For those, among whom we were until very recently, who did not know, ‘Il Fascismo visto dalla Destra. Note sul III Reich’ has been translated and published by Arktos, yet as two separate books: ‘Fascism viewed from the Right’, and ‘Notes on the Third Reich’. The former is reviewed at http://www.counter-currents.com/2013/04/fascism-as-antimodernism-julius-evola-fascism-viewed-from-the-right/ ; the latter at http://www.counter-currents.com/2013/05/julius-evolas-notes-on-the-third-reich/. These are not critical reviews, even though the latter comes with a few thoughts. For example, « Without being an historian, we are warned, I am forced to suspect this aspect of Nazi policy [corporatism] of being just another example of central control barely disguised beneath a spurious antique and “organic” sounding terminology.”
Did the Reich become a corporate state? “In theory, Jean Martin, a scholar knowledgeable of the economy of the Third Reich, corporations (Stände) were autonomous organisations able to run themselves (Selbsverwaltung). In reality, the Stände had no autonomy and were absolutely dominated by the state ; their leaders, by application of this Führerprinzip, which claims to delegate authority to the most worthy, [were] not qualified representatives of the corporation, but State officials.” (http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/article/ingeo_0020-0093_1936_num_1_5_4779) According to Ludwig von Mises, to whose credit must be put the capacity to glimpse, albeit reluctantly, the difference between Soviet interventionism and National-Socialist interventionism in economical matters, in the German pattern there are “no longer entrepreneurs, but only shop managers (Betriebsfuhrer in the terminology of the Nazi legislation [‘Betriebsführer’ actually means precisely ‘entrepreneur’]). These shop managers (sic) are seemingly instrumental in the conduct of the enterprises entrusted to them; they buy and sell, hire and discharge workers and remunerate their services, contract debts and pay interest and amortization. But in all their activities they are bound to obey unconditionally the orders issued by the government's supreme office of production management. This office (The Reichswirtschaftsministerium in Nazi Germany) tells the shop managers (sic) what and how to produce, at what prices and from whom to buy, at what prices and to whom to sell. It assigns every worker to his job and fixes his wages. It decrees to whom and on what terms the capitalists must entrust their funds… All the wages, prices, and interest rates are fixed by the government; they are wages, prices, and interest rates in appearance only; in fact they are merely quantitative terms in the government's orders determining each citizen's job, income, consumption, and standard of living. The government directs all production activities. The shop managers are subject to the government, not the consumers' demand and the market's price structure.” Unsurprisingly, von Mises misses very much the ‘invisible hand’. Furthermore, he does not seem to have read the Work Order Act of 20 January 1934, by which the basis for labour relations in National-Socialist Germany was laid, and in which the Betriebsführer is given broad powers in various fields, for example on everything relevant to wages increase ; “the spirit of the reform was to move beyond classism and the class struggle within each business insofar as each of them were to develop a solidarity between the interests and performances of all its elements and reaffirm the Führerprinzip, that is, the relationship between a chief (Führer, entrepreneur) and his ‘retinue’ (management, the staff), who were united by relations of fidelity (‘Notes’, p. 44) The deproletarianisation of the worker and the elimination of speculative capitalism, “the basic conditions for the restoration of normal conditions” (‘Men among the Ruins’), were under way.
https://circle.ubc.ca/bitstream/handle/2429/21987/UBC_1980_A8%20K27.pdf?sequence=1 speculates on the reasons why A. Hitler, once in favour of corporatism, abandoned it in 1930 – in ‘The Questionnaire’, E. von Salomon discussed some other of these reasons. The main one may not have been spotted. Any form of workers interest group was strongly opposed by A. Hitler, and, rightly or wrongly, he may have come to identify corporatism with interest groups. National-Socialist economical interventionism may seem extremist, yet what is extreme was the economical and social context in which National-Socialists came to power, not to mention the contemporary ‘human material’.
Today, given the incompetence and the irresponsibility of those welfare recipients most ‘businessmen’ actually are (most of the businesses in Western European countries, from aeronautics to local bus companies, operate with a system of subsidies worthy of the Soviet Union’s, subsidies which in turn come from the tax-payers’ pockets), would it be reasonable to let such individuals enjoy the autonomy they are granted under the democratic conditions we live in, should these conditions change to the best, and some adequate, appropriate prophylactic measures be implemented ?
From economy to finance, there is a now a thin line, an increasingly thinner one, - some would call it a ‘string’ - and, in addition to the most insightful analogies that have been made lately by two members on economy, we would like to let you reflect upon the following paragraph, in the light of the ever-expanding ‘public debt’ (the ‘debt’ is public, while the benefits are ‘private’), exponentially ever-expanding at the speed of darkness, of so-called Western countries:
“The Aristotelian conception reflects remarkably well the Greek spirit. What prevails here is the disdain for infinity, this rebellious, shapeless, notion. Hellenic thought finds it perfect that which is complete, defined, and, therefore, bounded, that which forms a harmonious and organic whole. Only a few isolated thinkers, such as [the mixed-race] Anaximander [of Milet] spoke reverently of the sanctity of infinity. But Eastern influences soon imposed this view, which, with the advent of Christianity and also with some progress of modern science, has become ours: for us, it is infinity which generates the finite ; it is the finite which is a pure negation and limitation of infinity. This is not the only time that religious superstitions, whether social or scientific, put modern thought squarely at odds with [the Greek spirit].” (C. Labo, Aristote, 1922)
- The following exploratory study of National Socialism is worth mentioning.Weissmann, Karlheinz. "The Epoch of National Socialism." Journal of Libertarian Studies 12, No. 2 (1996): 257–293. Accessible through https://archive.org/details/TheEpochOfNationalSocialismIn the not quite satisfactory final conclusion, the author remains close to the visions of both Ludwig von Mises and Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn. In addition, too much importance is attached to the alleged influence of Social Darwinist views.
Attention: Starting December 14, 2019 Yahoo
Groups will no longer host user created content on its sites. New
content can no longer be uploaded after October 28, 2019.
Sending/Receiving email functionality is not going away, you can
continue to communicate via any email client with your group members. Learn More
evola_as_he_is@{{emailDomain}}