal a supreme advanced civilization


Although some great civilizations were partially developed under autocratic social systems, like Soviet Union and China, autocratic states have never really lasted. Autocracy is normally the direct result of socialism, and if you look at the history of autocratic states like Soviet Union, Republic of China & Third Reich Germany, practically all of them were dissolved into multiple breakaway states. The end of Soviet Union in 1990 saw it dissolve into over a dozen breakaway states (Ukraine, Russia Federation, Lithuania, Latvia, Kazakhstan, Georgia, Armenia etc.). The end of the Republic of China saw it dissolve into three breakaway states (Mongolia, China & Taiwan)

The defeat & end of the Third Reich saw it dissolve into over a dozen breakaway states, with an additional two new states (East Germany & West Germany) before they were re-unified in 1990s. Athough most European states outside of Prussia initially became occupied or controlled by Nazi Germany via annexation, there were few European states that were members of the Kingdom of Prussia before they ultimately broke away from German Empire after WW2 (Poland, Belgium, Denmark, Czechslovakia). The failures of autocratic states were all the consequence of foreign entities exerting a powerful force over the state of affairs in the autocratic state


If socialism is mixed with liberal values (like multiculturalism, racemixing, feminism, faggotism), it inevitably leads to societal disaster and the destruction of nations. This is my opinion, and it seems certain developed countries in America, West Europe are currently heading in that direction. Given how North America is being bombarded with low birth rates and mass migration, mixed with pro-socialist sentiment across mainstream media, it’s predictable that at this rate, the United States & Canada will experience the same consequences that were experienced by the Soviets and the Third Reich. The emergence of breakaway states in North America that border each other, where at least one state is a socialist state populated mostly by low IQ ethnics and faggots, and the other is an anti-socialist state populated by mostly conservative patriots

I think the United States won’t be “united” forever, and I think Canada will also experience the same. You could even argue that it’s already the case in the US - There are some consistently republican states (like Southern United States) in contrast to consistently democratic liberal states (which is basically every northern US state except Wyoming, Montana, North & South Dakota). I also think “democracy” is a whitewashed version of socialism, but I would need more time to think about this idea before I can explain it

If you want to destroy or subvert a civilization from within, promoting and spreading socialist / liberal values is perhaps the most straightforward way to do it. People in favor of feminism / multiculturalism don’t even seem to realise all they’re doing is playing into liberal socialist agenda. The old socialism was about empowering proletariats and inferior people that were at least natives to the country that was ruled by socialist policies. The new socialism is about also empowering proletariats and inferior people that aren’t native to the country that is ruled by socialist policies


TLDR: Socialism is a political ideal that caters primarily to economically / intellectually inferior people, like women, faggots and non-white ethnicities. Socialism + LIberalism = Destruction of Society. No prosperous civilization is built under liberal socialism. Although a conservative style of socialism has proven to be effective in very few societies, like NK & China. Practically all great civilizations in human history were the opposite of liberal socialists. All liberal socialist states are either one of two things (a) a third-world country filled with low IQ monkeys + primitive living conditions, or (b) a great civilization that eventually became decadent and dissolved into multiple breakaway states

 

[AsakuraHao]

socialism and communism don't work

 

[Anarcho Nihilist]

I’m convinced that the consequences of the Industrial Revolution would have been mitigated if not totally avoided, if women weren’t allowed into higher education or / and access to safe & effective birth control methods. It would have prevented immigration crisis; it would have prevented the imposition of socialist policies, like the modern welfare state that forces male labourers to pay insane amounts of tax so women and lesser people from other ethnicities & cultures can benefit

Socialism can be summarized by the slogan “to each according to his need / contribution”. It basically opposes the concept of private ownership, it encourages education to be socialized on a mass-scale, and it suggests goods and services should be freely accessible to all people who “need it”. It looks like socialism as well seems to correlate with slave morality and belief systems that coincide with slave morality (e.g Christcuckism), as socialism is a political philosophy that evidently appeals to economically inferior / oppressed classes of people, and is usually administered by the prime authority


I think modern socialism is a consequence of Industrial Revolution. Socialism has never proven to lead to a long-term improvement in quality of life / prosperity in any country or state that implemented it

Practically every country that has implemented a socialist style of government, was either

(a) third-world country (at least when it was ruled by a socialist state)​

(b) a previously advanced country that later descended into decadence + deterioration in social infrastructure & quality of life​

I also think socialism can be practical, but only in very conservative societies. The only remaining socialist states that have a strong position in intercontinental economic influence (NK, China), all have one thing in common – They aren’t plagued by woke shit like feminism, LGBT, racemixing or multiculturalism. NK and China are the very few examples of an economically & scientifically advanced socialist state. Uncoincidentially, they are both fairly conservative states (i.e. they try to mitigate the influence of foreign cultures on their native people)

But non-conservative socialism, is a political philosophy made to cater to people that are of the subjugated class, or economically / mentally inferior classes. There has always been a categorical divide between people who support socialism and people who don’t. The subordinate classes of people, such as ethnics, women and faggots, are the biggest advocates of non-conservative socialism. This is not a coincidence


If you look at the supreme civilizations of human history, such as Ancient Egypt, Roman Empire, Ancient Greece Ottoman Empire etc. – Practically all of these civilizations operated under a pyramid-style of social order, like capitalism, oligarchism, aristocracy or monarchism. This doesn’t say that all great civilizations operated under a pyramid-style of social order. You can look at the history of civilizations in sub-Saharan Africa if you want examples where pyramid-style social order didn’t necessarily equal a supreme advanced civilization


Although some great civilizations were partially developed under autocratic social systems, like Soviet Union and China, autocratic states have never really lasted. Autocracy is normally the direct result of socialism, and if you look at the history of autocratic states like Soviet Union, Republic of China & Third Reich Germany, practically all of them were dissolved into multiple breakaway states. The end of Soviet Union in 1990 saw it dissolve into over a dozen breakaway states (Ukraine, Russia Federation, Lithuania, Latvia, Kazakhstan, Georgia, Armenia etc.). The end of the Republic of China saw it dissolve into three breakaway states (Mongolia, China & Taiwan)

The defeat & end of the Third Reich saw it dissolve into over a dozen breakaway states, with an additional two new states (East Germany & West Germany) before they were re-unified in 1990s. Athough most European states outside of Prussia initially became occupied or controlled by Nazi Germany via annexation, there were few European states that were members of the Kingdom of Prussia before they ultimately broke away from German Empire after WW2 (Poland, Belgium, Denmark, Czechslovakia). The failures of autocratic states were all the consequence of foreign entities exerting a powerful force over the state of affairs in the autocratic state


If socialism is mixed with liberal values (like multiculturalism, racemixing, feminism, faggotism), it inevitably leads to societal disaster and the destruction of nations. This is my opinion, and it seems certain developed countries in America, West Europe are currently heading in that direction. Given how North America is being bombarded with low birth rates and mass migration, mixed with pro-socialist sentiment across mainstream media, it’s predictable that at this rate, the United States & Canada will experience the same consequences that were experienced by the Soviets and the Third Reich. The emergence of breakaway states in North America that border each other, where at least one state is a socialist state populated mostly by low IQ ethnics and faggots, and the other is an anti-socialist state populated by mostly conservative patriots

I think the United States won’t be “united” forever, and I think Canada will also experience the same. You could even argue that it’s already the case in the US - There are some consistently republican states (like Southern United States) in contrast to consistently democratic liberal states (which is basically every northern US state except Wyoming, Montana, North & South Dakota). I also think “democracy” is a whitewashed version of socialism, but I would need more time to think about this idea before I can explain it

If you want to destroy or subvert a civilization from within, promoting and spreading socialist / liberal values is perhaps the most straightforward way to do it. People in favor of feminism / multiculturalism don’t even seem to realise all they’re doing is playing into liberal socialist agenda. The old socialism was about empowering proletariats and inferior people that were at least natives to the country that was ruled by socialist policies. The new socialism is about also empowering proletariats and inferior people that aren’t native to the country that is ruled by socialist policies


TLDR: Socialism is a political ideal that caters primarily to economically / intellectually inferior people, like women, faggots and non-white ethnicities. Socialism + LIberalism = Destruction of Society. No prosperous civilization is built under liberal socialism. Although a conservative style of socialism has proven to be effective in very few societies, like NK & China. Practically all great civilizations in human history were the opposite of liberal socialists. All liberal socialist states are either one of two things (a) a third-world country filled with low IQ monkeys + primitive living conditions, or (b) a great civilization that eventually became decadent and dissolved into multiple breakaway states

Socialism is bad, but Neoliberalism is worse. At least under socialism or a form of managed capitalism, it would be easier for you to cope with life. Under neolibelism, the West is turning into Latin America, where there are either very rich or very poor. The rich should have a threshold, and the state should take away some of the money from the rich in order to reduce the distance between classes.

 

[Anarcho Nihilist]

I’m convinced that the consequences of the Industrial Revolution would have been mitigated if not totally avoided, if women weren’t allowed into higher education or / and access to safe & effective birth control methods. It would have prevented immigration crisis; it would have prevented the imposition of socialist policies, like the modern welfare state that forces male labourers to pay insane amounts of tax so women and lesser people from other ethnicities & cultures can benefit

Socialism can be summarized by the slogan “to each according to his need / contribution”. It basically opposes the concept of private ownership, it encourages education to be socialized on a mass-scale, and it suggests goods and services should be freely accessible to all people who “need it”. It looks like socialism as well seems to correlate with slave morality and belief systems that coincide with slave morality (e.g Christcuckism), as socialism is a political philosophy that evidently appeals to economically inferior / oppressed classes of people, and is usually administered by the prime authority


I think modern socialism is a consequence of Industrial Revolution. Socialism has never proven to lead to a long-term improvement in quality of life / prosperity in any country or state that implemented it

Practically every country that has implemented a socialist style of government, was either

(a) third-world country (at least when it was ruled by a socialist state)​

(b) a previously advanced country that later descended into decadence + deterioration in social infrastructure & quality of life​

I also think socialism can be practical, but only in very conservative societies. The only remaining socialist states that have a strong position in intercontinental economic influence (NK, China), all have one thing in common – They aren’t plagued by woke shit like feminism, LGBT, racemixing or multiculturalism. NK and China are the very few examples of an economically & scientifically advanced socialist state. Uncoincidentially, they are both fairly conservative states (i.e. they try to mitigate the influence of foreign cultures on their native people)

But non-conservative socialism, is a political philosophy made to cater to people that are of the subjugated class, or economically / mentally inferior classes. There has always been a categorical divide between people who support socialism and people who don’t. The subordinate classes of people, such as ethnics, women and faggots, are the biggest advocates of non-conservative socialism. This is not a coincidence


If you look at the supreme civilizations of human history, such as Ancient Egypt, Roman Empire, Ancient Greece Ottoman Empire etc. – Practically all of these civilizations operated under a pyramid-style of social order, like capitalism, oligarchism, aristocracy or monarchism. This doesn’t say that all great civilizations operated under a pyramid-style of social order. You can look at the history of civilizations in sub-Saharan Africa if you want examples where pyramid-style social order didn’t necessarily equal a supreme advanced civilization


Although some great civilizations were partially developed under autocratic social systems, like Soviet Union and China, autocratic states have never really lasted. Autocracy is normally the direct result of socialism, and if you look at the history of autocratic states like Soviet Union, Republic of China & Third Reich Germany, practically all of them were dissolved into multiple breakaway states. The end of Soviet Union in 1990 saw it dissolve into over a dozen breakaway states (Ukraine, Russia Federation, Lithuania, Latvia, Kazakhstan, Georgia, Armenia etc.). The end of the Republic of China saw it dissolve into three breakaway states (Mongolia, China & Taiwan)

The defeat & end of the Third Reich saw it dissolve into over a dozen breakaway states, with an additional two new states (East Germany & West Germany) before they were re-unified in 1990s. Athough most European states outside of Prussia initially became occupied or controlled by Nazi Germany via annexation, there were few European states that were members of the Kingdom of Prussia before they ultimately broke away from German Empire after WW2 (Poland, Belgium, Denmark, Czechslovakia). The failures of autocratic states were all the consequence of foreign entities exerting a powerful force over the state of affairs in the autocratic state


If socialism is mixed with liberal values (like multiculturalism, racemixing, feminism, faggotism), it inevitably leads to societal disaster and the destruction of nations. This is my opinion, and it seems certain developed countries in America, West Europe are currently heading in that direction. Given how North America is being bombarded with low birth rates and mass migration, mixed with pro-socialist sentiment across mainstream media, it’s predictable that at this rate, the United States & Canada will experience the same consequences that were experienced by the Soviets and the Third Reich. The emergence of breakaway states in North America that border each other, where at least one state is a socialist state populated mostly by low IQ ethnics and faggots, and the other is an anti-socialist state populated by mostly conservative patriots

I think the United States won’t be “united” forever, and I think Canada will also experience the same. You could even argue that it’s already the case in the US - There are some consistently republican states (like Southern United States) in contrast to consistently democratic liberal states (which is basically every northern US state except Wyoming, Montana, North & South Dakota). I also think “democracy” is a whitewashed version of socialism, but I would need more time to think about this idea before I can explain it

If you want to destroy or subvert a civilization from within, promoting and spreading socialist / liberal values is perhaps the most straightforward way to do it. People in favor of feminism / multiculturalism don’t even seem to realise all they’re doing is playing into liberal socialist agenda. The old socialism was about empowering proletariats and inferior people that were at least natives to the country that was ruled by socialist policies. The new socialism is about also empowering proletariats and inferior people that aren’t native to the country that is ruled by socialist policies


TLDR: Socialism is a political ideal that caters primarily to economically / intellectually inferior people, like women, faggots and non-white ethnicities. Socialism + LIberalism = Destruction of Society. No prosperous civilization is built under liberal socialism. Although a conservative style of socialism has proven to be effective in very few societies, like NK & China. Practically all great civilizations in human history were the opposite of liberal socialists. All liberal socialist states are either one of two things (a) a third-world country filled with low IQ monkeys + primitive living conditions, or (b) a great civilization that eventually became decadent and dissolved into multiple breakaway states

Boomers lived several times better than us, because they had a time when the state controlled the economy and corporations, and that time ended in the early 1980s. Now, inequality is growing every year all over the world, the factory director can receive 1,000 times more salary than her employee. To endure, we returned to the capitalism of the level of Victorian England and all the achievements of trade unions and socialism were flushed down the toilet. Even the replacement of whites is a consequence of capitalism and the fact that the Canadian bourgeoisie would rather hire curries than white Canadians.

 

[Anarcho Nihilist]

I’m convinced that the consequences of the Industrial Revolution would have been mitigated if not totally avoided, if women weren’t allowed into higher education or / and access to safe & effective birth control methods. It would have prevented immigration crisis; it would have prevented the imposition of socialist policies, like the modern welfare state that forces male labourers to pay insane amounts of tax so women and lesser people from other ethnicities & cultures can benefit

Socialism can be summarized by the slogan “to each according to his need / contribution”. It basically opposes the concept of private ownership, it encourages education to be socialized on a mass-scale, and it suggests goods and services should be freely accessible to all people who “need it”. It looks like socialism as well seems to correlate with slave morality and belief systems that coincide with slave morality (e.g Christcuckism), as socialism is a political philosophy that evidently appeals to economically inferior / oppressed classes of people, and is usually administered by the prime authority


I think modern socialism is a consequence of Industrial Revolution. Socialism has never proven to lead to a long-term improvement in quality of life / prosperity in any country or state that implemented it

Practically every country that has implemented a socialist style of government, was either

(a) third-world country (at least when it was ruled by a socialist state)​

(b) a previously advanced country that later descended into decadence + deterioration in social infrastructure & quality of life​

I also think socialism can be practical, but only in very conservative societies. The only remaining socialist states that have a strong position in intercontinental economic influence (NK, China), all have one thing in common – They aren’t plagued by woke shit like feminism, LGBT, racemixing or multiculturalism. NK and China are the very few examples of an economically & scientifically advanced socialist state. Uncoincidentially, they are both fairly conservative states (i.e. they try to mitigate the influence of foreign cultures on their native people)

But non-conservative socialism, is a political philosophy made to cater to people that are of the subjugated class, or economically / mentally inferior classes. There has always been a categorical divide between people who support socialism and people who don’t. The subordinate classes of people, such as ethnics, women and faggots, are the biggest advocates of non-conservative socialism. This is not a coincidence


If you look at the supreme civilizations of human history, such as Ancient Egypt, Roman Empire, Ancient Greece Ottoman Empire etc. – Practically all of these civilizations operated under a pyramid-style of social order, like capitalism, oligarchism, aristocracy or monarchism. This doesn’t say that all great civilizations operated under a pyramid-style of social order. You can look at the history of civilizations in sub-Saharan Africa if you want examples where pyramid-style social order didn’t necessarily equal a supreme advanced civilization


Although some great civilizations were partially developed under autocratic social systems, like Soviet Union and China, autocratic states have never really lasted. Autocracy is normally the direct result of socialism, and if you look at the history of autocratic states like Soviet Union, Republic of China & Third Reich Germany, practically all of them were dissolved into multiple breakaway states. The end of Soviet Union in 1990 saw it dissolve into over a dozen breakaway states (Ukraine, Russia Federation, Lithuania, Latvia, Kazakhstan, Georgia, Armenia etc.). The end of the Republic of China saw it dissolve into three breakaway states (Mongolia, China & Taiwan)

The defeat & end of the Third Reich saw it dissolve into over a dozen breakaway states, with an additional two new states (East Germany & West Germany) before they were re-unified in 1990s. Athough most European states outside of Prussia initially became occupied or controlled by Nazi Germany via annexation, there were few European states that were members of the Kingdom of Prussia before they ultimately broke away from German Empire after WW2 (Poland, Belgium, Denmark, Czechslovakia). The failures of autocratic states were all the consequence of foreign entities exerting a powerful force over the state of affairs in the autocratic state


If socialism is mixed with liberal values (like multiculturalism, racemixing, feminism, faggotism), it inevitably leads to societal disaster and the destruction of nations. This is my opinion, and it seems certain developed countries in America, West Europe are currently heading in that direction. Given how North America is being bombarded with low birth rates and mass migration, mixed with pro-socialist sentiment across mainstream media, it’s predictable that at this rate, the United States & Canada will experience the same consequences that were experienced by the Soviets and the Third Reich. The emergence of breakaway states in North America that border each other, where at least one state is a socialist state populated mostly by low IQ ethnics and faggots, and the other is an anti-socialist state populated by mostly conservative patriots

I think the United States won’t be “united” forever, and I think Canada will also experience the same. You could even argue that it’s already the case in the US - There are some consistently republican states (like Southern United States) in contrast to consistently democratic liberal states (which is basically every northern US state except Wyoming, Montana, North & South Dakota). I also think “democracy” is a whitewashed version of socialism, but I would need more time to think about this idea before I can explain it

If you want to destroy or subvert a civilization from within, promoting and spreading socialist / liberal values is perhaps the most straightforward way to do it. People in favor of feminism / multiculturalism don’t even seem to realise all they’re doing is playing into liberal socialist agenda. The old socialism was about empowering proletariats and inferior people that were at least natives to the country that was ruled by socialist policies. The new socialism is about also empowering proletariats and inferior people that aren’t native to the country that is ruled by socialist policies


TLDR: Socialism is a political ideal that caters primarily to economically / intellectually inferior people, like women, faggots and non-white ethnicities. Socialism + LIberalism = Destruction of Society. No prosperous civilization is built under liberal socialism. Although a conservative style of socialism has proven to be effective in very few societies, like NK & China. Practically all great civilizations in human history were the opposite of liberal socialists. All liberal socialist states are either one of two things (a) a third-world country filled with low IQ monkeys + primitive living conditions, or (b) a great civilization that eventually became decadent and dissolved into multiple breakaway states

Whites are replaced because of capitalism and the fact that business owners do not need to pay a good salary to a white worker when they can import Pajitas or niggas so that he works for a small salary, and he capitalist can buy a new penthouse with the money saved by hiring non-whites.
There is nothing wrong with socialism with a national orientation, which was German Nazism. There is nothing wrong with helping your compatriots and your people as a priority. It's about taking care only of your own population, not someone else's.

 

[Anarcho Nihilist]

socialism and communism don't work

Neoliberalism doesn't work.

 

[ResidentHell]

To endure, we returned to the capitalism of the level of Victorian England and all the achievements of trade unions and socialism were flushed down the toilet. Even the replacement of whites is a consequence of capitalism and the fact that the Canadian bourgeoisie would rather hire curries than white Canadians.

Whites are replaced because of capitalism and the fact that business owners do not need to pay a good salary to a white worker when they can import Pajitas or niggas so that he works for a small salary, and he can buy a new penthouse with the money saved by hiring non-whites.

It is impossible to enforce socialism when the state authority is the bougeoisie. It will basically be a masked version of capitalism. I also think commoners are usually not as well-educated as members of upper class society. As the common class are more likely to be less educated, they are likely to be too low IQ to organize and cause revolutionary social change in their country when it's affected by extreme capitalism (without driving the country into third world conditions)

Plus there is influx of low IQ immigrants from third world regions like Latin America, Africa & South Asia, which ultimately causes IQ dilution in developed countries. Liberalist policy allows low IQ people from third world to migrate to developed world for job opportunities; socialist policy allows low IQ people in developed world to receive access to welfare & education at little to no financial cost. IQ dilution will cause the infrastructure of the developed world to deteriorate

A socialist state with advanced infrastructure like China, cannot be operated by low IQ people, and it cannot be operated alongside liberal policies. If a socialist state has low IQ leaders, it would basically be the equivalent of a country in Africa. If a socialist state implements liberal policies, it will end up heading down the same path that western countries are currently heading. I think most people do not know what they vote for when they vote politically

Capitalism can be regulated if economic opportunities are restricted, or if conservative socialist policies are enforced. Liberalism enables capitalists to outsource labor to third-world countries. The population replacement is caused by liberal policies (which led to lower fertility rates, more women in education, more ethnic immigrants in developed world). Capitalists only exploit on economic opportunities that are shown to them. It's possible that low birth rates were purposely engineered via liberal milestones (Roe v Wade, Sexual Revolution etc.) to provide an incentive for western governments to import low IQ migrants to work for capitalist business owners at a smaller financial cost. This would be part of a bigger conspiracy

If liberal policies for immigration were to be abolished, or if fertility rate of western countries were to suddenly rise to >2x above replacement level (neither will happen), then capitalists would have to manage with buying labor from the population that's already in western society as it would be less feasible to import the third world to work for them at a smaller financial cost


TLDR: Socialism cannot exist under the authority of bougeoisie. Socialism is also likely to fail under the rule of proletariat, because proletariats are likely to be too low IQ & uneducated to organize without transforming their country into the third world. Liberal policies / movements enabled mass immigration & low fertility rate to some degree. Liberalism + Socialism = Disaster

 

[Anarcho Nihilist]

It is impossible to enforce socialism when the state authority is the bougeoisie. It will basically be a masked version of capitalism. I also think commoners are usually not as well-educated as members of upper class society. As the common class are more likely to be less educated, they are likely to be too low IQ to organize and cause revolutionary social change in their country when it's affected by extreme capitalism (without driving the country into third world conditions)

Plus there is influx of low IQ immigrants from third world regions like Latin America, Africa & South Asia, which ultimately causes IQ dilution in developed countries. Liberalist policy allows low IQ people from third world to migrate to developed world for job opportunities; socialist policy allows low IQ people in developed world to receive access to welfare & education at little to no financial cost. IQ dilution will cause the infrastructure of the developed world to deteriorate

A socialist state with advanced infrastructure like China, cannot be operated by low IQ people, and it cannot be operated alongside liberal policies. If a socialist state has low IQ leaders, it would basically be the equivalent of a country in Africa. If a socialist state implements liberal policies, it will end up heading down the same path that western countries are currently heading. I think most people do not know what they vote for when they vote politically

Capitalism can be regulated if economic opportunities are restricted, or if conservative socialist policies are enforced. Liberalism enables capitalists to outsource labor to third-world countries. The population replacement is caused by liberal policies (which led to lower birth rates, more women in education, more ethnic immigrants in developed world). Capitalists only exploit on economic opportunities that are shown to them. It's possible that low birth rates were purposely engineered via liberal milestones (Roe v Wade, Sexual Revolution etc.) to provide an incentive for western governments to import low IQ migrants to work for capitalist business owners at a smaller financial cost. This would be part of a bigger conspiracy

If liberal policies for immigration were to be abolished, or if fertility rate of western countries were to suddenly rise to >2x above replacement level (neither will happen), then capitalists would have to manage with buying labor from the population that's already in western society as it would be less feasible to import the third world to work for them at a smaller financial cost

Yes, but the main message I wanted to say is that uncontrolled capitalism is as evil as communism. And the fact that the desire to manage the economy does not automatically make a person a communist. Italian fascism and German Nazism controlled the economies of their countries for the well-being of their people, not for the sake of the free market and bourgeois bankers. Replacing whites is economically beneficial because non-whites (Blacks, curries, Latinos) are willing to work for lower wages and be content with less, so they are imported because the bourgeois are greedy to pay whites more money for their work.

 

[ResidentHell]

Yes, but the main message I wanted to say is that uncontrolled capitalism is as evil as communism. And the fact that the desire to manage the economy does not automatically make a person a communist. Italian fascism and German Nazism controlled the economies of their countries for the well-being of their people, not for the sake of the free market and bourgeois bankers. Replacing whites is economically beneficial because non-whites (Blacks, curries, Latinos) are willing to work for lower wages and be content with less, so they are imported because the bourgeois are greedy to pay whites more money for their work.

I agree

 

[Freixel]

Capitalism is hell

If you are not at the top of the economic food chain I see no reason to support capitalism, that would make you a subservient weak-minded slave to the status quo by definition.

The criticism of totalitarianism and the massification and expansion of the state in the socialist system is understandable, but capitalism also expands its power and control over the social mass and culture through other means, although the state is a "secondary tool" for them (that is in discourse, in practice it is not).

Edit

I read a part of the thread

This is totally wrong:

"NK and China are the very few examples of an economically & scientifically advanced socialist state."

China is not a socialist society in the slightest, that is just a mask to differentiate itself from the power of the West, they have private companies and are as capitalist as the USA, if you think that China is a communist state you still have not learned anything.

Also:

Although a conservative style of socialism has proven to be effective in very few societies, like NK & China. Practically all great civilizations in human history were the opposite of liberal socialists. All liberal socialist states are either one of two things (a) a third-world country filled with low IQ monkeys + primitive living conditions, or (b) a great civilization that eventually became decadent and dissolved into multiple breakaway states

I actually agree with this, my ideal system is socialism + ethnonationalism, the problem here is progressivism (erroneously called liberalism in the USA, a country in which it seems they have a penchant for distorting correctly used terms)

But that is not a problem exclusive of socialism, it is the ultra-capitalist companies themselves and their libertarian intellectual servants who also support the fags and the niggers at the end of the day. This is part of the systematic corruption of societies in this Era, including things like anarchism or "conservative" religions themselves like Catholicism

I repeat: It is not something exclusive to socialism, this phenomenon of moral and cultural decadence is universal

I believe that all ideologies are corrupted by progressivism in the modern era, both libertarian capitalism and "neo-socialism" (it must be differentiated from the original socialism that sought to improve the living conditions of the working class, not to propagate sodomy among teenagers).

If the complaint here is against the progressive ("liberal") values of the 21st century then we have to dig deeper, the original socialism of the 19th century no longer has anything to do with this.

We must also differentiate economic policy from social policy.

For example, I would be defined as economically left-wing and socially right-wing.