Organic Economy – Faye

Organic Economy

by Guillaume Faye

A ‘third way’ economic model, which takes the path neither of liberal capitalism nor statist socialism.

An organic economy arises on the precept that the economy ought to function as a living organism, hierarchical and harmonious, subordinated to the political, and not to a cold, lifeless mechanism animated by socialist dogmas or the capitalist logic of short-term profit. An organic economy would put finance in service to production and production in service to the people. It would organically integrate entrepreneurial dynamism, social justice, as well as ethnic, cultural, and ecological imperatives in an almost biological way, endeavouring to reconcile the best of the liberal market and the planned economy.

The principal features of an organic economy would:

1. Refuse globalism’s free trade ideology in favour of the autarky of great spaces, i.e., it centres the economy within a designated civilisational region, without abolishing world trade and international financial exchanges, but at the same time ensuring that foreign trade is normalised, limited, and subject to quotas and other restrictions.

2. Refuse statist socialism, paralysing fiscalism, administrative obesity, and privilege a free competitive market within a self-centred, protected, and regulated market.

3. Regionalise production and exchange within Europe.

4. Respect ecological imperatives, which are to be understood as being more important than short-term profits.

5. Invest in great public works.

6. Coordinate planning and the market.

7. Refrain from intervening in the economy except in a political manner – to establish the economy’s fundamental norms and to consider its general needs, but not to administratively dictate its details.

8. Abandon direct progressive taxes for the sake of deducting a small percentage from each income source, whatever it may be, in order to lighten the burden on society’s vital forces and improve its overall production.

9. Allow the state, not the hazards of the market, to make monetary policy, unlike the present forces affecting the euro.

10. Oblige those receiving unemployment benefits to work for the sake of the collective or to accept whatever alternative employment is proposed.

11. Restrict the employment of foreigners and deny them welfare.

12. Endeavour, more generally, to eradicate poverty and misery without recourse to centralised, socialist bureaucratic methods that have totally failed, and adopt a policy of social assistance, assumed at local and regional levels, for citizens in need.

An organic economy is imaginable only within a protected European market. It would, as such, refuse both reckless globalisation and a statist, taxing socialism, while accepting the market whenever its standards are set by the sovereign authority. It would also subordinate finance to production and production to the political, whereas today the very opposite is the case. Similarly, it would subordinate the currency to political imperatives, not the hazards of speculative markets as it is with the euro.

The organic economy is a doctrine of temperance. It treats the economy as the ‘third function,’ subordinating it to the political, and freeing it thus from both statism and market anarchy. The organic economy reconciles the dynamism and synergy of all social functions, so that one function is not impaired by another.

Paradoxically, the United States, where the state is equipped with a strong political will to pilot a free, dynamic, private economy, is closer to an organic economy than Europe.



Excerpted from: Faye, Guillaume. Why We Fight: Manifesto for the European Resistance. London: Arktos Media, 2011, pp. 125-126.



1 Comment

Filed under New European Conservative

One response to “Organic Economy – Faye

  1. Shenpen

    Why not choose the Distributist path of Gilbert Keith Chesterton and Hilaire Belloc? Distributism is simply the natural way of how an economy should function and how it did before the Enlightenment in medieval guilds: unify property and labor i.e. strive to have as many people as possible work as self-employed artisans, farmers, shopkeepers, instead of wage-laborers.

    Consider a big city with 50 shoe stores organized into 5 competing corporate chains with 10 shops each. Is there any reason why should they not all be family businesses instead, employing their own family members, organized into 5 competing guilds? I see only upsides and no downsides at all. In such a situation you have all the advantages of capitalism – competition, free markets – without the disadvantages – wage labor, dependency, possible exploitation.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s