How is facism any more economically viable than capitalism or communism?

How is facism any more economically viable than capitalism or communism?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_syndicalism
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

fascism is capitalism. If done properly it's capitalism without Wall Street kikes and ultra leechers like Soros.

What the fuck are you talking about? Fascism is corporatism, not capitalism.

Fascism is shit tier ideology. Authoratarian regimes breed the shitty liberals of tomorrow.

Not if you exterminate them.

It's not. Anyone who thinks facism is a good economic policy is retarded.

>b-b-but muh Nazis
Protip: They actually ditched the socialism and privatized a bunch of shit.

Another brainless zombie

Capitalism is ''industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.''

It's exacly like fascism BUT the state is partner with the private sector "meaning an economy where the government exerts strong directive influence over investment".

The government influence the private sector. INFLUENCE. Look at Spain under Franco.

The state MAY regulate the economy when needed.

People keep trying to call fascists capitalistic but it's bullshit. Fascism is state socialism.

National Syndicalism is its superior form.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_syndicalism

>Fascism is state socialism

If it's socialism, then of course it's by the state and of course it's directly opposed to fascism.

State capitalism = Welfare State = Socialism ≠ Fascism

Trade unions are good for the people who have money to control the poor workers. You know who this group is.
Your comment is laughable.

Facism is essentially communism that focuses on "freeing" its national people instead of the working people.
Planned economy, state having the final say in everything, etc.

Note: A fascist economy won't work unless there is a transformation in society in which the people agrees on common objectives.

For instance, most members of the society should agree that an business that promotes or endorses degeneracy don't have the right to enjoy private ownership

A business that is focused on selling natural resources for a cheap price to another country should not have the right to exist.

A fascist economy in the USA would destroy USA because most people are driven by instincts of degeneracy and corruption and would never agree on freeing society from this evil.

This applies to most european countries and south america which is controlled by a few families of bankers who would never agree on important issues regarding investments.

Sooo your saying we need to be baptized in blood from the upcoming race war? Well if you think it will work..

"Spain during Franco" was a shitty autarchy in which everyone was dirt poor except those direcly connected to the regime.

>this comment
Your entire existance is irrelevant right now

Negative. Krupp Industries were allowed to run entirely unimpeded once they assured the German State they weren't passing guns to Germany's enemies.

All Fascist economics is the economy can do what it wants UNLESS it's hurting the state, which is comprised of its people.

I dont even know what you're trying to say. I'm not saying a war would change society for the better
I'm saying if people don't agree that freedom has its limits and degenerates can't enjoy freedom, nothing like a fascist economy will ever work.

>I don't know what the fuck I'm talking about, but hurr durr muh ideology

Stop writing like a redditor. Stop being a retard liberal.

the "mixed" economy of fascism is really quite similar to the modern economies of the USA, Europe, and East Asia. Mostly free market with special treatment of certain industries such as utilities or essential production like arms and so forth.

Fascism isn't the opposite of socialism. The only people that want you to believe that are socialists who want far away from that term only because Hitler made it unpopular. Who by his own words was an "enemy of today's capitalistic economic system".

both Italy and Germany (not to mention USA, Japan, Britain) had to become command economies during the war years, so this really distorts how people view the economics of fascist states.

When Hitler and Mussolini came into office, they had good economic success by adhering largely to liberal economics; it was only when the depression hit (in the case of Mussolini) or the war hit (in the case of Hitler) that the economy began to shit the bed.

In other words, they were both relatively successful, about as successful as FDR, but exigencies got the best of them.

Even /his/ has a hard time defining fascism. Do you Sup Forumstards really thing you're going to get anywhere with this discussion. The amount of misinformation in this thread is spiking my blood pressure.

it's not as viable as capitalism
it is just as shit as communism or any other sort of centrally planned economy

Hitler was more socialist than anything. State capitalism to be more precise.

In the long term I think it is

Capitalism with democracy and to lead to powerful empire, quickly, before collapsing on itself

Fascism could prevent that collapse in exchange for slower growth

It's playing the long have. The concern is a capitalist democracy destroys you along the way because you don't fully embrace globalist policies that are indifferent to the happiness and even survival of your citizens

...

>How is facism any more economically viable than capitalism or communism?

It isn't. Authoritarian capitalism is great (as is libertarian ethno-nationalism) but fascism is basically nationalist syndicalism.

this meme

Strong nationalistic spirit is required for highly productive workers. They must realize they all contribute to the better of everyone, and if every single one of them is giving 110%, they will be the most successful and prosperous nation on earth.

You cant have socialism, unless its National Socialism.

...

True capitalism isn't dictated by the state. It's regulated but the state doesn't actively participate or pick winners and losers. It's basically economic darwinism. There is no "god" ruling over it. Crony capitalism isn't capitalism at all. It's government and it's favored businesses making money off each other. So Solyndra is good for a politicians donations thus the taxes, regulations, etc favor Solyndra. A Elon Musk type is "successful" despite making no real profit but takes in huge government subsides. That kind of crap. In true capitalism, he would be a bum and Solyndra would have never ran off with tax payer money. Fascists tend to dictate to companies but don't take actual control of them like communists do. And when it fails due to government backseat driving, the company is blamed while the government doesn't need to take any blame. Sort of like the banking crisis in the US where banks were basically told to lend to bad risks, incentivised to do it, and then blamed when the pyramid scheme collapsed. Except fascists don't need the incentivise part. They pick winners and losers and, being government, tend to pick poorly due to what sounds good to the public rather than what makes the most economic sense. True capitalism hasn't been in practice for awhile now. You can't become a multimillionaire as an elected official by allowing true capitalism instead of some form of big government cronyism.

...

this

It isn't. I will eventually lead to 'soviet communism': bureaucrats will seize your property, everything becomes inefficient, nobody will have any incentive for entrepreneurial activity and the whole population will be impoverished.

All of this happens because good people have good intentions - in any system.

>Dirt poor commies

Because a mixed economy (state guided capitalism) has been done before, and it seems to work fairly well.

See Singapore in particular.
See China.
See the Philippines.
Etc

If you're studied up, Singapore has nearly all the elements of being a fascist state, just without the name, and they're doing quite well.