Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2024 Poal.co

556

Can anyone recommend some books on National Socialist, Fascist, or authoritarian economics please?

Can anyone recommend some books on National Socialist, Fascist, or authoritarian economics please?

(post is archived)

[–] • 1 pt (edited )

Might find this to be of interest if you haven't read it yet:

Fascist Economics and Socialism of Duty - Iron March - Wewelsburg Archives 2017

Sample of the first few of 27 pages:

"One of the most plagued questions we get when talking about Fascism is economics, normally brought up by people still stuck in a liberal mentality and limited scope of perception, where everything is defined in term of social and economic policies, rather than principles derived from the notion of a singular Truth and Order that dominates the world. The variety of historic economic plans and practices maintained by various champions of our Struggle likewise distorts any comprehensive answer to the question. All in all we've simply answered people that economics are secondary, they don't matter in such a way as to be a fundamental and defining element of Fascism. The answer didn't change, however there is now a way in which we can describe this attitude to economics, and it's actually a word we've used repeatedly in reference to Fascism anyway: Socialism.

Our Socialism, however, is not in of itself an economic system, it is not the Socialism of Marx and co and stands in direct opposition to both Communism and Capitalism. It would be more accurate to say that to Fascism, Socialism is the definitive social structure which is more comparable to the structures of Individualism and Collectivism, yet it stands in opposition to those two structures as well.

Individualism creates a social structure in which every man is for himself, the good of the one trumps the good of the whole, this is the structure most related to Liberalism and the Capitalist economic system. Then we have Collectivism, which is, however, largely misinterpreted nowadays as the good of the whole above the good of the individual - this is a wrong interpretation, because collectivism in its essence is just a mass of individuals with a common interest. In individualism the one seeks out all of his interests on his own, in Collectivism many people who seeks out a common interest group together in the pursuit of that interest.

Put it simply: Collectivism is Individualism seeking Strength in Numbers on given common interests. Hence the common interest(s) becomes the primary focus of the Collectivist narrative and is thus easy to define. Collectivism worked for Communism because it worked with an existing and established group - the proletariat - to sell them the idea that together, rather than apart, they could achieve all their common interests, and fulfillment of other individual interests may follow thereafter. Comparatively speaking one could argue that Collectivists get more shit done than Individualists because the victory of a collective influences the outcome for every participant of the collective and they are all somewhat elevated, whereas in Individualism all victories are... individual, and few people achieve them. Moreover in individualism absolutely every single other individual is a competitor, even when you struggle for the same prize, whereas in collectivism everyone within the collective ideally shares in the victory.

Ultimately, however, both Individualism and Collectivism are no good for Fascism, as their fundamental premise is individual interest, regardless if it is pursued individually or collectively. We've covered before how Interests are always selfish and self-serving, going against any kind of Order in favor of one's own mere whims and wants, which are always material and inevitably lead to degeneracy.

Moreover neither Individualism nor Collectivism does anything to preserve one's Personhood (an issue of semantics: I'm using personhood and personality to give different and untainted term to what is commonly referred to as individuality and identity): to be an individual merely means to be a digit, an atom; to be in a collective means to be a cog. In both instances Personhood is not valuable, atoms are just as replaceable as cogs and just as lacking in any real personality, only difference is the less rigid structure of Individualism, where you can maintain the illusion of being your own person, while walking in a sea of clones who can replace you at a moment's notice, because both Individualism and Collectivism work on the premise of equality and necessitate easy replaceability. In both instances personality can be sacrificed, either for a collective mentality or a fake, marketable "individual" identity.

Thus you can see how the social structure of Individualism coincides with the economic system of Capitalism, and the social structure of Collectivism with the economic system of Communism. Both Capitalism and Communism seek the same: material prosperity, but one seeks it through a loosely organized competitive free for all (hence the holy cow of the free market, liberal concept of the state not meddling in economics and so on) and the latter seeks it through a collective effort which demands a unified direction (hence the form of State Socialism with control of the means of production and distribution in the hands of the State, and the stateless Communism with those same means being directly in the hands of the collective itself with no middle man).

Communism all in all is a direct product of Individualism and Capitalism during the Industrial Revolution, which shaped distinct groups that could be identified, namely the Proletariat and the Bourgeoisie, however both ultimately wanted the same thing, it's just that the latter had already achieved it and relied on the former to maintain their prosperity, hence the inevitable narrative of exploitation: the Bourgeoisie essentially "cheated" the Proletariat in the competition for material wealth, and to finally get what they deserve, the Proletariat had to unite and to "expropriate the expropriators.” Communism simply becomes the pursuit of Capitalist goals without the Bourgeoisie to stand in the way of the Proletariat.

The goal of Capitalism is ultimately to work and make profit until such a point when you don't have to work, work is an obstacle to be overcome on the path to having material wealth that can be enjoyed and thus decadence sets in. The Bourgeoisie achieved this goal to the envy of the Proletariat that decided that it was robbed of its take and thus rose up to claim that wealth for itself. It is only logical that with the advancement of technology ideas like "fully automated luxury communism" would appear, proving Spengler right: Marx hated work, making him in that sense no different from capitalists, as that scenario is the dream of every capitalist as well. You can read more on this criticism of Communism and Marx being ultimately the same as Capitalism in Oswlad Spengler's "Prussianism and Socialism" and in the "Marxism" chapter of France Parker Yockey's IMPERIUM.

Now that we defined all of this we can finally get back to the original question of Fascist economics. It should be obvious by now that Fascism does not seek material wealth as a goal in of itself, regardless if it is for individuals or a collective. Moreover, Fascism, striving to make human society coincide with the Cosmic Order and the Truth, does not favor obscurification of one's Personhood, but to the contrary wants to develop it to its full potential, which is different for every man, based on their place within the Cosmic Order. Our goal, in short, is creating the Organic State, where everyone is in their rightful place, striving to realize themselves and in doing so contribute to the realization of the nation, the race, and of the ultimate Truth.

This goal can only be achieved with a special kind of social structure, one that does not permit for the individualist free for all, nor the collectivist clan/class/group conflicts. That structure is Socialism as Social Order. This is not economic socialism, but Socialism that exists on par with and in opposition to Individualism and Collectivism, by placing upon the people a sense of Duty, which removes the element of interest inherent to these two social structures, defining them as qualitatively the same, and placing our Socialism as qualitatively different (exactly it's inappropriate to talk about any kind of "third paths" when in practice there are only two). Socialism as Social Order likewise undermines, through its introduction of Duty, the fundamental premise of both Capitalism and Communism, who seek the same ends by different means, whereas our Socialism disregards those ends and likewise burdens economics with the same Duty that it burdens the people in the social structure."