This claim was referenced by a publication put forth by Lyndon LaRouche a while back and the posters on Mises.org freaked out, all gasping at such a scandalous claim.
I’ve noticed that historically economic liberals have been sympathetic – and sometimes even worked with (see the French fascist party, Faisceau) – Fascists to crush Socialism. In a discussion I had over at anti-state, the market anarchists over there seemed to acknowledge this. Mises’ and Rothbard’s unfounded attacks on unions as inherently coercive sets them apart from other Libertarians. On immigration, Mises supported open borders because he claimed that superior ethnic groups supplant inferior ones. (It’s in Omnipotent Government. I can dig out a specific citation if you’d like.)
In the past, I did not think this was good enough evidence to call Mises a Fascist, although I think Walter Block and Hans Hoppe certainly are – the former for his “slave contract” theory and the latter for his homophobia, opposition to open borders, and support for aristocracy.
I didn’t think this was good evidence because claiming someone’s a Fascist simply because they associate with them is guilt-by-association. On the issue of immigration, a lot of people believed in such silly racial theories back then, including Margaret Sanger, Karl Marx, and black author, W.E.B. DuBois.
However, I recently came across this quote by Mises:
I still don’t think that’s substantial enough evidence to prove the existence of Mises’ Fascism, but combined with his support for the Austrian monarchy, it is rather startling. In that chapter he seems to suggest Fascism stems from a regard for property rights, even though it violates them:
mises was clearly describing fascism as the lesser of two evils, given that in the situatons he described they were pretty much the only games going. we know mises wasnt a fan of fascism for itself. further just to pick out that fascists had good intentions doesnt say much, i mean the socialist that we here all oppose might have ‘good intentions’. we have good intentions too. good intentions arent really the way to decide on which ideology has merits.
also in the last paragraph you qoute, mises is explicit that the fascists do not have coherent ideologoy or good ideas. that their resort to violence betrays this. (so too the communists) so how can he be a fan of it if he calls it stupid…?
From the Latin fasces, a group of tightly bundled rods with an axe head protruding from one end, a Roman symbol of power and unity. As a political philosophy, it describes an authoritarian regime that exalts the state above the individual, readily resorts to military action to solve international disputes and seeks to control every aspect of the nation’s existence — political, social, religious and economic. Fascism does not embrace communism’s devotion to a classless society. First applied to Benito Mussolini’s National Fascist Party in Italy in the 1920s, and later to Adolf Hitler’s National Socialist Workers’ Party in Germany and Francisco Franco’s Falange Española Tradicionalista in Spain.
The term fascist is sometimes more loosely used to describe a state or person willing to employ propaganda, intimidation and violence to achieve its ends.
That you would somehow confuse monarchists and fascists I believe to be impossible. The only conclusion is that you are a horrible troll out to slander the reputation of liberalism.
This thread’s proper title would be ‘Is Nathyn a troll?’ Your ‘demonstration’ of Hoppe being a fascist is pure nonsense, to put it mildly. You make a series of specious arguments, then expect people to buy into it. Unless Hoppe is willing to impose his conservatism on others by means of force (i.e. the State), your argument is void of any sense. I fail to see how Block is a fascist based on his position that voluntary slave contracts are okay, however wrong he may be. Modern social democracies have far more in common with fascism than any monarchy, so again, this is a moot point. Of course, you only mentioned these two guys because you wanted to troll a bit. Note, however, you’re on thin ice. The other mods and I have been very tolerant of you so far - continue a bit more, and that tolerance will wane. Take that as a warning.
The title of this thread is, of course, absurd. What is actually in question here are the political judgements of Mises during a very critical time in European history, when socialism threatened to wipe out civilization and fascism was its only political opposition.
For those willing to do some reading on this question, the most extensive article to appear on Mises’s comments on fascism come from Ralph Raico writing in the Journal of Libertarian Studies. Here it is to download.
I think that saying Fascism was supported out of “the best intentions” is inaccurate, at best.
And that sets him apart from Libertarians. No Libertarians today would try to put forth apologists for Fascism. Rothbard once wrote the ridiculous nonsense that “Fascism = Socialism”.
I agree with you there, but Mises argued that Fascism could be consistent if they simply avoided violence and economic regulation.
What I’m talking about is demonstrated in the short-lived French Fascist party, Faisceau: It was made up of economic liberals and Fascists. Both claimed to support “corporatism”, but had disagreements on how it ought to be achieved. The Liberals argued for deregulation, the Fascists argued for regulation, but at the time, they both acknowledged their goals were the same.
To clarify, here: I’m not saying that Capitalism is Fascism or that Mises was a Fascist, just that both claims aren’t wholly unfounded.
Before modern times, there were no “Capitalists” (I’m talking about the Marxist usage of the term for “large business leaders”). Under the aristocracy of mercantilism, those who controlled large businesses saw it in their best interest to have the government to continue to grant their guilds monopolies, and so on.
After it became clear by the late 19th and early 20th century, however, that many businesses benefited from deregulation (or at least selective forms of regulation\deregulation), business leaders instead demanded de-regulation. You saw this shift happen in the Republican party during the New Deal. The Republicans themselves, on the one hand, were instrumental in passing Smoot-Hawley and were a protectionist party, because at the time, businesses favored it. The New Deal, however, threatened their constituents. As a result, the Republicans over time shifted away from protectionism and towards free-trade and selective de-regulation. I suspect something similar happened in Europe, leading to the development of Fascism – which wasm’t laissez-faire, but was supported by European business leaders, the same as with economic liberalism.
Also, see the Austrian Freedom Party, in Mises’ own countries. Like Faisceau, it was made up of Fascists and Economic Liberals. Despite being a Fascist party, for a while it was a part of Liberal International, but after facing a proposed expulsion it withdrew.
Good job appealing to an obscure website to prove your point.
Stranger, you’re oversimplifying what I said. I’m not saying Mises was a Fascist because he supported Monarchism. That was something stupid which LaRouche supposdly said.
I’m saying, “Mises was an economic liberal, with racist immigration views, who supported monarchy and was sympathetic to Fascism.”
Inquisitor, as Mises says in the section quoted in the OP, the use of force simply demonstrates your inability to use the tools of intellect.
Yes, it’s a mistake to assume that I’m claiming “MISES WAS A FASCIST, OMG!!!11” Anyone here reacting like that is just being ridiculous.
It seems to me that there’s a link between conservatism (ancien regime), monarchy and fascism. Of course, I tend to lump all anti-free-market ideologies together, so maybe I’m just being slopy…Anyway, I also see a very real link between conservatism and socialism, something wich I imagine Nathyn would desperately deny…
Spencer says :
"The new Toryism
Most of those who now pass as Liberals, are Tories of a new type. This is a paradox which I propose to justify. "
Inability to use them in doing what? Argue with a flamebaiting troll who has a history of posting threads like this?
Another thing, you mention that Mises argues that fascism stems from a respect for property rights - how could you possibly deduce that from the paragraph you quoted?
Given that the man spent his entire life recording ways in which fascism violated property rights, I am not sure how such an inference follows at all. Mises valued bourgeois liberal civilization - one could just as easily infer that he meant that they were a preferable evil to that of communism in that they at least, like liberals, valued this civilization. That again does not necessarily imply any significant regard for private property.
Communism was not limited to the destruction of property; it was a much broader phenomenon. Besides, you’ve yet to show that fascism stems from a respect for property. It stems, perhaps, from a respect of tradition, authority and the like, and to the extent that property has been a feature of Western civilization, fascism is willing to defend it, if only nominally. Thus it might exhibit a higher regard for property than communists do, but it most certainly does not stem from a respect of it (something Mises knew all too well.)
I thought the quiz on that “obscure site” was fun.
It may be economicly the case that free market functions in a corpatist fascism, can prevail better in that system as opposed to a system that takes property away. I suppose both systems try to bamboozle the status quo with the idea of, this is for the publics good.
I like the bookmarks, you get from the store here. “Government is essentially the negation of liberty” from Liberty and Property.
Nathyn I think you should read some Mises and this is a nice start, it is short and very insightfull. I think his lesson of “the chocolate king” is one that will help you.
And could the store sell some varieties of bookmarks please.
For someone who values tradition and insitutions such as the family, the fascists would seem well-intentioned (hence why many conservatives fell for their rhetoric); just utterly incapable of accomplishing their goal in any way possible (again, something Mises had shown in his works.)