Corporatism

TheRedSquirrel wrote:Perhaps we don't have the same idea in mind with what you call corporate Capitalism. Stripping the banks and giving the community the power of issuing credit is not what I consider Capitalist, nor giving that power to quasi-Democratic guilds do I consider to be Capitalist.

"Capitalism" is a mode of production characterized by the private ownership of the means of production, and by the "money->commodity->money" sequence of capital flow. Your sugestions fail to alter these premises, therefore, your suggestions do nothing to eliminate capitalism and it's main side effects.

TheRedSquirrel wrote:Because your politics is dead to the workers of the Western world, the Left is a joke to them, a hobby of the middle classes. Nationalism is the only politics that speaks to and for them, today, and i'm determined to make this Nationalism as rationally pro-worker as possible without worshipping the worker from afar and creating ridiculous fantasies about the grim reality of working class life.

You misjudge me. This forum and I are nationalist. Nationalism is not a system in the way that socialism and capitalism are. You can have socialism AND nationalism. Also, the left is growing. As income disparity rises, so will socialism. Try comparing the influence of socialism to that of corporativism. The ideology you espouse is profoundly anti-worker and anti-progressive .

Leon Mcnichol wrote:"Capitalism" is a mode of production characterized by the private ownership of the means of production, and by the "money->commodity->money" sequence of capital flow. Your sugestions fail to alter these premises, therefore, your suggestions do nothing to eliminate capitalism and it's main side effects.

Main side effects being everything you own and the quality of life you enjoy that beats any of your ancestors. Anybody of the developed world who doesn't give Capitalism its due in this respect is just another typical example of the ungrateful bourgeois of modernity; born spoilt, lives spoilt, dies spoilt. A sweatshop worker in Taiwan has the right to curse Capitalism, but not us.

Anyway, my aim is to remove some of the potency of Capitalism, with restructuring of the system and removal of the usurer banker you can grant power over the economy to local communities and experts. Capitalism as it stands now is dictated by consumer habits, which in turn are manipulated through advertising. I wish for economic advancement to go forward under different parameters. Grant people access to the business world at higher level, providing these people are of sufficient ability and know-how, so that they then may direct business towards a higher goal; the best Man for the job, the best job for the Man, with quality and merit taking primacy over Capitalist profit ethics as well as Socialist sloth ethics; the craftsmen's approach to economics.

I'm against class war, and for class collaboration because i'm aware just how talented some of the rich are and how we need them, i'm aware in the real world that economic incentives are needed to turn potential into ability, like a Capitalist believes. I certainly don't envy the talent of the rich, nothing within me delights at dragging everything down to the lowest denominator and nothing within me fears competition itself because i'm not beneath average or dysfunctional and competition is a fact of life, even finding a Woman is a competition.

I agree with Capitalism and Socialism, I disagree with Capitalism and Socialism. This is my belief.

Iron Vanguard wrote:You misjudge me. This forum and I are nationalist. Nationalism is not a system in the way that socialism and capitalism are. You can have socialism AND nationalism. Also, the left is growing. As income disparity rises, so will socialism. Try comparing the influence of socialism to that of corporativism. The ideology you espouse is profoundly anti-worker and anti-progressive .

Socialism will arise, but it will be a far more Conservative Socialism than you suppose. Culturally speaking the workers are with me and social conservatism, and, more than likely with the accepted failure of Communism, they'll opt for a collaborationist stance instead of class war. But then this is England and it's English to find a compromise through political superiority, chaos and anarchy is for the French rabble.

TheRedSquirrel wrote:I agree with Capitalism and Socialism, I disagree with Capitalism and Socialism. This is my belief.

You do realize that a socialist cannot agree with keeping the wage slaving system as it is now don't you? And that the class war you speak off exists because of said capitalism?

I am amazed how people can even hope that capitalism will somehow "turn good" just because the banking system is nationalized, totally ignoring that since the politicians own the power, they will cater to the capitalist class just as much or even more than now.

What you wish for is totally utopia. Believing that suddenly people will change, that capitalists will suddenly forfeit their role of having to increase their profits day and night? Not to mention that the capitalist system of production works in ways that are totally against any sort of "cooperation".

Anybody of the developed world who doesn't give Capitalism its due in this respect is just another typical example of the ungrateful bourgeois of modernity; born spoilt, lives spoilt, dies spoilt. A sweatshop worker in Taiwan has the right to curse Capitalism, but not us.

Tell that to the people who die daily in the streets of the developed world from hunger. Capitalism sure worked for them, as it sure is popular among eastern european people now.

Oh and by the way

TheRedSquirrel wrote:The bulk of Soviet made goods were complete rubbish, when the wall came down Russian tools were decades behind the tools of the West. Lada? Utter shite.

Tell that to the Kamaz factory. Or their whole aviation industry.

Leon Mcnichol wrote:

I agree with Capitalism and Socialism, I disagree with Capitalism and Socialism. This is my belief.

You do realize that a socialist cannot agree with keeping the wage slaving system as it is now don't you? And that the class war you speak off exists because of said capitalism?

I am amazed how people can even hope that capitalism will somehow "turn good" just because the banking system is nationalized, totally ignoring that since the politicians own the power, they will cater to the capitalist class just as much or even more than now.

What you wish for is totally utopia. Believing that suddenly people will change, that capitalists will suddenly forfeit their role of having to increase their profits day and night? Not to mention that the capitalist system of production works in ways that are totally against any sort of "cooperation".

Anybody of the developed world who doesn't give Capitalism its due in this respect is just another typical example of the ungrateful bourgeois of modernity; born spoilt, lives spoilt, dies spoilt. A sweatshop worker in Taiwan has the right to curse Capitalism, but not us.

Tell that to the people who die daily in the streets of the developed world from hunger. Capitalism sure worked for them, as it sure is popular among eastern european people now.

There are few Eastern Europeans that resent the fall of the Berlin wall.

That is the point of the guilds, and their division from the state, each guild contains a great number of people who care for the industry in which they work, they can demand that technical standards are not lowered to the point where manic competition degrades the quality and condition of said industry. Experts, as well as honourable workers, know the best way of achieving this, not the state or any well-meaning ideologue. The politicians involvement in the economy is reduced, and no party member of influence would be allowed to hold any stake in business. No elected party member can be a shareholder.

You remove the pressures of profit mania from business and you'd see an improvement of all people, you know in my hometown there is a statue erected by the workers to Richard Arkwright, a Capitalist and true Captain of industry, the workers loved him. The complete lack of paternalism and benevolence amongst Capitalists has not always been this way. Even Henry Ford was not of the ilk of Capitalists that we see today. Today's Capitalists are not real Conservatives whom practice self-discipline and self-restraint, they're Randian scum who know nothing but self-interest.

Leon Mcnichol wrote:Tell that to the Kamaz factory. Or their whole aviation industry.

That's the factory with all the complaints about the shoddy workmanship, poor welding being a common compliant.

MIGS were good though, yet pilots did say they handled like tractors compared to American planes. Crude Russian engineering for you.

TheRedSquirrel wrote:That's the factory with all the complaints about the shoddy workmanship, poor welding being a common compliant.

MIGS were good though, yet pilots did say they handled like tractors compared to American planes. Crude Russian engineering for you.

Thats why the Kamaz trucks win the Dakar Rally year after year, and the sukoi airplanes still are the most agile fighters to ever fly the skies. You sir have no idea what you are talking about.

TheRedSquirrel wrote:There are few Eastern Europeans that resent the fall of the Berlin wall.

Tell that to my Polish friends, they sure miss it.

That is the point of the guilds, and their division from the state, each guild contains a great number of people who care for the industry in which they work, they can demand that technical standards are not lowered to the point where manic competition degrades the quality and condition of said industry. Experts, as well as honourable workers, know the best way of achieving this, not the state or any well-meaning ideologue. The politicians involvement in the economy is reduced, and no party member of influence would be allowed to hold any stake in business. No elected party member can be a shareholder.

You remove the pressures of profit mania from business and you'd see an improvement of all people, you know in my hometown there is a statue erected by the workers to Richard Arkwright, a Capitalist and true Captain of industry, the workers loved him. The complete lack of paternalism and benevolence amongst Capitalists has not always been this way. Even Henry Ford was not of the ilk of Capitalists that we see today. Today's Capitalists are not real Conservatives whom practice self-discipline and self-restraint, they're Randian scum who know nothing but self-interest.

What an heart warming utopia. Too bad it's just a dream.

Remove the pressures of profit? I don't know if you realize this, but the whole point of a capitalist production society is to generate profits. Henry Ford and others were still exploiting workers, and creating class divisions.

Your little trick of forbiding public officers of having shares in companies is useless, because there are countless other ways to reward a little "help" for the capitalist class, even just giving money on the side. And who will stop that? The workers? The "guilds" who have no power whatsoever, since they do not own the means of production, nor are they in power?..

TheRedSquirrel wrote:You remove the pressures of profit mania from business and you'd see an improvement of all people, you know in my hometown there is a statue erected by the workers to Richard Arkwright, a Capitalist and true Captain of industry, the workers loved him.

I don't know why I am bothering to state this, but Richard Arkwright, known as the "inventor" of the spinning frame, was a piece of shit who gained from ideas he did not conceptualize. All of his patents were revoked during the latter stage of his life, but not before he managed to profit handsomely from the mental (and physical) labor of others. Karl Marx actually pointed this fact out nearly a hundred and fifty years ago. Now, all you have to do is extend this to encompass 99.9% of all capitalists.

Half of Romania resents the fall of Communism ( a study permormed by an anti-communist organization), the communists are Russia's second largest party, and Stalin won third place in a contest of most respected Russians. Are you blind, redsquirrel, or do you not want to see?

TheRedSquirrel wrote:The problem of Capitalism in my opinon is that it's rigged to promote profit before quality, and the most talented individual often loses out to the most ruthless. I don't oppose the class system per se, I'm of the opinion that the class sytem should accurately reflect merit and ability, which is where I regard Capitalism as a failure.

Capitalist market economies inevitably elevate profitability over quality, as quality can be a hindrance to capital accumulation. (Planned obsolescence, for instance, is a commonly observed consequence of such an institutional arrangement.)

The notion of a perfectly meritocratic class hierarchy is beyond the realm of possibility in human societies, but it's especially absurd to believe such a class structure could be achieved within the context of a capitalist economy. Nepotism and cronyism would surely undermine such a system. And that is to say nothing of the undesirability of maintaining class society regardless.

Also, I draw a strong distinction between finance and industrial Capitalism, the financial sector of Capitlism needs far more renovation than the industrial sector, in my opinion.

This distinction is as old as fascism itself. Gottfried Feder's economic analysis, for example, consisted of denouncing finance capital as being inherently "exploitative," while casting the industrial capitalist in a heroic light. Socialists have long acknowledged the unjust nature of private finance, but, unlike fascists, we don't emphasize "debt-slavery" while turning a blind eye to wage slavery.

I'm for the idea of introducing some syndicates, especially within smaller, less complicated businesses.

The empirical data collected on workers' self-management has vindicated the operational viability of the model in both small and large-scale industries.

But in many cases workplace Democracy is not conducive to quality and results

Nonsense. Juxtapose the products manufactured by self-managed firms with those of traditional capitalist enterprises and you'll find no difference in quality whatsoever.

a committee could never create a masterpiece of art, nor could it create a masterpiece of engineering, you need lone, brilliant minds to oppose the consensus to achieve real greatness.

This 'great man' theory of human progress is sheer rubbish. Individual minds are obviously of immense importance in all manner of scientific and artistic endeavors, but it's impossible to abstract the individual from his social context. As I explained elsewhere, creative ideas don't emerge ex nihilo, there's a social basis behind every invention and innovation—e.g., geniuses are still the beneficiaries of educational curricula, nourishment provided by their community, police protection, government infrastructure, etc., without which no individual could possibly attain their innate potential. In other words, "Every invention is a synthesis, the resultant of innumerable inventions which have preceded it" [Kropotkin, Peter. The Conquest of Bread, p. 17]

I'm actually from a working class community and family, i'm more than aware that the working class can not organise and run everything for themselves.

I'm "actually from a working class community and family" as well and I most certainly don't share in this opinion.

it is a system that has created the greatest prosperity Mankind has known to date and certain aspects of Capitalism correspond well with natural law and Human psychology.

As a Marxist, I fully acknowledge that capitalism has served a progressive function in history. Only an ignoramus would overlook the technological dynamism which has resulted since the ascent of bourgeois social relations. But, likewise, only a ignoramus would believe that only capitalism is capable of harnessing human creativity and putting it toward desirable ends.

Furthermore, "natural law" is a myth and there's absolutely no scientific consensus on whether capitalism best corresponds with our psychology.

National Socialism(Hitlerism)would be guiding, Stalinism would be commanding. The former works far better than the latter, and with less authoritarianism, but you need a draconian state for either of the two.

The amount of restrictions dirigisme places on the bourgeoisie would obstruct the flow of capital so much that stagnation, unemployment, and crisis would quickly emerge. Prior to World War II, National Socialist Germany merely instituted standard Keynesian policies to combat unemployment. Hitler's own economic theories (e.g., price and wage controls, dividend caps, social welfare provisions, etc.), however, were most thoroughly practiced during the war, while the nation was plundering the various states it invaded. There's no question that, had Germany won the war, it would have had to either revert to standard capitalist practices or progress to complete state socialism. Capitalism is already fraught with so many contradictions that it simply cannot withstand a state interfering with the system to the extent that advocates of dirigisme propose.

It would work, indeed, I agree that it could be more productive. However, where it would work and where it wouldn't work is a technical question.

It's a technical question which has already been conclusively settled. There isn't a single realm of production where workers' self-management cannot function. Does that suggest it will always function superior to a hierarchical alternative? Not necessarily, but it could be argued that chattel slavery could function better than wage labor or self-management in certain situations as well. Values which transcend bourgeois standards of efficiency influence our support for self-management.

There's also psychological point, you will struggle to get the highly-skilled and uber-talented to sign up to syndicates in large numbers. Brilliant people don't take a hand, they take charge.

Brilliant people are frequently subservient to capital under our current mode of production. In fact, the only "brilliant" people who aren't happen to be employed in the state sector, wherein some of them are fortunate enough to enjoy a greater degree of autonomy.

You seem to be arguing under the false assumption that only manual workers (mechanics, construction workers, etc.) constitute the working class. In the socialist tradition, class distinctions are made solely on the criteria of ones relation to the means of production. Everyone who is forced to sell their labor power on the market is a proletarian. The bourgeoisie, conversely, provide the capital used in the process of production, which, in turn, enables them to extract surplus value from labor (from which they derive their profit). So, for example, the members of a corporation's research and development team are proletarians, whereas the man who owns your corner grocery store is a capitalist. The only distinction socialists make within the proletariat is between those who engage in productive versus unproductive labor. Productive workers are involved in the invention and/or physical production of goods and services, whereas unproductive workers are involved in fields which help facilitate the productive process, e.g. management, education, janitorial services, law, government, record keeping, etc.

Under a socialist mode of production, the means of production are socially owned—thereby abolishing the capitalist class—and society consists only of workers.

But I'd disagree that corporatism has failed more than state socialism

Corporativism, to the extent it was actually practiced (which was negligible), didn't last long enough to adequately compare with state socialism. From a standpoint of strictly longevity, however, state socialism clearly beat corporativism—and, for reasons I addressed above, there's reason to suspect that would always be the case.

As you can see i'm not one for tearing down the system, I believe we need to compromise and be creative with our solutions, fix what we have, not tear it to pieces under some vague optimism that a new, perfect state will simply fall from the sky.

No one is supportive of tearing the system "to pieces," nor are we under the delusion that a "perfect state" is even humanly possible (let alone that it will magically fall from the sky).

Plus, I don't consider myself a reactionary because I have qualms with extremism, and i'm working class enough to know the limits of the working class.

Unfortunately, you're not socialist enough to know what the working class is.

Of course these people have a choice, they have a choice to withhold their skills and efforts from the task in hand. They would simply go on strike against despotism.

So you're suggesting that the intelligent will not exert their talents if they aren't given unaccountable authority over the productive process and are highly remunerated? Given the quote from Dostoevsky you chose for your signature, I find that ironic. As things stand now, cognitive workers are already held accountable to capital. Would you, for example, work as a janitor or coal miner instead of an engineer, simply because you might have to work in a labor-managed firm as opposed to a capitalist enterprise?

Stalinism attempted to force the best people into line, and it resulted in crude, dogshit engineering and a society that barely functions.

Your knowledge of "Stalinism" is just as crude as the "dogshit" you claim was characteristic of Soviet engineering. The government didn't force citizens into their occupations in the USSR, people had the freedom to choose where they worked.

The bulk of Soviet made goods were complete rubbish, when the wall came down Russian tools were decades behind the tools of the West. Lada? Utter shite. Any professional engineer - me being one - will tell you the exact same of Soviet engineering.

The substandard quality of Soviet consumer goods is attributable to the shortcomings of centralized economic planning, not socialism proper. Managers in most Soviet firms basically had no incentive to ensure they efficiently produced according to Gosplan's mandates. The exception to this, however, was found in military production and firms involved in the production of consumer goods for the nomenklatura, which were expected to manufacture quality products (and they did deliver). Very few (if any) socialists advocate on behalf of centralized economic planning today, and I am not among them. Moreover, the majority of socialist economic models are incentive compatible, so critiquing the performance of the Soviet economy is of no consequence to us.

Poor consumer goods notwithstanding, the Soviet Union was definitely not overthrown by an upsurge of discontent from below. Capitalism was introduced in the USSR, Maoist China, and many other former state socialist nations, as a result of counterrevolutions initiated by reactionary segments of the nomenklatura (Yeltsin, Xiaoping, etc.). To this day, vast segments of the former Eastern bloc indicate their preference for state socialism over capitalism on virtually every opinion poll conducted on the subject. Thus, as much as you believe state socialism failed, in the eyes of the people, capitalism has failed them far worse.

I have large reservations over Fascism for instance, but i'm interested in its economics because it's anti-capitalist and a system that didn't collapse by itself, unlike Communism across the globe.

Despite the radical rhetoric employed by certain fascists, corporativism was not "anti-capitalist." It was a failed attempt at formulating an economic model capable of overcoming the shortfalls of capitalism without abandoning its defining characteristics, i.e., private ownership of the means of production, wage labor, and generalized commodity production. And, again, had the Axis powers been victorious in World War II and genuinely practiced corporativism, their economies would have undoubtedly collapsed.

Communism, incidentally, has never existed. What you're referring to is state socialism, and, contrary to bourgeois mythology, it didn't "collapse by itself."

I am arguing for justice, a class of talent, a class of genius

Arguing for a meritocracy isn't inherently just. No one would argue against the notion that people should have an equal opportunity to develop their potential. Questions of justice only arise when examining how society organizes management and resource allocation, and, in my opinion, what you propose isn't any more just than what exists under the status quo.

a class of mediocrity and an untermensch is Humanity

Not so subtle elitism..

You would have to believe in equality to disagree with me

I don't subscribe to the dogma of human equality, but I also don't accept your economic alternative as being feasible or desirable.

Because your politics is dead to the workers of the Western world, the Left is a joke to them, a hobby of the middle classes. Nationalism is the only politics that speaks to and for them, today

The Left only became a "joke" to the Western working class during the so-called "Golden Age of Capitalism," which was a historic fluke wherein real wages rose with productivity and social welfare services were significantly expanded. The "Golden Age," however, has been in decline since capital solved its labor shortage, the Soviet threat subsided, and neoliberal reforms enabled the international free flow of capital.

Self-identified socialist and communist parties have also alienated the proletariat with their cosmopolitan rhetoric, but we left-wing nationalists are not involved in such counterproductive nonsense.

and i'm determined to make this Nationalism as rationally pro-worker as possible without worshipping the worker from afar and creating ridiculous fantasies about the grim reality of working class life.

What "grim realities" are you referring to, exactly?

Main side effects being everything you own and the quality of life you enjoy that beats any of your ancestors. Anybody of the developed world who doesn't give Capitalism its due in this respect is just another typical example of the ungrateful bourgeois of modernity; born spoilt, lives spoilt, dies spoilt. A sweatshop worker in Taiwan has the right to curse Capitalism, but not us.

Noam Chomsky addressed the irrelevancy of the common contention that capitalism has made our lives "better" quite sufficiently:

I'm against class war, and for class collaboration because i'm aware just how talented some of the rich are and how we need them, i'm aware in the real world that economic incentives are needed to turn potential into ability, like a Capitalist believes.

Class war isn't something one supports or rejects, it's endemic to capitalism itself. It's an inevitable consequence of an economic system structured around two classes whose interests are diametrically opposed to one another.

No one denies that there are certain talented people within the bourgeoisie. It's not as if socialists advocate for their extermination or any such nonsense, we merely call for them being reincorporated into the economy in a non-exploitative capacity.

Socialism will arise, but it will be a far more Conservative Socialism than you suppose. Culturally speaking the workers are with me and social conservatism, and, more than likely with the accepted failure of Communism, they'll opt for a collaborationist stance instead of class war.

We haven't been discussing workers' attitudes toward matters of culture. Personally, I'm completely indifferent as to whether workers will be more socially conservative or liberal following the revolution. Being a nationalist, I obviously feel that (near) ethnocultural homogeneity will characterize the constitution of each socialist nation, but that transcends the traditional liberal/conservative dichotomy. If I had to predict, however, I'd say that secularism and tolerance of LGBT lifestyles will likely continue to advance into the future.

Most Soviet/Eastern Bloc products were good quality. We had a TESLA Czechoslovak stereo record player and it worked for 30 years. You see 40 year old Zhiguli cars still working long after modern Hondas would be scrap. The whole Eastern Bloc was the second best on the Human Development Index right after Western countries. My parents grew up in Communist Czechoslovakia and they remember also the food quality was much higher back then. You are just repeating Western propaganda while whitewashing Nazi Germany, that "prosperous" state who could not feed its people and shot people for taking more butter than their ration (I know an old guy whose father studied in Berlin when Nazis were in power and he saw these things first hand) even as it was literally stealing food from the tables of Polish homes. In Communist Czechoslovakia and USSR you had to participate in a parade once a year on 1st May, in Nazi Germany you had to march every day as the goverment told you you were going to be sacraficed in Hitler's insane world domination plan.

The "Ukrainian" (actually USSR wide) famine lasted 2 years and resulted from the lack of tractors and kulaks slaughtering their livestock. In Czechoslovakia, DDR... collectivisation went on smoothly so there was no famine, and agricultural production eventually increased dramatically, just as it did in the USSR once the famine ended. Czechoslovakia was 90 percent food self-sufficient under collectivized agriculture, now we import half of our food from other countries. We didn't have tropical fruit before 1989, but we were a well-fed, developed society.

And I am always puzzled when people consider Nazi Germany to be "less authortarian" than USSR. It was not a fucking "Aryan paradise", economically it was worse than Caucescau's Romania and it commited extreme crimes against humanity. The Soviets took little a over 1000 political prisoners from Czechoslovakia, the Nazis razed and exterminated whole villages. There are many books that document the extreme hatred and contempt Nazi swine had for Slavic people, including things like Gestapo thugs pissing into children's cradle. I've been surrounded by people who lived under communism all my life and ALL of them taught me to hate the Nazis, even those who dislike communists. Even rightwingers joke about communism while joking about Nazism would get you stares at best. I will always remember how my first grade teacher described the Nazis on the day of rememberance of the defeat of fascism (8th May) by Soviet soldiers. I've never heard anyone in my victinity to describe communism as evil until I opened my 6th grade History book (of course it must describe communism as evil, current political system would not permit anything else).

Anyone here from Hungary and grew up during communist rule? I have yet to hear anything good about it there, but the people who say it was horrible are anti communists(I am assuming they actually have reasons for being far right).

Balkan Beast wrote:Anyone here from Hungary and grew up during communist rule? I have yet to hear anything good about it there, but the people who say it was horrible are anti communists(I am assuming they actually have reasons for being far right).

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1221064/Oppressive-grey-No-growing-communism-happiest-time-life.html

The negative opinion of many Hungarians is probably shaped by the experiences before 1956 and during 1956, not after that. And reasons for people being far right? The fact that Hungary was treated as a Nazi ally and defeated nation by the Soviets in the immediate post-war era. Czechoslovakia on the other hand was treaten as an ally because of the Slovak National Uprising, the assasination of Nazi war criminal Reinhard Heydrich by Slovak paratroopers etc.

There is also the thing that despite the fact that Nazi Germany had living standards better than Weimar Germany, the living standard was still lower than even the pre-WW1 monarchist Germany. And German people still had to toil 16 hours a day in arms factories. In short, it was shit. Hell, WW2 era fascist Slovakia, as shit as it was, had a better economy than Nazi Germany.

Can Corporativism be described as a limited market (hammered with government restrictions, etc.) Or as a free market (with national integrity as a priority of business along with full access to economic freedoms a business would have otherewise)? It almost seems to be latter but I understand fascists operate war economies which might explain thereof as a temporary measure.