Can a stable National Socialist government exist? Without breaking wars against other countries

Can a stable National Socialist government exist? Without breaking wars against other countries.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=b-LSk1GMT8Q
twitter.com/AnonBabble

generally no because actual national socialism is so protectionist and closed off, it can't fend in the global market. Thus needing war and conquest to procure resources instead of winning the free market.
In a more broad sense, that's why communism died off as well. It's just not competitive economically, and we don't live in a time where you can plunder and ransack your way to a balanced budget. 99% of the reason Germany annexed Austria was just to raid their coffers, and economists say Germany was months away from implosion if they didn't invade Poland. The deficit they were spiking was insane. And yeah, pressing everyone into a factory, mine or military does help the economy in the short term.

The Ba'athist nations were doing fine until NATO decided to fuck with them.

now National Conservatism is a different thing, and is entirely possible. That's the policies of modern Poland, Hungary, UKIP, Le Pen, etc.

Only if it's very large due to the principle of autarky.

Possible candidates where it could work from a geographic point of view are Russia, Africa and the USA and that's about it.

China has been doing pretty well so far.

/thread.

I wish the national socialists on this board did two things:

>1) Realize that Hitler's NAZI party was an anomaly during a very particular time in history (which is an authoritarianism in the aftermath of WW2, for a start)

>2) Put aside NAZI shit for a few months and only focus on the question of socialism as an economic model. For that matter also look at fascism versus political freedom/balance of powers.

If the National Socialists on this board would do those two things the more intellectually honest would end up at classical liberalism/libertarianism/anarcho-capitalism. That's just how it goes. They might also realize that all of these are not only more functional and moral, but also perfectly compatible with racial nationalism.

Oh, really? China is doing well for who? The government shamelessly censors the internet. Your ass is in a sling the second you speak against someone with political power. Insiders control and manipulate much of business (a problem we have everywhere, I'm afraid) and at least 200 million people still remain in great poverty.

The fascination much of pol has with authoritarianism disgusts me.

They increased the average person's standard of living 10 times over since Mao was out of power.

China's "anti-corruption initiative" is more like a give the death penalty to anyone who doesn't bribe us enough money. If you don't give the Chinese Communist Party enough gibs, they chimp, out seize your business and assets, and sentence you to death.

youtube.com/watch?v=b-LSk1GMT8Q

fpbp
Honorable mention, hard to refute I'd like to see someone try.

Yeah. Might have something to do with having nearly 2 billion people living on a bowl of rice a day. When you are at rock bottom you can make some pretty impressive gains, relatively speaking.

Also, things didn't start to move in China until they established the free trade zones. They say the way the Soviet Union imploded and bureaucrats fought each other over the spoils. The social order was greatly disrupted and there was a lot of violence.

The communist leadership of China wanted none of it, so they made concessions to free trade. That made the black market mostly disappear and allowed for private peoples to actually become wealthy.

But where is credit to be given- to the authoritarianism or to the allowance of more capitalism/free market? Well, when one compares economic systems across time and countries it is obviously the latter.

For that matter, most Western nations have largely rejected free markets and have a sort of authoritarianism of their own. The powerful do this because they can, not because it is the most economically productive system for the masses.

Free trade is a Chinese economic development strategy, not a reluctant policy being forced on them. Also about a 5th of their economy comes from mining and refining rare earths combined with export restrictions, requiring high-tech manufacturers to build car parts and consumer electronics in China.

If the US was intelligent they would try to poach the rare earths industry, but that would be against muh free market libertarian autism so we can't do that.

Wow this post is truly retarded and probably controlled opposition

Yes, it was forced on them. And yes, it was an economic strategy they voluntarily implemented. Why? Because they already saw what happened in the Soviet Union, as I said. The communist leadership in China had to get real or they were going to suffer the same fate- so they transitioned to an authoritarian form of capitalism so they could keep their power.

Again, the bootlicking to authoritarianism on pol sickens me.

As for you, jackass, it is not controlled opposition for someone to offend your effete nazi sensibilities. Learn some basic economics you fag.

China didn't have to do shit; could have just as easily remained in the state that North Korea's in today.

It was a strategy. Their government is considerably more effective than our democracies.

are you fucking kidding its the best post ITT

A stable anything can exist as long as there are no jews.

sorry that governments the size of Pennsylvania can't survive long-term in a closed economic market of Gewehrs, Panzers, and stolen Jew gold

Most of you are dogmatic tards obsessed with Nazism so the following will be meaningless. Go away now.

For those with intellectual integrity, allow me to pull a loose string on your nazi sweater.

After WW2 the vitors could go their own way. The Soviet Union continued their perverse "communism." England continued their wartime control of the economy as part of a new socialism, a la the Nazi miracle and the "balancing" of the capitalist excesses.

America remained American, with a semi-capitalist system that was relatively free. What about Germany and Japan? They were under the heel of American reconstruction. We imposed economic ideals on them that were more rigorous than what we were doing for ourselves.

By the 1980s what did we have? England and France languishing. Communism in shambles. GERMANY and JAPAN were the two economic powerhouses to rival America. (If only Germany maintained racial consciousness!)

Think about that.

You're a fucking joke. It was a strategy to keep from being a gutted, impoverished shithole like North Korea or end up in revolt like the Soviet Union. Which is to say they were forced to it as the best of bad options TO ENSURE THEY KEPT THEIR POWER.

What a dogmatist you are. Are you able to process new information?

And what is this shit about being more efficient? Sure, totalitarianism can be like that. I hope if there is a white nationalism I get a country where I can have freedom of speech, property rights (without some asshole connected to government parasitizing me) and all the rest while you get your precious "efficient" authoritarianism.

For fucks sake. White men must live FREE. Dummy.

Are you under the impression that Western governments are effective compared to the rest of the world?

I am questioning the very idea of efficiency as the core value. Allowing individuals the basic freedoms of property and association and speech necessitates allowing for messy conflict and debate. Government should be minimal (some would say non-existent) for precisely the purpose of avoiding conflict.

The classical liberals figured this stuff out and it is brilliant, perhaps the most misunderstood jewel of the enlightenment. The government is NOT YOUR PERSONAL ARMY is the bottom line in classical liberal thinking. When people take care of everything from innovation to production to leisure to religion to charity and so on via voluntary association life is rich, life is meaningful.

Less efficient, yes? But the paradox is that the nation is far more wealthy and hence far more powerful, for people are incentivized in a way that you simply cannot achieve under totalitarian rule.

Also, Western governments are uniformly corrupt. Our economies are corrupt. Hence we are all blurring together, from America to England to China to Russia. Very sad.

We need to be returning back to freedom, not embracing MORE authoritarianism!

...

You're citing assembly and property rights as good things, which I agree with but you're conflating that with the modern Western democratic state. The democratic state is parasitic on the institutions you hold in high regard, not complementary.

What about national corporatism / state corporatism like in Italy

Churchill said the reason they fought against Germany in WW2 was because Germany was dominating international markets.

I wonder who knows more about this user or Churchill.