Capitalism & National Socialism
The NatSocs saw trade and markets as a means to a nationalist end. Those who we call “capitalists” today seem to think trade is the end itself. That’s really the difference. If trade contributes to the public (meaning racial) good, great. If not, regulate or do away with it. Capitalism wasn’t ideological for the NatSoc the way it is for contemporary libertarians or other market fundamentalists (or Marxists, for that matter). It wasn’t a set of normative ethics or a philosophy, but simply a policy tool that either produced useful results or it didn’t. Modern capitalism in practice is about radical individualism and using this belief system as a justification for bringing the state into the service of private capital. That’s a problem if private capital wants a global labor market and mass immigration.
We’re not against trade, markets, private property, meritocracy, etc., we just disagree that the market is the foundation of society. I think most national socialists would agree that the family is its foundation. The traditional family structure is the means by which the race perpetuates itself and survives so the defense of the race is the defense of the family. The family structure provides the foundation of civil society (including the possibility of private property rights), and civil society provides the foundation of the market.
In conditions of industrial or post industrial civilization, children and the traditional family structure are a net cost whereas in agrarian society they were a net benefit, so this foundation is crumbling. Ultimately the family and by extension our race and civilization will not survive. The purpose of the racial state then is to provide the foundation of the family in conditions of industrial civilization precisely because the market alone can’t provide it.