2ndHey there. Thanks for writing.
For me, politics is a complicated subject and I try to ultimately ground it in philosophy. I suppose you could say that I am something of a sort Strasserian, that is to say the Federal left of National Socialism; but I am also strongly influenced by the views of 'counter-revolutionaries' like Edmund Burke and Joseph de Maistre.
I my politico-moral views I suppose I would call myself a Utilitarian Liberal, influenced by John Stuart Mill and Herbert Spencer. This is usually where I find the most difference with many NS and Nationalist-right groups is that I am in favor of free-trade and private dominion over property. I believe it is the minimum requisite for social order and personal responsibility. What I am opposed to is banksterism, pseudo-'capitalism' and democratic disgenic experiments (which are, ironically, also influenced by John Stuart Mill).
I guess I would consider myself 'yet another' Third Positionist, involving a strong, liberal anti-leftist and anti-communist state. In terms of foreign policy I am an 'isolationist' and 'strict' nationalist, that is to say I don't think much in the outside world can or should be attempted to be controlled by the State, and that its military and police powers serve primarily to protect the physical, economic and intellectual integrity of those living within it.
"Burke was not always 'counter-revolutionary'"
Well, he did support the American Revolution and wrote an extremely radical quasi-anarchist tract when he was a young man, 'The Vindication of Natural Society'. When I say counter-revolutionary I suppose I mean it in its classical sense, as against the French Revolution. Although there are elements I respect in the French Revolution, I think ultimately it became the toy of the rationalists, Republicans and communists. What I like about Edmund Burke (and his admirer, Adam Smith) is their view of the role of organic institutions and social structures which can take a role in organizing society and resolving conflicts; which the French Revolution's 'leveling' totally destroyed without offering a viable alternative.
"Captialism in it's purest achieveable forms would still allow monopolistic controls of certain parts of production. Even if we allowed for increased competition, removed controls etc someone or some company would become dominant and greed would set in."
I disagree. I think these are all artifacts of interventionist measures, subsidy and so forth. More specifically, I am not sure the concept of 'monopoly' makes any sense in an unfettered market economy. I also have nothing against 'greed' or 'acquisitiveness', indeed, under the market system one makes the greatest profits by focusing the most solely on monetary returns. Contrary to the Platonic view of tradesmen, such individuals are an immense material and organizational benefit. The trouble really arises when those jealous of their success, or unable to make it in the market, begin to call for Unionist and State interventions into these regions.
Coming from the standpoint of utilitarian nationalism, the market economy is #1 the only possible system of social organization (socialism is impossible); #2 hampering the market economy simply interferes with the allocation of resources and raises the costs of production. As prices are the only logical connection between production, consumer satisfaction and the various alternative investments of capital goods interventionist policies are about the most clearly net-negative (in terms of society) state policy imaginable.
As for Ron Paul, he seems like a nice old man, but I can not stand 'elections', and I think he really provides no service. He is very much a Constitutionalist, and I am very much not.
"I find that many NS in the US, including Rockwell to a certain degree, support a liberal approach to economics."
Among the American 'conservatives' with a connection to the 'old right', those who formed the core of 'isolationism' and anti-new deal, there is a tradition of at least nominal respect for private enterprise. This never really existed in places of classical NS and Fascism; I think one of the greatest problems with the NSDAP is that huge swaths of former communist-supporters became NS voters and party members. As time went on (partly due to the war) the NS economy became more interventionist til the point where it was practically as bad as Stalin. All this despite a promising start, with Hitler's refusal to nationalize and socialize due to the crippling effects it would have on industry; and the strong controls he placed on inflation.
'Universal health care' will raise the costs of healthcare, reduce the supply and permanently cripple medical science.
3rd
"I do have a lot against greed because resources etc are finite. "
In an ultimate sense, but the thing to see is that goods and capital are subjective properties; they are not 'objective' or 'technical' facts about objects, but the relationship to human satisfaction these hold; and the knowledge people possess about their use. Unfettered markets are constantly generating new and better resources, finding alternatives (often superior) to failing sources as prices for their use increase and developing capital and technology to the highest extent possible. There is some ultimate, ontological limitation on resources but I do not think it is a realistic problem unless one is dealing with socialist policies or trade barriers, which by their very nature restrict production and disrupt investment.
"People starve on the basis of that argument."
No, people starve because of interventions in the economy and trade barriers, as well as the instability of private property under certain regimes. People starve because of stupid wars over tariffs (World War 1) and insane plans to collectivize agriculture. People starve because the American empire subsidizes ethynal, diverting corn away from food uses into worthless, overly expensive 'alternative fuels'.
"I read much of classical liberal and libertarian economic ideas, they are based on seemingly logical arguments. For me the sad thing is that in order to use these arguments one has to describe human beings as consumers"
Not at all. A human being as a purposeful actor, as economizing scarce resources to achieve his ends, is a full human being; not a fiction nor a fractal of a real man. Whether he prefers patronizing prostitutes or the opera, whether he devotes his time to the accumulation of gold or friends, he is always an economizing actor. Laissez-faire in no way inhibits him from being an upright person, and in fact its very material prosperity and responsiveness to demand makes it all the more possible for him to be a genuine person of his own accord.
"National Socialism is so much more than an economic doctrine."
It is, it is a Völkisch movement, a nationalist movement and at its roots opposed to aristocracy, banksterism, internationalism, and egalitarianism. I agree in all these respects, and with many of its actual practices. What I disagree with are concrete examples of classical NS models, I think they were far too much under the sway of cranks and Bolshevik lies.
"I'd love to know about what you see in NS? "
Aside from the above, what do you mean?
Although I agree with human biodiversity and nationalist immigration objectives, I am not a racialist in the classical sense (though I might be called one in a more qualified sense, I do believe there are significant differences between sub-populations and ethnicities on the basis of genetics).
My view of nationalism is legal and cultural, that is someone is a citizen who is both a participant in the sovereign order of the national state and also who has accepted and adapted to the values of the Western dialectic of individual responsibility and national responsibility.
No comments:
Post a Comment