Consume Product

The Nazi supports whatever policies are best for the Nation at any given time in any given circumstance. Sometimes free market policies are better, and sometimes socialist policies are better.

Polcompball?

I recall that interweb community, back during my plebbit days.

National socialism was "state capitalist" in the truest sense of the the term. For a modern comparison of natsoc *economics*, China post Deng Xiaoping is a good example (minus the abject slave labor), and this is a system that is resoundingly successful (its why China also had an economic miracle like Germany did, without the massive debt bubble of the overtly capitalistic japanese economic "miracle")

Industry was privatized to incentivize competition, but larger industries were under the direct supervision of the government, while officially being private, to avoid corruption and exploitation. The government set quotas and rules for corporations like Krupp, and those corporations were under the jurisdiction of the government to provide for national interest lest they be shut down or nationalized entirely.

This avoids the problem of companies being entirely nationalized and thus having absolutely no incentive to do anything different for the consumer, and thus driving down the economy, but it also solves the problem of large companies essentially controlling society and acting strictly for the gain of capital and the means of production as we see in the capitalist west.

Hitler was no economist. He himself admitted to not really knowing much about economics, and seeing socialism as primarily a social movement rather than an economic one, but he knew that economics were extremely important anyways, and had extremely skilled economists at the table that put into effect the German economic revival.

I now disagree that the economic system is irrelevant to fascism, though this is a point I've often used myself in the past. It is *extremely* relevant. The far left of economics is more manageable, because it is inherently at the behest of the state. You could theoretically have a fascist state with marxist leninist economics (and there actually were movements that did this, look up the national communist party of France that aligned with Hitler).

but the far right of economics (being laissez-faire capitalism) is contradictory to the fascist system. There are no fascist movements that were 100% pro capitalist. If you allow the bourgeoisie to bite more than they can chew, with no government oversight, they will eventually exploit and nearly destroy your society. You might get an economic miracle but it will eventually implode in on itself. Every bit of vice and greed will inch its way back in because thats whete the money is, "sex sells", and its true. We've seen this countless times. You don't even need jews for it, because it simply empowers the most greedy and exploitative, although jews naturally flock to this system because of course they do. The industrialization of capitalism makes this inevitable. Laissez-faire only worked in the best interests of the nation before the 3rd estate had the ability to mass produce goods and become immensely powerful. Adam Smith wrote the wealth of nations in 1776. The invisible hand of the free market doesn't exist anymore.

Karl Marx wrote a self fulfilling prophecy. His solution to the problem is poison but he wrote about real issues that really exist, and if nothing is done about them, Marxism as the logical extreme is the end result. We live in an age where marxist policies are implemented everywhere and this is entirely unavoidable. Fascism is absolutely no exception. As much as fascism is diametrically opposed to marxism on the surface, is still has marxist characteristics via Georges Sorel who was an enormous inspiration to fascism and via syndicalism, which fascism sprung from.