Fuck the commies, man

What does Sup Forums think of my essay?

>dropbox.com/s/1x4nuv8vji6e5l8/Regarding Fascist Economics.docx?dl=0

shit, f.am damily

*dabs*

that post

*crumps and dabs*

was lit!

*whips and nay nays*

You should write an essay about your essay and post it here

Just bloody read it, burger.
It is a defense of fascism, right up your alley.

font size too fucking big
reeeeeeeeeeee

Yes, yes. It looks better on print with f. size 14.

NatSoc is not that far left.
NatSoc should be just left of facism.

Do you think Keynesian spending is good

I am not sure where I stand on economics. It depends on my mood, and my experiences that particular day.

>Absolute economic freedom fails the majority of the people.
>Planned economics fails the majority of the people.
>Keynesian economics will ensure, to an extent, economic safety for the majority of its citizens.

I am a hypocrate, as I wish for complete economic liberty should I be succesful, but as long as the system is built on Keynesian economics, I will take advantage of it.

...

Fascism in a broad sense (including everything from Brazilian Integralists to Belgian Rexists) can have ANY type of economics. As you have correctly stated, this is not a key issue. You can go with literally everything (except for maybe explicit communism because what defines fascism is class solidarity as opposed to class war).

The most vital part of fascism as an economic structure is how it opposes classical liberalism (John Stuart Mill + Adam Smith), Communism (Karl Marx + Friedrich Engels) and modern liberalism (Keynesian economics.)
This is the primary reason as to why I have described fascist socialism as a societal structure, rather than an economic system.

I don't see how fascism opposes Keynesian economics since the cradle of fascism itself, Italy, featured something very similar to that. I only know about the cultural opposition to liberalism, which is something different and not really relevant here.

I'll read it if you make it a green text story.

National Socialism draws influence from both sides, but more from the right. It's the in between of the right and the far right.

No, what I meant was that fascist economics is irrelevant (to an extent) in describing what fascism is.
If you elaborate on any other societal system, the economics is the building blocks, whereas with fascism, it is not.
Modern democracy = Keynesian economics.
Communism = Marxist economics.
Traditional liberal = Market economics.

Fascism bases itself on the people, traditions and culture.

Could you define right and far right?
I second this.

Poor people should go to hell.

>14 pt font

wew norway

>An issue that plagues the debate surrounding fascism is economics.
>What is fascist economics?
>Why is fascism exclusive of economics?
>How does fascism differ from other governmental systems?
>What is the fascist goal?
>What does an ideal fascist society look like?
>How to gain the fascist state.

>Subtly entangling the reader into shredding their hatred of fascism.

Is this getting marked, or was this just something down out of fun?

It was not getting marked, I did however ask my Philosophy professor to take a look at it, and he didn't care for it, yet unable to tell me what is wrong with it.
>He claimed my sources (Spengler) were biased.

>I later found out he is a die hard liberal.
I am supposed to write a paper on feminism, due on the 24th, and I am unsure about whether I should write something he'd agree with for a good grade, or write about my actual positions on the matter.

Bullshit graph.

Nationalism is neither right or left.
Not even authoritarian.

Commies - globalist authoritarian left
Nazi - nationalist authoritarian left
Switherland - nationalist libertarian right
Sweden and other cucks - statist glibalists.

If you want to acount for nationalism/globalism you need a third dimension and turn it into a cube or color coding

National SOCIALISM
SOCIALISM
NATIONALIZED INDUSTRY AND ECONOMY
NON FREE MARKET

NATSOC is basicly national Commies.
A little bit more tame than Bolsheviks.

Ah. Well, I didn't read the entirety of it, mostly skimmed rapidly. I really recommend restructuring this or improving it, make it more of a positional essay where you're trying to persuade the reader. The first paragraph doesn't really give me a sense of what this paper is about, kind of messy.

I'm not trying to offend or anything, just constructive criticism. If you're trying to write a nice formal essay to get good marks, tidy it up a bit. If you're trying to write a persuasive piece, be more passionate and poetic. Seems like it's caught in between the two.

This is coming from someone who had to learn how to write properly. I have always been excellent at writing and could always persuade my reader, but I always did terribly on marks.

>I am supposed to write a paper on feminism, due on the 24th, and I am unsure about whether I should write something he'd agree with for a good grade, or write about my actual positions on the matter.
Only do it if you're capable. The teacher isn't marking you on your position, he's marking you on literally just how it looks and reads. Sad really, but they can't do much else.

Obviously argue from your own position, just don't go extreme autist. Make valid statements, perhaps regarding diminishing fertility rates which have clear definable data backing it up, or the drop in marriage success rates.

>NATSOC is basicly national Commies.
In Nazi Germany one could own capital. So, Capitalism.

Time for what the actual distinctions between the left and right are:

The Left believes that equality is a moral good or a necessity.

The Right believes that inequality is a moral good, necessity or inevitability.

These are the only definitions that are valid or make sense.

Good honest answer