Has libertarianism poisoned ideas on the left?

[stinkubus]

You will not find this anywhere in Hayek's writings. Don't feel bad; there's no way you could have known this.

This is literally the entire premise of The Road to Serfdom.

 

[brennan]

Anyway the Nazi economy featured so much market capitalism that economic historians literally invented the word “privatization” to describe what occurred there. I might well argue that during WWII the German government had the LEAST control over its economy among all of the great powers, possibly save Britain.

The war economy of the Nazis was certainly less controlled than that of the UK, but that has more to do with Nazi complacency than any ideological tendency to favour private capital over the public sphere. While the UK took drastic measures very quickly Nazi Germany didn't for example mobilise women until 1943 following the disaster at Stalingrad, British women were called up in 1941.

Fascism and thence Nazism both stole from the communist playbook and appealed to the working masses by promising them more and better jobs (primarily for the men - women were to have babies and look after the children, with the Nazis reducing female employment by hundreds of thousands in the run up to WWII), but it was more insidious than communism in also appealing to the owners of capital, saying, in essence, "you can keep all your stuff - and your head - but the price is that we tell you what to do". Fascism didn't favour private capital, it made private capital explicitly a tool of the state, exploitable as and when the state demanded - the exact opposite of any classical free-market form of capitalism.

 

[inthesomeday]

The war economy of the Nazis was certainly less controlled than that of the UK, but that has more to do with Nazi complacency than any ideological tendency to favour private capital over the public sphere. While the UK took drastic measures very quickly Nazi Germany didn't for example mobilise women until 1943 following the disaster at Stalingrad, British women were called up in 1941.

I mean part of the problem with effectively diagnosing or analyzing fascism is that it lacks a very clear theoretical basis. The nazis and other fascist movements were happy to rhetorically employ literally any effective appeals to come into power, case in point calling themselves “national socialists”.

How we can identify fascism is in its function, and in its form. The Nazi party was key in combatting workers movements, unionization, and in restoring/protecting capital power to the bourgeois class. If we are looking at “command economy vs market economy” as our dichotomy (which is foolish itself) the Nazis fell more to the market side than the command side, when compared to the Western allies or the USSR.

Fascism and thence Nazism both stole from the communist playbook and appealed to the working masses by promising them more and better jobs (primarily for the men - women were to have babies and look after the children, with the Nazis reducing female employment by hundreds of thousands in the run up to WWII), but it was more insidious than communism in also appealing to the owners of capital, saying, in essence, "you can keep all your stuff - and your head - but the price is that we tell you what to do". Fascism didn't favour private capital, it made private capital explicitly a tool of the state, exploitable as and when the state demanded - the exact opposite of any classical free-market form of capitalism.

That’s one way to look at the Nazi relationship with the bourgeois class. The other way is that the Nazi party explicitly enfranchised the reactionary elements of the bourgeois class and its ideas directly into government politics. Antisemitism, for example, was an absolutely ancient tool of the ruling classes in Germany and broadly throughout continental Europe to scapegoat the worries of the working classes. In the mid-1930s the Nazi party began systematically “reprivatizing” industries like banks, which particularly were the target of nationalization by western powers in the 30s. Generally, it served the direct purposes of the rich in a way unprecedented to the past.

So while most “classical liberals” would probably publicly denounce the Nazis as statist scum it seems the actual function of the Nazi government was the perfect propertarian dream: a more overt tool of capital than any prior government in human history.

 

[brennan]

The Nazi party was a workers' movement. It suppressed all opposition, just as the communists did.

As with Mussolini's fascists, the German Nazi party was clearly pro-labour and anti-capitalist to a large extent. In 1920 their programme demanded nationalisations, an expanded welfare state, a right to work and a ban on child labour. As announced by one A. Hitler.

 

[Traitorfish]

Fascism and thence Nazism both stole from the communist playbook and appealed to the working masses by promising them more and better jobs (primarily for the men - women were to have babies and look after the children, with the Nazis reducing female employment by hundreds of thousands in the run up to WWII)

The Austrian Christian Social Party had been pushing a combination of bread-and-jobs economics and fervent anti-Semitism since the 1890s, when Lenin was still wondering if he could make a comb-over work. Even the term "National Socialism" dates to 1903. Nazism represents an existing tradition of Central European right-wing corporatism, radicalised by the experience of the First World War and failed Communist insurrection. It didn't borrow anything from the socialist left exist the most superficial rhetorical flourishes.

 

[brennan]

"a collection of laborers, apprentices and trade unionists from the railroads, mines and textile industries, who upheld nationalism as a result of their conflicts with the non-German speaking portions of the workforce, especially in the railway systems. In 1899, Stein was able to convene a workers' congress in Eger and promulgated a 25-point program." You can smell the money, can't you?

I can't detect a trace of corporatism in your 2nd link about Austrian Nazis - and weren't you being sniffy about citing wiki last time we had this discussion?

Also illuminating is the fact that your first link ended up banning the second. wasn't your argument that Nazis can't be socialists heavily predicated on the fact that they suppressed other socialist groups? Here we have fascists suppressing Nazis, just as communists suppressed democratic socialists when they got the chance. I guess totalitarians are just jealous like that?

"It didn't borrow anything from the socialist left exist the most superficial rhetorical flourishes."

Nationalisation of industry, a right to work, a welfare state for workers and ex-workers, banning child labour - mere rhetorical flourishes? Who do you think you are convincing?

I honestly can't understand the stubborn rejection of the influence of the left on fascism and Nazism. The link is explicitly made repeatedly all over wiki, let alone other sources. Orwell certainly noted it repeatedly.

 

[Truthy]

Actually, part of my point is that hardly any fascists today will admit they are fascists. Just as we have racism without racists, sexism without sexists, we have fascism without fascists.



Toward the beginning it looked as though it might be, but it has turned out not to be. If anything capitalism has only been strengthened in its aftermath. Additionally the recession did not see the emergence of a serious political movement challenging the basis of private property. Of course, a useful exercise for you might be asking any libertarians you know what they think of Occupy Wall Street.



What you fail to realize is that American libertarianism itself is simply an extreme form of the modern conservative movement.



To say that liberalism is fascism would be a bridge too far. But if liberalism is not allied with a firm support for democratic political institutions it can and frequently does morph into fascism. Ordoliberalism is one manifestation of this. It is all about creating institutions that safeguard private property from democratic politics. As I've noted before on this forum the early liberals ran an ideological gamut from the more humanist and 'progressive' types like Adam Smith to far less enlightened and benign dudes like Bentham (the guy who came up with the totally-not-fascist concept of the panopticon) or Malthus (whose work provided the intellectual framework for scientific racism).

Mussolini for a more modern example governed initially largely according to the liberal playbook: deregulation, privatization, balanced budgets. And as we have seen contermporary liberals praised him to the skies. It is no coincidence that the states most admired by the original ordoliberals were generally fascist states.



That is correct, yes. In much the same sense as Hayek claimed that any interference with the free market will lead inexorably to totalitarianism, I am claiming that institutional defenses of private property against democracy will inevitably lead to fascism. The background to this is that political theorists have understood for literally millennia that private property and majority-rule are in basic tension. For example, Adam Smith:

"Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all."

James Madison:
"In England, at this day, if elections were open to all classes of people, the property of the landed proprietors would be insecure. An agrarian law would soon take place. If these observations be just, our government ought to secure the permanent interests of the country against innovation. Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority."





"In a political situation where a majority votes to steal private property from the rich, would you support state action to protect private property even if this means suppressing civil and political rights?"

I started reading and couldn't resist making a spicy graphic to summarize the debate so far

Higher effort post possibly on the way

 

[Berzerker]

In either case the idea is to make private property immune from democratic challenge. Whether we call this situation "fascism" or not over time its methods of rule will inevitably come to resemble those of fascism.

People threatening violence is always the method of rule, dont matter if you called the cops on burglars or if the neighbors take a liking to your home and kick - I mean challenge - you out of it. If slave traders showed up at your door would you be the fascist for resisting?

The banks won't get in the game they see it as too risky, but allowing predatory lenders only does a massive disservice to the community and the individuals involved.

Isn't this 'risk' why the rates are higher? Who would be making the loans if Payday didn't exist?

 

[cardgame]

Payday loans entire existence is based on the premise that the working class is getting shafted by capitalism, so ideally, nobody would be making those loans because they wouldn't be necessary.

 

[Cutlass]

Fascism was much more socialist than anything resembling free market. The government control over the relevant companies made it function similarly enough to USSR communism in practice. They largely attempted to distinguish themselves from that for obvious political reasons, but the wholesale slaughter tipped their hand.

To date, socialism has consistently performed worse than libertarian policies in outcome measures, though even the US has been far from consistently libertarian. You do need some means to break monopolies, as well as to block lobbying. The US has been pretty bad at both in recent years, and AFAIK was never effective in blocking lobbying.

Fascism has always ended up being the polar opposite of socialism.

 

[Estebonrober]

People threatening violence is always the method of rule, dont matter if you called the cops on burglars or if the neighbors take a liking to your home and kick - I mean challenge - you out of it. If slave traders showed up at your door would you be the fascist for resisting?



Isn't this 'risk' why the rates are higher? Who would be making the loans if Payday didn't exist?

Yes, and rates that high are an indication that the loans should not be made, that is the bloody point.

 

[Berzerker]

because the children need protection

 

[Traitorfish]

"a collection of laborers, apprentices and trade unionists from the railroads, mines and textile industries, who upheld nationalism as a result of their conflicts with the non-German speaking portions of the workforce, especially in the railway systems. In 1899, Stein was able to convene a workers' congress in Eger and promulgated a 25-point program." You can smell the money, can't you?

The Austrian National Socialists were primarily working class, yes. But they were also a weirdo fringe movement, the composition membership isn't necessarily indicative of the composition of larger and more effective parties. The point was that Hitler did not coin the term "National Socialism" because he was inspired by a political party that post-dates the term by fifteen years.

Also illuminating is the fact that your first link ended up banning the second. wasn't your argument that Nazis can't be socialists heavily predicated on the fact that they suppressed other socialist groups? Here we have fascists suppressing Nazis, just as communists suppressed democratic socialists when they got the chance. I guess totalitarians are just jealous like that?

The first group set up a one-party state in 1934. That does, as a necessity, entail the prohibition of opposition parties, socialist or otherwise. And it's not as if the conflict between Austrian nationalists and German nationalists in the First Austrian Republic is a secret; the Austrian chancellor was associated by German ultranationalists in 1934.