Quote notes (#59)

John Michael Greer on the triumph of fascism (spot on):

National socialist parties argued that business firms should be made subject to government regulation and coordination in order to keep them from acting against the interests of society as a whole, and that the working classes ought to receive a range of government benefits paid for by taxes on corporate income and the well-to-do. Those points were central to the program of the National Socialist German Workers Party from the time it got that name— it was founded as the German Workers Party, and got the rest of the moniker at the urging of a little man with a Charlie Chaplin mustache who became the party’s leader not long after its founding — and those were the policies that the same party enacted when it took power in Germany in 1933.

If those policies sound familiar, dear reader, they should. That’s the other reason why next to nobody outside of specialist historical works mentions national socialism by name: the Western nations that defeated national socialism in Germany promptly adopted its core economic policies, the main source of its mass appeal, to forestall any attempt to revive it in the postwar world.

(via @PuzzlePirate)

ADDED: A point of clarification and a question:

Fascism isn’t a problem because it triggers scary feelings about the Nazis. It’s a problem because it’s running the world.

Question: Is there anybody among the critics of this contention who seeks to defend fascism against sloppy criticism and ‘spin’ who doesn’t also want — at least partially — to defend elements of socialist governance?
The sample size of the commentary so far is too small to tell, but it’s looking as if the answer is ‘no’. If so, it would suggest that Hayek and even (*gasp*) Jonah Goldberg are right  in suggesting that the fundamental controversy is about spontaneous social organization, and not about any unambiguous argument of Left v. Right.

February 13, 2014admin 57 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Political economy

TAGGED WITH : ,

57 Responses to this entry

  • Stirner Says:

    Bitterly ironic that the US fought two wars to prevent German dominance of Europe only to achieve….an EU with the Deutsche Bank pulling the strings.

    There is another angle to the victory of the Axis. The East Asian industrialization model was pioneered by the Japanese Army during their industrialization of Manchuria. They figured out how to turn an East Asian backwater into a highly productive economy in short order. Japan adopted similar policies to rebuild after WWII. Taiwan and Korea followed a similar template and achieved similar results. China finally got with the program and are well along the path.

    Eamonn Fingleton makes a good case for Manchuria/Manchukuo being the foundation of the “East Asian Miracle” in Jaws of the Dragon.

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 13th, 2014 at 3:12 am Reply | Quote
  • etype Says:

    (spot off) John Michael Greer joins the queue and takes a shot at using the nazi’s as a paper tiger. Neo-reactionary must feel it’s gone mainstream now, as it’s stooping to the same appeals to the stupid. Even enlisting the sober and penetrating historical research of the Grand Archdruid of the Ancient Order of Druids in America no less. That’s right, the GRAND ARCHDUCK of the ANCIENT ORDER OF DRUIDS OF AMERICA says so ! What’s next, neo-reactionary holocaust stories?

    ‘… and then the socialists coated me in H-1 sauce and tied me to a stake in a cage with an eagle, a monkey and a tiger… I said nothing when they came and took away the gold standard , I said nothing when they came and started to hand out welfare, and now they’ve come to take away us high-IQ aristocrats!’

    Get a grip Nick, you’re living in an echo chamber of geeks who only think they are high-IQ, yet are as abject a species as ever was spoon-fed and reared by what you call the ‘Cathedral’. ‘Socialism’ was inaugurated by the Grand Archduke of neo-reactionarism – Bismark.

    To state that the Western democracies copped the core social program of the Nazi’s is to state one has absolutely no clue what goes on in this world. The baseline of Nazi’s socialism was the abrogation of international finance, THIS IS THE ELEMENTAL BASIS… everything else flows from this. Is this what the Western Democracies have done?
    I didn’t think so – so they are not the same things. Nice try.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    If I agreed with any of that I’d be ENR rather than NRx. As far as I’m concerned, the less opportunity for confusion between the two, the better.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Fascism.

    [Reply]

    etype Reply:

    I read your explanatory link… Nick, do you understand what ‘predicate thinking’ is?

    It seems your NRx has developed a very bad case of it.

    etype Reply:

    You don’t agree because it’s not useful as spin? Because reality is the main source of all sorts of confusion? Or you don’t agree because you’d like to make the point – socialism is BAD ? Yes, little things like conformity-to-facts, accuracy and veracity would certainly mark you as ENR. Instead, veer NRx closer to the wise council of the Grand Archdruid of the Ancient Order of Druids (sic) in America… good times.

    Seriously, many aspects of NRx are nothing short of farcical > but does farce have to now replace gravity for it’s attractive properties in your dark little cosmos? NRx may not inform but is guaranteed to entertain?

    [Reply]

    etype Reply:

    Predicate Thinking

    admin Reply:

    Things are (generically) the same to the exact extent that they have things in common.

    VXXC Reply:

    European New Right? Benoist?

    [Reply]

    Alrenous Reply:

    You’re acting like you didn’t even read the linked post.

    I conclude you didn’t read the linked post.

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 13th, 2014 at 4:20 am Reply | Quote
  • Puzzle Pirate (@PuzzlePirate) Says:

    Some further reading on fascism & democracy:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarian_democracy

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Nolte#Fascism_In_Its_Epoch

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism_In_Its_Epoch

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 13th, 2014 at 5:39 am Reply | Quote
  • etype Says:

    @etype

    so… you admit NRx is FACISM !!!
    or rather confess…

    No Nick, things are not (generically) the same to the exact extent that they have things in common… we are not talking about whether our eggs are to be scrambled or poached… or breakfast at all.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    The NRx I support is the strain that migrated from Libertarianism after recognizing that no effective resistance to socialism was going to be found there. So your chance of winning me over to ethno-socialism is zero. (There are plenty of other fish in the sea.)

    [Reply]

    etype Reply:

    ‘trying to win you over to ethno-socialism’? Get over yourself – ethno-socialists don’t proselytize.
    I’m asking you to keep your integrity intact.

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 13th, 2014 at 7:01 am Reply | Quote
  • Alex Says:

    [Either Mark Shea’s been royally Taxiled or this rabbit hole goes even deeper than I thought.]

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Crikes! We’ve been exposed.

    [Reply]

    Alrenous Reply:

    Dark Enlightenment: a horror story.

    In case you weren’t sure what kinds of things make layhumans lie awake at night, here’s a list! Enjoy!

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 13th, 2014 at 10:56 am Reply | Quote
  • Anonymous Says:

    Um, no they didn’t, not in america.

    If they adopted the core economic policies of workers’ national socialism, why does life tend to suck so much for actual nationals who are working class?

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Because socialism doesn’t work?

    [Reply]

    Anonymous Reply:

    “but but but it’s never been tried!”

    but really though, there are generous benefits for the underclass, including recent arrival international non-citizens, but in what way has the usa adopted national socialist economic policies, but for regular people who work for a living, who make “too much” to qualify for the underclass benefits, but far far too little to have a decent life… wheres the socialism?

    [Reply]

    VXXC Reply:

    We actually have Anti_National_Socialist_Nihilism as our Ruling Party.

    Perhaps someone has a Nihilistic hatred of White Christian Europeans. [[=== I can’t believe I’m actually typing this, but it’s true.

    Our Industrial Economic Policy is for instance the Morgenthau Plan.

    It’s terrible to report, but that’s what happened and is still happening.

    Alrenous Reply:

    As per my recent blog, socialism is a lie you tell to gain power. It happens to be effective at that, much more effective than e.g. the truth.

    [Reply]

    Anonymous Reply:

    This i’ll agree with, america adopted “lie socialism”. The rhetoric is there, but it doesn’t deliver anything to joe sixpack

    [Reply]

    VXXC Reply:

    Yes it does. Joe Sixpack is the Target.

    etype Reply:

    Life must be a very simple affair for you.

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 13th, 2014 at 1:09 pm Reply | Quote
  • Alrenous Says:

    You wade through Greer’s flirtations with insanity to find these posts, so I don’t have to, and I appreciate it.

    My comments became long so I promoted them to blog post.

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 13th, 2014 at 2:46 pm Reply | Quote
  • Saddam Hussein's Whirling Aluminium Tubes Says:

    Seems wrong and dumb, on the level of “Liberal Fascism”. Certainly beneath the normal quality of this blog.

    >
    National socialist parties argued that business firms should be made subject to government regulation and coordination in order to keep them from acting against the interests of society as a whole,

    and that the working classes ought to receive a range of government benefits paid for by taxes on corporate income and the well-to-do. Those points were central to the program of the National Socialist German Workers Party from the time it got that name— it was founded as the German Workers Party

    That’s the other reason why next to nobody outside of specialist historical works mentions national socialism by name: the Western nations that defeated national socialism in Germany promptly adopted its core economic policies, the main source of its mass appeal, to forestall any attempt to revive it in the postwar world.<

    Nah, it was Marxian socialism at first, then liberal "socialism" later on.

    First of all, the New Deal happened before WW2.

    Secondly, he forgot a couple of core Nazi economic policies

    – Rejection of free trade in favor of a focus on at least partial autarky
    – Different financial system with very different incentives built in.

    Socialism may or may not work, but we don't even have international, Marxist socialism, let alone national socialism.

    If we had socialism, we'd be redistributing wealth from the wealthy to the working classes, right? Might be a waste, but we should be able to see some evidence that it is happening.

    Maybe some countries are doing that (Scandinavia), but in the United States we're redistributing wealth from the middle class and the part of the working class that has real jobs to the super wealthy, the government workers and the lumpenproles.

    Take a look at the real income of the average American worker under the last few decades of "liberal" socialism. Then take a look at how the wealthy did in the same period.

    The old left is out of power. Socialism is only paid lip service. The New Left is pro-capitalist, or at least pro-certain-kinds-of-capitalism. That's why it's so much more successful.

    [Reply]

    Saddam Hussein's Whirling Aluminium Tubes Reply:

    Would a national socialist worker’s party pass legislation sending the good prole jobs to Mexico and China?

    No, no they would not.

    /thread

    [Reply]

    Saddam Hussein's Whirling Aluminium Tubes Reply:

    This is what American “socialism” does for American proles.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UuA2_P-m4Sk

    Meanwhile lumpenproles get free healthcare.

    1360$ a month for healthcare with $4000 deductible

    The only way out is to file a fake disability claim and join the ranks of the non-working class.

    Doesn’t look like Marxist socialism, doesn’t look like National socialism. Looks like liberal fake socialism.

    [Reply]

    VXXC Reply:

    It looks like someone Hates the Majority demographic and means them all the Harm it dares do…it looks like Malice and Profit therein.

    It looks like the Morgenthau plan applied to Industry in the Rust Belt.

    It looks like the Majority is “out” and the ones still voting Democratic haven’t figured that out yet. Something feels off, but they can’t quite name it.

    It looks like someone wants to ruin us comprehensively and they have.

    Perhaps we could call it: Nihilist Anti workers Socialist Insidious Party policies.

    Name withheld for Security Reasons.

    It looks like Bankers Communism, and the Bankers really hate the Commons and are determined to wring all the Tragedy from them they can.

    It looks like all of the above and it is…

    admin Reply:

    It’s complicated, but I don’t think you’re free of the tangles in your own account. For a start, you seem to be taking the ‘socialist’ commitment of fascism utterly seriously, whilst deriding it as obvious mystification in its Anglo (New Deal +) variant. Why the discrepancy? It seems to me that pretty much exactly the same mix of sincerity and propaganda is at work in both. Also, you skip over the “socialism doesn’t work” problem far too glibly. If the Soviet Union couldn’t effectively redistribute wealth and power to the masses, why should more pragmatic versions of nationalistic socialism succeed? No one can make this kind of thing work except Scandinavians, and in their case it’s due to ethno-cultural factors with limited connection to ideology and policy. The dysfunctional poor can’t be helped, as every ‘war on poverty’ initiative has shown. That’s because reality is intractable to good intentions, with hypocrisy and malevolence playing a decidedly secondary role. The idea that government could help the workers “if it really wanted to” is the single most ruinous delusion of modern man.

    Bottom line: Fascism is the politics of the Corporate State (In the early modernist, rather than Moldbuggian sense). Government imposes social coordination through directives (‘regulations’) that penetrate, with unprecendented thoroughness, into the body of civil society. Specifics of racial and financial policy are variable in comparison. If FDR, or the present DC-Wall Street axis, aren’t exemplary of that, I’ve no idea what would be. Contemporary America has undoubtedly achieved a far greater degree of saturating corporatism than Mussolini ever got close to (and Europe is even worse).

    Is Greer correct in his argument — which I consider insightful — that a crucial driver of these developments is elite fear of the (fascist) mob? This is obviously a question that divides NRx, rather than unifying it. This fissure might potentially become a stimulus to productive discussion, but we’re clearly not there yet. Eventually we’re going to need some precise separation arrangements, because fascist governance is an exit propeller for the techno-commercialist wing.

    As for the Goldberg dig — it just distracts from the fact that your argument is with Hayek. Fascism (integrative state action) is essentially counter-posed to catallaxy as the principle of social coordination. Throwing in pop political philosophy doesn’t produce any additional illumination.

    [Reply]

    Anonymous Reply:

    The dysfunctional poor can’t be helped, as every ‘war on poverty’ initiative has shown.
    Were the poor always dysfunctional? If not, when and why did they become so?

    The idea that government could help the workers “if it really wanted to” is the single most ruinous delusion of modern man.
    So its impossible for the governmnet to do anything that would help workers? I’m, uh, suspicious, of that claim.

    Bottom line: Fascism is the politics of the Corporate State (In the early modernist, rather than Moldbuggian sense). Government imposes social coordination through directives (‘regulations’) that penetrate, with unprecendented thoroughness, into the body of civil society.

    That I will agree with… but this is a long way from ‘the modern state adopted the core economic policies of national socialism’. Perhaps the disagreement is disagreement about what the ‘core’ ‘really’ was?

    Saddam Hussein's Whirling Aluminium Tubes Reply:

    @Admin

    ——————————————————————————————————–
    It’s complicated, but I don’t think you’re free of the tangles in your own account. For a start, you seem to be taking the ‘socialist’ commitment of fascism utterly seriously, whilst deriding it as obvious mystification in its Anglo (New Deal +) variant. Why the discrepancy?
    ——————————————————————————————————–

    Well, let’s look back at the OP. The OP took the socialist commitment of fascism pretty seriously.

    The OP complained that national socialism wanted to make business firms subject to government regulation and to redistribute wealth to the working class.

    The OP went on to say that these policies had been adopted all over the world.

    So I think the scenario set up in the OP requires us to take the Nazi commitment to socialism seriously. And it seems like Germany was indeed somewhat socialist at the time, although not necessarily Marxist. Socialist health care since the late 1800s, etc.

    You said:
    ——————————————————————————————————–
    Also, you skip over the “socialism doesn’t work” problem far too glibly. If the Soviet Union couldn’t effectively redistribute wealth and power to the masses, why should more pragmatic versions of nationalistic socialism succeed?
    ——————————————————————————————————–

    It may well fail, but if it is socialist, shouldn’t it be seen to make an effort to do those things?

    All the horror stories about Britain’s national health service may well be true, but it kind of looks like an effort to use socialism to provide health care to the working class (among other groups).

    On the other hand, America’s affordable care act doesn’t look remotely like an attempt to provide affordable care to the working class. It looks like somebody is looting those proles who are dumb enough to have jobs.

    You said:
    ——————————————————————————————————–The dysfunctional poor can’t be helped, as every ‘war on poverty’ initiative has shown. That’s because reality is intractable to good intentions, with hypocrisy and malevolence playing a decidedly secondary role. The idea that government could help the workers “if it really wanted to” is the single most ruinous delusion of modern man.
    ——————————————————————————————————

    Granted for the sake of discussion. Let’s assume 100% of the money that is redistributed to the “working class” will be wasted.

    If the government really wanted to re-distribute wealth to the working class (rather than the underclass) they could still make an effort to take wealth away from the wealthy and the international corporations and transfer it to the workers. We would be able to see those transfer payments to the workers in the stats and we could see those payments being pissed away by said workers.

    Is that really what we’re seeing in the United States? I know a lot of working class Americans (with jobs) and they’re not seeing a huge amount of transfer payments headed their way. Instead, their real wages have declined for decade after decade, thanks, in no small part, to the political choices of the ruling class. There are some programs that they can take advantage of like food stamps, but there was a time, not so long ago, when a lot less working class Americans *needed* food stamps.

    We do however see a substantial number of transfer payments to the ever expanding non-working underclass and an ever expanding class of government workers.

    ———————————————————————————————-
    Bottom line: Fascism is the politics of the Corporate State (In the early modernist, rather than Moldbuggian sense). Government imposes social coordination through directives (‘regulations’) that penetrate, with unprecendented thoroughness, into the body of civil society. Specifics of racial and financial policy are variable in comparison. If FDR, or the present DC-Wall Street axis, aren’t exemplary of that, I’ve no idea what would be. Contemporary America has undoubtedly achieved a far greater degree of saturating corporatism than Mussolini ever got close to (and Europe is even worse).
    ——————————————————————————–

    Isn’t “Managerialism” a more accurate term for what you’re describing?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Burnham#The_Managerial_Revolution

    “Burnham looked around the world for indications of the new form of society which was emerging to replace historic capitalism and saw certain commonalities between the economic formations of Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, and America under Franklin D. Roosevelt and his “New Deal.”

    I don’t disagree with you that the economies of the U.S. and Nazi Germany were converging in some ways. You can throw the U.S.S.R. in there as well. I just think that using the fascism or national socialism label is inaccurate and it can lead to a focus on the wrong commonalities.

    Something that was shared between the U.S. and Nazi Germany did come to be adopted all over the world though.

    ——————————————————————————–
    As for the Goldberg dig — it just distracts from the fact that your argument is with Hayek. Fascism (integrative state action) is essentially counter-posed to catallaxy as the principle of social coordination. Throwing in pop political philosophy doesn’t produce any additional illumination.
    ——————————————————————————–

    Well, we certainly have some fundamental philosophical differences and it’s not my intent to harp on them excessively on your blog, but in this case I’m not really defending socialism (Despite my collectivist tendencies, I don’t think socialism works either) so much as pointing out that there may be a much more accurate term for what you’re describing.

    And the distinction seems important because Managerialism as Burnham describes it is not just an ideology, but, at least to some extent, a systemic problem of modern large scale societies. You can cure fascism by getting rid of all the fascists. But get rid of the current crop of managers and more will just keep showing up and managing.

    Not a huge Matt Forney fan but his piece on the Managerial revolution is more informative than Wikipedia:
    http://mattforney.com/2013/09/11/the-managerial-revolution-by-james-burnham/

    admin Reply:

    ‘Fascism’, like ‘the Cathedral’, is supposed to make progs uncomfortable. Something which they define themselves against subjectively is the same thing they objectively promote. ‘Managerialism’ is extremely weak tea in comparison.

    Posted on February 13th, 2014 at 3:51 pm Reply | Quote
  • Anonymous Says:

    Great comments by Mr. Tubes. This is a more intellectual version of what I was getting at

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 13th, 2014 at 4:16 pm Reply | Quote
  • quenelle Says:

    Consider what administration officials announcing the new exemption for medium-sized employers had to say about firms that might fire workers to get under the threshold and avoid hugely expensive new requirements of the law. Obama officials made clear in a press briefing that firms would not be allowed to lay off workers to get into the preferred class of those businesses with 50 to 99 employees. How will the feds know what employers were thinking when hiring and firing? Simple. Firms will be required to certify to the IRS – under penalty of perjury – that ObamaCare was not a motivating factor in their staffing decisions. To avoid ObamaCare costs you must swear that you are not trying to avoid ObamaCare costs.

    h/t: vox

    fascist or not fascist?

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 13th, 2014 at 8:59 pm Reply | Quote
  • VXXC Says:

    @Saddam Hussein’s Whirling Aluminium Tubes

    GOD HATES YOU

    God being the beloved Uncle Sam.

    The New Deal went out the window in the 1960s and all of God’s policies since have been directed at our comprehensive ruin.

    (‘Our’ – I’m Prole Mick and per others the resident populist).

    These aren’t mistakes. Over decades? This is Malice. This is Harm. This is Profit from same.

    If we were still the prime beneficaries instead of targets, if we hadn’t been cut out from the transfer payments system then none of these conversations would be taking place.

    Because let’s face it; Our people will sell out for a check too. That’s their number one obstacle to facing the awful truth, they want the Draw too. Ideally they work as well, that’s self-esteem.

    The idea that our people want lassaie faire and don’t want benefits is lol risible. They can’t figure it out, frankly you seem to be struggling with it as well. So again…

    GOD HATES YOU

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 14th, 2014 at 11:49 am Reply | Quote
  • VXXC Says:

    HTML fail.

    must be god

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 14th, 2014 at 12:22 pm Reply | Quote
  • VXXC Says:

    And some people can’t turn off their Progressive conditioning. You’re not going to socially engineer a pyschopath friendly system of government. You’re not going to malice proof the system.

    There is no possible system where our current elites exist at all, anywhere, that can be maliced proofed.

    As to winning them over..sometimes internal eugenics programs like martyrdom are healthy, for instance when Christians went praying to the Lions. For today’s like syndrome see white sluts kneeling at magic black men to beg forgiveness. Because she “decided to do something about it. ” So do try and win them over. When it ends up you being Lion food, don’t forget to say Jesus over and over again on the way out. We need martyrs too, you first. If you go out holy then we finally get some use from you. EOM.

    It doesn’t matter whether it’s fascist, socialist, democracy, republic, kritarchy (although that’s a big one) oligarchy and if and when they comes aristocracy, timocracy, monarchy. They mean again HARM from motive of MALICE and to PROFIT from it.

    The Holy Trinity of MALICE, HARM, PROFIT will not be overcome by good Christian prayers, reason, logic, glibness, game, or anything but FORCE. The one thing that impresses them is FORCE because it impresses everyone.

    Any honest policeman could tell you that some people only respond to violence, you simply are still falliing for the Fallacy of Reason as a lever or motive on men’s behavior. Reason is of course mere rationalization of your actual true motives of FORCE and GAIN.

    The levers are only two: Force and Gain. All other approaches are variations of these two themes. There are a small number of mutations motivated by Honor and the ability to protect their own hence, but they Gain Love and respect – and FEAR by these deeds. On the other hand they’re rather hard to pressure or bribe. No bribe will actually work if they think you mean their loved ones HARM. These mutants go into the Hero Trades. They’re actually the key to ending madness and harm.

    May I suggest their culitivation.

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 14th, 2014 at 12:39 pm Reply | Quote
  • Golf Club Says:

    Ironically, the whole concept of economic privatization originated in Fascist Italy and NS Germany. Jonah Can’t Write Goldberg has everything backwards.While the rest of the world was sipping some New Deal koolaid with a side of Bolshevism, the Nazis were selling chunks of the government off to private companies.

    Fascist privatization: http://cadmus.eui.eu/handle/1814/12319

    Nazi privatization: http://c4ss.org/content/124

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 15th, 2014 at 4:32 am Reply | Quote
  • etype Says:

    @Golf Club

    Here is the link for that paper: Against the mainstream: Nazi privatization in 1930s Germany

    [Reply]

    Peter A. Taylor Reply:

    I call “bullshit.” You see the same thing in the US space program. They call it “privatization”, but what it really is, is indirect control. Instead of a contractor building stuff for the government under a contract in which the government takes both control and responsibility, they have a contractor building stuff for the government under a contract in which the government has control without legal responsibility.

    Bryan Caplan refers to Herman Rauschning’s book, _Hitler Speaks_, quoting Hitler:

    We don’t need to take your cow so long as we own you. Who cares about whether we actually own the firm in name? So long as we have complete control over the people running it, that’s good enough.

    http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2010/06/caplan_on_hayek.html

    Note also Sheldon Richman’s article on fascism at The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics, which starts out with,

    As an economic system, fascism is socialism with a capitalist veneer…. Where socialism sought totalitarian control of a society’s economic processes through direct state operation of the means of production, fascism sought that control indirectly, through domination of nominally private owners.

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 16th, 2014 at 4:30 am Reply | Quote
  • Golf Club Says:

    I’m not disagreeing with you on the indirect control part, I’m just asserting that it’s identical to what we now call neoliberalism. It doesn’t in anyway resemble socialism, not even ‘state’ socialism. Remember, most of the people directing the government intervention in the German and Italian economy were the capitalists themselves. Some libertarians call this ‘crony capitalism’ but it’s certainly not socialism. Hell, even Mises himself supported fascism until the Nazis rolled into Austria.

    [Reply]

    Peter A. Taylor Reply:

    I agree that the economic policy we have now, “neoliberalism”, is identical to fascist economic policy. The US health care system, even before Obama, seems to me to be a perfect illustration of Richman’s description of fascism as an economic system. But I think you are making a false distinction between socialism in practice and cronyism. What socialism achieves does not in any way resemble what socialism promises. Yes, there is a capitalist veneer, but it is only a veneer.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Yes.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    “I’m just asserting that it’s identical to what we now call neoliberalism.” — The horrible ‘neoliberalism’ label aside, isn’t this precisely the claim I’ve been slapped upside the head over? (by Etype and SHWAT above.) Or, put more positively, I fully agree.

    “… it’s certainly not socialism.” — Why? It’s most definitely practical socialism, if by ‘socialism’ is meant the effective supremacy of the demotic state over distributed economic interests.

    [Reply]

    Golf Club Reply:

    How would Fascist Italy and NS Germany be considered demotic states? The corporatist regime allowed business interests to directly interact with the state via the fascist grand council. That’s more like a ‘democracy’ of business corporations not the masses of the Cathedral. As for Germany, it was a straightforward dictatorship. This reminds me of this article by the paleoconservative Paul Gottfried who denounces libertarians for their grotesque abuse of the words fascism, statism, and socialism:

    “Right and left for my critics are what they are thought to be in the U.S. at this moment. The two reference points have always been the same, and for the right the eternal battle has been about fighting the “state,” which has been around since the time the pyramids were built. Those who have advanced state power have always been immutably on the left; and presumably the left includes Amenhotep, Henry VIII, Cardinal Richelieu, and Bismarck, just as the right has always featured such stalwart conservatives as Tom Paine and John Stuart Mill.”

    “Although the fascists were not “conservative” in any traditional sense, they were probably more so than my libertarian critics. In interwar Europe being “conservative” did not mean “being for markets,” legalizing addictive drugs, or distributing anarcho-capitalist leaflets. It meant favoring a traditional state that accepted a traditional social order and which was usually tied to an established church. In that bygone world my libertarian bloggers would have been considered hopelessly demented leftists”

    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/whos-a-fascist/

    [Reply]

    Golf Club Reply:

    I’ll take off with a less dickheaded and more neoreactionary approach: as has been indicated before, the ethno-nationalist always suspects the techno-commercialist is a race traitor, just as the techno-commercialist suspects the ethno-nationalist is a closet communist. From that perspective, the fascist and the national socialist will always be ‘socialists’, there is a point at which the techno-commercialist has gone so far right that the bonds of community have been surpassed in favor of a greater inequality among men. I think that’s perhaps where the disagreement lies, but I could be wrong.

    [Reply]

    Rasputin Reply:

    This may be a completely horrible ad for the injustice of inequality, but it is the kind of thing that NR (where did the ‘x’ suffix suddenly appear from btw?) needs to address much more directly if it wants to persuade the unconverted that “America is a communist country”, or even that socialism has achieved “effective supremacy of the demotic state over distributed economic interests”.

    http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=f0ehzfQ4hAQ

    If this kind of thing can be addressed succinctly and persuasively, I think it would be a very useful weapon in the NR arsenal when the prime-time media exposure finally arrives.

    admin Reply:

    ‘NRx’ has been locked in by twitter-format (#NRx is a functional thing there). It’s an improvement upon ‘NR’ because it cannot be confused with New Right or (*shudder*) National Review.

    Posted on February 16th, 2014 at 2:13 pm Reply | Quote
  • Golf Club Says:

    That’s too easy: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/07/what-is-poverty
    Most of the ‘poor’ have it better today than many rich people had it less than a hundred years ago. But this will never be a popular thing to say because the rightwing defense of inequality will never be popular.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    “the rightwing defense of inequality will never be popular” — so either inequality or popular voice has to go.

    [Reply]

    Golf Club Reply:

    Spot on. I’ll take inequality. It reminds me of a story about Mitt Romney visiting Papa John Schnatter’s mansion and saying something along the lines of “A Democrat looks at this place and says nobody should be allowed to live like this. A Republican looks at this place and says everyone should have an opportunity to live like this.” Substitute Dem for Leftist and Rep for Neoreactionary and I think it rings true.

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 17th, 2014 at 3:22 am Reply | Quote
  • Rasputin Says:

    “Most of the ‘poor’ have it better today than many rich people had it less than a hundred years ago.”

    But why? Obviously things have become cheaper as a result of capitalism/mass-production, but isn’t it also the re-routing of capital via state redistribution that has enabled “100% of poor households to own a refrigerator”?

    Obviously, you can get rid of public voice (or at least it’s feedback effect on government) much more easily than eradicate inequality (well, you could kill everyone), but in terms of persuading people who may be receptive to NRx ideas of their superiority, neither of those options are immediately helpful – what is needed are rebuttals so simple and concise they can go viral, like the above video did.

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 17th, 2014 at 11:23 am Reply | Quote
  • Golf Club Says:

    Ok, I see what you’re saying. I think NRx has potential precisely because most of it’s adherents are young (between 16 and 40 seems common) and it refuses to dumb itself down to redneck Fox News level. Of course, if it becomes an echo chamber intellectual circle jerk it faces the same problem that plagued the European New Right and all the other rightwing Gramscians that focused purely on writing philosophy journals instead of reaching out to mainstream parties. You can keep your smarts but sell propaganda to the unitiated. I say do what the New Left did to the Democrats, what CATO did to the Tea Party and the Neocons did and to the rest of the Republicans: join the mainstream center-right party in whatever country you are in, and tip the scales from within.

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 17th, 2014 at 2:39 pm Reply | Quote
  • Rasputin Says:

    Which is a very different position to that of Moldbug: don’t support the outer party, don’t vote, if you do vote vote for the party most likely to win (which is usually whoever the media says it is), effectively build a government in exile untarnished by democracy/politics, which were it subsequently to achieve power would already have contaminated it, hence the separation of plinth and that which comes after it… i.e. What you are arguing is much more conventional right wing politics armed with NRx insights/analysis, which is therefore a massive step backwards from MM’s Exit strategy as outlined in a GI.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Indeed.

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 17th, 2014 at 3:34 pm Reply | Quote

Leave a comment