- 05 Oct 2011 06:20
#13807688
After an extended libertarian break, reading Mises and Hayek in particular, I have returned to flirt with fascism once more. If anything, they have made me even more ardently anti-communist and socialist, and in doing so I wish to find some kind of syncretic common ground between libertarianism and fascism. The logical connection seems to be corporations.
Corporations are the future. Indeed, they embody everything that I feel exist in a fascist movement. Replace nation in a fascist piece with corporation.
-Command structure that is thoroughly anti-democratic
-Highly disciplined workforce
-Meritocracy
-Ability to focus the energy of numerous individuals to fulfilling a goal
-Extremely efficient
-Potential to be militaristic or militarized. (Xe international)
As it stands corporations share many of the hallmarks of a fascist power-structure.
Fascism is economically quite left - my only concern here is that anything left of the right is ultimately doomed to fail. A Government should not attempt, nor bother with trying to manage a nation, palingenetic rebirth and run a business at the same time. Market Socialism is a failure. Many Fascists share common ground with some of the more right (paleo)Libertarians on certain issues
-Strong sense of Nationalism
-Militant Anti-Socialism
-Anti-Welfarism
-Anti-Political correctness/Newspeak
-Migration
-Tough stance on law (capital punishment, forced labor etc)
-Failure of the Youth
-Both looking for a "Rebirth" of sorts
The only real stickler between the two is the Fascist use of a command economy and the issue of civil rights/liberties. I stand convinced on the last two grounds from the Libertarian perspective.
Individuals should have basic inalienable negative rights - I do not believe in granting positive rights wholesale nor should they exist wholesale as they only encourage and foster weakness. The state should encourage self-reliance as opposed to this nanny-state mentality. Socio-Darwinism would be practiced in this form - not via Eugenics but by simple survival of the fittest. Much like how the market is ruthless in purging inefficient and failing businesses, so should the state purge weak members of society unable to take care of themselves. (a notable exception being those who have performed national service) This wouldn't be accomplished with bayonets or guns, simple indifference would do the job just as well. I for one do not mind seeing the filth of society die in the gutters once their lifelines at the expense of hardworking individuals are taken away
However, it is time to acknowledge that a) a totally free market will not be able to compete with a market that has the backing of the state. Which is why I'm opposed to a totally free market. A case in point is China. In this case what I mean to say is that instead of taking from the market via tax, the nation should give to it. Corporations wield considerable power in todays world. There is no sense stripping them of that power and alienating them - not only are they more efficient than the state in accomplishing a goal, but they are also more successful in the allocation and management of resources. A lower flat tax rate would encourage corporations and the state to be enmeshed together, a more useful and powerful ally than taking the path of the left in trying to utilize the corrupt intellectual liberal elite to engender a revolution of the masses. The state should make it its policy to actively encourage and court corporations, and rather than isolating them from the decision making process- involve them more. As it is, corporations are patriotic - they employ citizens. Now, instead of using the state as a tool to redistribute corporate wealth, the state can make it its active policy to expand corporate wealth. An expansion of corporate wealth comes to the benefit of society - corporations will have added incentive to reinvest in a state and society that actively supports their acquisition of resources/capital.
The way I see it, corporations are the new way to conquer land. No more is it done with steel and gunpowder, but rather acquisitions and property purchases. When a corporation can acquire resources for the "nation" in an imperialistic fashion without the insurgency and threat of war, there is truly an avenue for certain nations to remain ascendant.
More a series of ramblings than anything serious, I am interested in the opinions of paleolibertarians and fascists when it comes to the "other" ideology/
Corporations are the future. Indeed, they embody everything that I feel exist in a fascist movement. Replace nation in a fascist piece with corporation.
-Command structure that is thoroughly anti-democratic
-Highly disciplined workforce
-Meritocracy
-Ability to focus the energy of numerous individuals to fulfilling a goal
-Extremely efficient
-Potential to be militaristic or militarized. (Xe international)
As it stands corporations share many of the hallmarks of a fascist power-structure.
Fascism is economically quite left - my only concern here is that anything left of the right is ultimately doomed to fail. A Government should not attempt, nor bother with trying to manage a nation, palingenetic rebirth and run a business at the same time. Market Socialism is a failure. Many Fascists share common ground with some of the more right (paleo)Libertarians on certain issues
-Strong sense of Nationalism
-Militant Anti-Socialism
-Anti-Welfarism
-Anti-Political correctness/Newspeak
-Migration
-Tough stance on law (capital punishment, forced labor etc)
-Failure of the Youth
-Both looking for a "Rebirth" of sorts
The only real stickler between the two is the Fascist use of a command economy and the issue of civil rights/liberties. I stand convinced on the last two grounds from the Libertarian perspective.
Individuals should have basic inalienable negative rights - I do not believe in granting positive rights wholesale nor should they exist wholesale as they only encourage and foster weakness. The state should encourage self-reliance as opposed to this nanny-state mentality. Socio-Darwinism would be practiced in this form - not via Eugenics but by simple survival of the fittest. Much like how the market is ruthless in purging inefficient and failing businesses, so should the state purge weak members of society unable to take care of themselves. (a notable exception being those who have performed national service) This wouldn't be accomplished with bayonets or guns, simple indifference would do the job just as well. I for one do not mind seeing the filth of society die in the gutters once their lifelines at the expense of hardworking individuals are taken away
However, it is time to acknowledge that a) a totally free market will not be able to compete with a market that has the backing of the state. Which is why I'm opposed to a totally free market. A case in point is China. In this case what I mean to say is that instead of taking from the market via tax, the nation should give to it. Corporations wield considerable power in todays world. There is no sense stripping them of that power and alienating them - not only are they more efficient than the state in accomplishing a goal, but they are also more successful in the allocation and management of resources. A lower flat tax rate would encourage corporations and the state to be enmeshed together, a more useful and powerful ally than taking the path of the left in trying to utilize the corrupt intellectual liberal elite to engender a revolution of the masses. The state should make it its policy to actively encourage and court corporations, and rather than isolating them from the decision making process- involve them more. As it is, corporations are patriotic - they employ citizens. Now, instead of using the state as a tool to redistribute corporate wealth, the state can make it its active policy to expand corporate wealth. An expansion of corporate wealth comes to the benefit of society - corporations will have added incentive to reinvest in a state and society that actively supports their acquisition of resources/capital.
The way I see it, corporations are the new way to conquer land. No more is it done with steel and gunpowder, but rather acquisitions and property purchases. When a corporation can acquire resources for the "nation" in an imperialistic fashion without the insurgency and threat of war, there is truly an avenue for certain nations to remain ascendant.
More a series of ramblings than anything serious, I am interested in the opinions of paleolibertarians and fascists when it comes to the "other" ideology/
Books and bullets have their own destinies