Are Braunists Mussolinists?

Grzegorz Braun erstwhile called Robert Winnicki a mussolinist and that was criticism. Today, he goes into the current he criticized. Robert Winnicki, entering an alliance with the freedomists, got smart, and Grzegorz Braun, coming out of this alliance and going into national socialism, went stupid.

At the Grzegorz Braun reunion, next to liberal free marketers specified as Jacek Wilk and Robert Tamioła, the panelist was besides Mussolinist Piotr Heszen. In my opinion, they represent an unacceptable extreme.

When Heshen says, "Go distant with liberalism," it's pure water stupidity — specified corvinism. This slogan may encourage the snoring of Braun, but will discourage most of the electorate. However, even if Braun enters the Sejm with 10% and 50 MPs on the slogan "out of liberalism", he will not fight socialism, but he will build it as well as the Law and Justice, regardless of his own will—because if he does anything liberal, free-market, pro-capitalist, his MPs and electorate will eat it.

I reduce Hesen's thought: economical freedom can be given at most to tiny and medium-sized entrepreneurs, but the king's large companies must hold to the mouth and control. This is precisely what Mussolini and Hitler were doing, and present China, and what Mises and Hayek have criticised very precisely and scientifically. Hechen seems to think the king will be good and wise and pacify bad businessmen. However, the practice in hundreds of examples contradicts specified infantile notions — the ruler always comes into symbiosis with the oligarchs and together they do all that is incorrect in dishonest business.

Heshen (and more broadly: the monarchist-ethatic trend that appeared around Braun) repeats in the fresh language precisely the same assumptions that Mussolini, Salazar, Franco and the German national socialists preached: that there is simply a 3rd way between liberalism and communism — a “corporate order” where the state (or king) “harmonizes the interests of the classes”, limiting the will of the large capitalists but not abolishing private property.

In explanation this is “reasonably and patrioticly”, in practice it always leads to the same thing: centralization of power, privileges for “its” companies, enslavement of the economy through a network of political dependencies.

Mises had already seen this in the 1930s: “The strategy in which the state gives orders to private entrepreneurs, determining what, and for whom to produce, is no different from socialism—except that it formally retains ownership titles”. And he warned: “The ruler who wants to control the marketplace becomes a partner of the worst monopolies.”

Heshen seems to think that “the king-sage” will separate between an honest entrepreneur and an evil one, that power can repair the marketplace morally. However, it is logically impossible — due to the fact that if power is to separate goods and privileges, it will always be bought by those to be controlled. This is how the symbiosis of the throne and the corp is born – the essence of corporateism.

Mises and Hayek paid attention to this invisible transformation of liberalism into moral etatism: anyone who says "the marketplace is good, but must be supervised by wise men," in fact repeats the dogma of interventionism – that is, that an individual is to be a means of social intent determined by power. It is no longer a free market, but a state paternalism, which differs from communism only by a form of ownership, not a being.

It is worth noting that today's China is precisely "strategic capitalism under organization control". The West, in turn, is its softer version – "regulated capitalism" (i.e. administrative fascism in white gloves). erstwhile Heshen says that “the king is to hold a large business for a mouth”, he actually says: “We want national fascism, only with crown, eagle and scepter alternatively of swastika.”

Mises, Röpke and Hayek would be horrified by this return to reasoning in the spirit of "state fatherhood". due to the fact that their main message was: there is no good ruler who can wisely control the bad market. There's always just a bad power that ruins the market, and a marketplace that defends itself against it.

Grzegorz Braun himself is like nationalists from the National Movement - ordoliberal. However, with its political tactics, marketing rhetoric, it attracts shrouds that believe liberalism, or free marketplace capitalism, is simply a kid of Jews, or Satan. It attracts mussolinists — the worst kind of murderers.

They are worse than the writers and the cavaliers, who are only cynical thieves, and these Braun's shrouds sincerely believe in murderism, they are statolaters. KOPIS can be bribed, Braun's scurries will not — they will give their lives for state terror.

Grzegorz GPS Swiderski
]]>https://t.me/CanalBlogeraGPS]]>
]]>https://Twitter.com/gps65]]>