Yes, prior to the Great Depression, Fascism did try to preserve the aspects of Capitalism that would enable its adherents to facilitate Italy’s eventual transition to State Corporatism. It would have been comparable to the idea of Mainland China using the Dengist economic reforms to lay the groundwork for Chinese Scientific Socialism. What the Pan-Germanic Socialists are trying to insinuate in the first quoted paragraph is how do we know that Mussolini and the Italian Fascists are going in that direction? If Fascist Italy did survive long to reach the late 20th century, what makes us think that Fascist Italy would not become the “Authoritarian Capitalism” that people have long accused Fascism of being? What are the odds that Fascist Italy would resemble those Latin American Authoritarian Capitalisms that later defined the continent in the late 20th century? Could we make the same arguments about Spain and Portugal?
Those are just some of the questions that Pan-Germanic Socialism wants us to ask regarding the Corporatists and Syndicalists. They cannot aspire to become their own alternatives to Neoliberalism without challenging the Fractional-Reserve Banking System and the Market/Mixed Economy that form a triumvirate with the Parliament. The advocacy of a “Ständestaat,” while that can be construed as being Corporatist, can also be recontextualized in a Socialistic interpretation. Unlike the Italian Fascists, who touted a Corporate State presiding over Organized Labor and the Business Community through corporations and syndicates, the Pan-Germanic Socialists are inclined to insist on a new Social Ranking System. Rather than having personal status in the German Reich on the basis of their blood and wealth, everyone’s status is defined by their commitments to the common good.
Like you said, we do not see this sort of thinking at all in Fascist Italy, let alone Spain or Portugal. If it were not for Hitlerism, Fascist Italy, Spain and Portugal might have gone in the direction of Pan-Germanic Socialism as described by the other non-Hitlerist factions. The challenge in that case would not be about adopting the Germanic National Consciousness per se, but learning the lessons provided by Pan-Germanic Socialism in order to eventually abandon Neoliberalism in its entirety.
This is why we have to always remember that the “Nationalism” of this ideology has consistently been understood by its adherents and non-adherents in the German-speaking world to mean “Pan-Germanism.” Pan-Nationalisms like Pan-Germanism, Pan-Europeanism, or Pan-Arabism are capable of becoming multinational and multiethnic so long as they retain a shared National Consciousness. That was why I pointed out that those in favor of “Austrian Nationalism” or “Prussian Nationalism” will also be opposed to the aims of Pan-Germanism. The former was discernible in Austrian opposition to Pan-Germanic Socialism, as evidenced by an earlier ARPLAN post on the Vaterland Front.
However, with Pan-Germanism and Pan-Europeanism, the dynamics change immensely in ways that people in Europe and elsewhere have yet to comprehend. One Pan-Nationalism seeks to demarcate the German-speaking world and Europe, whereas the other that views the German-speaking world as inseparable from Europe. Here, that conception of Race described by Rudolf Jung in Der nationale Sozialismus (2nd Ed.), which is tied to its own conception of Freedom, comes into play. Race is a social construct bound to the National Consciousness of a Volksgemeinschaft. This notion that a new “European Race” could be forged through European integration vis-à-vis the EU/NATO is ridiculous to Pan-Germanic Socialism, which would have stressed that Europe’s racial diversity should be preserved and cherished. Its own conception of Euroscepticism would also be framed on those grounds as well.
Leave a Reply