How effective was corporatism?

I think it fails to take into account Germans would have voluntarily worked for free in many instances.

Some voluntarily.

Some not.

Do you even know what an overheating economy is? Have you read any of the scholarly works on the nazi economy?

That's irrelevant to the broader trends that caused the overheat.

I don't know.

I think you have cognitive dissonance on how fascism fixes economic problems.

>Cognitive dissonance
How? Explain.

All the Keynesian elements of fascists economics worked, to a point, but the "uniquely" fascist bits tended to add bloat, corruption, or unsustainability. That's why hlajmar Schact was freaking out all the time due to the overheat & unsustainable programs.

The original Volkswagen program is also a good example of this.

You need to read the literature on this in depth

Economic science breaks down when you have people willing to work for free against their self interest for the sake of the nation.

Also it breaks down when you have people working for free at gun point, which Germans still had plenty at 1939.

Also if the economy fails, you can always blame other parties if your propaganda is good enough (look at modern Russia).

If that fails, just shoot the people that protest.

And blame it on degenerates and false news.

Also purge a few higher ups as traitors.

Serbia stronk remove kebab

This is why the North Korean economy proved so much stronger than the South Korean

What you're talking about is actually playing to tooze's thesis. Imagine a man trying to escape gravity. He can build a machine to fly, build a glider to fall more slowly, or simply jump off a cliff for a momentary reprieve.

Tooze's argues that both the nazis and the soviets were trying to escape economic gravity, which he deems as openish markets, and limited state control over the economy, and strong trade relations.

In order to pursue this goal, both totalitarian empires pursued autarky and expansion. The difference is that the nazis used their puppets as fuel as they parasitically drained them in order to keep the overheat going, whereas the soviet s merely tolerated the inefficiencies that came with gunpoint economics and relented in the face of gravity (market forces) much sooner

Why would you post about a topic you clearly know nothing about?

What your describing never happened when were germans ever working for free in the 1930s

The reason the Soviet Union collapsed was because Gorby was a full up pussy. Had someone with the balls of Stalin been around, everyone who revolted would have been shot and there would be parades in his honor.

North Korea still exists, no? Its because shooting people who complain works.

Don't get me wrong. I wouldn't want to live under a system, but if Germany stopped in 1939 after annexing Czech they could have held on to power for quite some time.

And the goddamn Germans would have been happy about it regardless of the economic outcome.

However, chances are it would be like modern day China depending on how well it survived the death of Hitler.

I mean seriously.

China is doing the same exact thing Germany did with government intervention in a capitalistic economy.

Seems to be working well enough for them.

And don't think for a fucking second that if the Chinese economy collapses that all the people will get uppity and revolt.

They won't. And if they did they would be put down and parades for the leader who did it would make everyone cheer it happening.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichsarbeitsdienst

Every single statement here, except for "North Korea still exists" is empirically falsifiable or a destructive oversimplification.

Gunpoint economics can and do collapse, and stalins failings laid the groundwork for Brezhnev. Please read some of the literature at least. This is like a man who hasn't read the Bible attempting a scholarly crtitique of the trinity concept.

The main reason the Nazis became as popular as they did was do to the economic situation: first as a protest against the shitty economy during the Depression, then for for """fixing""" it when they got in to power. The supposed economic miracle was their main selling point for the German people by 1939, when that came crashing down so would they.

The men still had to be fed and supplied with material, which still contributes to the overheat you don't seem to be able to grasp

The only things the nazis did right economically were pure Keynes, the rest was an absurdly overinflated bubble

It was compulsory

Of course gun point economics fails when the soldiers revolt (which is why the Tsar got over thrown by the communists).

But if you keep your soldiers well fed at the expense of your people and keep the people under propaganda and have a anti-foreign fevor, then you can literally have a shit economy for quite some time.

Example...

Mao did not get overthrown during the Great Leap forward and cultural revolution.

Millions of fucking people were dying in his country. Yet he stayed in power.

By your logic he should have been overthrown.

Not only was he not overthrown, he is still considered quite the leader today officially.

I'm not saying the Nazi's after Hitler wouldn't have reformed the economy to make things more palatable.

I'm just saying, its unlikely the Germans would have overthrown the Nazis on their own.

Chinese still haven't overthrown the Communists.

Inane, unfalsifiable speculations based on half-baked theories of governance do not constitute historical evidence, user

Moa caused millions of his citizens to die of starvation and by other means directly his fault.

Yet he was not over thrown.

This is pure and hard fact.

Cool, but it has nothing to do with the topic under discussion

Gunpoint economics causes instability in the long-run.

Instability weakens governments. And weak governments are prone to toppling, even if the fall can be held at bay by throwing everyone who opposes you into work camps.

This is not a hard concept to understand.

if the German economy had collapsed in 1941 (assuming they had not gone to war), hitler would be regarded today as a tinpot revanchist dictator, and when the red tide rolled across Europe he would've been swept away. Mao _did_ lose power after the Great Leap Forward, the cultural revolution was his desperate attempt to get it back.

I know that you've seen the "how to be a dictator" videos online, but you're simply too ill versed in history or economics to have a productive discourse on them.

Read tooze, Keynes, and their critics before you truly to do an in depth examination of the viability/sustainability of gunpoint economics and corporatism again

The topic under discussion was whether not a totalitarian regime could survive an economic crisis.

If millions of citizens can die of starvation, and yet the government survives to this day, I can't really think of better evidence that short term economics matters to totalitarian regimes.

Ergo. Nazi Germany could have easily survived an unemployment crisis from a Keynesian bubble, let alone millions of people starving.

There is no such thing as a "totalitarian regime". Maoist China is not Nazi Germany

Hitler caused the economic destruction of the nation and was directly responsible for the deaths of millions of Germans.

Yet only a handful of people tried to over throw him through badly placed bombs.

If losing a world war won't get your people to over throw you, I doubt high unemployment would either.

Keynesianism didn't cause the bubble, the purposeful overheat did. You're just throwing words together in hope that they make sense, and they don't.

The original topic was "how does/does corporatism work", and the fact is that nazi Germany as an example of corporatism was a shambling fuel dependent mess by 1939, let alone decades later. When Stalin rolled through Europe circa 1945 (as he planned according to the median historian), the nazi regime and its camps would've been swept away, then ww2 would've been fought against the reds.

Gunpoint economics = Weak economics
This leads to instability and fragility
Even if you can forestall the collapse, that doesn't make a regime strong

True but a little narrow

Your point is so narrow as to be meaningless, totalitarian regimes are rarely overthrown from within immediately, but that doesn't mean that the nazi economics were not incompetent.

Goal posts on wheels mate, they don't serve to disguise how little you've read on this

What is worse.

People bombing the shit out of you or standing in bread lines?

I mean you still get fed either way.

user, it's time to stop posting. Get some sleep, then pirate/buy/get at Ali Brady the books you need to learn about this topic.

At a library*

Also take macro and micro 101 on khan academy

You do realize soldiers are not mindless robots who will just do whatever they are told, right? Most revolutions happen when the military flips sides. The German military already wasn't keen on Hitler, they wouldn't have hesitated to coup his ass

Don't encourage him, this will just turn into pigeon chess

No. I've read countless books on fascism, communist, and other totalitarian regimes.

If you think high unemployment will get people to over throw such a government, you are kidding yourselves.

These people were indoctrinated.

They would have worked for free. Hell, they were basically working for free in 1945. Yet they were giving up their lives for the "greater good".

I don't disagree there would have been an economic bubble had Germany not went to war.

HOWEVER, the third Reich would have not collapsed due to high unemployment.

If you think so, that is the most retarded thinking possible. Hitler could have went on the street shot a child in the face, and the Germans would have still gone along with his economic policies.

I mean really... They had a lot of smart people. They would have readjusted their economy and anyone who protested would have gone to the camps.

At this point, I'm just puzzles why you think totalitarian economy feed backs works like an economy.

Oh noes! A bubble! 50% unemployment! Let's take to the streets and vote the Nazis out.

By 1939, it was way too late for that shit.

Might as well put on a stripe suit and volunteer for some labor.

I think you are just arguing against me just because you can't back down at this point.

You've shifted the goal posts dramatically, and made no citations along the way. Furthermore, there were active attempts to kill hitler throughout his career. Blind luck protected him more than once. If you want to argue that totalitarian states can endure shit economic situations for a bit longer than democracies, go for it, but said regimes are also much more likely to cause shit economies in the first place.

How did this go from "the nazi economy was shit and germany would've turned into a shithole without a war" to "the nazi economy was great because there wouldn't have been a revolution when it turned into a shithole"?

ARGGGH! You are really grinding my gears at this point.

If German soldiers were going to revolt they would have done it after Stalingrad when Hitler's actions costs 600,000 of their comrades lives.

Then he has the gaul to tell the commander to commit suicide.

Yet German soldiers went with him for another couple of years.

Yeah really. When you have good propaganda and a political system, you can literally shot a random fucker in the face and no one gives a shit as a soldier.

Really. Those soldiers at Stalingrad should have surrendered way before they did even when they ran out of food and supplies.

German soldiers literally did not give a fuck.

They should have dragged Hitler out in the Streets in August of 1944 but again... Only a handful of officers thought to do this.

Again this is literally proof than Germany would have survived another depression with fascism.

If you can survive the complete destruction of your cities through bombing, millions of young men dying on the eastern front, and rations for 6 years... Then you can survive a bit of unemployment.

See
You need a long field for all these goal shifts

The same reason why China is still totalitarian.

Yes the economy would have been shit for a few years.

Nazis aren't dumb. They would have held onto power and adjusted.

Either through brute force or through economic reforms like the Chinese.

I just find the thought of Nazis being overthrown through a popular revolt ridiculous because of unemployment. Really now. Can't you agree on that.

the first response to this thread was that fascist economics served political goals over economic ones, and that the economy would've been shit had they not gone to war, and eventually shit even when they did. Nothing you've said has refuted any of that, and you've provided no citations at any point

Answer me this?

Do you believe that the modern Chinese economy is good or bad?

>I just find the thought of Nazis being overthrown through a popular revolt ridiculous because of unemployment.

That was never the fucking argument in the first place. The entire point is that the nazis were retards and their economy was even more retarded.

How do you feel about the modern Chinese economy?

The nazis were dumb. They had smart people telling them how to adjust before during, and near the end of the war, and they consistently refused. They brought their own people low, and were corrupt to the bone.

Had their been no war, they would've been forced into a devastating austerity program that would've inflicted worse damage than Weimar, then they wouldvw died in droves to the reds. Your arguement leads nowhere

Goal post shift, inane destructively simple question. No citations.

B-but there wouldn't have been a revolution, so everything is okay!

Soooo... Being unemployed is worse than having all your family die on the Eastern front while your homes are being bombed?

Just saying.

See
You're shifting the posts. Again.

String of logical fallacies, no citations, no comprehension

I'm citing the modern Chinese economy versus the economy that existed under Mao.

This is historical facts is it not?

I was just trying to get your view on the modern Chinese economy, because if you were one of those "Chinese economy is going to collapse and the Chinese people are going to rise up and demand democracy!" person I was going to reduce my time arguing.

Do I really need to cite the millions of Germans who died on the Eastern front and the fire bombing of Dresden all other German cities?

Are you just being autistic at this point?

You're not addressing tooze's empirical data on the nazi economy, hjalmar schact's recorded experience, or the parasitic nature of the nazi war economy, this the china example is at best a distraction as the time frame, geopolitical situation, ideologies, and economic policies differed substantially.

You won't cite scholarly sources, and your comparisons are full of logical fallacies. Milluons of deaths are not the only alternative to retarded economic policies.

I cited the fact that Germans suffered millions of casualties.

This is a fact. Do you want me to cite known data.

You are arguing that:

1. Germans would have revolvted in Nazi Germany because of High Unemployment

2. Germans wouldn't have tried other policies.

When I have cited that:

1. Totalitarian governments, including Germany have survived worse than high unemployment

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_casualties_in_World_War_II
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War_II

2. That totalitarian regimes have changed economic policy overtime to improve conditions

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Leap_Forward
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_economic_reform

noice

To be fair, Germans weren't really married to their economic policy like Communists. They were just doing whatever seemed to work.

LMAO dude, the Great Leap Forward was an UTTER DISASTER. even the CCP acknowledges this. it's a great example of why totalitarian attempts to "fix" economies can result in just wrecking everything.

the chinese economic reforms by Deng Xiaoping were based on concessions against their previous means of operation: they had to RELINQUISH CONTROL, not use totalitarian methods. Deng was a deeply pragmatic operator, and was willing to introduce capitalism and economic liberty because it worked. "It doesn't matter if a cat is black or white, so long as it catches mice."

I am arguing none of what you stated, which let's you claim victory through your goalpost shifts and stubborn refusals to stay on topic as Pointed out.

You won't address the overheat, because you don't understand it, you won't address the measures that would've been required to correct it, even in a gunpoint situation, and you won't discuss the geopolitical factors that would've rendered said austerity such a weakening factor. By refusing the discuss any of the factors that made nazi economic policy retarded, you can retreat to the "at least he wouldn't have been overthrown immediately by his own people", and shut out all else.

You're worse than a young earth creationist, at least they try to rebut their opponents directly, rather than doing a motte & bailey retreat into a narrow useless point.

You're quite mistaken, they were warned repeatedly about the effects the overheat would have, by their own economists.

I don't know desu, Communists are still in charge in China.

Like other guy said, Germans weren't really emotionally tied to their economic policy, they could have just did something else to fix economy. Shot anyone who disagreed in the meantime and took credit when economy invariably recovered from outside forces.

Due to geopolitical factors, the economic policies required to fix their earlier fuck ups would've left them defenseless against Stalin, or impotent on the world stage for decades to come. That's the sign of a retarded economic policy, which is what the thread originally was about.

Communists in name only. They remained in power by dropping the economic policies that did not work.

If the Nazis were able to remain in power by completely destroying "Corporatism", its not a defense of corporatism.

Wait wait? Are you saying Communism works as a economic policy?

Also, Poland and UK & France Guarantee.

Would have been mint for Hitler if Soviets declared first.

You're purposefully missing the point and refusing to engage with 90% of your post. Idiotic retarded gunpoint economics can temporarily boost a nation's war making potential, at the cost of literally everything else. It's what both the soviets and the nazis did, but the soviets did it slower, so they didn't immediately run out of fuel like the retarded Reich. Hence war in 45 not39.

You like to ignore most of what anyone says in order to make an inane point that either shifts the goal posts or let's you stretch one of your own arguements over and over again, much like the soviet academics of that era.

dudes a weerhaboo probably

he's got the symptoms of it in this post "if only (impossible thing x) and (impossible thing y) had happened, then Hitler would have won WW2!"

I used to dislike byzaboos more, but the wehraboo hate is growing one me

I hate you so much
shut the fuck up and listen please