>>893
>Egypt was overthrown because the president fucked up and some social media faggots wanted to play revolution. Nothing changed and Egypt is stabil again. But I guess he was talking about ISIS anyway.Alright. I'll concede that, for now.
>But that contradicts itself brother. In the free market corps. always try to make the highest profit, which can only be achieved by selling the most products with the highest price and have the lowest production costs. Hence how much products are sold and how high the price is is directed by the market, the only way to become more efficient is to lower production costs, which means you either have to pay your workers less or produce in the cheapest way which is, guess what, hurting the environment.I don't want entirely free markets. Just free enough to make their own decisions. I'm not speaking of economic anarchy, just as allowing concessions of freedom the masses is not anarchy.
And again, just like in every place that is NOT anarchy, there are not only rules, but punishments for corporations should they break them.
>You know that the nazis let people starve because their food was needed for the military in the war.You bomb their hospitals, raze their farms, destroy their agricultural equipment, bomb their cities to ashen, bloody ruin, and COMPLAIN when our people starve as a result?
>Where is the answer though? Please tell me how many died due to bad resource distribution. I'm not saying none died, but most of those who starved in russia after the revolution starved because landlords weren't willing to nationalise their land and their products or because there simply was no food due to the civil war and second world war. And China had several famines before the revolution. mao actually managed to end famines in China after the great famine that was caused by a heat period and problems with the farmers.Well, of course. Kill as many people as you need to kill, until everyone can feed themselves again.
>Yesno. Free market always means that someone has to suffer so that others cna be rich. For example the terrible conditions in the third world are caused by the first worlds exploitation.The terrible living conditions that continue to improve because of charity, foreign aid, and the fact that the world populace has been, on average, getting steadily richer since WW2 ended? Yes, all the death and chaos has nothing to do with them, the tribes, the warlords… Provided, there are many issues with the ways corporations conduct themselves overseas, but they would never be allowed under a fascist state, because they're fucking up the environment and exploiting their workers.
SO I GUESS IT'S A GOOD THING THAT I AM A ==FASCIST== RATHER THAN SOME RON PAUL WORSHIPING LIBERTARIAN THEN, EH?
>I believe you mean Nazi Germany with that fascist state. Well, America and Britain both were more powerful then NG and the USSR beat them in a war.Let's see. United Kingdom, France/Free France, Soviet Union, United States, China, and some pissant commonwealth states I won't bother naming, versus
Germany, Italy, and Japan, plus a handful of other allies that in the end were not very relevant. All that firepower versus three itty bitty states that, combined, had hardly the size nor resources to make it. And yet, who do you think would have won, if not at least survived, had the Atomic bomb never been created and deployed?
The problem nowadays with fascist states is that they are often born in areas that lack resources, popular consensus, or competent leaders. If we had a fascist state that didn't force itself onto others, particularly in some godforsaken African country, wasn't pissed on and embargoed the minute it was born, it would not only survive, it would thrive.