It`s claimed by a couple of norwegian writers(http://wp.respublica.no/?p=1600) that Mises supported the austrofascist Dollfuss(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engelbert_Dollfuss). Does anyone know anything about it, true/not true?
No citations are given for this assertion. Mises did state that fascism had succeeded in saving Europe from communism for the time being (which was certainly true, looking at the existant and influencial political factions of the time), but whether he included this Dollfuss fellow in it is beyond me. Of course, a lot of the Progressives (including FDR) also praised Mussolini, as did the British leftist George Bernard Shaw. Mussolini’s economics were theoretically syndicalist, but in practice were simply reactionary and counter-communist more than doctrinaire and theorist of any sort.
Even before translation, I knew this was going to be one of those hit pieces about the mythical “neoliberalism” that has supposedly swept the West. Kind of like Tom Woods “Interview with a Zombie” video, except with neoliberals replacing neoconfederates. Mises is obscure and little known in academic circles or mainstream discourse, and none of his policy prescriptions are currently being used in any Western country, save perhaps nations like Andorra and Liechtenstein. The assertion he, or any variant of classical liberalism or laissez faire capitalism, represents the ruling ideology in the West is laughable in the extreme, especially coming from a writer who is almost certainly a social democrat.
According to Richard Ebeling:
According to Hoppe:
Mises had the misfortune of having already served as a close economic advisor to the Austrian government for decades just as Dollfuss, and his abortive attempt to establish “austrofascism” which lasted all of one year before he was killed in a 1934 Nazi coup, came along. As a result, it appears he simply got stuck with the job of advising him too. How this constitutes “support” of fascism, as opposed to merely having been in the wrong place at the wrong time (considering that what followed Dollfuss was far worse than what came before), is beyond me. Unless the moronic hacks who were paid to write that garbage can somehow demonstrate that Mises personally advised Dollfuss to assume dictatorial powers, they have no case.
Norwegian author clearly forget to mention that Mises was jewish and fled from the nazis to the West. Mises also was first one to state the nazis, fascists, socialists and communists are same thing with different names. This kind of rubbish is published when people want to ‘proof’’ that free market and nazis are closely related ideologies.
The reverse is certainly true. Check out racist and white supremacist communities - Stormfront is dominantly free-market thin government minded in the policy view polls they have published, as are the crypto-facist republican sub-communities. The fact is clear - free-market attracts racists.
There is lots of multiculturalists and anti-racists who support free market. Supporting free market-leaning thoughts is not so rare that we can draw conclusions from place like Stormfront.
“The reverse is certainly true. Check out racist and white supremacist communities - Stormfront is dominantly free-market thin government minded in the policy view polls they have published, as are the crypto-facist republican sub-communities. The fact is clear - free-market attracts racists.”
I like the logic here…
Mises spoke out against all forms of statism beyond a minimal government and especially totalitarian states like fascist governments. Also, the Nazis wanted him dead and came close to killing his family. Mises would have been killed if he hadn’t fled the country in the first place.
aervew wrote:
“…The fact is clear - free-market attracts racists.”
This fact is clearer - free markets attract everyone except the political class.
With brain processing capabilities such as these, I have to question your ability to cross a road or go down a flight of stairs. Honestly, can you do all of these by yourself?
In a collective one is coerced into living/sharing with everyone, so to a racist free-markets are alot better, i.e. they get to choose who to cooperate with.
Engelbert Dolfuss did call his plans “Austrofascism”, but he was trying to suck up to Mussolini, who wasn’t entirely trusting of Hitler at that point. He was trying to galvanise some sort of nationalist impetus against the immanent Nazi takeover of Austria. He saw Nazism and Bolshevism as very similar things, and he thought he could use nationalism against them. He was wrong, and Nazi assassins gunned him down in his office.
If use of fascist symbols is so terrible, what are we to make of the fasces decorating the US House of Representatives? Ron Paul is clearly a racist Nazi, because of all the times he’s stood up in Congress in front of those terrible symbols to advise the House of what a mess they’ve been making. The link between von Mises and fascism is essentially as close.
Any one who focuses on Anarchism, freedom, fascism, democracy, authoritarianism, republicanism, etc are focsing on some of the most empty and retarded rhetorical musings and ponderings an individual can waste time doing. These things are very literally nonsense, and not worth the words they are used to type with. Mises focused on actual factual forces and actions that could be discussed - not BS ideal words as “things in themselves”. I may dare go as far to say, If you miss this point you miss a major point of the Austrian outlook on what a market is.
If anything this is a somewhat good rule of thumb/ rubric what Mises meant by utlitarianism and liberalism. Focusing on suc words is the last gasp of a scoundral aka lefty French deconstructionist - at least Marx and Hilferding had the balls and mind to actually try to say something and not gleefully hide behind subsidy and fashionable word play.
+1 vive … these political labels are meaningless
The trouble with being a thorough-going, ethical anti-statist is that you are easily confused with all the other opportunistic anti-government types who only oppose this government simply because they’re not running it. I remember telling one of my Democrat friends in 2008 that “I’m an anarchist, I don’t believe we need government at all” and his reply was “I’m not surprised - with Obama about to sweep into office, it only makes sense that a hardline conservative like yourself would have an 11th hour conversion to anarchism.” The implication is that I’ll regain my faith in government once a Republican President takes power again.
It is interesting to observe the often strange use of cui bono by leftists. “You’re just saying that because you’re right-wing.” “Oh, you’re just repeating the tired old anti-government rhetoric of the ultra-conservatives.” It’s as if they believe that being “right-wing” or “conservative” is some kind of psychic motivation in itself. Right-wing! Hurrah! Long live conservatism! Why do I care about conservatism again!?
The use of cui bono as a component of critical thinking, on the other hand, looks for real benefits. Monetary benefits. Promotional and status benefits. Stuff you can take to the bank. This is always termed “corruption” nowadays but it used to just be called politics which shows just how far down the rabbit-hole we’ve gone.
So, how did Mises benefit from his supposed Austrofascism? Cui bono?
Clayton -
Actually, all racists have to do in a collective is get into a position of power and systematically deny state benefits to people they hate. They also get to take it easy and ride on the work undoubtedly performed by some members of his disliked race in a multicultural collective. If society really wanted to eliminate racism, they would make it legal to discriminate, so we would know who the actual racists were. Its much easier to use the pejorative of “racist” as a political/social weapon in a society where no one is allowed to do anything that would be considered racist. If there wasnt any actual or perceived racism, then there wouldnt be any affirmative action or any political benefits for being a racist. It’s kind of like the cycle of violence. The cycle of insidious racism.
Are you sure people who are openly racist today, would stop being racist, if discrimination was legal?
“Free market attracts racists.”
This is like saying that the subject of history attracts racists. While it may be true that racists can be interested in history, this doesn’t say much about the subject itself.
“Actually, all racists have to do in a collective is get into a position of power and systematically deny state benefits to people they hate.”
Also, a great move for racists would be to pass minimum wage laws and other measures to “support” the poor minorities. That is one of the best ways to hurt them.
“Are you sure people who are openly racist today, would stop being racist, if discrimination was legal?”
Not at all; but see above what Johnny Doe said.
In that period, those were virtually the only two political outlooks around. Classical liberalism had long since died off and only reemerged around 1960. We’re in a politically dark era of the enlightenment. Science of the natural world has progressed rapidly, but the science of political organization, itself predicated on the understanding on human beings and ethical systems, has not.
Have you ever checked out the economic policies of parties like the BNP or the FN? I’ll give you a clue, they’re not free market.
Neither of these parties are fascist, so it’s a moot point. You can’t have fascism without communism; it’s called a “reactionary” movement for a very good reason. The BNP’s policies are closer to syndicalism than any other political party in the UK, but in practice no fascist regime utilized syndicalism. The BNP is populist-nationalist in character, representing chiefly a working class white English constitutency angered with the population replacement programs of the cosmpolitan London elites. The FN, I gather, is fairly similar, but with more of a base in France’s rural areas and with traces of Vichy recidivists.
If you want a modern day fascist party, look at the PAP. I predict even they will melt into garden variety law and order conservatives once Lee Kuan Yew dies, though.