>national socialism has been proved to be successful
>state capitalism is proven to be successful(Singapore, South Korea, Norway)
>free markets with some state intervention to benefit the interest of a nation is proven to be successful(Japan, Malaysia, Singapore again, Chile)
>libertarianism has literally never been proven or even bothered to be tried tried
>national socialism has been proved to be successful
Kek. About as successful as Venezuela. 10 years ago that country was doing incredibly well, but like the UK in the 1970's, reality catches up.The difference is that WW2 came along and we didn't get to see the economic shit tank Nazi Germany would turn into.
>libertarianism has literally never been proven or even bothered to be tried tried
The first 140 years of the USA says otherwise.
I think you're using the word "liberal" when in fact you mean "anarchic".
>national socialism=Venezuelan socialism
Venezuela failed because it was too reliant on oil, and Maduro causing hyper inflation didn't make the situation much better
>The first 140 years of the USA says otherwise.
Yeah, when literally all land was either idle and dirt cheap or wasn't claimed by anyone significant other than future alcoholics.
besides, you can't really call old US Libertarian. It was classically liberal as it probably the first free market, but it still had a rather strongish state that enforced federal laws.
>Venezuela failed because it was too reliant on oil, and Maduro causing hyper inflation didn't make the situation much better
There's no difference between National Socialism and Venezuelan Socialism when it comes to economics, only the extent to which the state interferes. Ultimately however, the government hires the people instead of the free market, and it works until you run out of cash to support it. That's it. Nazi Germany would have also ran out of cash to support the massive state eventually... That or invade a neighbouring nation and steal their shit to support your own state.
>Yeah, when literally all land was either idle and dirt cheap or wasn't claimed by anyone significant other than future alcoholics.
Irrelevant. The position of the government when it came to economics throughout those 140 years can be summed up as "Stay out".
The US put a lot of protectionist policies in place very early on as well. Even the founding fathers were discussing controlling imports and intervening in manufacturing industry to increase their growth long term. They weren't at all Libertarian, thats sort of a modern myth that Libertarians regurgitate to defend their ideology.
America flourished because we were super majority white European stock and had a state with moderate market intervention. It wasn't the free market that made us great.
>besides, you can't really call old US Libertarian. It was classically liberal as it probably the first free market, but it still had a rather strongish state that enforced federal laws.
Libertarianism isn't Anarchism. You NEED a state to guarantee freedom and protection.
>national socialism has been proved to be successful
>hurr libertarianism doesn't count unless you achieve 100% libertarianism with no state spending on anything except the military and police
>There's no difference between National Socialism and Venezuelan Socialism when it comes to economics, only the extent to which the state interferes. Ultimately however, the government hires the people instead of the free market, and it works until you run out of cash to support it. That's it. Nazi Germany would have also ran out of cash to support the massive state eventually... That or invade a neighbouring nation and steal their shit to support your own state.
If you could read or even DYOR, you'd know about the oil dependency that caused the downfall of Venezuela. They didn't diversify the economy
>Irrelevant. The position of the government when it came to economics throughout those 140 years can be summed up as "Stay out".
then it's not libertarianism. The state was, although not interfering much with the economy at the time, still slightly stronger than an ideal libertarian state.
aslong as your leader is not a methaddicted turbo autist who dooms his country to demise by invading some slavshit country, you won't have this happen, heheh t-trust me :^)
Thank you for your self reflection. Although I hate Libertarians you are a great "ally" for soul searching like this. Post in Power Brother!
>national socialism has been proved to be successful
Failed so hard that made any nationalistic movement cringe tier even 70 years later
It was so successful that Germany became the central power apposing the largest empires that human history has ever seen. National Socialism is an existential threat to the system of banking that we're all now born into.
>methaddicted turbo autist
yees he was only a methead turbo autist
fuck off with your failed shit ideology. Atleast natsoc almost won.
>Be my grandmother
>live in nazi Germany
>can't hold an opinion which differs from the party's ideology
>state controlled industry, have to produce artillery shells for 12 hours straight
>be prosecuted for not being 100% German
>flee to soviet union
>experience the same shit again
comfy propaganda.
>we had a war and lost thus our economic model must be shit
Dumbest shit I've read today.
THIS
why would you hold a differing opinion? National socialism is literally the best ideology there is.
What people tend to forget when speaking about National Socialism is that it was designed to eliminate subversion and completely destroy any chance of internal conversion to Marxism and other subversive ideologies that undermine the integrity of the nation. It was designed to prioritize making the people aware of the fundamental strengths involved with complete unity. The Russian Empire fell to Marxism because it was a nation that had no national consensus on the importance of race and ideology, it was a nation ethnically divided and still practically living in feudalism, allowing Marxism to stir up the people into fighting one another on grounds of what they believe could fix the issues the nation faced.
cont.
This is the problem Slavic nations, such as the Russian Empire, faced. Slavs do not posses the racial unity the Germanic peoples posses and as a result they do not tend to gravitate to a unified movement or goal, what you end up with is a society divided along minor ethnic differences and always a very weak economic structure. The advantages central and western European nations possessed was a more individualistic economic structure that sought for people to compete and dominate in their own personal ventures, practically exercising natural selection through the economic system. This is fundamentally due to a different set of cultural tenets which is determined by race. The nations of central and western Europe were also more racially unified and racially aware.