Do you guys think white supremacy is good for business? Would rich people be smart to support Nazis?

Do you guys think white supremacy is good for business? Would rich people be smart to support Nazis?

Fascism is more of an emergency measure where the ruling class takes what it can keep by exploiting people with a conscious aversion to realism. Neoliberalism is generally the most efficient form of capitalism insofar as its actual goals (which don't have you in mind).

If it was it would be the dominating ideology

When highly "intelligent" economists said in a scenario where Macron would be left out of the 2nd election in France, they would prefer a Le Pen win over a Melanchon win in France, enough is said.

Fascism is capitalism in decline. The business community want to go global, so they don't tend to favor fascism unless they're in a state of crisis with a rising left. The business community will always prefer fascism to the left. This is why many business people supported fascists during the interwar period, believing they were a necessary "check" against communism.

there is more to fascism than its economic side.

I often wonder about this. In my opinion I don't really think the alt-right will ever get the same sort of backing by business that hitler and mussolini had. All their core demands are completely antithetical to the interests of the ruling class:
1. White Nationalism - The capitalist class aren't going to deport a huge part of their workforce and cut off the immigration which has become an important part of keeping the economy growing.
2. Return to "traditional" gender roles - Again female labour plays too integral of a role in the economy.
3. Economic protectionism - Unprofitable for most capitalists (though not all) for self-explanatory reasons.

There will be the odd rich person who cares more about spooks then profits (like Bannon) and fascists will be provided with enough support and media attention to divide people and keep rage on both sides channeled into the meaningless spectacle of the culture wars, but they aren't going to get the same type of full throated support they had in the inter-war period.

and its mostly emotional appeal to get desperate desperate people on its side instead of the left.

Fascism isn't an economic movement.

It's perfectly willing to take on whatever economics make them popular.

but that is what the left is about when it comes to social issues.

However the difference is it falls on proven values rather than blindly looking towards a vague idea of progress

Social issues are largely meaningless.

Hillary Clinton and Emmanuel Macron were pretty progressive on social issues (at least, they gave lipservice to progressive social stances) and no one who isn't a complete political illiterate would call them "leftists". What separates your establishment centrist liberalism from leftism is economics.

There is no "social left", cultural issues are largely arbitrary.

Not really. Actually I'm not really sure how its related to business at all, as an ideology.

Practically I think
:>>1692892
summed it up well

depends on who you ask.

However leftists hold the same social beliefs.

Emma goldman, anarcha feminism, Even in Rojava with Democratic Confederalism "progress" a main component

kek, is that relativism I see? Internet neo-fascists still can't wean themselves off the teat of liberal ideology, I see.

Essentially, yes. I would argue that leftists tend to go further in that regard by suggesting actual (economic) policy to address social issues, whereas liberals do little more than give them lipservice and twist their obedience to the will of global capital into "progressiveness".

go to the Rojava threads and they're making excuses for feminism all over the place.

The difference is that those people generally try relate social issues back to political economy.

Modern liberalism is generally more culture-reductionist.

There's nothing wrong with socialist and Marxist feminism.

I mean if you're going to namedrop Emma Goldman you would do well to note that she actively opposed the suffragettes. I don't think she was much for thoroughly reformist social causes.