Fascism is a form of socalism

change my mind

@The Big Oof

@sɪᴅɪsɴᴏᴛʜᴇʀᴇ Define socialism

this is a necessary first step

Socialism is often conflated with heavy market regulation

Where the means of production are collectively owned by the state or workers

That's accurate

But it's not as black and white as that

extremely heavy economic intervention by the state

Market intervention is not socialism

Not market intervention

heavy market intervention

Take Venezeula for example

Fascism doesn't seek to abolish private property

The state owns the property

in fascism

In Mussolini's case, it was a mixture of state capitalism with state socialism

No

Mussolini wasn't a man of his word

Not really

it depends

he didn't follow fascism as he should have

and state socialism is just socialism

state capitalism does not exist

Hitler for instance was pro-private property, but he winded up betraying national socialism in the end

Yes it does

It's just semantics

No it doesn't

define state capitalism

Hitler was pro private property in the sense that he could seize it if it went against the state, it was heavily regulated

A business can be owned by the state and driven by profit, being ran like any other business

lmao no it fucking wasn't

define state capitalism

first of all

Wait wait

lets define that

>the market was heavily regulated

wrong

define

state capitalism

You can't introduce a series of points and then try to force someone to address a specific point.

Ok ignore them for now

If you do that, I'm just not going to bother

Define state capitalism

We'll get onto it later

I'd say a simple definition is a system where the state owns commercial, for-profit enterprises that are generally ran like any other business is, just owned by the state

Then thats socialism

state and capitalism is an oxymoron

as capitalism is a free market

free from state intervention

or that is corporationism

It's corporatism

Not socialism

then that isn't capitalism

Right

Yes correct

yes

Ok now state socialism

I'm not disagreeing

define that

It is corporatism

yeah I know just clarifying

A somewhat dirty definition of state socialism is when the state owns the means of production and redistributes everything

which isn't the same as state capitalism

that is socialism

in itself

yes

no need to call it state

Ok so we got that

Do you agree even if the means of production are private , if there is heavy state intervention in the market. It would be considered socialism?

like Venezuela

Because if you look at business freedom in Venezeula, it's below repressed...

and repressed is socialist

it depends on what is being seized. If small enterprise is allowed but large enterprises are nationalized, it's more or less market socialism

depending on how they are run of course

As in theres strong state intervention

let me show you

which is not at all how Nazi Germany was run btw

These would be socialist countries

Even if that's your definition of socialism

Nazi Germany was a free-enterprise driven economy

These would be capitalist

Hitler allowed businesses to do whatever they wanted to a certain point

wait we'll get there

Ok so

fascism is not anti market, it basically proposes the market to work in favour of native population rather than international investors and banks

^

Wait wait

we're not there yet

Another thing I'd like to clarrify

National socialism is not fascism

but a form of it

But here is why national socialism is a form of socialism

Yes, but it is being used as an example

Capitalism is an individualist system, that's not something anyone can argue with and since socialism is collectivist and that Nazi Germany was a collectivist movement, there's no question that Hitler was a socialist. You can't say NAZI Germany wasn't collectivist but deny that Hitler was not using a form of socialism

-All day care and education were free. High schools were taken over by the government and college tuition was subsidized. Everyone was entitled to free handouts, such as food stamps, clothing, and housing.

-The tax rates were extremely high, high as 80% I believe.

-"As Ludwig Von Mises once correctly observed, the German economy under Hitler was not capitalist at all….

What Mises identified was that private ownership of the means of production existed in name only under the Nazis and that the actual substance of ownership of the means of production resided in the German government. For it was the German government and not the nominal private owners that exercised all of the substantive powers of ownership: it, not the nominal private owners, decided what was to be produced, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it was to be distributed, as well as what prices would be charged and what wages would be paid, and what dividends or other income the nominal private owners would be permitted to receive. The position of the alleged private owners, Mises showed, was reduced essentially to that of government pensioners.
"

-Privatisation was just in name as the state really owned the companies due to their regulation and such. The business "owners" would be told what to make, when to make and how much to make.

-Hitler Nationalised healthcare, churches, automobile industry, the press so he could control what people heard and watched.

-Hitler created trade unions such as the German Labour front.

Fascism is anti market

The German Labour front was not what you think

strong state intervention in the economy

it was there to force people to work

I know what it was

correct

collectivist

You just outlined a corporatist economy above

Thats a national socialist economy

a form of socialism

yes

Corporatism is not socialism

Corporationist would be different , as it would not be repressed

yes I know

this is national socialist

not corporationist

`Everyone was entitled to free handouts, such as food stamps, clothing, and housing`

this is only true to an extent

How so?

These policies were abandoned after a certain point

oh so he ditched national socialism

well then

National socialism in theory is a form of socialism

Whether or not he followed it exactly

Strasserism is definitely socialism

Hitlerite national socialism

Strasserism?

is basically capitalism with state intervention

Capitalism and state intervention

is an oxymoron

Strasserites were the "left wing" of the nazi party

it is not

fascism solves the problem of unemployment and poverty by establishing the corporate state, which will be divided into national corporations governed by representatives of employers, workers and consumers, operating under a fascist government. the state will not attempt to conduct industry as it would under socialism, instead, the state will lay down the limits within which industry' may operate, and those limits will be the national welfare. private ownership will be permitted and encouraged, provided such activity enriches the nation as well as the individual.

Capitalism is the free market without state intervention

@Bowman Collectivist society

economically

a form of socialism

Is the USA socialist? State intervention is a pretty bad definition of socialism

I didn't say state intervention

I said over state intervention

like Venezeula

it's below the repressed standard

USA is mostly free

okay, well it wasn't 'over state intervention.' The economy was also literally driven by private property and it was a big part of his economic policy. He believes competition was important to a successful economy

Private property was only in name

*believed

Not really

as it could have been taken if it went against the state

and again extremely regulated

It was extreme state intervention

That's a bit of a stretch, don't you think?

No

I think so

it would be repressed by todays standards

it would be on this list

it would probably be as repressed as China or Russia is tbqh at most

China and Russia isn't repressed

they aren't socialist

China hasn't been for 40 years

I didn't say they were

Ok just clarifying

Nazi Germany and it's economic freedom score would be repressed

I'm using them as an example because they are driven by private property and have what you described

private property that is over regulated by the state

price controls

Doesn't china require large businesses to have a member of the board loyalty to the communist party?

literally was a thing in nazi Germany and it was a big thing

Pretty sure it does

Shen BapiroToday at 18:34
Doesn't china require large businesses to have a member of the board loyalty to the communist party?
No idea

actually

I'm like 75% sure they do

it's economic freedom score is however not socialist

although not capitalist

I know it's not socialist

yeah just saying

socialism is an impossibility

Idk about that

it's never going to happen

It has

and is doing now

but it's failed

everytime

Communism is the real impossibility

A stateless, moneyless, marketless community where the MoP is owned by the workers

not a chance

sure

anyways

Do you think Russia or China would allow a business to operate that goes agaisnt the state? China certainly wouldn't, with Russia it's somewhat unclear, but they have banned services like Telegram for this

Possibly

Although it would be still freer than Nazi Germany

In China's case I seriously doubt that

I'd say it's the same

Nah China isn't like that anymore

Probably under Mao

of course it would for some companies but not like Nazi Germany

"the great lEAp forward"

ahah

<:facepalm:487682504153628701>

Legendary economist Mises pointed this out aswell, national socialism was a form of socialism

and he was damn right

The same can be said about fascism however in Mussolini's case he wasn't a man of his word

and didn't follow through correctly

so it probably WaSnt ReAl FaSciSm

to your credit you're making somewhat of a strong argument that Nazi Germany wasn't capitalist, but I don't feel like you proved it was socialist

Oh, it was indeed real fascism

He didn't follow through properly

he wasn't a man of his word

I'm not going to write a failure off as not the real thing

I mean he didn't follow it through properly

But there are examples of the free market failing, too

I get it

Nah I don't mean failing

as in he didn't follow fascism's policies

yeah, well Mussolini was a retard

not all of them

lol ye

fascism is retarded

Not really. It's necessary to defend yourself from predatory businesses. A lot of blame for cultural decay and open borders falls on cultural marxism, but it seems to be more the fault of big money and neo-liberalism pushing it.

Where has free market failed though

just curious

Chile, you're going to disagree but let me explain.

Chile is doing extremely well right now and was at the end of Pinochet's regime, but throughout the majority of it, it was actually doing pretty bad and overall wages actually decreased as well as the GDP growth, despite it growing much later

like the last 2-3 years of him being in power

was really the only growth he had

It takes time

sometimes

that doesn't mean it's a failure

as you look at it now, it's doing well

Allegedly he became somewhat more interventionist after the second recession (which he caused), but I need to read more into such claims

Not sure

when was the date

I don't believe thats a failure

since it takes time and it's shown to be thriving now

and improving

1% lives below the 1.90$ poverty line

10% below 5 dollars a day

that's now

well, an idealogy of pure greed and materialism will lead any nation to ruin

it wasn't doing so good through the majority of his rule

Yeah it takes time some time

for the free market to work

since it's working now

and has been for years in Chile

I'd say it's a success?

But is that really all Pinochet, though?

america's idealogy of markets, freedom, and individualism made you rich and powerful very quickly but it also brought you to the brink of destruction

Not really

america is 56% white at best, and your demographic destiny cannto be reversed without a conflict

I don't think thats much of a problem anyways

but onto markets