Good Fascists and Bad Fascists
John T. Flynn's smashing essay from 1944, brought to light again. He defines fascism as "a system of social organization in which the political state is a dictatorship supported by a political elite and in which the economic society is an autarchic capitalism, enclosed and planned, in which the government assumes responsibility for creating adequate purchasing power through the instrumentality of national debt and in which militarism is adopted as a great economic project for creating work as well as a great romantic project in the service of the imperialist state." Then he notes certain hypocrisies. FULL ARTICLE
Comments (12)
Aaron Russo's compelling documentary "America: From Freedom to Fascism" can be viewed for free here:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4312730277175242198
Published: November 1, 2006 9:27 AM
John Flynn is an interesting character in his own right, and I wonder if anywhere he took a position on "trusts" to which he referred toward the end as being seen as of the "good" or the "bad" sorts.
I think most Austro-libertarians feel that all trusts are "good" (or more-accurately, not to be interfered with as such). Flynn clearly feels that the "good/bad" ontology discloses specious reasoning, but I do wonder if he ever came down on one side of the issue, as many of us do nowadays in anti-anti-trustism (doubt THAT term will catch on).
Published: November 1, 2006 12:17 PM
Austro-libertarians are opposed to government enforced monopolies and government supported trusts. The theoretical danger of monopolies is that they will be able to use their market position to extract "outrageous" profits. In reality, no level of profit is outrageous (except to the jealous) and no one is compelled to do business with a monopolist. Ipso facto, monopolies are a chimeric threat.
As for the definition of fascism, it would be good to get away from the idea that it has a dictator and a single party. American fascism has two parties and a ruling oligarchy. In a way, it is a propaganda ploy that keeps Americans thinking we have not descended to fascism because there is still pluralism and no permanent dictator. Brilliant public relations coup there!
Published: November 1, 2006 2:29 PM
Isn't fascism just evolved (or devolved) mercantilist imperialism? OR, more acurately, was 18th and 19th Century Mercantilist Imperialism nothing more than proto-fascism?
Published: November 1, 2006 3:04 PM
The USofA has one party under two names. The same people have bought the parties.
The dictionaries have been modified to emphasize the racial characteristics and ignore the economic characteristics.
Published: November 1, 2006 6:43 PM
I don't know whether Flynn or his editors are at fault, but there appears to be a confusion here between "autarchic" and "autarkic". If the former is really what is meant, then the excerpt is ambiguous.
Published: November 1, 2006 10:13 PM
P.M. Lawrence-
I believe the excerpt is referring to the economic policy of autarky not the political system of autocracy. However, I can understand the confusion since I've seen the former spelling used as the adjective form of both.
Published: November 1, 2006 11:10 PM
Myself, I found it a real eye-opener...especially the point about fascist politics becoming conceivable when interest payments put a crimp on the government budget. Fascism then is seen as a means of ducking out of the budgetary constraints that earlier deficits have caused. The dichotomy of libertarianism as opposed to fascism is made very clear.
Published: November 2, 2006 12:27 PM
The theoretical danger of monopolies is that they will be able to use their market position to extract "outrageous" profits. In reality, no level of profit is outrageous (except to the jealous) and no one is compelled to do business with a monopolist. Ipso facto, monopolies are a chimeric threat.
No, the genuine problem with monopolies is that they prevent everyone (except the monopolist) from engaging in a form of economic activity. We know that this prohibited activity is socially beneficial because out of everything that potential competitors could do with their time and resources, they would (if allowed) choose that activity.
But, since they are excluded by force from this protected activity, they must do something else instead. Therefore, the monopoly causes all would-be competitors to engage in economically inferior work.
Furthermore, the monopolist's productivity is reduced. Competition forces businesses to make hard choices. Every time a business correctly makes one of these hard choices, it increases its efficiency and adapts to the changing economic realities of the market.
By locking competition out, you prevent the monopolist from making these decisions. In fact, even a monopolist with the best intentions couldn't make the best decisions because, in the absence of a competitive market, he lacks the information that he needs to make these choices. Socialists, including monopolists, can't calculate.
As a result, they invariably choose to adopt (or maintain) relatively inefficient behavior.
Prices (including profits) are not the be-all-end-all of economic analysis. They are important to the extent that they refer to what really matters: economic decision-making and behavior.
The problem with monopolies is not that they cause distortions in profits per se, but that they cause people to choose economic behavior that is less productive and socially beneficial than it otherwise would be.
Published: November 2, 2006 3:59 PM
Fascism need not have much to do with "imperialism". For example, the Spanish Falangists (normally called Fascists by historians) where not much interested in expanding the Spanish Empire and the area in North Africa held by Spain was of little importance anyway.
Even Salazar in Portugal inherited the colonies in Africa - however much he supported keeping them (a big mistake as the strain of war led to the fall of the political system he created).
As for the United States "the same people have bought both parties" - some people and companies do give money to both parties but this is rare (and it is normally a protection money tactic "please accept this and leave me alone, do not hit me").
Also giving money to a candidate does NOT give one control of this person in office (as many people who have donated money have found to their cost).
The idea that a rich elite control everything is neoMarxist nonsense.
For example, rich people do not have one set of political opinions anyway.
There are leftist billionaries such as Mr Soros (and the guy who gave Dan Rather a job after he was fired over the forged documents used to attack President Bush) indeed even the old American Communist party had many wealthy benefactors, there are Republican rich people (such as Mr Dell of Dell Computers) and their are even libertarian rich people (although not many).
It is common practice now (particularly on this site) to say that there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats - "the Republicans are big spenders and they support X, Y, Z, regulations - so the Democrats are no worse and split government may hold back statism as it did at such and such a time".
Actually the Democrats support far more government spending that the Republicans do (a glance at the proposals on spending in the House would tell people this if they bothered to look) and they support higher taxes and more regulations (Barney Frank, soon to be in charge of a key House committee, openly boasts of his plans for a world financial services regulator - as part of his world government ideas).
But it is pointless to write more on this topic as I will not be believed. Only experience over the next couple of years will teach people that the Republicans (even big spending President Bush himself) are not as bad as the Democrats.
Published: November 3, 2006 6:57 AM
PAul MArks,
I've seen quite a few left-wing economic think tanks (PPI, etc.) that are agitating for a global fiat currency so that governments can inflate their currency in unison, avoiding capital flight.
Would this be a plank of a Democratic Congress and a Democratic President?
Published: November 3, 2006 3:05 PM
Thanks for bringing us this thought provoking book. It is always easier to see something in the other guy than in ourselves. Flynn brilliantly focuses our attention where it should be.
Published: November 6, 2006 7:40 AM