All liberal, socialist, and Marxist societies, regardless of their specific economic system, have one thing in common: They are all tied to the economy. Such social forms, based exclusively on an economic worldview — as Louis Pauwels said, “economy as destiny” — ultimately offer the same human ideal: wealth and material happiness.
Only the means that lead to this path differ: on the one hand we have a market economy and free trade, on the other: planning and nationalization.
To describe the essence of Western society tied to the economy, theorists resort to various expressions such as the “consumer society,” “capitalist society,” and “liberal society.” None of these definitions is satisfactory, however.
- The expression “consumer society” is valuable because it emphasizes the phenomenon of consumption as the main social characteristic of our society, but consumption is not essentially a Western feature, just as production.
- The term “capitalist society” also cannot be considered more accurate, given that the term “capitalism” describes any industrial society (American, European, or Asian) that accumulates capital and derives benefits from it.
- The expression “liberal society” has no meaningful value at all, because it describes a social system that has never existed. This term really expresses nothing more than a theoretical wish.
- The expression “collectivist society,” used by liberals to denote the communist social form, can equally refer to both the Middle Ages and prehistoric social formation.
The inability to define the specifics of industrial society using the above terms forces us to introduce — at least for the description of Western social forms — the concept of commercial society: and although it does not describe a specific economic system, it all the more emphasizes the hypertrophy of the economic function. The result of this hypertrophy is the dominance of the Western mentality by a collective preoccupation with trade.
In other words, the term “trade” in no way indicates an economic structure, but rather a certain collective system of values that defines not only the economic sphere, but also all social institutions without exception.
Condemnation of a certain economic formation does not at all imply condemnation of economism as such; neither Right-wing nor Left-wing radicals realize this.
Their maximalist theses against profit, the principle of the market economy, the banking system, the hiring system, or the production-consumer cycle promote even more destructive ideas than economism itself. Moreover, the fact that socialist and Marxist anti-capitalism has proved unable to confront the shortcomings of the mercantile economic system and even serves to strengthen it is primarily due to the fact that Marxist economic theorists, as well as neoliberals, subordinate economics to morality, whereas economics should only be a method and tool for politics.
The concept of a society based on trade should not be equated with the concept of the mercantile society. They are not equivalent: for example, the Republic of Venice or the cities of the Hanseatic League had a mercantile economic system at the basis of their greatness, without leading to a society based on trade. Likewise, each individual can be mercantile and profit-seeking without succumbing to a mercantile mentality. Entrepreneurs, peasants, artists, or even great conquerors can have mercantile motivations and at the same time remain strangers to its spirit.
Conversely, without any hint of financial gain, individuals follow the reasoning and judgments that indicate their acceptance of the values of a mercantile society.
The main characteristic of a commercial society is the judgment of all life phenomena exclusively from the point of view of the buying and selling process, and not necessarily according to financial criteria. The dominance of the logic of trade does not necessarily mean the dominance of money, although the latter point is also quite important. But in fact, modern commercial society is no more focused on profit than any other: socialist states, ancient societies, and pre-revolutionary France were all equally in the clutches of the temptation to increase profits.
On the contrary, the commercial society is characterized primarily by the fact that in it, commercial values have penetrated non-economic and non-mercantile structures, gradually destroying them. Behavioral and assessment criteria typical for trade have penetrated into non-mercantile areas of the economy as well, such as investments in production.
Market values (economic determinism, the spirit of calculation) are necessary and not subject to doubt in themselves, because they fully correspond to the specifics of trading activity. But now they have gradually supplanted all three of the traditional functions of Indo-European societies: that of the tradesmen (economy, fertility, health), the military (militarism, defense), and sovereignty (politics, law, religion).
Commercial society leads to an extreme disorientation: people have only one system of values, which does not fit into all the varieties of forms of social activity. The economy itself suffers from such a mixture.
From a historical point of view, the invasion of the culture of the system of values based on trade coincided with the rise and spread of the bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisification of social and cultural values – a consequence of the displacement of all the aforementioned functions by the mercantile spirit — came with a high price: the fall of cultures, the physiological domestication of peoples (see Konrad Lorenz), long-term demographic decline (see Raymond Ruet), and a general moral crisis. The state, burdened with socioeconomic responsibilities, has lost its political meaning.
But if, as we believe, the main purpose of the state is to implement historical dynamics and ensure political balance between peoples, then a completely different economic perspective emerges: the economy must be returned to its rightful place and used as a subordinate strategy that provides society with the correct management of material wealth. It should not be considered the only possible means of human development.
In the organic concept we are proposing, the economy again takes the place of a separate link in the common system of an organic society. According to this logic, the values and motives of sovereignty are placed above the economy and must impose themselves on it. The latter, however, always functions according to its own laws — that is, the laws of mercantilism: the desire for profit, as well as financial and production expediency. Depending on the field, the economy can be capitalist or planned, make a profit or not, or be privatized or nationalized.
In the long term, the organic form of the economy is twice as revolutionary: firstly, it causes the gradual curtailment of the mass production of goods for individual consumption with the prospect of ending the domestication of man through welfare (at the same time without falling into deficit); secondly, because it promotes the emergence of a new economic elite, and not just “new mechanisms.” The circulation of elites in the conditions of a trade economy is complicated: entrepreneurs authorized to develop industrial production do not have the necessary “profile,” since the system gives preference to careerists, managers, and technocrats.
The trading system paradoxically oppresses the genuine economic aristocracy — creative people — pushing them into the shadow of the enterprise’s anonymous apparatus. It promotes the idea of survival at any cost rather than spiritual entrepreneurship (instead of founding new enterprises, it is proposed to insure jobs and support bankrupt sectors of the economy). Liberals on the Left and Right, who are so much in love with profitability, are actually holding back large-scale industrial projects that have far-reaching economic prospects (Concorde aircraft, maglev trains, etc.). Thus, liberalism in trade no longer seems to be the driving force behind industrial and economic efficiency, especially from the perspective of long-term prospects, because it is not well suited to support the prosperity of complex economic structures. This is so even if one does not question the short-term economic utility in the matter of “revitalizing” economic sectors or in ensuring the abundance of the personal consumption goods.
![](https://counter-currents.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/BenoistJungerCoverMedium-194x300.jpg)
You can buy Alain de Benoist’s Ernst Jünger between the Gods and the Titans here.
The dogma which calls for an endless increase in the standard of living, subordinating the entire social space to itself, essentially blocks any initiatives by the liberal guardian state to overcome the existing crisis. The welfare dictatorship, which finds its economic expression in tax policy, has turned into a taboo that is obeyed by anyone (the government, employers, trade unions).
Belief in the need for an endless increase in profits as a result of the systematization of macroeconomic analysis — the crown of all liberal economic theories — inspires a number of other dogmas (the theory according to which inflation converges with the money supply; the theory of freezing price growth by means of credit restrictions; the theory of demand stimulation; the theory of passive trade balance). Since the days of Keynes, Marxists and neoliberals have based all their policies on such macroeconomic analyses: the abstract, even reductionist character of this approach takes into account only the most important economic factors and economic spheres, which undermines any claims to their accuracy. In addition, macroeconomics constantly uses averaged concepts: the average consumer, the average household, the average enterprise, average earnings, etc. All these reflections based on average indicators, so full of egalitarian and demagogic factors, turn out to be absolutely useless in action.
In contrast to micro- and macroeconomics, organic economics gives preference to more productive and at the same time realistic concepts of basic economic and supra-economic relations. The first covers those types of commercial relations necessary in any form of economy: profit-oriented enterprises or households that act solely in their own interests. The second belongs to the type of relationship that takes into account the interests of the entire system, including non-economic ones (the problem of surplus).
The concept of basic economic and supra-economic relations comes from Bertalanffy’s general theory of systems: income (the basic economic reality) is just a link in the system that generates surplus (the super-economic reality). From the point of view of organic economics, commercial society is generally governed by basic economic relations both in matters of public policy and in the activities of firms.
In the framework of an organic society, everything is the opposite: the most important economic subjects (banks, corporations, large firms) are guided by a supra-economic position; without ignoring their own interests, they take into account collective, political, ecological, and cultural needs.
An interesting observation: modern hypereconomism, a product of the fixation on an essentially economic point of view, is gaining momentum in parallel with the difficulties presented by the liberal economy, which is trying its best to preserve the dynamics of labor productivity. These efforts might eventually cause a real disaster. The modern economic machine relies on the constant growth of labor productivity (organizational progress) and capital (technical innovation and new inventions). These factors of production are essentially based on the quality of human labor, which is entirely dependent on the psychosocial environment. However, the modern commercial society neglects the psychological principle, and the two main representatives of this approach to society, socialism and liberalism, unknowingly destroy a healthy psychosocial climate.
Under normal conditions, the cost of labor and income should be proportional, but thanks to the spread of the petty-bourgeois idea of leisure, the irresponsibility of salaried workers, the pension system, the spread through advertising of the psychology of laziness and ubiquitous consumerism, such things as profit and well-being are no longer perceived as the result of making any effort.
There will come a time when economic growth based on ingenuity will no longer be able to overcome the evil that no one dares to name: the passion for inactivity.
Instead of promoting the development of an economy based on the principles of labor productivity, the commercial society reproduces the economy of a speculative nature, depriving determined entrepreneurs, and primarily innovators, of initiative. The banks, whether private or national, are responsible for the dominance of the speculative economy — caring above all about their own balance sheet and ignoring overall productivity, they do not want to risk investing in creative projects except in situations where the state protects them by providing exceptional economic conditions.
The contradiction between the public and private sectors of the economy — which has been eliminated by the emergence of the semi-public sector, where the state behaves as a private entrepreneur — is no longer significant. Nowadays, conflicts arise even between state-owned enterprises, and between departments or national firms. This artificial division between private and state enterprise essentially conceals the catastrophic collapse of the state itself and the corresponding collapse of its economic unity.
The bureaucracy’s economic influence is perfectly compatible with liberal ideology and the development of commercial society, as well as with mass consumption: This is confirmed by the presence of businesses whose charters clearly state their orientation toward state interests, but their actual behavior is dictated by the same private commercial logic. The same applies to banks and other financial institutions.
Regarding the private sector, the state prefers to pursue a policy of support, similar to the attitude toward nationalized economic entities: in fact, this is a tactic of short-term financial and “paternalistic” assistance, instead of a policy of long-term stimulus.
In such circumstances, the main obstacle to developing a non-trading national economy is, as paradoxical as it may sound, not the private economy, but widespread bureaucratic interference, as well as the concept of the general welfare state.
The organic economy abolishes the false juridical contrast between the private and public spheres. In contrast to other doctrines, the organic economy is not dogmatic and allows the parallel coexistence of the public and private sectors while allowing state-owned enterprises to participate in market processes within the framework allowed by the economic situation. In other cases, the state, acting in the national interest, conducts economic policy using non-economic methods. Being purely pragmatic, and in the interests of serving national politics, the organic system resorts to all kinds of tactics: profit, planned or self-government, as well as the nationalization of the market. In fact, the organic economy prefers to introduce a division not between the public and private sectors, but between the national interest and economic interest, regardless of the legal status of businesses.
The biggest confusion in the commercial society is located precisely in businesses: social dissatisfaction, being essentially a psychological phenomenon, was interpreted by economists via the mentality of economism in the form of quantitative needs. For the most part, however, the latter are merely a product of an unconscious frustration with the commodification of everyday life, which is expressed in inadequate demands for salary increases and purely quantitative requests. Modern theories about the so-called targeted enrichment in entrepreneurship as a means of overcoming the negative consequences of the division of labor are one of the rare positive opportunities to resist the growing alienation of the younger generations from work.
Unfortunately, such methods of solving psychosociological problems are limited to the framework of the business economy. Any fables about solving these issues through the “reorganization” of businesses, a new idée fixe of modern Marxist and liberal sociologists, are doomed from the start and can only end in economic totalitarianism: the corporation — above all the multinational — seeks to become an ersatz community for its employees as well as the nation.
Therefore, the only forces capable of effectively resisting the economic totalitarianism of the Torgashe spirit and its claims to world domination are logically rooted in economic nationalism, and not at all in socialist internationalism. Marxist internationalism and the myth of the proletariat have never called into question the very foundations of commercial society: thus, the opposition of one internationalism to another remains an illusory solution. And only political, economic, and cultural nationalism can really resist the market and Marxist system with a strongly-interconnected common egalitarian worldview.
In the end, it becomes clear that liberal trade internationalism is much more dangerous to the cultural identity of peoples than the Marxist internationals, of which there are many. In the matter of the internationalization of forms of design, values, and interests, Marxism turned out to be much less successful than liberalism, just as Marxists failed to establish themselves as a national class and a factor of economic “necessity.”
![](https://counter-currents.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/ThoughWeBeDeadCover-2-194x300.jpg)
You can buy Tito Perdue’s Though We Be Dead Yet Our Day Will Come here.
Torgashe’s logic is satisfied with short-term improvisations and the creation of primitive, individualistic, and petty materialism, destroying the political and historical interests of the peoples subject to it.
As soon as the vital needs of society are satisfied, the economic notion of utility is blurred. The production of products for everyday consumption is devoid of any imagination: The same products are reproduced, without any innovation; Inventiveness and technical know-how are either not applied at all or are applied in the wrong way because of the risk of not making a profit: We prefer an upgraded “gadget” to a completely new product. Artificial and loaded with pseudoscientific characteristics, “innovations” do not bring anything new, and instead increase the domestication of the user.
Marketing philosophy is most responsible for this mistrust in true innovation: the problem is how to sell as quickly as possible and at the highest price. The customer desperately wants “newness,” but at the same time he is conservative: in order to minimize risk, manufacturers of mass consumer products never miss the opportunity of putting a “new wrapper” on an old product rather than trying to introduce a new product to the market, which may turn out to be too expensive and not very popular. In sales strategies, the “experts” know very well that today a “target” product or some cleverly-produced gadget is sold more quickly than an objective technical innovation.
The logic of the modern trading system generates technical regression. We can compare a whole list of unrealized advanced technologies, and it keeps growing: a hydropneumatic car, a linear electric motor, a train on a magnetic cushion, a videophone, an oscillating motor, etc.
The priority placed on consumption clearly emphasizes the reduction of the economy to the “social” sphere, focusing it on the distribution of material comfort. Ultimately, the economy loses its innovative function. As a result, the entire social machinery changes: If workers’ strikes in the nineteenth century were caused by the terrible working conditions of the industrial proletariat, today’s strikes are in most cases caused by psychological and political attitudes. In essence, this is a “decline” of demands, as evidenced by the narrow-minded corporate thinking of bourgeois wage-earners.
For their part, the economic “elites” shy away from the creation of new jobs: financial managers of large banks and leading employers have become accustomed to the same bureaucracy as civil servants, and are terrified of risk and innovation. The foundations of the system of trade, the big banks, began to use restrictive investment criteria, taking into account only their own financial interests. Today, the innovator has very few prospects of getting support. The founders of new businesses find themselves in the same position, despite the ridiculous limited loans for the “winners of competition” that some banks are trying to proudly present to the public.
Focused exclusively on making a profit rather than strengthening the national economy, the economic elites are unable to cope with elementary problems: the crisis in the textile industry and shipbuilding and the general increase in the cost of production in Europe, which is happening in parallel with the entry into the international market of the products of the Eastern Bloc countries and Far East.
In this regard, it would not be an exaggeration to speak of another “return of the hard times” after a period of 30 years’ of prosperity, as Jean Fourastier has already done. But who cares? Who is interested in developing a new industrial strategy? Who will prepare the nations for the end of the era of prosperity?
Unlike antebellum economic theorists who faced the crisis of the 1930s, today’s theorists already know the causes of the impending Great Depression, as well as the effective means of countering it. But . . . they fundamentally refuse to consider those economic policies that do not correspond to the principles of neoliberalism.
If we consider it schematically, the current crisis is caused by the interaction of three circumstances: the impoverishment of traditional sources of energy and the corresponding increase in their cost; the massive invasion of the market of the underdeveloped countries, whose products are becoming more and more competitive with the increase in the costs of European production; and finally, the slow but inevitable collapse of the international monetary system, which is still based on the dollar.
The problem can be solved by the introduction of an organic economy implemented throughout the united European economic space, because the size of the latter enables optimal interaction between production and consumption. The main power lines of the organic system are offered below, without going into technical details.
Economic policies implemented in response to the destabilization of the world market can only make sense during the medium-term planning period (from ten to 15 years), which is already incompatible with the basic principles of neoliberal politics, not to mention libertarianism (the ultimate goal of neoliberalism).
Three threats — the energy crisis, competition from developing countries, and the collapse of the global financial system — make it impossible to solve this problem globally, because the growing crisis itself is the result of the excessive internationalization of economic mechanisms. This premise is fundamentally incompatible with the dogma of free trade and economic internationalism advocated by liberals. The answer to the problem lies in the so-called economic spaces — a key concept of the organic economy that corresponds to modern times.
At the European level, this new economic form can be implemented with the help of four essential structural procedures:
- the creation of semi-autocratic economic spaces;
- the withdrawal from the international currency system;
- a medium-term plan for the introduction of alternative sources of energy; and
- the modification of relations between the state and the entrepreneur.
Such a policy is possible in the presence of an elementary political will and a refusal to be paralyzed by various deterministic arguments that consider its implementation impossible: the European community is a high-class industrial, technological, and agricultural power, and its internal market is practically inexhaustible.
![](https://counter-currents.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/NANRVol1-1.jpg)
You can buy North American New Right vol. 1 here.
A semi-autonomous country will consist of a policy of conducting foreign trade on the American model (of 1900-1970) — that is, with the share of the foreign component in the national GDP at a level below 5%; the strength of the European internal market makes this goal quite achievable. The lack of natural resources is an obstacle that can be solved; for example, by a ten-year intensive program for the development of alternative energy (nuclear, solar, or geothermal energy), the breeding of bioenergy plants, and strict measures to conserve energy consumption.
In such a case, it would be necessary to limit the European economic space via effective customs barriers — on the model of the United States and Japan, which impose free-trade rules on their trading partners, but do not observe them themselves. Only exiting the international monetary system and the International Monetary Fund, which imposes devaluation and the dollar on Europe, can lead to the restoration of European monetary independence. It is this decision, combined with energy independence, that will deprive the oil countries and the US of their main weapon in the economic war: the manipulation of the euro/dollar exchange rate.
Such an economic strategy involves a review of the relationship between the state and the entrepreneur in accordance with the criteria of organic political theory, ending the division into public/private, disciplinary and political encouragement from the state; and respect for the laws of the market, but within the indisputable framework of the legal and political space: i.e., the plan. This strategy also assumes that a certain share of domestic demand for goods for individual consumption will give way to a demand for goods for collective consumption and national investment. In this way, we will be able to leave the consumer economy without falling into a deficit economy.
In fact, our critique of commercial society is not a critique of industrialization or technical modernization: the organic community that opposes itself to commercial society has nothing to do with environmentalism and Ivan Ilyich’s “society of coexistence.” Technology, this banal tool and its attendant cultural habits should not be condemned just because technomorphic civilization carries with it known dangers.
The Leftist and environmentalist criticism of commercial society remains identical to the biblical condemnation of the Tower of Babel and accursed gold: society is bad only because it gravitates toward wealth and the will to power! However, these criteria are not decisive for the essence of a commercial society. It aspires not to power, but to individual happiness at the cost of the historical existence of peoples.
Today, industrialized countries face a double task: to use the fantastic technical and economic apparatus they possess for purposes other than mass consumption, and subordinate the economy to the political, reviving it by means of a large-scale collective project.
Such an economic revolution can only take place through a cultural revolution aimed at overcoming modern mental alienation. The European, paralyzed by the well-being of mass civilization, loses the thread that connects him to his ancestors. This thin thread needs to be strengthened. The end of the commercial society, symbolized by America and supported by liberal ideology, is a necessary condition for the emergence of an independent Europe.
This great example of the short-term economic behavior practiced by a mercantilist society — the call for mass foreign immigration — will undoubtedly go down in the annals of European history as one of its biggest mistakes.
At first, in the early 1950s, it was only about filling a temporary labor shortage. Then, over the years, it became a habit to use immigrant workers from distant countries. Thanks to their former colonies, France and England took first place among the “importing” countries. Conceived as a temporary means of building new industrial structures, mass immigration had the unexpected backfire effect of actually changing those structures themselves.
Separate considerations that cannot be quantified were never taken into account by politicians: yes, the sociocultural uprooting of the labor force, as well a the incompatibility of unemployment and immigration were ignored. The liberal market system did not even think about the purely economic disadvantages and excessive social damage that would be inflicted by immigration in this particular case. In the short term, the mercantile mind has failed to realize that imported labor is in itself detrimental to economic profitability, as recognized by all employment experts.
It became clear that in the medium term, immigration costs much more than it benefits society: it is worth simply adding up all the “costs” of immigration. Its gross cost combines various fees, training costs, repatriation of wages, accommodation costs, as well as social costs arising from the very fact of the presence of a large number of immigrants in the country. All these are funds that could be spent on the realization of lost opportunities: investments in modernization, productivity improvement, savings on social costs, etc. As a result, profit is found only on the balance sheet of the immigration service and individual companies, while the entire nation only suffers a loss.
Foreign labor immigration is a new form of slavery and a substitute for economic innovation. During the Roman Empire, slavery hindered innovation and contributed to decline. After all, using slaves is the easiest solution. But innovation is a necessary condition for competitiveness. In addition, immigration has very serious social and cultural consequences. Immigrant workers are separated from their roots, which profoundly changes their identity, not having the opportunity to integrate into the host country. By allowing the economy to rely uncontrollably on the human reservoir of the Third World, the state allowed a situation to be created that could turn into a tragedy in the long run. When a certain threshold is exceeded, all kinds of difficulties arise: discrimination, segregation, deculturation, crime, etc. — difficulties that deeply harm all the communities involved in this process. Liberal employers and irresponsible government agencies encourage the importation of cheap and non-union, and therefore easily exploited, labor: It was a good financial transaction in the short term. In fact, by covering the costs of migrant workers’ professional training, accommodation, and social security, as well as that of their families, society offered disguised subsidies to the most archaic companies; the “lame ducks” of the economy preferred to “consume” labor rather than invest in the necessary equipment.
The worst and most difficult jobs were left to the migrants — those jobs that were destined to disappear long ago, but which the presence of this mass — who are in fact modern slaves — kept them from disappearing.
At the same time, the French, already discouraged by the prevailing mentality to switch to industrial or manual work, are leaving business: the presence of foreign workers, who are much less demanding, pushes employers and the state to maintain a policy of low wages, especially for as long as jobs in the service sector are more highly paid. Thus, the importation of cheap labor delays and distorts the evolution of industrial structures.
This does not at all confirm the myth that is being spread among the people according to which “migrants are taking the places of the French.” The situation is much more complicated: indeed, immigration is one of the factors of our current unemployment, but only to the extent that immigration caused the hypertrophy of the service sector. With immigrants monopolizing secondary and low-wage jobs, French citizens moved to service and more skilled jobs. Underprepared for these tasks and refusing low-paying industrial jobs, the French become unemployed and increasingly hard to satisfy.
The source of unemployment should be sought precisely in “selectivity in job search,” which coexists with a large number of unfilled vacancies. The unproductiveness of the service sector should be explained by the multitude of “fictitious jobs.” Without the immigrant labor force, a large proportion of our current unemployed would go, purely out of necessity, into industry, where jobs would soon be “enriched” in terms of the tasks performed and become better paid.
No one hides the fact that the most competitive economies today are those countries with the lowest share of immigrants.
Economically savvy employers and industrial investment banks could also invent a system other than immigration to deal with post-war labor shortages. Today, despite the temporary suspension of immigration, the situation cannot be resolved: Immigrant workers are joining trade unions and leaving their proletarian circumstances behind. They cost, in both maintenance and salaries, just as much as the country’s citizens, and are becoming less and less compliant.
Having become indispensable for industry, the immigrant masses block the modernization of businesses. The market economy has thus fallen into a vicious circle from which it will be extremely difficult to get out without denying itself.
The solution, which is difficult to achieve under the current market conditions, is to implement two strategies based on a unity of both investors and industrial planning: the gradual return of immigrants to their homelands, if necessary, by creating jobs in their countries, as well as a policy of large-scale industrial investment, thus creating jobs and enabling companies to modernize without the need for immigrant workers.
The outdated monetary logic of today’s leaders opposes such planning and investment policies, however — in the name of costs and monetary imbalances.
It is here that the marked difference between the organic economy and the “English” and neoliberal concepts of Raymond Barr, which are obsessed with credit and budget balance, becomes apparent. The organic economy considers these problems as secondary.
This may seem surprising, but historical examples demonstrate that monetary imbalances do not affect the competitiveness of the economic system. This is especially the case when there is high productivity in industry, strong commercial dynamism, and regular and massive financial infusions from the state, which are psychological and political rather than economic phenomena. Most of the large industrial countries — the US, Japan, France, Italy, and Germany — have all experienced similar situations very recently.
In general, the strength and productivity of a nation’s working capacity is far more important to the competitiveness of an economic system than the illusory game of monetary “mechanisms.”
The%20Organic%20Economy%20andamp%3B%C2%A0the%20Society%20Based%20on%20Trade%0A
Share
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
* * *
Counter-Currents has extended special privileges to those who donate at least $10/month or $120/year.
- Donors will have immediate access to all Counter-Currents posts. Everyone else will find that one post a day, five posts a week will be behind a “paywall” and will be available to the general public after 30 days. Naturally, we do not grant permission to other websites to repost paywall content before 30 days have passed.
- Paywall member comments will appear immediately instead of waiting in a moderation queue. (People who abuse this privilege will lose it.)
- Paywall members have the option of editing their comments.
- Paywall members get an Badge badge on their comments.
- Paywall members can “like” comments.
- Paywall members can “commission” a yearly article from Counter-Currents. Just send a question that you’d like to have discussed to [email protected]. (Obviously, the topics must be suitable to Counter-Currents and its broader project, as well as the interests and expertise of our writers.)
To get full access to all content behind the paywall, please visit our redesigned Paywall page.
Related
-
Nowej Prawicy przeciw Starej Prawicy, Rozdział 11: Radzenie sobie z holokaustem
-
When Our Leaders Get Mud on Their Trousers
-
What I’ve Learned about People Who Believe in the Mainstream Narratives from Board Games
-
Blue Sunshine: The Whiteness of Goth
-
Nowej Prawicy przeciw Starej Prawicy, Rozdział 10: Brzemię Hitlera
-
Nowej Prawicy przeciw Starej Prawicy Rozdział 9: Nasza wina?
-
A Heavenly Message with Great Significance?
-
Notes on Plato’s Gorgias, Part 4: The Master Art
If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.