Fascism Cannot Equal Freedom (UPDATED)
Posted by MichaelW on 09 Sep 2006 at 5:38 am | Tagged as: History, MichaelW's Page, Foreign affairs, Domestic Politics
I have delayed addressing the previous posts regarding fascism in order to let the comments percolate and the issue become more defined. Before I do so here, please take the time to read the previous posts (here and here) and the comments to them. The discussion was valuable and enlightening and I thank all who contributed for doing so.
Restatement of Argument
First I want to restate the argument I made earlier that mushroomed into the discussion of whether fascism is rooted in the left or not. My original three comments that started all of this were this:
Plus, don’t forget that this was the height of the “Progressive†era, when it was taken for granted by nearly everyone that the State should be in control of things and “individualists†were nasty little buggers concerned only about themselves. Hitler and Mussolini were touted for years as creating the model “workingman’s paradiseâ€, the future of all socialist goevrning (sic) models.
and this:
There are myriad examples of both Hitler and Mussolini being held in high regard for their version of socialism that was not international in scope as was Lenin’s communism.
and finally this:
Well, Mona, if you don’t understand the fact that both Hitler and Mussolini were products of the left there’s not much I’m going to say or cite to convince you otherwise.
I’m not interested in rehashing the comments, quotes, and conjecture regarding praise for Hitler and Mussolini from the left. Suffice it to say that when Mussolini and Hitler were rising to power (Mussolini achieving such much earlier than Hitler of course) two prevailing attitudes were in play: (i) planned economies and strong central government responsible for all phases of individual lives were assumed by nearly everyone to the way of the future, and (ii) by the time both Hitler and Mussolini were in power, most everyone assumed that the future was either with fascism or communism, and they were scared as hell of communism.
The most significant idea to be taken from the above, IMHO, is that “it was taken for granted by nearly everyone that the State should be in control of things and ‘individualists’ were nasty little buggers concerned only about themselves.” As far as I’m concerned, nearly everybody was on the “left” in those days because they considered the State to be the answer to all problems. When I noted that there were many examples of Hitler and Mussolini being praised for their version of socialism, I was trying to highlight the prevailing attitude of both European and American leaders and intellectuals and why Neville Chamberlain probably gets much more flack than he deserves. As the acerbically witty Monty Python players put it, “NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition.” On top of that, the threat of communist revolution was incredibly worrisome, and whomever would keep that threat at bay was welcomed quite openly. Thus, with the ground so ripe for a new, authoritarian, state-organized political, social and economic system — one that would being intimately involved in every individual’s life, regardless of individual concern and promise to prevent a revolution as happened in Russia — it really shouldn’t be a wonder that fascism was quite popular at first.
As Lance summarized quite succinctly (especially for Lance!):
Glad to hear anybody else’s comments but I would like to get back to Michael’s original premise, because whether you consider the fascists or Hitler left or right I think we can all agree that the progressive impulse for having the state as the prime actor in a nations affairs was widespread. Therefore movements which promised land reform, control over business and planning the economy in general were given a less than skeptical hearing and that that allowed the fascists intellectual and moral space to gather power. I think that is an important point in understanding the intellectual climate Chamberlain operated in.
Disagreement As To Terms
Obviously, as the comments made clear, there is much disagreement on the terms used to describe these early twentieth century movements. To me, “left” is shorthand for statist, collectivist, anti-individualist ideology, whether it is called Marxism, socialism, communism, fascism, or National Socialist.
Some, such as apparently Mona, consider the terms “left” and “right” to be relative, so that communism is “left” and fascism is “right.” Indeed, Mussolini himslef proclaimed that the world was turning to the right when promoting the inevitability of fascism. In the relative sense, this is plausible, in that fascism could be considered to the right of communism (although in practice, I don’t see much practical difference). Yet, both are rooted in the idea that the State is all powerful, that the individual lives for the good of and at the leisure of the State, and that individual freedom is a disruptive impulse which works against the common good and must be brought to heel. Both were anti-thetical to liberalism (in the true sense of the word), capitalism, and any sense of individual freedom.
In order to be even more clear, someone raised the notion that, according to my rubric, neo-conservatives are rooted in the left. I do not disagree in the least. I think neo-conservatism and “compassionate conservatism” are leftist. Both assume a strong centralized state that makes decisions for the individual for the good of the commonwealth. And while I the Democrat or Republican parties are probably best seen as occupying the center of the political spectrum, I do consider both of them as more “left” than “right”.
The Importance of Being Accurate
Whether fascism is considered “left” or “right” in the end is rather unimportant to me except for one thing: if one views capitalism and generally being in favor of a free-market economy as being “right”, then fascism can not possibly occupy the same ideological space. Basically, I believe that Hayek was correct when he pointed out that economic freedom is necessary for political freedom. Accordingly, a free market means free people, which means that capitalism is just as anti-thetical to fascism and national socialism as it is to communism and socialism. So however one views fascism, as “right or “left” it cannot be ideologically comparable to capitalism.
Finally, the reason that the argument over the roots of fascism is so important to me personally is because of horribly misleading statements such as this:
Mussolini took all of it and melded it with the thinking of Giovanni Gentile, an Italian philosopher who believed that individuals’ rights were subordinate to those of government, that class warfare could be eliminated by a fusion of a nationalism and corporate business into a strong, unyielding government, and that change only came through violence.
Wow, that’s a mouthful! I hadn’t read so much philosophy in the last twenty years! So, if we try to make it simple, Fascism was a political movement that believed in the will of man, the need for a strong leader, the rights of government to be above those of the individual, the fusion of nationalism with big business, and whose leader, Benito Mussolini was a hard drinking, womanizer.
(emphasis added), and attitudes such as this:
- fascism (fâsh’iz’em) n.
- A system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism. [Ital. fascio, group.] -fas’cist n. -fas-cis’tic (fa-shis’tik) adj.
Fundamentally, corporatism is a new name for an old face - that of fascism. Most dictionary definitions you’ll find nowadays exclude the “typically through the merging of state and business leadership” theme, whereas previously they might’ve.
The Italians, who invented the term Fascism, also called it the Estato Corporativo: the corporatist state. GeorgeOrwell described it as an extension of Capitalism.
and ridculously ill-informed statemenst such as this:
Capitalism = Fascism
By EUGENE KOZACHKOV
PSYCHOLOGIST, MOSCOWI am not a historian or an economist, but I still have not lost all of my senses. Like many, I analyze the information that we get over our TV (but you must know what is the truth and what is a lie), plus information gained from your publication, I would like to make some comments for those that will read these few thoughts.
First: in a non-communist society all relations are based on money.
Second: basing itself only on money (read: personal property, personal business) – is the first step towards future fascism.
Conclusion
Let me make this completely clear: capitalism does not in any way, in any form, on any planet in any time equal fascism. In order to comprehend why this is so, one must necessarily understand that fascism and national socialism were rooted in marxism and socialism. They were not the same thing. In fact, fascism in particular was considered to be the next step beyond marxism, and believed that Marx was wrong … in how to bring about the worker’s revolution! In no way was either fascism or national socialism pro-free-market or in favor of capitalism.
In summary, call fascism whatever you like; place on the “right” or the “left”. But do not ever put in the same place as capitalism, and don’t ever forget from whence it came. To do so undermines individual freedom and does serious damage to the cause and reputation of libertarians.
***UPDATE***
In response to glasnost, as promised, please see the following:
Well organized and coherent post describing your personal ideology.
However, very subjective, not only in terms of “all words mean what everyone agrees they meanâ€, but also in terms of there being no such modern historical consensus behind your opinions.
I’m not sure what you expected, glasnost, as I never contended that this latest post was an historical review. This is an opinion site after all. Instead, I tried to explain why the accurate portrayal of fascism is important to me.
As for there being no “modern historical consensus behind [my] opinions,†I’m not sure that I understand what you mean or what your point is. I didn’t create my opinions out of whole cloth. I have a degree in European History and a Juris Doctorate (grounded in law and economics). I am pretty well-read and constantly delving deeper into historical subjects. I am well aware of what the “historical consensus†is, as well as what the facts are. That is what my opinions are based upon.
The keys are here:
Whether fascism is considered “left†or “right†in the end is rather unimportant to me except for one thing: if one views capitalism and generally being in favor of a free-market economy as being “rightâ€, then fascism can not possibly occupy the same ideological space.
“Capitalism†is a very imprecise term used to describe various economic systems that differ profusely. Furthermore, it’s generally seen a term describing the economic organization of society, not its political description. Fascism is a term for a political (to a lesser extent, philosophical) ideology and system of government.
OK. So what? My point is that ideologically fascism and capitalism are distinct and antithetical to one another. There may be many definitions of capitalism, but I think I was pretty clear that I was referring to free-market economics. And while it’s true that fascism is generally a political system, and capitalism an economic system, that doesn’t make them incapable of comparison (which should be quite obvious since frequently they are paired together as if peas in a pod). In fact, free-market capitalism is an indication of a political system without a great deal of centralized authority over its citizens. Fascism, on the other hand, is a dirigiste, command-economy that exerts a tremendous influence over the decisions and opportunities available to those whom the government (supposedly) represents.
Frankly, I think that genuine and relatively pure libertarians are not of the political right. I think a belief in free markets has been grafted onto the political right in the past one hundred years.
Well, as I pointed out in my post, I don’t particular care where you place capitalism, fascism, etc., except as relative to one another. Moreover, since nearly all of this discussion of fascism, etc. has been restricted to events occurring only within the last one hundred years or so, what’s your point? I would argue that, assuming your contention is correct (which I do), free markets and the political right have become associated precisely because of events occurring in the early twentieth century – i.e. the rise of socialist political systems holding capitalism in disdain.
However, the political right is usually interested in greater state control and enforced societal harmony, which inevitably conflicts with libertarianism, just as the left’s interest in mandated relief of economic inequality conflicts with libertarianism.
Again, this is a definitional problem that results from unclear thinking. The parties you allude to as “left†and “right†have more in common with one another (i.e. state control) than they have differences. They may disagree to varying degrees about what should be controlled by the state, but they both agree that the state should be making decisions for the individual. Neither is terribly supportive of capitalism except when it may serve their own ends, which is not free-market capitalism, but instead a regulated command-style economy designed to effect particular outcomes.
Free markets are not at the core of political conservatism. It’s a marriage of convenience between political conservatism’s interest in control of society and free-market capitalism’s ability to grant them that control.
Political conservatism has not been involved in this discussion until now. How the free market would hand political conservatism control of society is surely an interesting theory, so please feel free to write about it some time, but for now it has nothing to do with the topic, so I shall refrain.
Libertarianism is about more than free markets, and the genuinely consistent application of libertarian principles leads to the dissolution of the state - at which point I think it has more in common with the (radical) left.
I have a few leftist friends that would trade every pro-equality regulation in the world and the state itself if the legal code would also be scrapped, except as pertaining to violence, and that would be enforced in decentralized local communities. Very libertarian, though they don’t call themselves that.
Maybe the end result (no state) is similar between, for example, anarcho-capitalism and syndicalism, but the paths there are very different, and (as I understand it) the proponents of each have remarkably different views of what those societies would look like. Again, however, I’m not sure what this has to do with the topic. It does not change my contention that fascism and capitalism belong on opposite ends of the political spectrum. It does not even challenge that proposition.
Moving on:
Freedom is a spectrum. Fascism is not compatible with libertarian capitalism, because its need for military conquest demands that the business sector subordinate itself to that goal, and its inherent disrespect the free action of businessmen not interested in conquest. However, fascism is definitely compatible with forms of economic organization that are generally capitalist in nature where the fascist regime does not choose to exercise direct control. No fascist regime has ever attempted to eliminate the market system. The market system and fascism have been historically observed coexisting in the same national space, in the same way that in the US the market system coexists with regulatory and social-welfare limitations.
Again, so what? This is a strawman argument. I never contended that fascism (or any –ism) was incapable of co-existence with capitalism. Even Stalinist Russia had a market (a black market). And the presence of “a market” does not necessarily denote capitalism, a free market does.
I was, and am, speaking ideologically. Systems based on capitalism are fundamentally opposed to those based on fascism as to how society should be ordered. It does not make any difference that they are found co-existing in nature.
Your problem is that you are choosing to interpret “capitalismâ€, the market system of economic organization, as synonmous with the libertarian ideology of absolutely unrestricted market behavior. That’s, again, nice and all as your personal ideology, but in reality, either capitalist countries do not follow libertarian (â€capitalistâ€) ideology and yet are still capitalist countries, or else there are no capitalist nation-states.
What is your point, glasnost? So there are no purely free-market countries. How does that make my “interpretation†of capitalism wrong? You don’t offer me a different/better one, so exactly what does this add to the discussion of whether or not fascism and capitalism are ideologically opposed? Can you provide a widely accepted definition of capitalism that undermines my contention?
Basically, I believe that Hayek was correct when he pointed out that economic freedom is necessary for political freedom.
What you believe is nice and all, and I’m not denying the tendency of the two to be mutually reinforcing, but your statement is so generalist as to be either meaningless or rapidly disproven by historical evidence.
OK. So you don’t agree with me or, by extension, Hayek (and presumably, Mises, Rothbard, Friedman, et al.). As to your contention that this observation is “rapidly disproven by historical evidence†your examples do nothing of the sort, and history is definitely on the side of political freedom coinciding with economic freedom (see, e.g., the 2006 Index of Economic Freedom). The top twenty countries on this index are arguably the freest countries in the world politically, especially when compared with the bottom twenty:
Top (most free to least):
· Hong Kong
· Singapore
· Ireland
· Luxemborg
· United Kingdom
· Iceland
· Estonia
· Denmark
· Australia
· United States
· New Zealand
· Finland
· Canada
· Chile
· Switzerland
· Cyprus
· Netherlands
· Austria
· Germany
· Sweden
Bottom (least free to most):
· North Korea
· Iran
· Burma
· Zimbabwe
· Libya
· Venezuela
· Belarus
· Cuba
· Laos
· Turkmenistan
· Haiti
· Nigeria
· Syria
· Uzbekistan
· Congo, Republic of
· Vietnam
· Bangladesh
· Angola
· Yemen
· Tajikistan
While the index is a ranking of economic freedom (methodology explained here), I think the connection between economic freedom and political freedom is pretty clear. And don’t be fooled by the fact that Hong Kong is in China, since it still retains much of the political freedom it held under British rule. If China exacts more and more control over Hong Kong (as it has threatened), I expect that it will drop down the scale. Also, I don’t think this index should be taken as a meaning that the rankings of political freedom are exactly the same. Generally speaking, however, those countries that allow a great deal of economic freedom will be more politically free than those who don’t.
Please witness the political freedom in socialist Norway, often ranked as #1 in the world in political freedom.
And (from glasnost’s later comment):
If you care to look at
http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=16&year=2005And use the map to select first Norway and then the United States, you’ll see that Freedom House - a longstanding US NGO founded by Eleanor Roosevelt and, if anything, is too penetrated by American government officials (*not* leftists) - rates Norway a “9″ for press freedom on a 1-100 scale, 1 being completely free. 9 is the highest rating I recall finding. The US rates as a 17.
Well, according to Freedom House, the United States rates a “1†in political rights and civil liberties (see here). Why you chose press freedoms instead, I don’t understand. In any event, just looking at the world map on which Freedom House notes free, mostly free and un-free countries, there is a great deal of correspondence to the Heritage Institute’s Freedom Index. Those countries with very little economic freedom also have very little political freedom and vice versa.
In contrast, I give you the radically free-market and ruthless dictatorship of Pinochet’s Chile, not to mention the racially and politically fascist, but economically capitalist regime of South Africa.
First, however radically free-market Chile was under Pinochet, he was a ruthless dictator with respect to his political enemies. However, he was also voted out of office, and now Chile ranks as one of the freest countries in the world. There is even talk of fashioning our own ailing Social Security system after that of Chile. It should be obvious that as free-market reforms were introduced (ruthlessly I might add), Chile became more politically free as well. That does not excuse Pinochet’s murderous actions, but as far as capitalism and freedom coinciding, Chile actually presents an opposite example of the one you intended.
South Africa never has had a “free market†although certain segments of society were able to prosper off government favoritism. The country has always been plagued with restrictive labor laws, property rights and a dense bureaucracy. Even with the changes over the past decade, South Africa still struggles with these same demons:
The legacy of apartheid in South Africa is a high degree of central control over the economy and collusion between the government and big business. The economic system under apartheid was not capitalism, but “statism.” The government incentives favored companies perceived as crucial to alleviating the negative effects of sanctions. Many of South Africa’s largest enterprises were thus run less for the benefit of the shareholders and more for the benefit of the apartheid regime.
Today, like in the past, the power of the government to help and to hurt South African business remains largely unchanged. Businessmen vie with each other for government favors because they know that the government can help them or destroy them, dependent upon what it does with regard to taxation, affirmative action and labor regulation.
As with your Chile example, South Africa is an example counter to the argument you present. Political freedom and economic freedom go hand-in-hand.
Accordingly, a free market means free people, which means that capitalism is just as anti-thetical to fascism and national socialism as it is to communism and socialism. So however one views fascism, as “right or “left†it cannot be ideologically comparable to capitalism.
Wrong. A free market does not mean free people. Again, freedom is a spectrum. Whether or not someone at one point on this specturm can be considered “free†is a personal and abitrary judgement made by individuals and societies. According to a maximalist take on libertarian ideology, there’s not one genuinely free-market system in the world existing today, and there are also no free people.
Despite your ipse dixit arguments here, I think the record shows pretty conclusively that the freer the markets, the freer the people. You seem to be focused too much on the capillary, thereby missing the heart of the matter. It’s not about designating each individual as free or not-free. We can’t measure these sorts of things with the precision of a ruler. Instead, we look at indications of freedom such as in the political, economic and civil liberties arenas. What rights do people have, and how protected are they? Norway may indeed have plenty of freedom for the press, but is it more likely such freedom is due to it being socialist or to the fact that it provides a generous amount of economic freedom? Looking across the board at all countries and political systems, it is undeniable that the freer the economic rights, the freer the political rights. Certainly there can be disputes as to the ultimate ranking of countries that are similar in both economic and political freedom. But how do the extremes match up? What are the stark contrasts? I’ve already answered this.
But I’m not merely saying that, according to some logically coherent relative viewpoints, both people and markets are rarely free. I’m also saying that free markets and free people have been observed as discontinuous plenty of times. There’s not even a logical problem with the idea. The state simply allows people to buy and sell mostly what they like, but does not allow them to choose who leads their government. You can thus have relatively free markets - more free than the average economic state today - and relatively unfree people - less free than the average democracy today.
OK, but if the state can give it to you it can also take it away, correct? How free is that really? Using an example from property law, if I sell you a piece of land (Blackacre) but reserve the right to reclaim it should you buy, sell, store, manufacture, drink or otherwise dispose of alcohol on that property, would you consider yourself as the true owner of Blackacre? The more reversionary contingencies I place upon the sale, the less you would actually own, and the more likely you will look somewhere else to purchase. Don’t economic and political freedoms work in a similar fashion?
And how often has there been an instance of lots of freedom with respect to economic decisions but very little (if any) with respect to political freedoms? You say there are plenty of examples, and yet I can’t think of one.
Only at the never-observed extreme, libertarian version of a free-market - a *completely* free market where you can buy your own nuclear weapon, is anything like completely unlimited freedom, or even Norway’s political freedom, absolutely neccesary.
I have read the above innumerable times, and I still cannot suss out what you mean here.
I’d grant you that economic freedom and political freedom, like I said, tend to reinforce each other and promote each other. But economic freedom and political dictatorships have been historically observed coexisting.
Again, please provide examples.
capitalism does not in any way, in any form, on any planet in any time equal fascism.
Yep, capitalism does not equal facism. Many capitalist goverments, such as the one in this country, are not politically fascist.
I’d even grant you that the pure capitalist vision of societal organization and the pure fascist version of societal organization can not both be in place in one nation-state.
OK, so now we agree (hurray!).
However, bastardized fascism and bastardized capitalism can and do coexist in the same society. It is also arguable that no pure form of either society has ever existed.
I never asserted that the two could not co-exist, only that the ideologies are antithetical to one another.
Furthermore, the pure communist (I’ll specify Marxist) vision of social organization and the pure fascist vision of social organization can’t coexist either - just mutually bastardized hybrids, such as Stalinist Russia. One pure involves the end of all political central control, and the other one involves ultimate and perfect central control.
Yes, well can the “pure†form of anything co-exist with anything else? That would, by definition, make it “un-pure†so, again, what’s your point?
Finally, the reason that the argument over the roots of fascism is so important to me personally is because of horribly misleading statements such as this:
Mussolini took all of it and melded it with the thinking of Giovanni Gentile, an Italian philosopher who believed that individuals’ rights were subordinate to those of government, that class warfare could be eliminated by a fusion of a nationalism and corporate business into a strong, unyielding government, and that change only came through violence.
Wow, that’s a mouthful! I hadn’t read so much philosophy in the last twenty years! So, if we try to make it simple, Fascism was a political movement that believed in the will of man, the need for a strong leader, the rights of government to be above those of the individual, the fusion of nationalism with big business, and whose leader, Benito Mussolini was a hard drinking, womanizer.I can see the errors in your final two examples, but I don’t see anything incorrect about your first excerpt.
I’ve answered this in previous comments.
glasnost’s later comment:
What I’m really interested in is your reaction to this:
Freedom is a spectrum. Fascism is not compatible with the libertarian vision of capitalism, because its need for military conquest demands that the business sector subordinate itself to that goal, and its inherent disrespect the free action of businessmen not interested in conquest. However, fascism is definitely compatible with forms of economic organization that are generally capitalist in nature where the fascist regime does not choose to exercise direct control. No fascist regime has ever attempted to eliminate the market system. The market system and fascism have been historically observed coexisting in the same national space, in the same way that in the US the market system coexists with regulatory and social-welfare limitations.
…
However, bastardized fascism and bastardized capitalism can and do coexist in the same society. It is also arguable that no pure form of either society has ever existed.Much like nations have attempted to cross-breed communist economic systems and totalitarian political systems, nations have attempted to cross-breed capitalist economic systems and totalitarian political systems. There is undoubtedly tension, but often the states have been functional.
Modern China is yet another sad example.
Well other than Chile and China, I don’t know to what examples you are referring. Chile was undergoing free-market reforms during Pinochet’s dictatorship, which as they were implemented resulted in a freer country (so much so that Pinochet was voted out of office). China has been slowly accepting more and more economic freedom, which has resulted in more and more prosperity and the pressure is building for more and more political freedom. You really can’t have lots of economic freedom and lots of dictatorial power for too long – as you said, the two are always in tension with one another. Either the political freedom will grow (at the expense of the dictator) or the economic freedoms will shrink (at the expense of the people’s freedom and power).
[NOTE: the UPDATE was edited to correct some minor errors - mjw]
30 Responses to “Fascism Cannot Equal Freedom (UPDATED)”
Trackback URI | Subscribe to the comments through RSS Feed
I’ve avoided commenting on this thread, because I didn’t want to trip up the evolving conversation - which was fascinating and a little over my head. However, I would add this to the current state of the conversation:
Tobacco activitists, militant feminists, ecoterrorists.
Three examples of modern american fascist movements arising out of the most capitalistic society yet to see glorious dawn grace the green hills of Earth. Illustrated by their agenda of blending laws with business. Of the three, tobacco activitists have been the most successful in climbing the fascism ladder.
Your chosen definition of fascism lacks an important secondary characteristic - the disenfranchisement of a cultural subset, followed by elevation of the chosen elite.
Good post Michael.
Gil,
This is off the cuff, and I may kick myself for saying this without thinking it through minutes after waking up, but I am not sure that that can be said of Italian Fascism, at least not as a matter of doctrine.
Gil:
I don’t understand your point. While tobacco activists (who are they?), militant feminists and ecoterrorists may indeed be classified as “fascist” I don’t understand what they have to to do with capitalism.
And they may indeed be seeking to mix laws with business, but I don’t understand, again, what that has to do with capitalism.
As to:
I suppose this is correct, although I’m not sure it addresses my main point (at least in this post) of capitalism not being equal to fascism. Can you elaborate?
Michael, I am not sure he is saying these movements are capitalistic, he is just saying that they have grown up within capitalism. I think it was just an observation, not a disagreement with your thesis. Gil can tell me if I am wrong, but that is how I read it.
Certainly.
Capitalism is not inherently inimical to fascism. Capitalism has as its most basic root the idea that party A has something to sell to party B. Fascist capitalism (e.g. the above cited examples) simply sells the desired product of domination by ideal, sic. smoke-free society, female inherent superiority, inviolate environment.
My point is simply that while I agree with you that capitalism does not equal fascism, neither is it necessarily inimical to fascism.
I further wanted to help define fascism so that it may be understood clearly. Thus far I understand characteristics of fascism to be:
1. State run economies without laizez-faire (no free trade).
2. Disenfranchisement of a minority. (scapegoating).
3. Legislation of chosen morality. (imposed virtue)
4. Elimination of individual freedoms. (denial of individuality)
5. Elevation of the chosen elite. (Hero worship)
Where those goals represent a salable product, demand can promote fascism within a capitalist society without inherent contradiction.
Lance,
Don’t kick yourself yet. I’m beginning to question #2 above in light of Italy - I could throw out Ethiopia and the Vatican, but I’m not sure how solid those arguments would be.
OK, Gil (and thank you, Lance), I see what you mean now.
I disagree that fascism and capitalism are not inimical to one another, but I understand your point.
Gil,
1. State run economies without laizez-faire (no free trade).
This is an interesting part of it for me. The syndicalist and corporatist approach claims that enterprises will be controlled by what we call stakeholders today (this movement today of course in no way wants to acknowledge either the syndicalist or fascist roots of that approach.) Under the fascist approach that eventually means that enterprises are eventually fully under state control because the desires of the stakeholders are subsumed within the state. This is in fact what has happened within fascist states, including Nazi Germany which is what Hayek is warning about in The Road to Serfdom. Hayek was worried that the same trends within democratic states would inevitably result in the same path. Experience has aligned perfectly with theory in fascist states, a more mixed record in democracies. This trend in Italy led the fascist theorists to adopt the term totalitarian to describe the philosophy. They realized the logic led in that direction, a moment of political honesty.
As for #2, I took your statement to mean minorities within the state. Certainly that happened, but that happens in every state. I don’t think it is a chracteristic of all fascist states, but it has far more dangerous outcomes because of the power of the state. For example, Ethiopians; certainly they were turned into an enemy to be conquered, but they were hardly a minority, at least not in Ethiopia.
Given that Gil already introduced the subject of fascism and smoking — last I did so, some years back, I got crucified per Godwin’s Law — do consider this book, and read at least the first review.
I especially like this quote:
I think looking at a lot of what the Nzi’s and fascists did lends us an appreciation for why they were attractive to many.
Mike:
Well organized and coherent post describing your personal ideology.
However, very subjective, not only in terms of “all words mean what everyone agrees they mean”, but also in terms of there being no such modern historical consensus behind your opinions.
The keys are here:
Whether fascism is considered “left†or “right†in the end is rather unimportant to me except for one thing: if one views capitalism and generally being in favor of a free-market economy as being “rightâ€, then fascism can not possibly occupy the same ideological space.
“Capitalism” is a very imprecise term used to describe various economic systems that differ profusely. Furthermore, it’s generally seen a term describing the economic organization of society, not its political description. Fascism is a term for a political (to a lesser extent, philosophical) ideology and system of government.
Frankly, I think that genuine and relatively pure libertarians are not of the political right. I think a belief in free markets has been grafted onto the political right in the past one hundred years. However, the political right is usually interested in greater state control and enforced societal harmony, which inevitably conflicts with libertarianism, just as the left’s interest in mandated relief of economic inequality conflicts with libertarianism.
Free markets are not at the core of political conservatism. It’s a marriage of convenience between political conservatism’s interest in control of society and free-market capitalism’s ability to grant them that control.
Libertarianism is about more than free markets, and the genuinely consistent application of libertarian principles leads to the dissolution of the state - at which point I think it has more in common with the (radical) left.
I have a few leftist friends that would trade every pro-equality regulation in the world and the state itself if the legal code would also be scrapped, except as pertaining to violence, and that would be enforced in decentralized local communities. Very libertarian, though they don’t call themselves that.
Moving on:
Freedom is a spectrum. Fascism is not compatible with libertarian capitalism, because its need for military conquest demands that the business sector subordinate itself to that goal, and its inherent disrespect the free action of businessmen not interested in conquest. However, fascism is definitely compatible with forms of economic organization that are generally capitalist in nature where the fascist regime does not choose to exercise direct control. No fascist regime has ever attempted to eliminate the market system. The market system and fascism have been historically observed coexisting in the same national space, in the same way that in the US the market system coexists with regulatory and social-welfare limitations.
Your problem is that you are choosing to interpret “capitalism”, the market system of economic organization, as synonmous with the libertarian ideology of absolutely unrestricted market behavior. That’s, again, nice and all as your personal ideology, but in reality, either capitalist countries do not follow libertarian (”capitalist”) ideology and yet are still capitalist countries, or else there are no capitalist nation-states
Basically, I believe that Hayek was correct when he pointed out that economic freedom is necessary for political freedom.
What you believe is nice and all, and I’m not denying the tendency of the two to be mutually reinforcing, but your statement is so generalist as to be either meaningless or rapidly disproven by historical evidence. Please witness the political freedom in socialist Norway, often ranked as #1 in the world in political freedom.
In contrast, I give you the radically free-market and ruthless dictatorship of Pinochet’s Chile, not to mention the racially and politically fascist, but economically capitalist regime of South Africa.
Accordingly, a free market means free people, which means that capitalism is just as anti-thetical to fascism and national socialism as it is to communism and socialism. So however one views fascism, as “right or “left†it cannot be ideologically comparable to capitalism.
Wrong. A free market does not mean free people. Again, freedom is a spectrum. Whether or not someone at one point on this specturm can be considered “free” is a personal and abitrary judgement made by individuals and societies. According to a maximalist take on libertarian ideology, there’s not one genuinely free-market system in the world existing today, and there are also no free people.
But I’m not merely saying that, according to some logically coherent relative viewpoints, both people and markets are rarely free. I’m also saying that free markets and free people have been observed as discontinuous plenty of times. There’s not even a logical problem with the idea. The state simply allows people to buy and sell mostly what they like, but does not allow them to choose who leads their government. You can thus have relatively free markets - more free than the average economic state today - and relatively unfree people - less free than the average democracy today.
Only at the never-observed extreme, libertarian version of a free-market - a *completely* free market where you can buy your own nuclear weapon, is anything like completely unlimited freedom, or even Norway’s political freedom, absolutely neccesary.
I’d grant you that economic freedom and political freedom, like I said, tend to reinforce each other and promote each other. But economic freedom and political dictatorships have been historically observed coexisting.
capitalism does not in any way, in any form, on any planet in any time equal fascism.
Yep, capitalism does not equal facism. Many capitalist goverments, such as the one in this country, are not politically fascist.
I’d even grant you that the pure capitalist vision of societal organization and the pure fascist version of societal organization can not both be in place in one nation-state. However, bastardized fascism and bastardized capitalism can and do coexist in the same society. It is also arguable that no pure form of either society has ever existed.
Furthermore, the pure communist (I’ll specify Marxist) vision of social organization and the pure fascist vision of social organization can’t coexist either - just mutually bastardized hybrids, such as Stalinist Russia. One pure involves the end of all political central control, and the other one involves ultimate and perfect central control.
Finally, the reason that the argument over the roots of fascism is so important to me personally is because of horribly misleading statements such as this:
Mussolini took all of it and melded it with the thinking of Giovanni Gentile, an Italian philosopher who believed that individuals’ rights were subordinate to those of government, that class warfare could be eliminated by a fusion of a nationalism and corporate business into a strong, unyielding government, and that change only came through violence.
Wow, that’s a mouthful! I hadn’t read so much philosophy in the last twenty years! So, if we try to make it simple, Fascism was a political movement that believed in the will of man, the need for a strong leader, the rights of government to be above those of the individual, the fusion of nationalism with big business, and whose leader, Benito Mussolini was a hard drinking, womanizer.
I can see the errors in your final two examples, but I don’t see anything incorrect about your first excerpt.
militant feminists, ecoterrorists.
Gil, is this an expression of dislike for these groups, or can you demonstrate that they are looking for the total submission of the individual consciousness to the state?
They are indeed interested in having laws passed that favor their causes and restrict freedom. So is the Recording Industry of America. Does that make the RIAA a fascist movement?
Glasnost-
I neither like nor dislike them. As with any cause, there are strong points and weak points, some of which I agree with and others of which I do not.
I merely observe that these causes in particular meet my criteria for a fascist agenda (as given above). I would not say they call for total submission of the individual, merely complete submission relative to their area of interest. Sort of sectarian fascists, if you like. I doubt for example the militant feminists would have any strong feelings about an invasion of Canada, as opposed to pure fascists who would see it as a necessary expansion of the State, but probably would support the invasion of a country with a demonstrably poor equal rights history, such as is found in the third world.
They are fascist as regards the advancement of their agenda, but not fascist in the pure sense of political party.
Is the RIAA fascist by tactic? I haven’t thought about that before (which is how fascists gain power in the first place), but let’s run down my criteria:
#1: Free trade restriction. Check. They do restrict free trade, with regards to maintaining an inflated price for art relative to free market forces.
#2: Oppression of a minority. Check. They do oppress artists who would offer their product at reduced or no cost, and actively prosecute individuals who offer product at reduced or no cost in the aftermarket (piracy).
#3: Legislating morality. Check. What is copyright law if not legislated morality, and prosecution under that law if not imposed virtue?
#4: Denial of individual freedoms. Check. Self evident.
#5: Hero worship. Check. It’s the foundation of their client base.
Yes, I believe the RIAA qualifies as fascist by tactic. Fortunate for them, they have a product to sell which is in demand and that allows their fascism a place in capitalist society.
Gil..
I’m not exactly sure if I agree or disagree with your clarified point (which is itself a rarity - congradulations!).. but I don’t think I could disprove it. So, props to you. Flying colors for my impromptu screening for libertarian consistency.
Mona said:
*chuckling* Okay, yes, but the probability of invoking the Nazi’s in a thread which discusses fascism is very close to one to begin with. I have held the view that the anti-smoking lobby was essentially fascist for at least two years, documented in my private blog, and I still maintain that they meet every criteria for a fascist agenda.
Capitalism rewards good marketing, after all, and fascism *is* good marketing.
No props for me today, Glas. I just showed up for the post-show; reserve your compliments for yourself and the other folks who waded into this thread at the beginning.
Lance, I think I have to concede criteria #2. I can’t find any way of supporting it within the Italian model of fascism. I’ll respond to your comments on #1 when I’ve done some more research.
The essence of fascism is found in the etymology of the word. A fasces is a bundle of sticks, an old Roman political icon symbolizing the strength of the many bound together.
When I was putting together my website, I discovered that the fasces was represented extensively in the allegorical portraits adorning 19th century US currency, especially during the years leading up to the Civil War and following reconstruction.
But that of course doesn’t mean that fascism is capitalist =8^]
yours/
peter.
glasnost:
I promise to offer you a more elaborate answer to your comment, but boiled down to bare bones, as near as I can tell, you are simply saying that all I’m offering is an opinion and yours is the exact opposite. Fine, as far as it goes, but you don’t actually provide any factual support for your argument.
To be clear, I am providing my opinion as to how the political spectrum should be organized. But I provided plenty of concrete examples and cites supporting my view; enough that I would think you could at least argue the factual aspects. Just one example of your attempt to do so should illustrate what I mean:
What historical evidence? Who has ranked Norway #1 in political freedom? Maybe I was being general, but The Road to Serfdom (already cited and quoted several times in the series of related posts here) lays out a pretty damning argument to support my “belief.” At this point, I’m not even saying that your wrong, but you don’t provide me enough to make an evaluation based on competing facts.
As for the examples of mis-interpretations of fascism:
I will cut n’ paste my comment to that particular post in order to clarify what was incorrect:
In short, corportism is not the same as corporations or big business — i.e. fascism does not equate to capitalism.
Gil,
Concede a point? What is the blogosphere coming to. All joking aside, unless you had brought it up and I had thought about it I might have made the same point.
I remember once going to a conference of mathematics teachers and observing the Kumon math method. Filled with all kinds of constructivist dogma I watched a demonstration of students abilities. I and most of the teachers at the conference were thinking all kinds of things; it was merely rote memorization, the students didn\’t really show they understood, etc. Of course when they all gathered around and I listened to teachers doubt the actual students who had solved advanced calculus problems with pencil and paper before the teachers in the demobstration had even entered the data into their calculators I realized that their complaints and criticisms which sounded so good in my head seemed rather ridiculous coming out of their mouths. That is a round about way of saying thanks for forcing me to think that through.
What historical evidence? Who has ranked Norway #1 in political freedom?
If you care to look at
http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=16&year=2005
And use the map to select first Norway and then the United States, you’ll see that Freedom House - a longstanding US NGO founded by Eleanor Roosevelt and, if anything, is too penetrated by American government officials (*not* leftists) - rates Norway a “9″ for press freedom on a 1-100 scale, 1 being completely free. 9 is the highest rating I recall finding. The US rates as a 17.
For example. So what’s this about lack of evidence? The only cites I saw in your argument were the Monty Python site, quotes from this blog, and the three passages at the bottom as examples of fascism = capitalism equations you declare incorrect (and I’d agree that, insofar as they do actually declare facism = capitalism, they are incorrect)
My use of Norway was to provide example of a socialist economic system that provides political freedom at least equal to “capitalist” governments, and in fact has been rated above the US’s “capitalist” government in specific by not only freedom house, but other neutral institutions such as the UN.I’m not going to bother coming up with five or six: this is a blog, and I’m not being paid, but I urge you to look into it yourself.
Insofar as I can see, we are both using primarily logical arguments, not evidentiary presentations. Logically, Norway’s existence disputes your claim:
Basically, I believe that Hayek was correct when he pointed out that economic freedom is necessary for political freedom.
I further logically disputed this claim with the examples of apartheid South Africa and Pinochet’s Chile, two countries, that, I assert, clearly lacked political freedom, yet were as capitalist and free-market leaders in their continents. If you’d like to dispute that Pinochet Chile and/or apartheid South Africa were “capitalist” countries, or that they were politically unfree, please do so. You can provide any level of evidentiary depth you personally consider convincing. Frankly, I think consensus and obvious historical awareness among educated individuals makes this uneccesary. I don’t have time to do presentations on either country to detail my statements.
as near as I can tell, you are simply saying that all I’m offering is an opinion and yours is the exact opposite.
I wouldn’t say that either - I’ll quote myself now.
Yep, capitalism does not equal facism. Many capitalist goverments, such as the one in this country, are not politically fascist.
I’d even grant you that the pure capitalist vision of societal organization and the pure fascist version of societal organization can not both be in place in one nation-state. However, bastardized fascism and bastardized capitalism can and do coexist in the same society. It is also arguable that no pure form of either society has ever existed.
As I specifically said, I’d agree that fascism does not equal capitalism. To paraphrase myself again, capitalism is a system - or, in other circumstances, an ideology or group of ideologies - of economic organization, and fascism is a system of political organization - or, at times, an ideology that justifies and promotes this system. It is only the libertarian ideology that encompasses political, economic, individual, and societal spheres with enough consistency to be a player in all.
So I’d say I disagree with you in some areas, and disagree in others. I don’t think you’ve disagreed with my logical arguments in detail or specificity so far, except in relation to my final statement about your first attempted cite of mischaracterizations of fascism and/or capitalism.
So, I’ll wait for your full response. I covered a lot of ground in my original answer. If you are specific as to which premises you’d like to see more examples of or supporting logical clarification, I’ll try to oblidge.
But it’s not just “you have one opinion, and I have another”. There’s an element of that, but history provides a template which one can only re-interpret, not re-invent. The history of movements calling themselves “rightist” are not limited to those arguing in support of free markets, nor have they been consistently historically aligned with greater political liberty within the societies they acted. It’s a mistake to conflate libertarian ideology with the political right, at least world-historically, though that may (or may not, but may) be true more often than not in this country.
I’ve come up with a few examples of that, ad hoc, and could come up with a few more, but I’m not going to write you a book… don’t I do too much of that already ;-)
What I’m really interested in is your reaction to this:
Freedom is a spectrum. Fascism is not compatible with the libertarian vision of capitalism, because its need for military conquest demands that the business sector subordinate itself to that goal, and its inherent disrespect the free action of businessmen not interested in conquest. However, fascism is definitely compatible with forms of economic organization that are generally capitalist in nature where the fascist regime does not choose to exercise direct control. No fascist regime has ever attempted to eliminate the market system. The market system and fascism have been historically observed coexisting in the same national space, in the same way that in the US the market system coexists with regulatory and social-welfare limitations.
…
However, bastardized fascism and bastardized capitalism can and do coexist in the same society. It is also arguable that no pure form of either society has ever existed.
Much like nations have attempted to cross-breed communist economic systems and totalitarian political systems, nations have attempted to cross-breed capitalist economic systems and totalitarian political systems. There is undoubtedly tension, but often the states have been functional.
Modern China is yet another sad example.
Please see UPDATE.
- The Management
Mike, this was a thorough rebuttal. Take a bow. No, really. I appreciate people who rebut at the same length as they recieve, and generally don’t cherry-pick arguments. Intellectually rigor is ideologically neutral.
I thought that I was going to leave it at that, but I got greedy.
I think there’s a gap between:
Basically, I believe that Hayek was correct when he pointed out that economic freedom is necessary for political freedom.
and the idea that economic freedom encourages political freedom, which you endorsed in your clarification. I have reservations, actually, even about the second statement, but they are conditional in nature, and I do agree that *in general* history proves the second true.
However, I think the first statement, as phrased - economic freedom being neccesary for political freedom - is unsupportable. I think that Norway’s example demonstrates this, as does the fact that European nations, commonly argued as less economically free than the US and other ‘hard’ capitalist nations, are not generally politically less free, though individual examples could be culled, I’m sure. But don’t bother, because against those we have more than Norway. Israel is another very strong argument against economic freedom being *neccesary* for political freedom - its economy was socialist for the broad majority, yet its politics have been free from the get-go. Lebanon is another discontinuous example - one of the most free-market countries in the world, but less than politically free. Singapore is only a quasi-democracy, for another example, if that.
I would probably agree that countries that are *extremely* economically unfree are predictably politically unfree, but once you get out of the very bottom of the cluster, things get a lot murkier.
First: Thank you, glasnost. I appreciate your … er, appreciation. And I always enjoy a challenge.
Second: I understand the problem you have with economic freedom being connected so inextricably (IMHO) to political freedom. As you point out, there are examples of socialist nations (Israel actually being a very good example) that are still more or less very politically free. I don’t think it’s an absolute as much as there is a srong positive correlation between the two.
With respect to such socialist-type nations that allow a great deal of political freedom I have two points: (i) they are generally not that restrictive economically in comparison to most others, and (ii) the real danger is that the political (and economic) landscape can change dramatically with the flick of a few legeslative pens.
In reality, I think that where there is a great deal of economic freedom, you will sometimes see the electorate choose more socialist type (really, social democrat) governments because they can. Off the top of my head, it seems that many of these nations are also fairly homogenous ethnically and culturally speaking (Israel, Norway, Japan). I could be wrong about that, however, but there may be something there.
In the end, political freedom does include the ability to elect socialists how ever much I wish they wouldn’t.
Anyway, thanks again for the comments (all of them).
I must admit, that this a valid criticism and most likely correct (for many reasons that I set forth in my last comment). When offering arguments in absolutes, one runs the risk of the pin-prick destroying that argument. Thus, in all cases and for all arguments, never ever again shall I employ an absolute. Ever.
;^]
Gil,
Environmental fascists were successful long before the anti-smoking nazis.
glastnost,
I think you are having trouble grasping what conservatism is. In America, it is indeed free markets and limited government (perhaps in Europe it is monarchy, which is not collectivist, BTW, but an extreme form of indiviualism formed around one individual).
Conservatives in America, at least traditionally (modern conservatives have adopted ‘progressive’ ideas to some extent), wished to restrict state power, particularly that of the federal government. It is the left and the progressive movement (part of the left, but an important part) that wanted to expand state power at the expense of individuals and families, churches, etc.
The left is stepping on two forms of power by expanding the state: capitalists and traditional social structures (like families and churches). Hence both economic conservatives and social conservatives are under pressure from leftist ideas.
American conservatives’ traditional ‘control’ is based upon the church and family. Hence the Progressive drive for centralized public schools and the conservative angst and modern public schooling, and other social debates of the past 100 years. Generally speaking, capitalism has not provided conservatives with any real ‘control’, you are again missing the boat.
It is the left that wishes to enforce political control of society via the state. The right relies upon organic social structures like families and churches, at least until recently, reflecting a leftward movement of the American right wing.
I need to expand on my above comment; I think this goes to the heart of part of the debate on fascism:
Capitalism is a very efficient economic system. Given that, it benifits governments via taxes and productivity. This doesn’t necessarly benifit conservatives, in fact it most benifits the ‘moderate’ left, i.e., the left that is willing to let capitalists live and even profit as long as they pay taxes (the higher the better) and as long as they submit to government rules and regulations (producing what the government wants). In other words, it is fascists (and other leftists who might not consider themselves fascists but have, uh, essentially the same economic policies) that most benifit from capitalists. Capitalists provide the political left what it needs. ‘Conservatives’ only benifit from capitalism when they adopt leftist ideas on income taxes and political control of the economy. At which point they are dubious ‘conservatives’.
In England and the US, the root of freedom was capitalism, not the Enlightenment. In France, the Enlightenment failed. It didn’t succeed in England, rather it explained the success of capitalism.
In the US in the last 60 years or so the primary attack on local political control and freedom at the federal level has been rooted in interpretation of the commerce clause.
I don’t know much about Norway, but I suspect that if you look at history you will find that socialism was a recent development, and that some form of free market previously existed. And would predict that if Norway continues along a path of restricting the free market, all freedom will suffer.
I’m also not real impressed with European political freedom, with gun control, restrictions on free speech, environmental law, etc., but think I’d rather save that topic for another day.
As far as nations such as Lebanon having economic freedom but little political freedom, it isn’t clear to me how much real economic freedom they have. If the nearest militia can take your goods at gunpoint, do you really have property rights? In a certain sense Somolia had more economic freedom than, say, the United States, but somehow capitalists seem to prefer the US.
Now, I don’t think I’m proving anything with these points, but they are something to consider before you go too far with your line of reasoning.