If socialism doesn't work why did the US immediately start to recover from The Great Depression after taxing the top wealthiest at 99%?

>>17871316 (OP)
Because you're a Marxist transvestite

>>17871321
I beg your pardon, sir. Im an Hegelian Zarathustrian Minarchist.

The actual Marxist argument is that the Keynesian social welfare state (aka "socialism") was only possibly with the US as the world's premier industrial export factory and once the rest of the world started to catch up in the market and bring profits down the old Bretton Woods system had to die and be replaced by neoliberalism, a finance economy and America as the world's premier consumer economy which can't sustain unlimited deficit spending and a welfare state and still guarantee profit for capital holders.

>>17871316 (OP)
If fascism doesn’t work how come Germany began to recover when they elected a fascist?

>>17871321
>incapable of framing an argument without thinking about trannies
This website has harmed you and you should take a long break.

>>17871363
>National Socialism
>fascist
Lol

>>17871363
You're making this too easy. It's because they revived German war industry giving people jobs in military and factories. So fascism does work if you want to send your population into a meat grinder to resolve economic problems.

>>17871381
Yes? They were Fascist in the sense that they believed in leveraging industry in order to consolidate power towards the ruling parties ideals. Is that not what the actual, proper definition of fascism is?

>>17871363
For the same reason New Deal Keynesianism did, public spending and mobilization of the economy are good, actually. The difference is the Nazis put all that economic energy towards a failed revanchist crusade against the rest of the world.

>Be US
>Mostly just a boom or bust industrial economy that relies on cheap imported labor to fill factories
>massive tariffs, near the highest in history
>financially beholden to the english
>english try and collapse the US economy during the gilded age resulting in even more massive wealth disparity
>the US doesn't care because its main goal is to overtake the english economy
>it overtakes the english economy in 1890
>announces american imperialism
>starts taking over islands to serve as refueling depots
>coups Hawaii and take it over
>WWI ramps up and the US economy is booming
>biggest economy in the world cranking out coal and steel
>WWI ends
>nobody knows what to do
>production stays at the same level
>"Whatever, we're helping europe rebuild. Or something."
>England and France don't want to pay back US war debts fro WWI
>They stop paying
>They point at Germany and tell the US to get their money from them
>Germany is compeltely ruined
>Whatever
>The US starts loaning massive amounts of money to Germany to stabilize it
>Germany's economy pops
>Great depression
>All these productive forces from WWI are now without jobs
>No economic recovery in sight
>US economy doesn't fully recover until WWII, when it can turn its infernal machines back on

>>17871511
This overview is obviously stylized in a meme-ish, reductive way, but it does hit several broad-stroke truths about U.S. economic history before WWII. Here’s a critical breakdown of what it gets right, wrong, or oversimplified:


---

Accurate or Reasonable Points (if oversimplified)

"Boom or bust industrial economy that relies on cheap imported labor":
Fair. The U.S. industrial economy in the 19th and early 20th centuries went through cycles of rapid growth followed by harsh crashes (Panic of 1873, Panic of 1893, etc.), and immigrant labor—especially from Europe and China—was foundational to industrial growth.

"Massive tariffs, near the highest in history":
True. The U.S. maintained very high protective tariffs during much of the 19th century (e.g., the McKinley Tariff of 1890, Fordney–McCumber Tariff of 1922, Smoot-Hawley Tariff of 1930).

"Financially beholden to the English":
Somewhat accurate for the early U.S. economy (18th–mid-19th c.), though by the late 19th century, American capital had become much more autonomous. Still, London was the global financial capital.

"The U.S. doesn’t care because its main goal is to overtake the English economy":
There's truth here. U.S. policymakers and capitalists were very consciously trying to assert economic dominance—especially during the Gilded Age and Progressive Era.

"It overtakes the English economy in 1890":
This date is roughly correct. The U.S. likely surpassed Britain in total GDP around the late 1880s to 1890s, depending on the metrics used.

"Announces American imperialism / starts taking over islands":
Yes. The Spanish-American War (1898) marked a clear imperial pivot: the U.S. acquired the Philippines, Guam, and Puerto Rico, and annexed Hawaii in 1898.

"WWI ramps up and the US economy is booming":
U.S. industry profited immensely from war production and exports—even before entering the war in 1917.

Cont...

>>17871614
"Biggest economy in the world cranking out coal and steel":
Factually correct. By 1913, the U.S. produced more steel than Britain, Germany, and France combined.

"France and England stop paying war debts, point at Germany":
This reflects the real tension. Under the Dawes Plan and later the Young Plan, U.S. money flowed into Germany so Germany could pay reparations to France and the UK, which then used that money to repay the U.S. A circular debt trap.

"US starts loaning massive amounts of money to Germany to stabilize it":
Correct. American loans underpinned Weimar Germany’s short-lived stability.

"Great Depression":
Accurate. The global economic house of cards collapsed in 1929. U.S. overproduction, income inequality, and banking instability were key factors.

"US economy doesn't fully recover until WWII":
Largely correct. New Deal policies mitigated the effects but full employment and industrial recovery didn't arrive until war mobilization began.
---

Oversimplifications or Errors

"English try and collapse the US economy during the Gilded Age":
There’s no evidence of an active British plot. However, British capital’s withdrawal during financial panics (e.g., 1873, 1893) certainly hurt the U.S., and British investors were major players in U.S. markets.

"Nobody knows what to do after WWI":
A bit too glib. There was confusion and policy missteps (return to the gold standard, austerity, deflation), but it wasn't total aimlessness.

"Germany's economy pops":
Yes, but the term "pops" is vague. The late 1920s Weimar economy was artificially stabilized by U.S. loans and low interest rates; the 1929 crash hit it hard.

"Infernal machines":
Poetic, yes. Technically refers to idle industrial capacity. Accurate sentiment, dramatized language.

>>17871618
What It Misses

The Federal Reserve (founded 1913): Its role in tightening monetary policy during the Depression is often cited as a key policy error.

Labor unrest and reform movements: These shaped U.S. economic policy in the Gilded Age and Progressive Era.

Urbanization, consumerism, and financialization: Pre-WWI, the U.S. saw massive growth in credit systems, advertising, and real estate speculation.

The rise of monopolies and trusts: Think Rockefeller, Carnegie, and antitrust responses under Roosevelt and Taft.
---

Verdict:

This overview is intentionally crude, but much of it has a kernel of truth. It's a stylized historical compression with a strong narrative throughline: U.S. economic expansion driven by ambition, industrial muscle, financial leverage, and imperial opportunism, ultimately disrupted by debt cycles and rescued by war.

If you’re looking for a meme-tier redpill version of American economic history up to WWII, it’s a surprisingly decent starting point—as long as you recognize where it overreaches or skips key complexities.

>>17871620
>federal reserve
Also add the invention of skyscrapers which saw congested low tax inner city slums turned into high tax offices and industry, this held off the depression I believe in a big way by allowing people to invest all the inflated currency into a speculative land race

>>17871976
also this is exactly how china is keeping its economy afloat right now

>>17871363
Germany was already recovering before Hitler was elected and Hjalmar Schacht who was responsible for most economic policy under the Reich was a conventional economist who thought nazis were retarded on economics. After he was replaced with Hermann Göring who was a hardcore chud economic retard the economy went to shit.

So no, fascism doesn't "work". Most of the time they left the economy alone and when they did shove their ideological crap into the economy it went to shit.

Oh by the way, Germany became richer than the rest of Europe under Konrad Adenauer and liberal democracy.

>>17872052
Germany had effectively stabilized under US help by 1927, as in, people weren't starving to death in the street. But it all came crashing down after that. The main reason Hitler got elected, policy wise, was he had been forecasting the crash that came in the 30's. Which you didn't exactly need a crystal ball for, but I guess the point was that crash would usher in a socialist/communist German state, or so they feared, so they created Hitler as a backup plan.

>>17872052
Fascist economics does "work" for what the ideological goals of fascism are, which is militarism and genocide.

>>17871316 (OP)
>If socialism doesn't work why did the US immediately start to recover from The Great Depression after taxing the top wealthiest at 99%?


Because it only works if you have an effectively all white population. So in some situations, it works great but in others it is doomed to fail.

>>17872083
There was nothing fascist about germanys economic policies. The "reacquisition" of west German industry which was illegally seized and staffed by French labor was simply pragmatic. And the invasion of the east was pure imperialism. There's no such thing as fascist economics

>>17872087
There definitely is something called fascist economics, it's called "Yeah you can have private property but if you trade with people I don't like or support unions, I'll shoot you in the face".

>>17872093
That's just imperialism. There's no "fascist economist" in existence

Italy's head "fascist" economist was a liberal

>>17872096
Brainlet marxoid analysis that means you can't explain what fascism is and how it's different from liberalism.

>>17872107
I'm an smith, locke and hume purist and there's no such thing as fascist economics. Fascism at its core was a counter revolutionary liberal/industrialist movement masquerading as a socialist movement.

All Hitler did was pay all the pissed off young people and put food in their bellies and they stopped being communists

>>17872113
>Fascism at its core was a counter revolutionary liberal/industrialist movement

It's not that simple, it practiced authoritarian corporatism at the highest level by using nationalism as a guiding principle, which is something most liberal states *do not do*.

>>17872120
Mate. The US had a civil war over nationalism

>>17872122
And the nationalists won

Recovery came after that 99 % bracket was already cut back to 79 % (1936) and then 81 % (1938), and only really took off once wartime controls and the post-war dismantling of New-Deal cartels let the private sector breathe again. Output only surged once Washington started vacuuming up labour for war production.

>>17872122
Sorry but your Marxoid lens doesn't explain why most liberal states don't even have the death penalty, whereas the Nazi state killed so many people only Genghis Khan rivals them.

This is the kind of context where you guys see yourself blind on material factors and refuse to even acknowledge that "subjective factors" actually matter, even Marx himself thought England was a better place to live in because they actually practiced freedom of speech.

>>17872130
Imperialism is simply a state that a liberal economy can take

>>17872134
Imagine it like the collective readying for warfare

>>17872134
>Imperialism is simply a state that a liberal economy can take

There's nothing "liberal" about being murdered if your factory doesn't produce X amounts of artillery shells.

>>17872146
Well brainlets do often ponder what the germans were thinking but I think the truth is obfuscated by atrocity propaganda

They recovered because of WWII

>>17872240
It's like a racing boat ramping off a cresting wave and landing on another wave

>>17871316 (OP)
>socialism is when the state does something
lol

>>17872130
>middle class emerges because they have property accumulation through generations
>"petite bourgeoisie"
>they get shitless scared of the proles/socialist neighbors etc
>they vote for far-right who's seen as "less worse" than the other
I'm caricaturing but marxism is surprisingly good at explaining the rise of far right.

>>17872113
>I'm an smith, locke and hume purist and there's no such thing as fascist economics
There is. Fascism is about the nation, so the economy is reinterpreted for the benefit of the nation (corporatism, state-owned for-profit monopolies, investment in "national interests" etc)
This contrasts with capitalism where the economy serves as its primary function the individual's aspiration and freedom, and with socialism where it is to provide to the needs of the citizens.

>>17872291
All a liberal economy is is the division of labor. Merchants, under the guilds, moved low tier production to the villages. This ultimately killed the guilds as industry took their place.

This allowed kings to not only tax peasants through their farm work, but tax them and merchants for their labor. This allowed them to wage hyperwars

>>17872306
And Adam smith was like "this industry stuff isn't THAT bad"

>>17871346
And history has proven that argument correct. Social Democracy only works so long as the rate of profit increases literally infinitely so there is always enough left to "trickle down" and there is always a subjugated third world periphery that can have it raw materials extracted "for free". The former of those is completely gone and the latter is beginning to collapse due to China becoming an manufacturing center that is not owned or subverted by western interests (though whether it one day falls for the same "trap" of neoliberalism that the West did is anyones guess)

>>17872605
Mate the US built China

>>17871363
Well why did it stop working

>>17872096
I'd agree with you, in the sense that Fascism as an ideology is in itself basically a post-hoc rationalization for Capitalism going into panic mode when confronted by crisis and the threat of a left wing revolt by the working class. Wherein the forces of Capital put the craziest most violent motherfuckers they can find in charge and tell them to go whole-hog using whatever violent means necessary to put the workers back in their place.

>>17872610
Yes that's my point? The falling rate of profit made it "necessary" in the eyes of American Capital to offshore in order to ensure that line goes up forever by cutting costs.
So why did manufacturing go to China? Well, China invited them in with a deal that was too good to pass up: cheap labour AND available infrastructure necessary to run their businesses. China built the ports, railroads, roads, electricity connections etc etc that were necessary to run these manufacturing processes. Obviously China is a big place, and all this infrastructure didn't just pop up over the whole country out of nowhere. What they did was they designated a number of Special Economic Zones (SEZs). In western reporting, what was primarily focused on was that these zones were allowed to operate with different rules and regulations than the rest of China, which was attractive to foreign businesses to move in and yadda yadda yadda. I'm sure that played a part. What western reporting often misses though, is that it is exactly these key coastal areas where China concentrated its infrastructure development.
Basically China was a poor country. large with lots of people in poor conditions. What the state did was try to appropriate as much of the surplus produced by all these people as it could, and then laser focus all of it for reinvestment in the special economic zones. Those then attracted foreign business, bringing with it foreign investment. This capital injection meant that the process of industrialization was given a massive boost, as now it wasn't just the Chinese state using the appropriated Chinese surplus to industrialize China, it was also Western capitalists using the appropriated Western surplus to industrialize China, and then the Chinese state capturing a chunk of the new surplus resulting from that industrialization as well, basically creating very high levels of growth and development (look up Chinese GDP growth numbers in the 90s for an idea of this).

>>17872240
You mean the event that was the single largest moment of government control of the economy in history? Where the government told people what to build, how to build it, how much they would be paid for it, how much they would pay their workers, what their quotas were, where the government centrally planned the entire economy and set prices for all good? That WW2?

>>17872306
>All a liberal economy is is the division of labor
No, the division of labor exists in all economies, even the soviet ones.

>>17873475
The soviet economy was just a liberal economy playing socialist. They learned how inefficient it was because everyone was embezzling

China can continue the larp mostly because of the US investing in them.

If you want to know what real communism is, it's the government running out of money and then going around giving everyone made up fines

Then you have to wonder if communism is just a highly inefficient formally liberal government that robs its people when it needs money plenty of liberal economies do that too historically

>>17872624
Fascism was more about preventing Germany and Italy from balkanizing with separatist communist governments that were just going to one by one take every major district in Europe and reduce it to the stone age

>>17871386
fascism is obedience to the state, nazism is obedience to the party.

>>17873640
It's nationalism. The main reason Hitler was created was to prevent Bavaria from seceding into a communist state

>>17871316 (OP)
why don't you look up what socialism means before posting dumb shit, retard

>>17872641
I'm talking about it's aftermath specifically.

>>17873630
>communism is when fines
nigger genuinely how can you be so dumb