/lit/ - Literature

generally a good test to see if someone is a wing nut is to ask them what they think of economics. If they say economics is a fake science 95% of the time, they'll be some sort of far right/left shill

>>14185680
Here's a better litmus test.
Ask someone what their economic views are; if they don't answer Keynesian, they're a moron.

>>14185659
>>14185680
Wrong board faggots

>>14185695
But this is about idealism and it's influence on how a fascist state is run, this is too high brow for /pol/ also there are like two threads non-book related shitting on marx so i thought this was fine (?)

what are the fascist/third position books to read to understand their economics? not natsoc
corporatism books?

>>14185659
>>14185731
idealism is an epistemological viewpoint

>>14185659
They were unironically right, using economics from any perspective other than purely pragmatic terms is retarded. This is why fascism was so successful at waging war, they had no stringent beliefs about the "ideal system" like liberals capitalist or communists, they simply did what worked. Liberals and communists have consistently undermined their nations potential due to ideological economic beliefs.

>>14185780

>>14185780
whatever suits them
massive privatisation in one area, state ownership in another, the absolute clusterfuck that were the MEFO bills, liberalism one decade, protectionism the rest
Hjalmar Schacht quitting in utter frustation at how retarded they were will never stop being funny

>>14185818
the next*

>>14185808
NO, idealism is when i don't like something, and the more i don't like it the more idealistic it is.

>>14185659
They were unironically right, using economics from any perspective other than purely pragmatic terms to reach your general ideological beliefs is retarded. This is why fascism was so successful at waging war, they had no stringent beliefs about the "ideal system" like liberal capitalists or communists, they simply did what worked. Liberals and communists have consistently undermined their nations potential due to ideological economic beliefs.

>>14185836
Forget the sóyjak?

>>14185692
>Keynesian
>Demand-side economics
You're a fucking indoctrinated retard. All the depressions could have recovered much faster if Keynes and his retarded ideas never existed.

>>14185872
>supply side
>DEREGULATE EVERYTHING, CUT TAXES ON ONLY BILLIONAIRES, GIVE BANKS CONTROL OF THE ECONOMY, CAUSE THE WORST CRASH SINCE THE GREAT DEPRESSION

>>14185659
>fascist economics

>uses nazi Germany as an example

Leave

>>14185883
>t. Occupy Democrats

>>14186019
Explain to me how National Socialism isn't Fascism applied to a German context.

>>14185659
>bro dont worry about how we're going to pay for all this shit that's just empty materialism man
Lmao nazis are retarded

>>14186188
just don't masturbate bro

>>14185883
cutting taxes on billionaires, as paradox as it sounds, benefits everyone.

>>14185692
is Friedman /lit approved?

>>14186213
Fuck off liberal

>>14186247
Get bent, communist

>>14186171
It is significantly more unhinged. Mussolini wanted to Make Italy Great Again, but Hitler saw himself as some kind of Germanic messiah who would crush the lesser races and create a utopia based on agrarianism and neopagan race-worship.

>>14186413
But they both share the ''reactionary rhetoric with a revolutionary facade'' that is the essence of fascism, of course the racialized worldview and the emphasis on eugenics made the Nazi regime particulary heinous, but italy too waged wars of conquest and killed indiscriminaly in Abyssinia and libya, and ended up taking more influences from Nazism later in the Social Republic

I'm an economist and sometimes I want to agree but other times I think that's right

>>14186413
>t. historylet

>>14186247
I just laughed way too hard at this pic

:3

>>14186509
*indiscriminately

>>14186596
This. Good point. Fashonomics is about peôple first, economy second.

>>14185692
excuse me pepe, I think you misspelled "pragmatism"

>>14185841
This.

Fascism is based because it is honest. It respects its people. Whereas OP thinks he lives in a democracy, he thinks the economy is free, how could he possibly look at the third Reich honestly? Pity

>>14186634
No

>>14186665
cat, it's a sign of a great man to admit their mistakes

>>14185841
Yes. Absolutely this. Fascism is too fucking fantastic. America’s “golden years” were their attempt to mimic what they saw in Germany, just like the declaration was their attempt to mimic what was going on in France.

>>14185680
It's not fake science. It's just what is wrong with current state of the world. It's monistic ontology of the Vanya caste that discards everything that can't be transmuted into capital as unreal, unworthy and unvaluable. No longer is chair made through ingenuity of it's craftsman for the purpose to look good and be sat upon comfortably. It's made by investor who produced it by sacrificing money for the purpose of making more money.

t. left wing nut

>>14186746
So who are they supposed to be mimicking now? China?

>>14186336
> pathetic

>>14186799
Well, we are turning into a crowded and polluted bug culture...

>>14185883
Billionaires should unironically get negative taxes.

>>14186927
They already do.

Economics IS of secondary inportance you utter morons. The blood and will of a nation united in belief, or the trappings of high finance? Once true nationhood has been achieved, prosperity will be all the easier; then you stupid jews will have your autistic theories.

>>14186596
How can the inherently reactionary ideology of nazism be modernizing? The nobility and the old ass companies like Krupp kept it's privileges, both under SPD weimar and Hitler. Also the Nazi conception of women was far from emmancipatory, anyway Germany is cancelled, Not even Rosa and Karl could save that dumpster fire.

>>14186968
if germany goes down, europe goes down with her.

>>14185680
Show me an economic discovery that isn't common sense or also has manipulated data to '''prove''' it the other way around

>>14186968
Idiot, right-wing does not equal reactionary. Try explaining how National Socialism was reactionary to the Monarchists and conservatives Hitler expurgated on the basis of their primitive reactionism. It was revolutionary in nature.

>>14187229
But it was the monarchists and conservatives that decided to work and collaborate with hitler, they still occupied important positions in the NSDAP government after the 1933 elections, and while they got gradually replaced with more fervent nazis they were still indulgent enough with the landed aristocracy that it doesn't certainly feel ''revolutionary''

>>14187388
>poopoopeepee but exceptions

>>14187393
Alright Nazi boy, if the NSDAP was so revolutionary how come literally the ''reaction'' faced no prosecutions whatsoever despite numerous attempts on hitler's life.

https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2019/12/05/against-economics/

>>14187440
They did, though?

>>14186509
Nothing about fascism or national socialism was reactionary. The first was technocratic, the second was internally egalitarian/soviet in the sense of applied militarised Marxism-Leninism. Both were socialistic.

The only "backwards" you can ascribe to those ideologies is that they were built on local sensibilities. Fascism had (North) Italian characteristics, NS had obvious Prussian characteristics, just like Marxism-Leninism had Russian characteristics.

>>14186968
The source of your confusion is nothing but your stupid belief in "fascism is reactionary" tankie cope meme.

>>14185659
It's not moronic when you realize what they were fighting was the subordination of politics to economics. They (consciously or unconsciously) drew on romantic thinkers that anticipated the coming attempt to neutralize History by means of technocratic "neutral" public policy and already saw tendencies towards this mode of thinking in the rise of industrial society, the co-optation of power by money and the acculturation of the masses to an ethic of conspicuous consumption. For the national-socialists, economics is the handmaiden of the state and not its master. The economy serves the nation, not the other way around.

>>14185680
On the other hand, 100% of the time that someone thinks economics is a rigorous science, they're libertarian patsies. People who think you need to make human sacrifices to balance sheets, because economics is the Law.

>>14186959
Based.

>>14187711
Technocracy is more ''80s neoliberal government'' than whatever fascism was, although i admit it had some things inspired by socialism (the battle for grain) second sounds more like juche, like, nazism was not even egalitarian among ''aryans'', it was always social darwinism this social darwinism that, They set up pretty much everything to compete against each other.
Socialism with (respective country characteristics) always sucks ass and end ups failling like the soviet union or devolving like china.
>>14187722
If they were true revolutionaries they would have neutralized reactionary prussianism instead of co-opting it.
>>14187758
Economic power always equaled political power, everything is subordinate to economics, the good thing however, is that economy is not a hard science and there's a lot of breathing room regarding batshit economic theories that one is free to experiment with.

>>14185692
This. The Austrians are unbelievable retards. Even more indoctrinated than the Marxists. Keynes is the only one who had a firm grasp on how economic progress is achieved

>>14185659
>Holy shit that sounds absolutely moronic
It is. Ideologues & authoritarians always have wretchedly lame intuition about entropy and how it relates to the man vs nature aspect of economics generally--never mind how it operates in different kinds of states, from small city-states to big imperial systems. Borderline solipsists, they imagine others only as objects to intimidate & manipulate, never as collaborators to seduce into participating in a project where wealth creation and humanizing self-artistry exist in the synergy familiar to anyone who takes the long historical view of development.

>>14185841
fucking retard capitalist economics ARE the most pragmatic you fucking socialists always make me laugh

>>14186968
>only left-wing bitchboy pandering to women and trannies can be revolutionary! everything else is reactionary >:(((

The economic system is an expression of the spirit of a people. This is why Marxism-Leninism only took off in countries like Russia and China, countries that have innate socialistic tendencies deeply embedded in their cultural being. Capitalism is an expression of the abstract individualism of Western man - as modern China becomes more Westernized, it becomes less socialist, less Confucian, and more capitalist. Communist theory, as a product of Western philosophy, could only have come from a German - a country that has historically been in a very unfavourable geographic position, surrounded by enemies on all sides, necessitating a strong collectivist state where the individual comes second to national unity. This is the reason socialism has never even been a possibility in the West outside of central Europe. So yes, political issues should always come before economic ones, because politics is the realm in which real decisions are made that affect the lives of real people. Those that think the economy is of primary importance are those that would rather sit in their study theorizing endlessly than going out into the real world and getting things done. This is how Lenin transformed Marxism - he took Marx's philosophy of action and turned it into a politics of action. He was a professed Marxist, but he had to take control politically before he could apply Marxist theory economically.