Does the whole "movement" prioritize private capital over against our people?

On eNat, in the "Socialist Not Wanted" thread, there has been another fierce debate, with the overwhelming majority of the posters there---who claim to be National Socialists--- launching an all out defense of capitalism, particularly private "small business".

It seems to me that is the core essence of what the whole phony 'pro-White movement' is really about. Stick a fork in it...I'm totally finished debating with them about their priorities.

I thought at first that maybe we could be lenient about some private small business. Now, I think almost all of these small business types will likely fight to the death in order to protect capitalism, and all that entails as far as consequences for our people.
Allowing any capitalist relations and values to remain in a liberated White nation, no matter how intensely we regulate them, even if we only allow private "small business", is like allowing 10% of the non-Whites to remain. It will just sow the poisonous seed for the future downfall of our society and our people once again.

SN Labor Champion wrote:On eNat, in the "Socialist Not Wanted" thread, there has been another fierce debate, with the overwhelming majority of the posters there---who claim to be National Socialists--- launching an all out defense of capitalism, particularly private "small business".

It seems to me that is the core essence of what the whole phony 'pro-White movement' is really about. Stick a fork in it...I'm totally finished debating with them about their priorities.

I thought at first that maybe we could be lenient about some private small business. Now, I think almost all of these small business types will likely fight to the death in order to protect capitalism, and all that entails as far as consequences for our people.
Allowing any capitalist relations and values to remain in a liberated White nation, no matter how intensely we regulate them, even if we only allow private "small business", is like allowing 10% of the non-Whites to remain. It will just sow the poisonous seed for the future downfall of our society and our people once again.

SN Labor Champion, I agree that many ( maybe most) small business owners are Anti Socialist and will oppose us no matter what we do. That being said I see no reason to outlaw small business in a future Socialist economy. There is nothing exploitative in ( for example) someone owning a small workshop that they use to make goods and then sell them for a profit.

Rebel Warrior 59 wrote:SN Labor Champion, I agree that many ( maybe most) small business owners are Anti Socialist and will oppose us no matter what we do. That being said I see no reason to outlaw small business in a future Socialist economy. There is nothing exploitative in ( for example) someone owning a small workshop that they use to make goods and then sell them for a profit.

I'm concerned about bourgeois class reformation and capitalist restoration, about subversion and corruption and ultimately destruction of the White nation.
Independent self-employed artisans might be one thing that we could allow. But allow small scale capitalists who employ labor beyond themselves, and we start to go back down the slippery slope again. What will these privately owned small business owners do? They'll collaborate with each other for their common interests and struggle against us as much as they can get away with...they'll form a new opposing class seeking to remake society according to their interests. They'll strive for more capitalist restoration, more societal hegemony for their class and to undercut/undermine the worker's collectives, more "freedom from government intervention"...and worst of all, ultimately they'll turncoat and work with remaining foreign capitalist powers to help bring our whole society down. Give 'em an inch, step out on that slippery slope with allowing some capitalism, and they'll sooner or later bring our whole nation down and the consequences for our people will be terrible (especially since the capitalists will have to make a big example out of them in order to provide a terrible "teaching moment" to the whole world about the dangers, costs, and 'failure' of worker's revolution, socialism and ethno-nationalism/ "racism").
I think this danger is most extremely faced by our White working people in what is now the United States, because of its history, social and cultural norms, and political traditions.

Rebel Warrior 59 wrote:SN Labor Champion, I agree that many ( maybe most) small business owners are Anti Socialist and will oppose us no matter what we do. That being said I see no reason to outlaw small business in a future Socialist economy. There is nothing exploitative in ( for example) someone owning a small workshop that they use to make goods and then sell them for a profit.

I don't think anyone here is against small self- or family-run businesses. What Socialist-Nationalists oppose, however, are petit-bourgeois enterprises, wherein exploitation (via wage-slavery) is still practiced. The opinion of the Committee at least (and I don't think any fellow members would contradict me on this) is that any capital that would otherwise necessitate the utilization of wage-labor be legally subjected to a cooperative (socialist) business model—wherein the enterprise collectively owned its labor force.

You and SN Labor Champion are quite right in that the interests of the petit-bourgeois are far too aligned with those of the bourgeoisie proper to count on any level of support for socialist initiative. However, the proletarianization process that accompanies the sort of capitalist crisis we are now experiencing throughout the West is such that we can possibly rely on former members of that class, discontented by their respective plights, to come to support some anti-capitalist revolutionary action.

SN Labor Champion wrote:On eNat, in the "Socialist Not Wanted" thread, there has been another fierce debate, with the overwhelming majority of the posters there---who claim to be National Socialists--- launching an all out defense of capitalism, particularly private "small business".

It seems to me that is the core essence of what the whole phony 'pro-White movement' is really about. Stick a fork in it...I'm totally finished debating with them about their priorities.

I thought at first that maybe we could be lenient about some private small business. Now, I think almost all of these small business types will likely fight to the death in order to protect capitalism, and all that entails as far as consequences for our people.
Allowing any capitalist relations and values to remain in a liberated White nation, no matter how intensely we regulate them, even if we only allow private "small business", is like allowing 10% of the non-Whites to remain. It will just sow the poisonous seed for the future downfall of our society and our people once again.

The vast majority of the "national socialists" who currently "represent" the ideology are nothing of the sort. They are reactionaries with a Third Reich fetish. That is all. They distort historical facts about Hitler's movement in order to accommodate their disjointed views. One of the few true and prominent national socialists today is the Dane, Povl Riis-Knudsen, who wrote such excellent articles as National Socialism: A Left-Wing Movement and National Socialism: The Biological World View. His philosophy is far different than what one can expect within the clusters of the reactionaries.

To be honest, I believe that we should combat these dilettantes in the same manner that we do cosmopolitans and right-wingers. Perhaps with enough force, the more sensible of them will defect to our ranks.

Revolutionary Wolf wrote:The vast majority of the "national socialists" who currently "represent" the ideology are nothing of the sort. They are reactionaries with a Third Reich fetish. That is all. They distort historical facts about Hitler's movement in order to accommodate their disjointed views. One of the few true and prominent national socialists today is the Dane Povl Riis-Knudsen, who wrote such excellent articles as National Socialism: A Left-Wing Movement and National Socialism: The Biological World View. His philosophy is far different than what one can expect within the clusters of the reactionaries.

To be honest, I believe that we should combat these dilettantes in the same manner that we do cosmopolitans and right-wingers. Perhaps with enough force, the more sensible of them will defect to our ranks.

I concur. In many ways these particular reactionaries are even more deplorable than the conventional conservatives; for they have expropriated the legacy of a quasi-revolutionary movement and used it for fundamentally counterrevolutionary ends. In so doing, they have done their fellow reactionaries a tremendous service in alienating social revolutionaries from various nationalistic causes.

For interested parties, I'll share a brief critique of these neo-Nazis (a misnomer, I know, but far more befitting a term for these individuals than 'National Socialist') that I wrote not too long ago.

'Neo-Nazis'...distinguish themselves from traditional National Socialists in that they constitute a cultural and ideological amalgamation of various reactionary constructs—such as (various caricatures of) German National Socialism, the Skinhead subculture, the Ku Klux Klan, paleoconservatism, Nordicism, various pagan religions, etc.

Neo-Nazis largely demonstrate a deficient understanding of German National Socialism—one that generally fails to transcend mainstream Western stereotypes embodied in elementary historical accounts, Hollywood motion pictures, and Soviet propaganda. As such, Neo-Nazis tend to embrace the associated caricatures, thereby reinforcing negative conceptions of National Socialism amongst the larger public.

The overall disposition of the Neo-Nazi is characterized by acute levels of xenophobia, irrational levels of hostility towards their perceived enemies—Jews, racial minorities, socialists (of virtually every non-Nazi variety), feminists, center-left politicians, state bureaucrats, etc.—and a fetish for Third Reich (and other forms of fascistic) aesthetics and pageantry.

Over on eNat which prides itself on its NS position. They've just banned the User 'UgricRedneck77' for expressing 'commie/Bolhevik' ideology. Yet he was one of the more moderate Socialist-Nationalist there.

Just asked them to close my account there as I can see whats coming. We are communists and therefore must be avoided

Isakenaz wrote:Over on eNat which prides itself on its NS position. They've just banned the User 'UgricRedneck77' for expressing 'commie/Bolhevik' ideology. Yet he was one of the more moderate Socialist-Nationalist there.

Yup I am on a temporary ban which lasts till tomorrow. I am UgricRedneck 77 ( on eNat) by the way. That Lord Sidious guy ( the one who banned me) really despises us for some reason. On your Socialist not wanted thread I stated that Socialism is a part of National Socialism and then he accused me of being a troll and a Communist and basically defended all the hotheads and loons who called me a Bolshevik . When I called him out for being a hypocrite on another thread he banned me. Then again I dont get why a guy like that would be a Senior Moderator on eNat. I mean according to this article: http://nordwave.net/index/ the Nordwave movement believes in a Socialist economy. Has something changed since then? Anyways Ill see what the future brings. I might stay on eNat and then again I might not.

SN Labor Champion wrote:I'm concerned about bourgeois class reformation and capitalist restoration, about subversion and corruption and ultimately destruction of the White nation.
Independent self-employed artisans might be one thing that we could allow. But allow small scale capitalists who employ labor beyond themselves, and we start to go back down the slippery slope again. What will these privately owned small business owners do? They'll collaborate with each other for their common interests and struggle against us as much as they can get away with...they'll form a new opposing class seeking to remake society according to their interests. They'll strive for more capitalist restoration, more societal hegemony for their class and to undercut/undermine the worker's collectives, more "freedom from government intervention"...and worst of all, ultimately they'll turncoat and work with remaining foreign capitalist powers to help bring our whole society down. Give 'em an inch, step out on that slippery slope with allowing some capitalism, and they'll sooner or later bring our whole nation down and the consequences for our people will be terrible (especially since the capitalists will have to make a big example out of them in order to provide a terrible "teaching moment" to the whole world about the dangers, costs, and 'failure' of worker's revolution, socialism and ethno-nationalism/ "racism").
I think this danger is most extremely faced by our White working people in what is now the United States, because of its history, social and cultural norms, and political traditions.

SN Labor Champion, I get where your coming from but I dont think Small business has to be done away with in order to prevent Capitalism from returning. I believe that in a future Socialist economy all the big chain and department stores ( as well as all the supermarkets and supercenters) should be replaced by small locally owned businesses. That way the ownership of the means of distribution is not concentrated in a few hands ( like it is under Capitalism) but more widely spread among the populace. Anti Trust laws and other regulations could exist that would prevent a business from swallowing up another through unrestricted competition. Of course that would not be perfect but there really is no absolute guarantee that Capitalism wont return after it vanishes for a while. I mean if the people of a Socialist Nationalist country let themselves get dispossessed and dont fight against Capitalism then it can return. People must always be vigilant if they want to keep themselves safe from harmful forces.

Admin wrote:I don't think anyone here is against small self- or family-run businesses. What Socialist-Nationalists oppose, however, are petit-bourgeois enterprises, wherein exploitation (via wage-slavery) is still practiced. The opinion of the Committee at least (and I don't think any fellow members would contradict me on this) is that any capital that would otherwise necessitate the utilization of wage-labor be legally subjected to a cooperative (socialist) business model—wherein the enterprise collectively owned its labor force.

You and SN Labor Champion are quite right in that the interests of the petit-bourgeois are far too aligned with those of the bourgeoisie proper to count on any level of support for socialist initiative. However, the proletarianization process that accompanies the sort of capitalist crisis we are now experiencing throughout the West is such that we can possibly rely on former members of that class, discontented by their respective plights, to come to support some anti-capitalist revolutionary action.

Correct me if Im wrong but does the Committee believe that wage labor, in itself, must be done away with? If so why? I am asking because I dont see wage labor, in itself, to be wrong. For example I dont see how paying a janitor a wage ( as long as its a living wage) is exploitative. I mean a janitor is not producing any goods that are sold for a profit ( a portion of which goes to his or her employer who played no part in the creation of the goods in the first place). I agree that wage labor in businesses where mass production takes place should be done away and replaced with the cooperative model but I dont see why wage labor should be done away with in businesses where no mass production of goods takes place at all. I am not saying that wage labor should be allowed in businesses where small scale production of goods takes place. I believe in restoring the artisanal mode of production to a certain degree which would allow people to own their own small business ( where small scale production takes place) where they would produce the goods themselves ( without the help of anyone else) and sell them for a profit. Of course people would be free to form worker cooperatives where they could produce goods on a small scale. I know this sounds like what the Distributists advocate but I think the better aspects of Distributism can be easily combined with Socialism. Anyways sorry for rambling on there. My point is why does wage labor, in itself, have to be abolished? I am just asking an honest question because I dont see why.

Rebel Warrior 59 wrote:Correct me if Im wrong but does the Committee believe that wage labor, in itself, must be done away with? If so why? I am asking because I dont see wage labor, in itself, to be wrong. For example I dont see how paying a janitor a wage ( as long as its a living wage) is exploitative. I mean a janitor is not producing any goods that are sold for a profit ( a portion of which goes to his or her employer who played no part in the creation of the goods in the first place). I agree that wage labor in businesses where mass production takes place should be done away and replaced with the cooperative model but I dont see why wage labor should be done away with in businesses where no mass production of goods takes place at all. I am not saying that wage labor should be allowed in businesses where small scale production of goods takes place. I believe in restoring the artisanal mode of production to a certain degree which would allow people to own their own small business ( where small scale production takes place) where they would produce the goods themselves ( without the help of anyone else) and sell them for a profit. Of course people would be free to form worker cooperatives where they could produce goods on a small scale. I know this sounds like what the Distributists advocate but I think the better aspects of Distributism can be easily combined with Socialism. Anyways sorry for rambling on there. My point is why does wage labor, in itself, have to be abolished? I am just asking an honest question because I dont see why.

Well actually the janitor's work is generating profits. Therefore there is a surplus value to his work that goes to his boss. If for example his boss does nothing but to give the groom to the janitor for him to clean, why would the janitor need the boss? Or if it's a cleaning company, why can't all the janitors decide how much each gains, and if the boss acts as manager, how much should also be allocated to him, through democratic voting? If the boss/manager wouldn't agree with the payment, he could leave, and the janitors would hire another manager. The important point here is to abolish the boss that does nothing besides borrowing the groom for the janitor to clean, since he is producing nothing, or has no function in the production besides collecting the profits in the end, and deciding ALONE how much the janitors should receive, when they did all the "production" of this profit.

I here used the term profit losely, for the sake of clarity.

Rebel Warrior 59 wrote:Yup I am on a temporary ban which lasts till tomorrow. I am UgricRedneck 77 ( on eNat) by the way. That Lord Sidious guy ( the who banned me) really despises us for some reason. On your Socialist not wanted thread I stated that Socialism is a part of National Socialism and then he accused me of being a troll and a Communist and basically defended all the hotheads and loons who called me a Bolshevik . When I called him out for being a hypocrite on another thread he banned me. Then again I dont get why a guy like that would be a Senior Moderator on eNat. I mean according to this article: http://nordwave.net/index/ the Nordwave movement believes in a Socialist economy. Has something changed since then? Anyways Ill see what the future brings. I might stay on eNat and then again I might not.

I don't think we gain by interacting with any reactionaries of the right (even those who drape themselves in Swastikas and surround themselves with pictures of Adolf). There are a lot of potential Socialist-Nationalists out there who see the swastika and run a mile. We are better off trying to attract them than those who see no further than a bunker in Berlin 1945. I apologise to our comrades who consider themselves NS but do you really want to be associated with the likes of the blinkered fools on eNat?

Isakenaz wrote:I don't think we gain by interacting with any reactionaries of the right (even those who drape themselves in Swastikas and surround themselves with pictures of Adolf). There are a lot of potential Socialist-Nationalists out there who see the swastika and run a mile. We are better off trying to attract them than those who see no further than a bunker in Berlin 1945. I apologise to our comrades who consider themselves NS but do you really want to be associated with the likes of the blinkered fools on eNat?

Well one Senior Moderator sent me a PM that said he ( or she) supports my opinions ( that is doesnt mind me expressing them). Bladridigan is also a moderator on there so I think some of us can hang out there. I know of only one staff member there ( the one I wrote about) who despises us simply for our views so I think its a good idea ( for those of us who are willing) to keep a foot in there. We may win some more people over. At any rate I wil find out where the administration of eNat stands with regard to us once my ban is lifted. If they turn out to not want us on the forum then I will let you all know just so you wont waste your time on the forum.

Leon Mcnichol wrote:Well actually the janitor's work is generating profits. Therefore there is a surplus value to his work that goes to his boss. If for example his boss does nothing but to give the groom to the janitor for him to clean, why would the janitor need the boss? Or if it's a cleaning company, why can't all the janitors decide how much each gains, and if the boss acts as manager, how much should also be allocated to him, through democratic voting? If the boss/manager wouldn't agree with the payment, he could leave, and the janitors would hire another manager. The important point here is to abolish the boss that does nothing besides borrowing the groom for the janitor to clean, since he is producing nothing, or has no function in the production besides collecting the profits in the end, and deciding ALONE how much the janitors should receive, when they did all the "production" of this profit.

I here used the term profit losely, for the sake of clarity.

Leon Mcnichol is exactly right. It matters not what a given business is engaged in—manufacturing commodities, distributing/retailing commodities, or providing services. In every case, the associated enterprise is providing something which is marketable and in turn capable of generating a surplus. Depriving labor of ownership over the surplus it generates is exploitation. This principle therefore applies just as much to a janitor as it does a coal miner, an automobile manufacturer, or a cashier. A capitalist is purchasing labor-power in order to generate profit.

And on the point of janitorial work, it might interest you to know that the janitors of the Mondragón cooperatives own an equal share of the corporation and have equal voting power over its board. As I previously noted, this model is capable of mitigating income disparities whilst simultaneously ensuring that skilled labor is nevertheless fairly remunerated. [Celtiberian has posted a video on the Mondragón Cooperative Corporation in the educational videos thread.]

Now some business may be too small or have an aversion towards integrating such labor into a position of worker-ownership. This is perfectly reasonable and can be remedied through the utilization of a cooperative specializing in janitorial/cleaning services.

Incidentally, modern manufacturing is so capital intensive that retaining capitalist business models for all other sectors of the economy would essentially surrender a robust plurality of a nation's labor force to exploitation. Why have socialism for the workers producing the commodities for Wal-Mart and capitalism for the Wal-Mart workers selling the commodities?

Admin wrote:Leon Mcnichol is exactly right. It matters not what a given business is engaged in—manufacturing commodities, distributing/retailing commodities, or providing services. In every case, the associated enterprise is providing something which is marketable and in turn capable of generating a surplus. Depriving labor of ownership over the surplus it generates is exploitation. This principle therefore applies just as much to a janitor as it does a coal miner, an automobile manufacturer, or a cashier. A capitalist is purchasing labor-power in order to generate profit.

And on the point of janitorial work, it might interest you to know that the janitors of the Mondragón cooperatives own an equal share of the corporation and have equal voting power over its board. As I previously noted, this model is capable of mitigating income disparities whilst simultaneously ensuring that skilled labor is nevertheless fairly remunerated. [Celtiberian has posted a video on the Mondragón Cooperative Corporation in the educational videos thread.]

Now some business may be too small or have an aversion towards integrating such labor into a position of worker-ownership. This is perfectly reasonable and can be remedied through the utilization of a cooperative specializing in janitorial/cleaning services.

Incidentally, modern manufacturing is so capital intensive that retaining capitalist business models for all other sectors of the economy would essentially surrender a robust plurality of a nation's labor force to exploitation. Why have socialism for the workers producing the commodities for Wal-Mart and capitalism for the Wal-Mart workers selling the commodities?

But how is a janitor generating a surplus? Let us say there is someone who owns a building. That person hires a janitor to clean the building. How does that person profit from the janitor cleaning the building? I mean how exactly does someone earn money by hiring someone to clean out the building that they own? I totally agree that no one has the moral right to profit from production they played no part in and that worker cooperatives should replace the Capitalist enterprise ( that produces goods) because of this. But I dont see what that has to do with janitors ( or people who have jobs where they dont produce anything). Janitors dont create goods whose sale Capitalists profit from even though they have no right to profit from them. By the way what do you mean by surplus value? Do you refer to the profit generated by the sale of goods as surplus value? Or are you speaking of something else?

Rebel Warrior 59 wrote:
Janitors dont create goods whose sale Capitalists profit

In no way am I any kind of expert on this but, surely the janitor by providing the service (i.e.: keeping the premises clean) has contributed to any profit made from the surplus, After all anyone who has worked in a factory where cleanliness is necessary knows the value of the humble janitor.

Isakenaz wrote:In no way am I any kind of expert on this but, surely the janitor by providing the service (i.e.: keeping the premises clean) has contributed to any profit made from the surplus, After all anyone who has worked in a factory where cleanliness is necessary knows the value of the humble janitor.

True. The janitor just doesnt directly earn a profit for their employer like a factory worker who makes chairs does ( for example). My point is I dont see why wage labor is ( in and of itself) exploitative and immoral. It certainly is when it is used by someone in order to profit from the production of goods they played no part in but otherwise I do not see why. Of course feel free to prove me wrong but as of now I dont consider it necessary to abolish all forms of wage labor.