(Original post by Joshua Lancer)
You've raised some important issues there. Firstly, to respond to (A), any Marxist system rests upon the assumption that there isn't any scarcity. I accept that this may sound a little far fetched, but automation and artificial intelligence have immense potential to do a huge amount of stuff without the need for a substantial labour force. Capitalism's tendency for producing a vast array of service jobs should not be underestimated, but the simple fact is that such technological developments allow capital owners to keep quite incredible profit margins without the need to employ workers.
Given the tendency of capitalism to concentrate wealth (in the absence of unionisation, which by necessity wouldn't occur without any workers) we will arrive at a situation of immense inequality, where the class division between the workers and the bourgeoisie has reached quite extraordinary levels; these two groups will be utterly alien to one another (you can link this to a bit of one-nation conservatism as well!). Given such a situation, there will be high levels of unemployment, and those who are employed will experience job dissatisfaction as their jobs are essentially meaningless without providing any sort of fulfillment - society will be faced with a fundamental choice to take such transformative technologies into public ownership or continue with the subjugation of the nation state to the whims of an absurdly wealthy capitalist elite. This situation I don't think is a pipe dream, though I think there are problems with the transition Marx predicted from socialism (state manages means of production) to communism (there is no state). As I said earlier, there are some cool ideas, but undoubtedly problems.
I certainly agree that in an ideal government key industries should be put under public ownership for the good of society. My issue is how, by who, for who and for what purpose?
The Marxist answer for the above is by mass uprising and solidarity, by everyone, for everyone to do what ever they want.
I do not believe this is practical or moral. I do not believe that different ethnicities can put aside their differences particularly one small group of people. This is why among other reasons mass immigration is so essential for the capitalist class: divide and rule. The Marxist approach also indicates that humans are basically afyervtge same things: this is not the case. As materialists they are blind to important spiritual and cultural concerns. The end goal of being able to ‘climb mountains and philosophise’ (aka do jack **** is simply not an important or worthwhile moral good as defending ones faith, family or/and heritage)
Revolutions require high social trust which can only come from homogeneous groups , plus they require a collective leadership and defining moral principles which a nihilistic, anarcho communist mob simply do not posses. This is why among other reasons the anarchists were annihilated by the fascists in Spain. In the 30s.
The Alt -right answer to my question would be by creating white consciousness for White Europeans in white Nations for the benefit of their people and traditions.
This to me is the most likely cause of real revoloutionwry change, which is why it is under constant attack from both the neoliberal super structure and it’s useful idiots doing its bidding on the ‘left’