Liberalism Vs. Fascism
Nov 25th, 2005 @ 06:01 am › Roderick T. Long
Fascism differs from its close cousins, Communism and aristocratic conservatism, in several important ways. It is an odd fusion of privilege and folksiness; one might call it a movement that thinks like Halliburton and talks like George W. Bush. To understand these differences is to see how classical liberalism offers a completely different view of social and economic organization, a perspective that departs radically from the views of both right and left, as those are understood in contemporary political language. FULL ARTICLE
Categories: Uncategorized
Home
RSS Feed
E-Mail
Del.icio.us
Digg
Technorati
Magnolia
Newsvine
Reddit
17 Responses
“Hence fascism’s odd fusion of privilege and folksiness; one might call it a movement that thinks like Halliburton and talks like George W. Bush.” Sorry here you lost me for good. That reminds me of Rockwell talking of red state fascism. Admit that democrat and republican policies are not fundamentally different. Admit that Bush is able to do what he’s doing because for years democrats have built the right tools in growing government. Admit that Goldman Sachs (managed for a long time by hard-core democrats) is as bad as Halliburton or any corporation colluding with the State. Have you ever associated democrats with fascism or that’s not too politically incorrect? Using great analysis and knowldge to sling mud on the sole Bush and republicans is beyond me. Talk of purple state fascism and hit as hard on democrats as you do on Republicans and you will have me back with you. Otherwise, that was a good article and I learned quite a bit, which is always good.
John, I think it’s natural to show greater disdain for the party that had promise but gave it all away, than one that was hopeless from the beginning. The Democrats would never have a Ron Paul, they had no principles to begin with. In the words of Walter from The Big Lebowski:
“Nihilists!…I mean, say what you like about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, at least it’s an ethos. “
Mr. Christopher, I assure you that there is no lack of “democrat bashing” on Mises.org.
I find it quite refreshing name the system we live under by its correct name. And if it weren’t G.W.B., it would be just another thug no different.
While both the Democratic and Republican parties have fascist tendencies, the Democrats temper their fascism with a greater degree of state socialism — that is, they favour the “government-business partnership” strategy somewhat less (though still plenty, don’t get me wrong) and the “government displaces business” strategy somewhat more. So I think it’s quite true that the Republican party is generally more fascist than the Democrats, and that the Democratic party is generally more state-socialist than the Republicans (even if it is arguably more fascist than state-socialist, at least in the short run). That’s why I focused more on the Republicans than on the Democrats in my article. That’s not meant as a compliment to the Democrats, since I am equally opposed to fascism and to state socialism. (I do think it’s true, though, that the Republicans are currently a greater threat to liberty than the Democrats. Certainly that could change.)
I’m happy to see a (relatively) non-economic discussion of Fascism in Professor Long’s lecture.
The anti-rational nature of Fascism is something that still distinguishes it from International Socialism. As much as the Communists still anthropomorphize “society” and state, which is certainly very rational, when compared to Fascism’s reliance on particularist mythologies and a revolt against reason and intellcutality, Communism gets kudos from the thinking crowd (unfortunately).
Has anyone read Richard Wolin, the British author of The Seduction of Unreason? He claims that the irrational, post-modern leftists are more akin to Fascism than Socialism in their abandonment of universal principles. It’s an interesting read, and shows that “Fascism” to some is more an issue philosophical posturing economics.
Great Speech Dr. Long!
Sorry, I meant “which is certainly NOT very rational..” in the post above.
So Spencer thinks that all sports are barbaric, militarist, fascism?
Spencer’s concern isn’t with sports as such, only with the rise of an extreme emphasis on sports, especially competitive violent team sports, which he sees as part of a militarist syndrome.
It seems to me that the defining characteristic of facism, as a subcategory among other forms of right wing authoritarianism, is the suborning of professional organizations into national unions. Prior to some point in modern history the professions saw themselves as borderless callings. Then there was the push to organize trades in the 19th century and the syndicalist movement (which actually had anarchist affinities). Facism might be called the “last stage of syndicalism” in which statism trumps anti-statism. By the time of WWI the process had reached a point where Julian Benda could speak of “the treason of the clerks”…where “clerks” has the archaic meaning of a professional or an intellectual. In other words loyalites were now vertical and local rather than horizontal and stretching across national frontiers. It is a case of the classes of professionals sacrificing principles for pride and hence rendering themselves up to the Molochs of nationalism and war.
Which party is responsible for turning our country towards fascism at a higher rate than ever before? Republicans.
You know, the NAZI party didn’t have a majority that the Republicans now enjoy when they turned Germany towards fascism, and yet we don’t talk about those other parties.
I see no reason to protest the heat being directed towards the ruling party. The only people who would protest such things are hopeless partisans who are part of the problem.
I don’t understand the use of the word ‘plutocracy’. Following De Molinari I think there are three and only three political positions. Conservatives (ancien regime), Socialists, and Classical Liberals (or Libertarians).
Just like in Les Soirées de la rue Saint-Lazare
Interlocuteurs : Un conservateur. Un socialiste. Un économiste
http://oll.libertyfund.org/ToC/0383.php
“Un économiste” means, obviously, a libertarian economist. Socialism and the ancien regime are actually the same tiranny run by an oligarchy, except that socialism claims to rely on some muddled mess they call ‘science’. So, in the end, a society is ruled by an oligarchy or it is not. A ‘plutocracy’ on the other hand is a meaningless word…Was the money acquired through cooperation, or violence ? Anybody can hire a thug. You don’t need to be a ‘big bussiness’ to make a contract with the mafia. So, I can offer Peter $10000 to burn the shop of my competitor across the street. While that certainly makes me a despicable person, the really bad guy is Peter, who will comit the actual physical violence. Unless we do away with this free will thing, we must admit that the real criminals are the military and the police (or their ‘private’ counterparts like the mafia). OTOH, I could use my $10000 to provide a better service for my customers – civilized competition. Bottom line is – money is neutral. It can be used for good or bad. So, this ‘plutocracy’ thing makes no sense to me. ‘Plutocracy’ is a word wich denotes a moral judgement, irregardless of how wealth was acquired. Plutocracy sounds populist to me – But I may well have misread the article. I apologize if I did so.
Also, I am not saying that all actual owners of wealth are honest entrepenuers. Some(or many) of them are not, that’s for sure.
If A hires B to commit a crime I would say they’re both guilty. The excuse “I was only giving orders” is no better than the excuse “I was only taking orders.”
What’s wrong with plutocrats isn’t just that they make their money with government help (sometimes they do, sometimes they don’t) but that they use that money to get the state to commit further crimes on their behalf.
I need to hire a thug to carry out some work for me – no deaths, just sustainable knee and finger/hand injuries. Can you help?
here you go
With the reality that almost all fascist regimes started out as socialist political parties is all the reason I need to equate fascism with the liberals of today and not the conservatives. The FACT that Hitler, Pol Pot and Mussolini all began as socialists is not coincidence. Also, Hitler and Stalin had no trouble forging an alliance to divvy up Europe in 1937. To spin the idiotic nuance game of the loony left that things are not always as they appear, but in fact, they are NEVER as they appear is tedious. You can rail against conservative all you want, however, it is an outright lie to equate them as fascist when historical FACT is just the opposite.
First of all, I never said that only conservatives were fascist. After all, there’s a reason there’s a picture of FDR at the top of the page.
Second, I never said fascists were worse than communists. Some fascists are better than some communists and vice versa. So I’m hardly giving leftist authoritarians a free ride by calling them something other than fascists.
Third, I’m puzzled at the mention of Pol Pot as a fascist who started off as a socialist. As far as I can tell Pol Pot was always a socialist and never a fascist; I don’t recall his being a big fan of public-private partnerships.
Finally, the distinction I drew behind fascism and communism depends on the content of their policies. So what if fascists started off as socialists or cooperated with socialists — what POLICIES did they advocate and pursue? And the simple truth is that rightwing statists tend to be more fascist and left-wing statists tend to be more socialist.
Problems of social power, including fascism, are discussed in “Self Liberating Spirit” on http://www.maxrebel.net – relevant reading.