An investigation into the economic programs of European far-right parties reveals strong variations in how they relate to the state and the market. Despite these differences, one key principle remains: national belonging determines who should benefit from economic and social protection. This idea has shaped the policies of far-right parties for decades, even as their specific proposals have evolved. A comparative survey of the programs of far-right parties across Europe shows that their positions on economic issues have changed significantly over time. For example, before the Medef, at the end of August 2026, Marine Le Pen defended tax cuts, while the National Rally (RN), formerly known as the National Front (FN), had previously focused more on social protection. This raises the question: is the RN "left" or "right" on the economy? Research analyzing more than forty years of campaign documents and communication from the RN, the Italian League, the Belgian Vlaams Belang, and the Dutch PVV shows that their economic positions have changed significantly. These parties do not consistently fall on the traditional left-right axis, which is usually defined by their relationship with the state and the market. However, their underlying logic has remained relatively stable over time. For far-right parties, this logic is based on the idea that economic resources should be allocated according to a specific conception of the political community, contribution, and responsibility. National belonging is the central principle for determining who should benefit from economic and social protection. This differs from the left, which often bases redistribution on social inequalities and class relations, and from the liberal right, which prioritizes the market and individual responsibility. Political scientists have long tried to classify the economic programs of far-right parties. Historically, these parties were associated with economic liberalism, but over time, they have adopted more interventionist positions, supporting a form of "welfare chauvinism" that reserves social protection for nationals. Some studies suggest that the vague nature of their economic positions allows them to appeal to a broader electorate. Data from party programs show that the RN has moved away from the laissez-faire approach that dominated in the 1980s and 1990s since the 2000s. However, this does not necessarily make the RN "left." A PlanEco index, which measures support for state intervention and economic planning in relation to market liberalism, shows that the RN's position has fluctuated over time, influenced by different political and economic contexts. Our research highlights three consistent framings that define who should benefit from collective resources and who is responsible for economic difficulties. These are economic chauvinism, which prioritizes the protection of national communities; producérism, which values those who work and contribute; and populism, which blames political elites for economic problems. These framings help explain how seemingly contradictory policies can be justified under a common logic.