One of the most plagued questions we get when talking about Fascism is economics, normally brought up by people still stuck in a liberal mentality and limited scope of perception, where everything is defined in term of social and economic policies, rather than principles derived from the notion of a singular Truth and Order that dominates the world. The variety of historic economic plans and practices maintained by various champions of our Struggle likewise distorts any comprehensive answer to the question. All in all we've simply answered people that economics are secondary, they don't matter in such a way as to be a fundamental and defining element of Fascism. The answer didn't change, however there is now a way in which we can describe this attitude to economics, and it's actually a word we've used repeatedly in reference to Fascism anyway: Socialism.
Our Socialism, however, is not in of itself an economic system, it is not the Socialism of Marx and co and stands in direct opposition to both Communism and Capitalism. It would be more accurate to say that to Fascism, Socialism is the definitive social structure which is more comparable to the structures of Individualism and Collectivism, yet it stands in opposition to those two structures as well.
Individualism creates a social structure in which every man is for himself, the good of the one trumps the good of the whole, this is the structure most related to Liberalism and the Capitalist economic system. Then we have Collectivism, which is, however, largely misinterpreted nowadays as the good of the whole above the good of the individual - this is a wrong interpretation, because collectivism in its essence is just a mass of individuals with a common interest. In individualism the one seeks out all of his interests on his own, in Collectivism many people who seeks out a common interest group together in the pursuit of that interest.
Put it simply: Collectivism is Individualism seeking Strength in Numbers on given common interests. Hence the common interest(s) becomes the primary focus of the Collectivist narrative and is thus easy to define. Collectivism worked for Communism because it worked with an existing and established group - the proletariat - to sell them the idea that together, rather than apart, they could achieve all their common interests, and fulfillment of other individual interests may follow thereafter. Comparatively speaking one could argue that Collectivists get more shit done than Individualists because the victory of a collective influences the outcome for every participant of the collective and they are all somewhat elevated, whereas in Individualism all victories are… individual, and few people achieve them. Moreover in individualism absolutely every single other individual is a competitor, even when you struggle for the same prize, whereas in collectivism everyone within the collective ideally shares in the victory.
Ultimately, however, both Individualism and Collectivism are no good for Fascism, as their fundamental premise is individual interest, regardless if it is pursued individually or collectively. We've covered before how Interests are always selfish and self-serving, going against any kind of Order in favor of one's own mere whims and wants, which are always material and inevitably lead to degeneracy.
Moreover neither Individualism nor Collectivism does anything to preserve one's Personhood (an issue of semantics: I'm using personhood and personality to give different and untainted term to what is commonly referred to as individuality and identity): to be an individual merely means to be a digit, an atom; to be in a collective means to be a cog. In both instances Personhood is not valuable, atoms are just as replaceable as cogs and just as lacking in any real personality, only difference is the less rigid structure of Individualism, where you can maintain the illusion of being your own person, while walking in a sea of clones who can replace you at a moment's notice, because both Individualism and Collectivism work on the premise of equality and necessitate easy replaceability. In both instances personality can be sacrificed, either for a collective mentality or a fake, marketable "individual" identity.
