Fascism vs Capitalism vs Communism

Cuckpitalism due to lack of alernatives

fascism frees the people from the debt, aimlessness, nihilism and degeneracy that enslave them

Facism, it's the natural order of things.

Communism by Marxist standards has never existed, since it requires the entire extermination of capitalism everywhere. Are you referring to socialism? It's empirically inefficient

Fascism is an economic disaster. People get so hung up on the ideology that they don't realize how badly they don't understand economics. Most people still think Hitler was good for the German economy

Capitalism has its flaws but it is by far the most efficient system when allowed to operate properly.

Fascism definitely, a political ideology that was match to both communism and capitalism, and could only be beaten by the unexpected alliance of two opposite ideologies.
Respect for the BNW cover.

Who's the best civ and why is it Germany

Fascism.
Can you imagine the aesthetics of Greater American Fascist society? The economic strength, and the health. My, oh my.

FPBP

>implying that capitalism isn't a step for fascism
t. burgeois

Germany was defeated by its own inefficiency. They valued quality over quantity, and because of the war bubble Hitler had built he literally needed to keep invading more land just to save Germany from total bankruptcy.

Imagine a country where the people cared about the State more than anything, and lived vicariously through, and drew all their pride and happiness from the success of their country, and literally all their time and effort went into advancing the interests of the nation, and the government in turn provided them with the means to live in comfortable conditions....

There's a reason Jews don't want us to become Fascist. They know it's potential and they know our potential.

>economy reliant on the war machine
reminds me of something....

Fascism is kinda too abstract.
It depends primaraly on leader. It does not have to be millitaristic.
It can be peacefull, the whole point is, you have total power, and by that, you can implement anything in it, like Cap/commie ideas.

I dont believe in one concept of fascism, which is "wage war lol" as ppl think about it. And i think every country should have its kind.
For different eco/social reforms to fit her needs.

Cons: shit leader, shit everything

At this point everyone is reliant somewhat on the American military...

Imagine if the Navy stopped existing tomorrow morning, oh boy. You could probably make a decent living as a pirate if that happened.

economically: communism is the most sound and makes the most sense for a society to prosper into star trek tier levels
sociologically/everything else: far right/fascism

anyone who shills for "capitalism" has never read a book in his life. we need socialism to thrive as a race

Could you imagine the potential of an American-European Fascist unions? Even Canada and Australia could join the fun

>that image
>no roman salute
trash'd

Holy fuck that pic both triggers and amuses me

What happened to the fascist movement anyway?

The hallmarks for fascism are collectivism, militarism, nationalism and anti-liberalism. But I don't see much anti-liberal sentiment beyond some light traditionalism.

And apparently, not even much for militarism. So what's left is some kind of socialist nationalism. I understand left-wing nationalism, but "fascists" seem very confused.

Not to the extent of Nazi Germany. Their entire economy was based on war which was paid for by credit that they didn't have because they cut off all foreign capital inflow from the enemies (Jewish bankers)

People were getting paid in IOUs that would only be worth something if Hitler could conquer more land and efficiently utilize the acquired resources in order to raise his national capital. He literally had to keep invading countries just because they needed Lebensraum.
Unfortunately, Germany was so inefficient that acquiring further resources did them absolutely no good. Their invasions did not help their existing economy, and thus they were eventually beaten back when the cracks began to show. The Germans lost because of shitty policy, not because the Allies were super powerful. The axis was just as powerful but much less competent

i always thought it was dumb they just called it autocracy in this game while the other two got cool names based on nice sounding principles. they should have called it "unity" as all fascists stressed unity and it fits in with nice buzzwords like order and freedom

I got a nice book that would clear up your question of how liberalism came to be so predominant today and why fascist ideas have been pathologized.

capitalism is fascism

>communism
>rubber mallet

Interesting. But what if some of the state don't want the same as the other part of the state? I'm reading some shit on Gentiles Fascism and its perfect if you agree with his premises that the nation has a single will but surely different people want different things so who decides as Fascism doesn't promote democracy but rather a centralized rule.
Whats more Giovanni thinks that war is inevitable (true) but because he incorporates this aspect into his ideology it actually promotes conflict because it suggests that political realism is morally acceptable.
Socialism is the staple of civilization but Capitalism doesn't necessarily reject socialism.
The way I see it:
Capitalism = Private ownership of production
Fascism = Private ownership of production but with heavy government involvement and more protectionism
Communism = State ownership of production but with a "dictatorship of the proletariat"

I think we need something between Capitalism and Fascism. The problem with capitalism is that it leads to exploitation and greed (tax evasion, monopolies and so on) and the problem with Fascism is that it demotes competition and is often heavily militaristic.
Please correct my records m8's if you disagree with any of my analysis or arguments, I am but a man.
Have some more aesthetics lads, this thread is going well.

It would be beautiful mate. There would be no question on our position in the world.

I know what you mean man, and they portray Autocracy as evil and tyrannical. It's really should have been Fascism, Capitalism, Communism with definitions of each but it is a game for kids so what do you expect.

I meant actual political concept of liberalism, the ideas of equality and liberty.

I don't see arguments for bringing back slavery, or actually stripping rights of citizens and creating second-class.

Actual fascists would embrace Islam, since it does all those things.

>muh freedumbs
>german tank
>russian plane

>He literally had to keep invading countries just because they needed Lebensraum.
You have it backwards, m8. War did not become necessary because of the militarization of the economy, war was inevitable which is why the military became so important.

Socialism is literally the opposite of capitalism, by Marxist standards. Its public ownership of production.
Communism is socialism in the absence of capitalism or democracy. This leads to a stateless, moneyless society. Communism is just what Marx considered to be the natural conclusion of history

Fascism is for the strength of a nation. This includes a strong military and military tradition. This does not need to mean a LARGE military, which of course would be built provided it was necessary.
Fascism believes in the strength of the people. I'm that, their physical, mental and familial health. Fascism aims to help the people preserve those, not leave it open to hallowed capitalist risk. This means that certain industries such as prostitution, which negatively affect all three of those categories, would be outlawed. Such is a dictation a Fascist Government would be willing to make.

Brother wars be damned, friend. We'll stand together into the future.

>2016
>anything but National Socialism (aka Fascism)

Anyone who doesn't pick Capitalism I'd a pinko or eurocuck who has never experienced true capitalism in all its glory

a mixture of all three would probably be best

No you have it backwards. There was no foreign capital inflow, so all of that growth during Hitler's reign was paid for by nonexistent credit. They're wages were only worth something if the product they were making were worth something. And military equipment is only worth something in times of war.
The only way you can make money off of producing military equipment is to use it to invade more land, in the hopes that your new land will contain enough resources to add to the national capital enough to make their wages actually have value.
Had Hitler not gone to war, the economy would've crashed harder than after the treaty of Versailles.

Basically, Hitler didn't want help building a wealthy Germany, so the only way to do it was to take over more Lebensraum by force.
Maybe if the Germans weren't so inefficient they wouldnt have needed to keep invading more and more territory

Hello newfag

This is the exact kind of thinking that got Hitler killed. Fascists love the underlying nationalism so much they forget that fascist economic policy necessitates either war or poverty.

All are equally good.
All will fail because of one common factor.
Humans.

Least likely to fuck up is capitalism
In theory fascism
If we got rid of the cronies in capitalism (buying seats of power and letting government do its fucking job) then all would be well
T. Calvin coolidge

Stop making shit up along the way or repeat theprimitive propaganda. Germanys economy was not geared towards wsr before 1939. The big spenders on military wete france and the ussr, spending 8-10% gdp on military in 1936 or so, going towards 12% by 39. Germany rivaled britain in spending, around 4% in 1936 reaching 10% in 39.

The nazis going into full war mode is just propaganda and every retard repeats this without looking at the actual numbers.

Unfortunately after WWII we ended up with a communist culture and a capitalist economy.

Communist economies were tried. Ultimately, they failed. This is no longer open to discussion. Capitalist economies achieve prosperity, even if they have some weaknesses.

It now appears that we should try a fascist culture with a capitalist economy.

>Which do you prefer in theory and why?
Capitalism, because it is best supported by economic theory.

>Which do you prefer in practice and why?
Capitalism, because it is responsible for the greatest human flourishing in history.

>Purest Historical example for each?
Italy in the 20s-30s for fascism, modern Switzerland for capitalism and private communes for communism.

>not even 10% of gov spending
>social security gets moar dosh
It tickles me when i see your flag seening as your country is clinically retarded

>Which do you prefer in practice and why?
Capitalism, because with annoying birth defect, I probably wouldn't have been allowed to live in a complete facist society, and I would have died quickly in a communist factory. In a capitalist system, I can try and build something for myself.
>Purest Historical example for each?
Facism : don't know enough about the history of facist regimes to really have much to say there.
Capitalism : possibly Hong Kong . Little governmental oversight, freedom on the market, little regulation to start any form of business or settle/relocate one from another country
Communism : possibly Pol Pot's Kampuchea. He did manage to get quite close to equality through work by lowering the standard for everyone, normalizing work by focusing solely on agriculture, removing social provilege by destroying family itself.

i would say fascism, as long as the government is enforcing thing i agree with

so why give it to the government, you faggot?

Fascist social and cultural policies combined with libertarian capitalist economic policies seem like the best way to go.

Capitalism because it provides the most luxurious comfy life for as many as possible, but perhaps National Socialism should be an option because it can provide all the wonders of capitalism without as much corruption of the upper class, undermining the worker. However, I don't know if i'd like to live in a police state, given its ruthless means of enforcing law. Looking at what has happened not just in Germany, but Spain and Portugal I don't think fascist policy is justice.

In 36, Germany spent 10% of its GNP on military, higher than any other European nation. That's ridiculously high for a country that's not trying to go to war.

lad, natsoc was anti-communist and communists wanted to conquer europe. War was inevitable.

what's your birth defect? I feel they would kill me for being insubordinate in my teenage years.

Glad to see we're on the same page, old friend.

I think the fascist culture would even help to balance some of the weaknesses of a capitalist economy.

In practice, Fascism is very close to communism.

They worked together to defeat Poland.
I'm talking about the numbers. Claiming war was inevitable isn't a rebuttal. Hitler made it economically necessary

Okay, hol up hol up. You can't just go combining liberalism with an ideology that explicitly rejects liberalism.

At that point you're just a left-wing socialist nationalist.

A lot of "fascists" sound like left-wing socialists in denial, mang.

Nationalism and militarism aren't mutually exclusive with capitalism, what are you on about?

>They worked together to defeat Poland.
>therefore they were besties
nah, stop being stupid.

Again, the inevitable war pushed Hitler to militarize the economy which in turn made it economically necessary.

Cardiac malformation.
I've had a pacemaker installed at age 20, I'm under medication and I'll always be, and as time goes, I'll only get more and more pills to swallow.
So yeah, a pure facist system that values the quality if not purity of its in-group would at best forbid that I procreate, at worst get rid of me possibly before birth since it was detectable during pregnancy.

>your country is clinically retarded
yeah thanks for that gringo
you think we would choose to be your banana republic if we had other options?

Fascism rejects ideas of liberty and equality, that's why Nazi Germany used slavery and a lot of people got underperson'd.

The entire idea of private enterprise is strongly rooted in liberalism. What are YOU on about?

Hold on, I just noticed your leaf.

Carry on

>Okay, hol up hol up. You can't just go combining liberalism with an ideology that explicitly rejects liberalism.

You lost me.

If you're saying that a capitalist economy can trend toward individualism, materialism, and liberalism... I can probably agree. That is probably it's main weakness. But we must admit that capitalism creates prosperity.

That's why combining a fascist culture with a capitalist economy may be the best combination. The fascist culture keeps the worst aspects of capitalism in check.

Fascism is an unfinished theory/practice

And on top of that it's supposed to be a national reaction, unlike socialism/communism wich is supposed to be a international reaction to capitalism

There are ways to militarize your economy without building such a fragile war bubble.
I know the Communists and the Nazis were enemies. Hell, the Nazis only came into power because they blamed a fire on a lone communist (even though he said he had no affiliation)
If you look at the numbers, it wasn't just war with the Soviets that was inevitable as you claimed. It was war with everyone that was inevitable. They needed resources they didn't have, so they needed to invade to get them. Unfortunately, once they got them, they were so inefficient at using them that the entire effort was wasted.

>fascist culture
And what do you imagine that entails?

Ideologies can always be refined, a lack of flexibility can be fatal when you're running a country. It would be entirely possible to have a policy of laissez faire capitalism all while promoting traditionalist, nationalist, and militarist values.

Like says, a fusion of the two ideologies would essentially cancel out their respective weaknesses.

to goverment is the people is fool, anarcho shit head.

Yes. 100% this. I firmly believe the reason the male suicide rate is so high, is simply because of this fact. Men don't have a place anymore.
Except Fascism works and that's what scares the Kike machine.

>There are ways to militarize your economy without building such a fragile war bubble.
In such a short period of time?

>And what do you imagine that entails?

Nationalism, hierarchy, transcendent goals, shared culture, volk.

Nationalism and more often than not a cult of personality. But mostly nationalism, almost to the point of total isolation.
North Korea would be considered fascist if they weren't socialist

>collectivism
check
>nationalism
check
>anti-liberalism
Okay, how far back are you dialing down the ideas of liberty and equality?

>Capitalism
Ultimately the best system, its flaws lies in how a government controls the economics of its citizens too much or too little. If you control too little, crony-capitalism emerges to stifle those who can't reach such heights. If you control too much, you have a stifled economy that punishes those who engage within it, causing dysfunction and collapse. Ultimately, you can choose to innovate and be one of the top players, or you can choose to be a wage/debt slave and live your miserable years on this planet toiling away for each cent.

>Communism
Quite possibly the worst ideology ever conceived, Communism seeks to take the common-sense economic and social policies found in capitalism and fascism and turn them on their heads. Now, every man is worth the same as another man regardless of him as a character or his strengths and weaknesses. You work for the state and no one else but the state. You are a drone, you live to work and produce for the state. You are rewarded with sustenance. That is your life.

>Fascism
National Socialism, imo the best brand of Fascism and second best between all, is an amalgam of Capitalism and Communism in the sense that it takes economic aspects of both ideologies, and introduces its own understandings of society into the mix. Unlike Communism, not every man is equal in the eyes of the state. You can be a hard-working patriot who serves his country, and you will be rewarded as such. Or you can be a bum, and die in the gutter where you belong. A state should ultimately provide for its people, its Volk, and this Volk will be the unending focus of a society. The priorities of the Volk take precedent over everything else. A state will not function without a healthy and happy people.

Fascism works when Communism and Capitalism fail, but only if you can find enough Volk to support the system. Without your Volk you have nothing, and if you have nothing? Prepare to slave away in a gulag for your life, or work at Mcdonalds.

Have you ever left the US? Be honest.

They are all valid and should stick around so we have reason to use our armies and what not
Also true commie from the heart,fuck the swjs and the lefty highjackers

>equality?

What does this have to do with capitalism

Really? I always thought that socialism was the idea that some of your capital is given to the state and they redistribute it e.g. roads or benefits. Every society needs it to function properly. I could be wrong though.

>laissez faire capitalism
>not requiring strong global economic ties
>expecting traditionalism and nationalism to survive and for people to stick with it because you said so
You need to think this through. Subsidizing ideology will only take you so far.

The US did it between 41 and 42. The US militarized so fast, even Hitler commented on how surprised he was.
Like I said, Germans were inefficient. They didn't trust mass production and assembly lines. They liked handcrafted stuff that showed the quality expected of Germans.

To give you an idea:
At the height of the war, the German military had 16 motor vehicles for every 1000 German citizens (including annexed territories)
Japan had only 2 per 1000 Japanese citizens,
The US had over 200 motor vehicles for every 1000 American citizens. We blew Germany out of the water when it comes to rapid militarization, considering in 39 our military spending was less than 2% of GDP

No, that's merely government intervention in the markets. That's not socialism, that's Keynesianism. Keynes was very anti-socialist.
If the government nationalized industries so that they owned a majority stake in the company, then that would be Socialism since the dividends from the profits of the company would go to the government (which in a sense is the public)

You're acting as though nationalism and trade can't coexist.

That's not true at all you bum. A currency backed by labor doesn't need conflict to thrive. Especially based on labor of any country.

>worker rights and status of labour
>not relevant to capitalism
plz
There are degrees of socialism. It doesn't even have to be Marxism.

Ultimately, it means that people's labour, however it is organized(corporations), is supposed to go to the benefit of the people, rather than private profit. Sometimes it can be just taxation that gets redistributed as benefits to the population, like guaranteed wage.

>A currency backed by labor doesn't need conflict to thrive
Unless that labor is used on military spending. What are people supposed to eat, bullets?

Look. Germany didn't have the resources it needed. That's a fact. Why do you think they militarized so much if they could be a self sufficient economy? They needed Lebensraum so that way they would actually be building wealth and not just munitions

>Except Fascism works and that's what scares the Kike machine
Not really. Germany's economy was about to collapse by the end of WW2. Fascism, like Communism, has pretty much all of its advantages in the short term, and almost all of its drawbacks in the longterm, (though because of that I'm not adverse to having some sort of emergancy command economy powers that can be used for a short while, so long as there's no way for the powers to be extended).

No, that's just how life works by necessity. As said, the government (in theory acting on the behest of the laborers) seizes the means of production in Communism. In theory the state doesn't exist, but in practice an administrative body is necessary for this to be done on any geographically relevent size.

>Okay, how far back are you dialing down the ideas of liberty and equality?

This may be the rotten core of the entire Enlightenment.

Liberty and Equality can't co-exist. Not to their full extent. People are unequal. They just are. The races are unequal. The sexes are unequal. Allowing for liberty will create inequality.

When you try to establish equality, you end up crushing liberty. Communism has proven this, time and time again.

Fascism-edgy bullshit for faggots

Communism-edgy bullshit for faggots

Capitalism-reasonable idea for grown ups who live in the real world and are not space cadet tier autist

prove me wrong

There's no denying they were lacking on resources. The boycott didn't help, but they also made it around that by trading materials. Your point is moot, war found Germany. They were doing fine before the war.

It's not about being redistributed to people in general.
Socialism has more to do with ownership than it has to do with distribution. If the people who are getting the benefits don't also own the source of those benefits, then it's not socialism.

I am autism. you are confirm.

>look at me I'm totally an adult guide
Your language suggests otherwise. Also, capitalism is Jew, the economy. Free market is bullshit, there is no such thing.

Fascism is already a mix of Freedom (capitalism), sacrifice (communism) and responsibility (the traditionalists ideas that put it straight in the side of right

>Liberty and Equality can't co-exist. Not to their full extent. People are unequal
The enlightenment wasn't about literal physical equality, or equality of wealth, or equality of outcome. It was about equality under the law, which is necessary for liberty.

Depends on what sort of equality you mean. Things of the likes of communism only really wants to see equality of collective result instead of equality of individual merit.

>capitalism is Jew, the economy. Free market is bullshit, there is no such thing.

only proving my point.

""""communist""""" and """""fascist""""" are just faggy "that kids" who LARP as edgy bullshit

>Facism
no freedom
>Capitalism
no money
>Communism
no food

I consider myself a more pragmatic socialist than Marx. And I concern myself with the efficiency of running such an economy.

There DO exist democratically owned businesses even today, but they are small.

You can think of people receiving benefits as being paid dividends from the industries that are being run on their behalf, like they are shareholders that own those industries.

>They were doing fine before the war.
Because it was a war bubble! People were being paid with credit that didn't exist! Everyone assumed everything was great because they were working, but Hitler's economic advisors were very nervous about his trade policies. He was very selective of his trade partners, because of his nationalist ideology. He cut off foreign capital inflow almost completely.
Tell me, if you need more capital, is the first thing you do shut it off?

Not to mention, the price of Germanys imports were rising and the price of exports were falling, so Germany was racking up a massive trade deficit. Not only was the country fucked domestically by his policy, but his international economic relations were looking worse by the day. The only way Nazi Germany could have been sustainable was through more Lebensraum. You can't pay for everything with credit you don't have and then refuse anyone else's help without having to start robbing people

Fascism: A E S T H E T I C S + Teamwork (and a reason to work)
Capitalism: weak aesthetics + reasons to work
Communism: A E S T H E T I C S + a weak reason to keep working

>The enlightenment wasn't about literal physical equality, or equality of wealth, or equality of outcome. It was about equality under the law, which is necessary for liberty.

I may agree with you, but what we understand about "equality" and what society believes about equality are two different things. The majority of people in society today believe everyone is absolutely equal, and they view any form of inequality as a big problem.

Thanks boys, so Taxation isn't necessarily socialism but rather an element of it? In pure socialism the means of production would be owned by the state but in like "socialism lite" the produce of private production is then taken by the state and distributed? Can you have any private means of production under socialism?
Also
>tfw you don't have a jawline and nose like this.

>The majority of people in society today believe everyone is absolutely equal, and they view any form of inequality as a big problem
That isn't the Enlightenment's fault.

>fascism
What happened to "muh freedom"?

>You can think of people receiving benefits as being paid dividends from the industries that are being run on their behalf
No you can't because the source of those benefits is fundamentally different. Taxes are a fixed price that companies account for. That doesn't affect their ownership. Dividends are derived from potential profit and existing capital. It has to do with how the business is managed. If the business is managed by the public, then the public owns those dividends, which is the product of their labor. If the business is managed privately, then the public doesn't get any dividends, and even though the government can give the public some money to throw them a bone, the public has absolutely no input on the means of production. They are completely disconnected from the product of the labor, and therefore it is not socialist.

Every single economic system, including free market capitalism, is about redistributing resources. It's just a matter of how efficiently those resources are distributed.

mommy doesnt even let them go out without doing their chores, so they hardly have any freedom anyway

>Taxation isn't necessarily socialism but rather an element of it?
No, that's jus an element of lartge human societies. Taxes have existed for thousands of years.

Capitalism, let nature take its course and let the strong thrive above the weak.

>Which do you prefer in theory and why?
Fascism. Conservative morals and pro-people economics.

>Which do you prefer in practice and why?
Same reasons.

>Purest Historical example for each?
pre-war Italy, pre-war Germany, Spain, Portugal...

Pic related

>Can you have any private means of production under socialism?
No, that's a contradiction. Private ownership of property is possible, but not of the means of production.

>in like "socialism lite" the produce of private production is then taken by the state and distributed?
That's called Keynesianism. That's where the government uses fiscal policy in order to steer markets in their desired direction.

Don't confuse Keynesianism with socialism. Keynes hated Marx just as much as the Austrians.

A funny quote from an Austrian economists is "say what you will about Marx, but at least he wasn't a Keynesian"

>implying American fascism would be the same as Euro fascism.
Freedom is our culture. It will be represented.

>>The majority of people in society today believe everyone is absolutely equal, and they view any form of inequality as a big problem

>That isn't the Enlightenment's fault.

OK fine, but it doesn't change the current problem. The common conceptions of liberty and equality cannot co-exist.

>In pure socialism the means of production would be owned by the state
That's state socialism. Luckily I'm a state capitalist, which is another way of saying I'm a state socialist.
>Can you have any private means of production under socialism?
Sure. I believe that private industries can form around the strong core of state industries, like Banking, Resource manufacturing, Food and Energy production, Housing, Healthcare and Public Service and Education. All those things that are critical to human beings to continue living and maintain a modern society. Private industries can concern themselves with Entertainment, Luxury and other non-essentials.

As long as there is a good leader, Fascism.
If there are no good leader, then may the gods show their greatest mercy on humanity.

What triggers me is that everyone just says Capitalism, when they are thinking liberal democracy. Capitalism is idea of using profit from production for expansion of production. Something all three systems applies.

>Germany's economy was about to collapse at the end of WW 2

Can't imagine why

>1(High tier) Fascism and National Socialism
Strong and stable state is high priority
Society is always on high priority
Purity of human being is high priority
Degeneracy is punished
>2(Medium tier) Capitalism
Some what good system but very easily corrupted
Eventually always falls in to degenerate state of mind(Social justice,Multy culturalism etc.)
>3(Garbage bin tier) Communism
Sound good on paper but is false in practice
Murders millions of people through famine and genocide
No Human Value or Morals at all

I quite like Capitalism's Aesthetics. Sky scrapers look like shit but I like the 50's style that is usually associated with Capitalism. (sort of Bio-shock/ Fallout esqu)
So could Keynesian economics be more closely tied to Fascism as it is the state interfering but not controlling the means of production for the benefit of the state/people?

Sure, but that just means we need to clear up people's misconceptions about equality.

Not in a theoretical sense.
In true socialism, the product of labor is always the property of the public. Therefore, there is no way to privately profit off of your work by say, starting your own business.
Once people start their own private businesses, then more people will do it. Suddenly democracy isn't looking so bad, and soon the socialists are replaced with capitalism just as Marx predicted. Communism and self serving interests are mutually exclusive. Everything you do, you do for everyone.

Clearly not cherrypicked at all

Socilalism. Red Belt was based.

Exodus 8:2
>If you refuse to let them go, I will send a plague of frogs on your whole country.

Exodus 8:4
>The frogs will come up on you and your people and all your officials.

Psalm 78:45
>[God] sent swarms of flies that devoured them, and frogs that devastated them.

Psalm 105:30
>Their land teemed with frogs, which went up into the bedrooms of their rulers.

Revelation 16:13
>Then I saw three impure spirits that looked like frogs; they came out of the mouth of the dragon, out of the mouth of the beast and out of the mouth of the false prophet.

b-b-b-but REAL communism h-h-h-has never b-b-b-been t-t-tried

>Implying this means it wouldn't have collapsed without a war

I am not opposed to democratic state socialism.

It's not like people will just give up gibsmedats ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.

Capitalism during peace.

Fascism during war and rebuilding efforts.

Communism fucking never.

Wait isn't capitalism that the means of production are owned by private business not the state (like communism) and that business are only in it to produce profit (unlike Fascism were the government guides business to help the nation as a whole)? Please elaborate Sloveny m8, I'm pretty much a rookie when it comes to this.

>Sure, but that just means we need to clear up people's misconceptions about equality.

And in my mind, now we're back to promoting the fascist cultural ideas I mentioned originally. Nationalism, hierarchy, inequality, goals, volk.

Whatever system is necessary for preserving and expanding the white race
I'm in favor of

>Implying Capitalism doesn't lead to degeneracy of society.

Fascists are Keynesian, but Keynesians aren't necessarily fascist. But yes, you're starting to get it.

Hell, Keynes was actually the British Economic Advisor at the treaty of Versailles, and he was the sole dissenter, saying the treaty would send central Europe into the stone age. But his superiors didn't care about economics, they just wanted revenge.
After the treaty, Keynes published several articles condemning the treaty and offering his apologies to the innocent people of central Europe, which is how he became respected by Germans and Austrians of the time

The degenerate culture featured in capitalism on that image is a result of a merge between capitalism and communism. Those degenerate dykes would have to get husbands if not for redistribution, nigger rap culture would not exist if blacks had to work. See what I mean?

Communism is always evil.

There needs to be a dynamic that shifts back and forth between fascism and capitalism. A system cannot remain both static and virtuous for eternity. It will become corrupted, and the only proper system of governance during those times of corruption is that which best resolves that corruption, which I believe is fascism. Once the corruption has been removed, we then return to capitalism.

>implying capitalism itself is what causes degeneracy and not a progressive government corrupting society and regulating the markets

You don't need many of those for that, most aren't related to the issue. Also, nationalism isn't even inherently Fascist, it just means pride in your nation.

Nice try Tyrone

>tfw believe in freedom
>tfw acknowledge that freedom cannot protect itself

Shit

What do lads?

Shilling Communism huh?

Define freedom.

Because those capitalits were following a greater idea; freedom and market. You will have companies spending thousands on creating works of art that spoke well of their brand, images with the message "this can be your life if you work hard enough". However, capitalism always goes for the easier route, so it quickly evolves into the cultural equivalent of the most successful species on this planet: rats and cockroaches

I'm up for a more efficient way of government spending which limits market manipulation.

Like, instead of spending a certain amount of money per student on public schools, they should just take that money and divide it equally amongst the parents so the parents can choose to spend however much they want on a private school.
The parents who want their kid to go to a nice school can spend that money plus some of their own, whereas the parents who don't care about their kids will just spend that government money on themselves.
This is a good thing because the kid with ambitious parents isn't placed with the kid nobody cares about. If they were lumped together in the same school, the kid nobody cares about would be disruptive hindering the other kids. With my way, the ambitious kid isn't disrupted, and the ignored kid has a happy mom cuz she's got money to spend. It maximizes utility.

The government just needs to let us make our own plans for ourselves

hur dur edgy im a fascist monarchist look im smart

...

You are the reason Brazil is not in danger of becoming a first world country.

Hear, hear.

>Zhukov
kek. Is that who your hero is? A guy whose strategic genius is only displayed by his willingness to sacrifice hordes of troops given his huge material advantage?

Communism is evil.

This. Capitalism isn't immoral, it is amoral. It's neither bad or good, it's just efficient at distributing resources.

>implying i am an anarchist
how could handing complete control of the economy be for the people? all you are doing is inserting a middle man, people=workforce=companies. under a communist regime it goes people>government>workforce>government>companies>government. what a useless excuse to enslave yourself.

>Il Duce
hahahahahahahahahaha

Secular Fascism

What?
In communism theres only people = workers. Nothing else.

In capitalism, it's very complex and dynamic. It's not some flowchart you can map.

Fascism of course

beat all subversives and degenerate Communists and faggots with a baseball bat

Defend it. Freedom doesn't need a militant vanguard to ensure it continues, it just needs people who remind everone why it's a good idea. This is why people like SJWs want to control speech.

>relying on individuals to do the right thing
>with something as important as public education in a modern society
If given a chance to practice, your naivety will blow up in your face, just like Marx's.
youtu.be/yeF_o1Ss1NQ?t=140

Yeah but where is the line?
Are you supposed to be allowed to defend your freedom of resisting arrest when you commit a crime? That's defending your freedom to commit the crime.

>the market is worse than the government at x, because x is important!
no. Especially not in the US.

Unchecket Capitalism becomes very corruptable and eventurlly leads to degeneracy.
Here is an example: more immigrant=less to pays workers

But i agree that capitalism is good in alot ways.
The most greatest capitalism in my opinion Fascism and Capitalism combination. see this

Mass immigration only really happens when there's a welfare state.

>Here is an example: more immigrant=less to pays workers

not exactly, no
owenzidar.wordpress.com/2013/02/04/the-economics-of-immigration/

>defending your freedom to commit the crime.
Unles you mean this in the most literal sense possible, thhe statement is paradoxical. Reasonable freedom is due to you because of your humanity. If you go around unjustly commiting crimes, you give up that right.

Cause; Tiger tanks

>Implying the economy wasn't heavily adjusted for a short term existence

Top stuff

>It's better to put the ambitious smart kids with potential in the same class as the street thug who's parents don't even care enough to pay for education for her child even if she had the money.
You're not raising the intelligence level of the disruptive students who have problems at home by putting them in with everyone else. You're merely lowering the intelligence level of the kids who actually want to learn.
The ignored kid will end up on the streets anyone and probably won't live past 25, so why does he need to be educated at the expense of students which could actually make a difference.

That kid doesn't want to be in school, the people who are legitimately trying to learn don't want him to be in school, and his parents would be happier with that extra money that the government currently spends on a failed attempt to educate the child.
It's a win, win, win

...

Denial and hiding behind American Exceptionalism will not save you from the fact that USA spends the most on Healthcare per capita, yet has subpar life expectancy.

Well a crime is just something you lack the freedom to do, in a legal sense.
This means that freedom is granted by the state. How are you supposed to defend your freedoms against an entity which grants you your freedoms?

But you do agree that Capitalists love immigrant workers?

Fascism

>ome what good system but very easily corrupted
Historically fascist régimes have been wrought with outrageous levels of corruption
America especially as it has stayed from a Constitutional republic with free markets to more and more fascist policies it has grown more and nkre corrupt in kind

>You're not raising the intelligence level of the disruptive students who have problems at home by putting them in with everyone else. You're merely lowering the intelligence level of the kids who actually want to learn.
School doesn't change your intelligence, intelligence determines how well you learn.

>The ignored kid will end up on the streets anyone and probably won't live past 25, so why does he need to be educated at the expense of students which could actually make a difference
Because generalizations don't hold true 100% of the time.

Feudalism.

Everything else you said is just crypto-capitalism. National Socialism is the negation of Jews Internationalism and Capitalism - and because it is the negation, it becomes tainted due to residing within the same philosophical framework of Abrahamic economics.

Depends. Mexican workers are god tier. Asians are really hit or miss. Indians are the same, but with more misses. Arabians aren't that bad actually. Id put them above Indians and probably even above asians. And Africans are, of course, the worst.
Oh, I forgot about Europe. They're just alright. About the same as an American worker.

Capitalism is the best system to date.

Sorry mate, sometimes i write before i know. It seem that i knew wrong, capitalism is a politic system, based, as you had written, on private ownership of capital.

You really think that Obama care was a good idea?

20,000+ pages of new regulation, most of them written by healthcare industry lobbyists, and you think that passing this will lower costs?

We spend the most per capita because we're rich, and unhealthy in ways that wouldn't be prevented by healthcare.

Fascism as a road to traditionalism. Also what: said.

Capitalism's end result is the same shit.

Useful, productive ones that assimilate yes. Lazy trash that do the bare minimum, leech everything they can and make zero attempt to integrate no.

It is crucially important to recognize the very unique setting the Third Reich and other fascist countries found themselves in: namely, times of great hardship, enemies of the country brainwashing the citizenry, and nationalism at an all time low. Fascism spoke directly to these evils, rooting out the problems at bay and seeking to both restore and look forward.

But fascism cannot be understood as anything other than big government. We must remind ourselves that power corrupts. Even the most glorious and virtuous fascistic government would devolve into the greatest of tyrannies.

Freedom should be striven for to the utmost. Fascism should only be used to set a nation back on track when it starts to err massively or find itself ideologically subverted.

The free market is infinitely wiser, more efficient, and more innovative than we individual humans can consciously ever be. The invisible hand that shifts market forces around places them exactly where they belong in a way no computer algorithm, no mathematical theorem will ever match.

The economy is like an organism. It is alive all on its own. Our attempts to manipulate it are like trying to improve nature with technology.

Nature always wins.

>social libertarianism

Social Libertarianism is a system that believes in individual property rights and wealth, however they believe that the government not only be used for law and policy but should be responsible for moral obligations such as health care and poverty solutions.

National Capitalism

>Fascism pic looks like a Red Army standing in front of a bunch of commieblocks
>Communism is some El Presidente with a hammer from Latin America
What the fuck

>How are you supposed to defend your freedoms against an entity which grants you your freedoms?
You're taking freedom to an absurd level. To answer the question, by voting, and convincing people freedom is worth keeping.

but I DONT WANT TO BE A SLAVE

Facism vs Jews vs Jews
FIGHT THE GOOD FIGHT user

Which will be lowered by having disruptive students in the class. Also, school can change your intelligence, because not only do you learn, but you also learn how to learn.

And although generalizations don't hold true, there's no reason to maintain an incredibly inefficient system for the sake of a few outliers.
If your parents got a check for private school instead of the public school option, I'm sure theyd use it on you. You're educated. My parents sure would.
But if your parents didn't, do you really think you're gonna become the next big genius? No, it's more likely you'd be the next big rapper. And since you'd be uneducated, the raps would all be mumbles. This explains the current rap songs on the radio.

Kekism- A free for all free market
Monopoly is allowed any means to be in control is allowed

Feudalism was based on reciprocal relationships that stopped being reciprocal. It's outdated.

I like earning things because I believe in having a work ethic.
Capitalism.

Capitalism with controlled competition.
Liberty for all, rule of law.

>You really think that Obama care was a good idea?
No. Not even close. It doesn't change the fact that USA health insurance industry is bleeding US citizens dry, and spiraling healthcare costs out of control.

Meaningful Healthcare change would involve nationalization of all healthcare insurers, and folding both Medicare and Medicaid into them and mandate all citizens have it. Then you scuttle all the bloated middle management, and keep money flowing to the hospitals.

Eventually, what you pay in tax into that system will be less than private insurance, and healthcare costs will settle down.

>Cumunism
the semen belongs to the people
sex workers unite!

Oh shut the fuck up. The reason healthcare costs are so high to begin with was regulation passed in the 90's.

the idiot liberals are on. just wait for the people who actually have jobs to show up.

Capitalism>Fascism>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>gommunismxXxDDDDxXx

Democracy is oppressive by nature. It is based on both the premise of political autonomy, and collective rule. I have the freedom to believe something I want, but if enough people say they don't want me to have that freedom I suddenly don't.
It's called tyranny of the majority.
Democracy is faulty because it's perpetually patting itself on the back. Anytime a democratic decision is made, it is considered the correct decision solely because it was made democratically. This is circular logic if there ever was any.

Healthcare costs are high because costs incurred by hospital from people who can't pay are passed onto people who can.

So health insurers raise premiums, deny more to protect their private profits. Which leads to more people who can't pay etc. etc.

It's a spiral, where where the US citizen is being flushed down the toilet.

This

Freedom is no good if one generation can have it but not pass it down to the next. At this point you need Fascism in it's nationalistic form in order to ensure that

>socialist
>libertarianism
coercive intervention is required to uphold equality as it is opposed to human nature, meaning "libertarian left" is impossible and an oxymoron

>Which will be lowered by having disruptive students in the class.
Disruptive students are punished, and if they continue being disruptive, they are expelled.
>there's no reason to maintain an incredibly inefficient system for the sake of a few outliers.
I disagree. This kind of policy would mean trapping the ignorant in a cycle of ignorance, and needlessly punishing children for the shitty decisions of their parents. Beyond that, those people who don't go to school will still be voting.

>Implying there would be a corrupt government if they were not doing what a few capitalists told them to do

>what is government regulation
>what is seizing the means of production
its like you dont even know your own cult's doctrine, kys

Facism or Capitalism. Preferably a compromise between the two.

This, you don't need to be part of a company to participate in capital production

>No. Not even close. It doesn't change the fact that USA health insurance industry is bleeding US citizens dry, and spiraling healthcare costs out of control.
We have the best health care technology and services in the world. As bad as big pharma and uncle sam are, they have achieved objectively better medicinal practices (albeit at a higher cost) than the rest of the world. The fact is that Americans have chosen to pump crap into their bodies and not exercise. No manipulation of the healthcare system would fix that.

>Eventually, what you pay in tax into that system will be less than private insurance, and healthcare costs will settle down.
a tenuous claim

Fuck off, commie

Capitalism is the only one currently left standing.

SUBMIT!!!! END YOUR TORMENT AND MY OWN!!!

Are there any state socialists who critique the soviet union for collapsing? The obvious answer was that they put weapons before butter, but what I wonder is how would they stop the soviet economy from collapsing in the first place maybe some historical revisionism?

>Anytime a democratic decision is made, it is considered the correct decision solely because it was made democratically.
Democracy isn't about the idea that group decisions are alwys correct, it's about the idea that people deserve input. The only alternative that is theoretically more free is anarchy, which is unsustainable.

What's the realistic difference between fascism and communism?
Hitler's germany and Stalin's russia were both hell holes.

It goes back further than that.

How is mob rule freedom? The best form of government would be a Constitutional Republic with a limited elected body that also has some fascistic attributes

>What's the realistic difference between fascism and communism?
Ideological approach.

Read my fucking posts. I know more about economics than you

>Disruptive students are punished, and if they continue being disruptive, they are expelled.
Only after they have interfered with the education of several other students who actually have potential to make beneficial contributions to society.

Why should we sacrifice the potential of many for the sake of one who only wishes to ruin society?

>trapping the ignorant in a cycle of ignorance
They're already in one because they're stuck going to school with disruptive people who prevent them from being educated. Get those kids out of school, and maybe those will actually learn.

SEXISM

right, I just didn't want to get to into it

Yeah... no that's part of it but not soley it.

normaly i'll go natsoc, since i'm in quebec with a strong nationalist view. But in this day of age where everything got messed up in less than 10 years, i'll go fascism.

I said realistic.
Why should I care for your silly ideological theories if the outcome is the same for both?

>it's about the idea that people deserve input
I said that, which is why it's a contradiction. It's based on both political autonomy and collective rule. The minority is automatically wrong because there are more people who oppose their position than support it.

You should look up some Tocqueville.
If the majority makes a wrong decision in democracy, then democracy itself is flawed. By simply enacting the majority decision, it is claiming that the majority decision is the right decision, and the individual who opposes this decision is oppressed no matter how correct he is.

>Americans have chosen to pump crap into their bodies and not exercise
Did they? Calorie dense food isn't nutritious but cheap. Healthy nutrient rich food is expensive. Wages are stagnant. People are in debt. This is the Roaring Twenties all over again.

Unlikely. They reside on completely opposite ends of the political spectrum, although the only ideal they share is the concept of a common goal, nothing else is alike.

How would that be different from now beyond removing power from the electorate?

Fascism is nationalist. Communism is stateless. Fascism comes through political reform, communism comes from violent revolution

Mussolini's fascism.

In that case, nearly none, which is why i dislike both.

Democracy leads almost inevitably to socialism, financial ruin, and tyranny, as in the UK and Greece--although, every democratic state conceivable would make good examples of this.

The average voter does NOT deserve policy input. The average voter doesn't know shit about economics, foreign policy, etc. The average voter is prone to voting based on emotions, and not examination of the facts.

youtube.com/watch?v=mm1KOBMg1Y8

Capitalism
Fascism
Communism

Give me communist fascism.

I will also accept fascist capitalism.

>Healthy nutrient rich food is expensive
Chicken is $1.99/lb here, and that's only if it's not on sale.
Buy some brown rice, some black beans, and some broccoli, and you can make a 500+ gram meal for under $2/meal. Plus the macros are nice and balanced.

When people say healthy food is expensive, what they're really saying is that they don't like eating the cheap healthy food.
They'd rather eat a $7 salad than a $1.50 bowl of cottage cheese for lunch, even though both are healthy. Healthy food is the cheapest food there is, but you have to get used to it.

>Healthy nutrient rich food is expensive.
As a direct result of government subsidies to the agricultural industry, and FDA regulations that hinder healthy producers. Read Joel Salatin's "Everything I want to do is Illegal". He is the most based food producer imaginable, going to every length to insure healthy, quality products--but, because of the GOVERNMENT, he is at a huge disadvantage compared to mass producers.

youtube.com/watch?v=bnL3JAjXT0g&list=PLzG-_kSBeq1gGI_NUbURLhO20VNOQvLBZ

>Democracy leads almost inevitably to socialism, financial ruin, and tyranny
>fascist complaining about tyranny

wow really makes u think

>Democracy leads almost inevitably to socialism
What? No! Democracy is the bane of socialism. Democracy is the medium in which capitalism takes over a socialist nation. That's why Marx stated that democracy must be eliminated before communism can exist

>The average voter does NOT deserve policy input.

When you realize the way the founders originally setup voting was actually pretty insightful. Only white male landowners can vote.

itt: taking that much bait

I would like to preface that I believe the government is supposed to influence the business rather than being lobbied by them.

Just in case you get the impression I condone anything US government does.

Capitalism.
It gives the common man the most freedom to start ventures, for better or for worse.

>implying I am a fascist

can't tell if this is satire because I never read Marx, but I will respond:
Democracy is the political equivalent of socialism, where everyone has an "equal" vote. Of course, it comes to be that the masses are in fact influenced and under the thumb of some other organization, normally whoever controls the media.

>Just in case you get the impression I condone anything US government does.
Well we're talking about US politics here, aren't we? It is inconceivable that any of your pipedreams would be applicable to the US unless the US government was the one implementing them.

Captalism produces the best life for an individual person. Both Fascism and Communism are the choice of bored manchildren.

I could do that.

I want to use the free-market to secure a future for my children and people, but I also want to be a part of something bigger.

How would you deal with people not conforming to the culture?

oh please, educate us.

>Hitler was well-known for going into the heat of the battles he started

From what i have gathered from Cred Forumss' facism is that every man should be free to do his own will, as long as that does not effect anyone else in a negative way (With the exeption of commies).
Also anything that can potentially damage the society over time, such as degeneracy should be rooted out by the state.
Aknowliging racial differences and respecting them also takes a key role. The goal of Cred Forums is not to hate niggers or spics, but to love ones own people, and get all other people to do the same.
Jews are a tricky bunch because they are extremely overepresented in the negative degenerate parts of society, although they are not every Jew is evil. What i personally think is the sollution to this is to be extra wary of Jews, and just as any other people, let them live with their own without racemixing.

Things will vary from place to place though. American facism cannot be ethno-nationalistic like European facism can, since they are a nation founded on different ethnicites. What the sollution for the US is, I do not know.

You should read the Manifesto. He was very anti democratic. That's why he said violent revolution was necessary to end capitalism, and not political reform.

Capitalism and democracy go hand in hand, since each dollar is like a vote, and so you're voting on your preferences each time you buy a product. If there are two options and you choose one, you're voting for that one over the other.

In socialism, there is no political autonomy that's a prerequisite for democracy. Everything you do, you do for the collective good. You don't make decisions based on your own interests as you would in a democracy. There are no votes, regardless if everyone is equal. Marx said as soon as democracy is introduced in a socialist society, capitalism will take over.

Well he did, didn't he ? He served in the first world war, and was rewarded the iron cross first and second class. He was a war hero.

lolol national socialism is best cause blown out cunts and a highway.

Thanks m8 your input has been pretty helpful.
No worries man, I barely even comprehend Fascism.

Comparing the US and Germany is dishonest. A Germany with the same wealth of natural resources and land wealth would and could have militarized and built at least as quickly as America did. Apples and pistachios.

>Capitalism and democracy go hand in hand, since each dollar is like a vote
That's wrong. People don't have 1 dollar per person to spend as under democracy, successful people have much more than unsuccessful people. Further, there is no accountability in the democratic political process--if you vote for a fascist, everyone shares the costs. In a capitalist market system, if you "vote" for the wrong gaming console, YOU pay the cost.

>You should read the Manifesto. He was very anti democratic. That's why he said violent revolution was necessary to end capitalism, and not political reform.
No. His theories are pure cancer and their lacking scientific/historical basis puts him in the area of "philosophy". His insistence on analyzing things based on economic "class" is my biggest pet peeve: "classes" don't exist in the US anymore. Of the top 1% of income earners over the course of a decade in one study, only 13% of them were in the top 1% for more than one year. Furthermore, 65% of all US adults will reach the top 10% of earners in their lifetime.

No they couldn't due to inefficiency. Germany controlled 2/3rds of all coal mines and over half of all steel mills in the Soviet Union by 1942-3. That's more coal and steel than any other nation in the world at the time. And yet their military production only increased by less than 2%.
Hen will you realize that Germans were inefficient? They believed in quality over quantity. The US could build 100 tanks in the time it took the Germans to build one, even when thy had all of the resources.

Given the current state of western civilization, I say fascism. Natsoc if possible.

>muh porky
>muh top 1%
>muh evil rich people

youtube.com/watch?v=Qi8clPrg7kc

Because of a huge federal project that employed numerous people*

Because of high birth rates to increase population*

What is wrong with you? No brain?

Read Adam Tooze's: "wages of destruction" economically it's the only reason I'm against it they were heading to war right from the start... though I don't understand how they would of dealt with the soviet union's warmongering and America's influence in the west it's like they fucked from the start, not that Hitlers imperialist dreams and ambitions helped into creating lebensraum.

My ideal is pan European state that in the collective sense would nurture and protect each regional identity and encourage brotherhood at the same time protecting our geopolitical interests.

I like this. A nice blend of 1 and 2 would be best. Work out some kinks and you'd have a great system.

All you'd need is a true leader (like Trump) and some incredible aesthetics to bolster nationalism. Rebuild cities, put people to work, something to strive toward (like making your country great again).

A strong, prosperous, united, nationalistic country.

Inefficient at mining and moving resources out of an active warzone? Do you read your own posts?

All this was achieved though through massive loans. Germany had HUGE debt at the outbreak of the war.

First highway in the whole world, and as I remember correctly, adopted from the germans by the whole world, among many other things.

Unemployment was relatively non existent. Everyone had a job.

White fertility rate was high, unlike non white fertility being high in the west today.

This might seem unbelievable, but in germany, first time in recorded history normal working class families enjoyed vacations overseas. Germans were the highest paid workers in the world.

Don't forget, the autobahn, the low unemployment rates, high wages. All of these things were available to germans at the time when the west was deep in depression.

>fascism
>the German officer is wearing a USSR style cap
Triggered

>People don't have 1 dollar per person to spend as under democracy
That's because economics is much more complicated than any political system that humans can design. Every purchase you make affects not only you, but the entire market. You are the economy, we all are.

In socialism, there is no voting, with dollars or with votes. You merely do what's best for everyone. That's it. There's no actual measure to determine what's best, you just do it.

As for your second paragraph, I hope you don't think I'm a Marxist. Far from it. But you should at least read your oppositions manifesto in order to properly refute it on an educated level. Otherwise your contentions with his theory are based on ignorance rather than understanding. Most people completely misinterpret the Manifesto because they've never read it, so those of us who have read it need to explain everything in a way that not only avoids attention from your preconceived bias, but also eliminates your bias in favor of a more accurate one.
Basically, you need to read it to argue against it.

The debt was without interest though.

This was uncontested area that was already conquered. These facilities were further west than German forces had already secured. It's not like they were trying to mine coal in Stalingrad. They were in the vacant countryside.

And considering their entire purpose for invading was to acquire those very resources, I'd imagine failing to utilize those resources is a huge sign of failure.
It's like breaking into your neighbors house to steal their money, you steal it but never put it in your wallet, and when the homeowners wake up you drop all the money and run. Why even break in in the first place? Oh yeah, because you needed the money. You were just too incompetent to do anything with it while you had the chance

>the purpose of invading Russia was to secure the coal
[citation needed]

The debt was nonexistent. It was imaginary money with literally no worth besides the prospect of conquering more land.

The US paid for the Iraq war with credit, and that wasn't smart. Germany paid for their war with credit they didn't have, and that's worse.

The purpose of the entire war was to gain resources. Have you never heard of Lebensraum? Germany was going bankrupt, and they needed more capital. They didn't have the ability to trade (due to lack of capitalism), but what they did have was a military

That's not a citation. That's an assertion. You're really bad at this.

I agree the picture is weird, The fascists are donning Soviet style headgear officer/infantry alike, and have very soviet esque buildings in the back, The capitalists look OK but the Communists clothing and machinery compared to the other two time periods seems off.
Still a cool picture though if you fins any similar with the 3 ideology's apparent on them please post.
Still takes the edge of the "Natso works" poster as any of these things could have been achieved by any of the ideology by drawing out such large sums of money as Germany did.

>And considering their entire purpose for invading was to acquire those very resources,

Hitler invaded the USSR because he knew the USSR was about to invade.

wintersonnenwende.com/scriptorium/english/archives/articles/stalwarplans.html

It's literally on the Wikipedia page about the Nazi economy. It's well known that Hitler wanted Lebensraum. He invaded to get more land which he thought he deserved. I don't need a citation for common knowledge

Well capitalism won so I'm not sure when we even need to debate this...

Yeah the Fascist caps look like they're directly from the DPRK.

Whoever made it sucks at uniforms.

Fascism is not susistainable, some crazed sociopath like Hitler will eventually get in power and genocide people then start wars responsible for Killing 50 of million white men.

Why doesn't Cred Forums get together and create its own -ism?

>political spectrum

Oy vey.

So if they weren't going to invade, where would Hitler have chosen instead?
He could focus more on the Balkans since they have resources
Or he could focus on north Africa where theres resources.

Hitler was already on an invasion spree. The Soviets couldn't stop his need to conquer without going to war. He didn't just create a military complex, he built a war machine.

Capitalism

Bith Fascist and Communist systems rely too much on centrally planned administration. That's bad.

we already have autism

Yes, and were they ? Oh right the whole capitalist world was having the worst finacial crisis ever, while, for just 8 years of peace germany went from a broken down nation with no industry to a superpower. The way germany economy worked nobody had debt with interest.

Seriously why can't retards understand the difference between fascism and authoritarianism? You literally sound like a 5th grader you massive faggot.

Eco-Fascist Aryan theocracy.

There is also a wikipedia page asserting the Absolute Truth™ of the Holocaust too. You're not doing yourself any favors here by appealing to something so amorphous as "common knowledge."

The Germans made an agreement with Poland for a disputed portion of land that the Germans claimed (perhaps rightfully) belong to them and was key to their oceanic trading operations. The sudden change of leadership in Poland reversed this agreement and took refuge in their agreements with Britain and France to shield against retaliation from the Germans for failure to uphold the agreement. Their reliance failed them when Warsaw fell. The French already had an axe to grind and had no reason not to be excited to jump back into the fray with Germany and Britain honored their agreement with Poland to enter the conflict. I honestly shouldn't have to explain basic World War history here, but you're simply creating fiction when you assert that the "purpose" of the war was some sort of fanciful military adventure by the Germans to conquer everything they saw.

>invasion spree
I don't think Hitler is to blame for the war with Poland or France. The Polish were the warmongers in that situation (just look at the rhetoric of Poland's leader and the whole Danzig controversy), and the attack on France was because France offered military support to Poland.

He wasn't the warmonger, the "allies" were.

See It wasn't a superpower, it was an inefficient war machine on a path to self destruction
>But hey, at least everyone had a job for a few years
Jobs are a means, not an end. In this case, those jobs everyone got led to the total destruction of Germany

Checked

>The Germans didn't need any resources! They had everything they needed right there in their country! That's why they kept saying they needed more territory, because they had enough territory!
It is a FACT that Germany was running a trade deficit and could not attain the resources necessary to maintain the level of economic growth they were experiencing. Why are you denying this?

>muh trade deficit
so much for,
>I know stuff about economics

>I'm going to keep repeating this strawman as though it responds to something.

Pack it up son. You're done. America has been running a trade deficit for decades. Remember when we collapsed?

He conquered much more than Poland and France, so it's not like you can claim he's a dindu. He literally started it

So you're asserting now that the war would have ended if Germany stopped after capturing France?

Holy shit you're retarded. Having a trade deficit is okay when you actually have capital. America runs a trade deficit based on capital we do have. Germany ran a trade deficit based on credit it didn't have.

Buy a bunch of shit with a credit card, and you're going to be in trouble if you don't fix it. Buy a bunch of shit with an imaginary credit card, and you're fucked

>not tzarism
what is wrong with you all?

No, I've said from the beginning that based on the way the Nazi economy was designed, perpetual war was inevitable. They kept needing more resources just to catch up with their growth.
You really think it's possible for there to be such a huge boom without an equally huge bust? Hitler was just trying to avoid the bust by invading territory to gain more capital in order to accommodate for the credit he didn't have at the time

Inefficient war machine that conquered europe apart uk ? I don't understand what point you are trying to make. I mean, the debt could have been paid back easily since it had no interest.

And besides, isn't todays crony capitalist society on a path of self destruction ? Corporations lobbying with various political organisations to open up the borders for more cheap workers...

That's not at all responding to the conversation that flows from the quote you made. If you can't keep your arguments straight you should stop posting and go read a book.