/lit/ - Literature

>>20926749
Prof. A. J. P. Taylor, the eminent British historian, and hardly a Nazi sympathizer, writes:

>"Fascism, it was claimed, represented the last aggressive stage of capitalism in decline, and its momentum could be sustained only by war. There was an element of truth in this, but not much. The full employment which Nazi Germany was the first European country to possess, depended in large part on the production of armaments; but it could have been provided equally well (and was to some extent) by other forms of public works from roads to great buildings. The Nazi secret was not armament production; it was freedom from the then orthodox principles of economics . . . the argument for war did not work even if the Nazi system had relied on armaments production alone. Nazi Germany was not choking in a flood of arms. On the contrary, the German Generals insists unanimously in 1939 that they were not equipped for war and that many years must pass before “rearmament in depth” had been completed."

>Answering predictions of ruin by orthodox economists throughout the world, Hitler explained that Germany had not withdrawn from world trade but had bypassed the international financial system by means of barter, stating:

>"If certain countries combat the German system this is done in the first instance because through the German method of trading their tricks of international currency and Bourse speculations have been abolished in favor of honest business transactions. . . . We are buyers of good foodstuff and raw materials and suppliers of equally good commodities!"

>More recently a professional economist, Henry C K Liu[18], who can hardly be suspected of Hitlerism, analyzed the methods by which Germany emerged from the Depression:

>"The Nazis came to power in Germany in 1933, at a time when its economy was in total collapse, with ruinous war-reparation obligations and zero prospects for foreign investment or credit. Yet through an independent monetary policy of sovereign credit and a full-employment public-works program, the Third Reich was able to turn a bankrupt Germany, stripped of overseas colonies it could exploit, into the strongest economy in Europe within four years, even before armament spending began. In fact, German economic recovery preceded and later enabled German rearmament, in contrast to the US economy, where constitutional roadblocks placed by the US Supreme Court on the New Deal delayed economic recovery until US entry to World War II put the US market economy on a war footing. While this observation is not an endorsement for Nazi philosophy, the effectiveness of German economic policy in this period, some of which had been started during the last phase of the Weimar Republic, is undeniable."

>>19808195
National syndicalism is the natural conclusion of historical materialism. Leninism is just a broken form of syndicalism. Lenin and Stalin split over the nationality question just before Lenin died, because Lenin still believed in the direct-democratic capacity and autonomy of peoples within the greater union of soviet republics. This direct-democratic capacity is nothing other than the national principle in national syndicalism. Lenin was blinded by the atheistic and utopian-socialistic internationalism of Second International Marxism. But even he understood that utterly crushing the national principle under the boot-heel of a totalitarian party-state was going too far.

Sadly Stalin's USSR did not continue from this good instinct of Lenin but from Lenin's blindness, turning the revolution into a blind and headless terror incapable of setting down roots, just a rampaging party-machine for uprooting peoples and converting them into featureless gruel.

Third positionism sublates what is best and correct in both the left and the right, with the autistic excesses of neither.
https://counter-currents.com/tag/breaking-the-bondage-of-interest/

>Spain, like Italy where Fascism arose under similar circumstances, and France, had strong syndicalist elements in the labor movement. These Syndicalist elements first in France under the inspiration of Georges Sorel, and then in Italy, responded to a doctrinal crisis within socialism by taking on a national orientation which enabled a convergence with traditionalists and nationalists. The “Right” for its part saw in syndicalism a means of achieving a nationally integrated state that replaced the party with the profession and enabled a unity of factions instead of conflict engendered by parties, as counseled by Pope Leo. The syndicates (or trades unions) would assume a function within the nation rather than as a faction at war with the nation; they would become cells within the national organism, assuming the responsibilities for economic, social, and moral questions. The detestation of the liberal democracy of the bourgeois state by both Syndicalists and “Rightists” enabled the unification of anti-bourgeois forces that in France coalesced around the Proudhon Circle. There the Syndicalist followers of Georges Sorel and the traditional Catholic and nationalist followers of Charles Maurras and Action Française, united.[7] In Italy the same unity of purpose arose within the Nationalist Association, a precursor of Mussolini’s Fascio, which adopted syndicalism in 1919.[8]