Mises was a Fascist?

[Nathyn]

@nirgrahamUK

@Nathyn

@Inquisitor

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.)

Is attempting to protect “tradition, authority, and the like” from Communists the “best of intentions”?

well,

IF " protection of tradition, authority , and the like…" is good for the people

AND IF “having the best of intentions involves striving for the good of the people”

THEN " protection of tradition. authority and the like… is having the best intentions"

Mises didn’t think that, which is why Inquisitor’s invocation of such concepts as what he meant by “good intentions” is B.S..

He meant they wanted to protect their property rights – they simply were msguided in believing such strict regulation was necessary to do that. Anarchists accuse Minarchists of making the same mistake.

[Inquisitor]

And your proof of this is what? That my claim is “BS” because you say so? Sorry, not good enough. Mises was acutely aware of how little fascists respected property rights in practice. Unless you can show that fascism as a movement stemmed from property rights and regarded them as primary, as opposed to mere features of the tradition they sought to guard, you have offered nothing to back your claim up.

[Nathyn]

@Inquisitor

And your proof of this is what?

Logical inference. You should try it sometime, instead of scrambling to throw together whatever fallacious rhetoric you can, like telling me to go read.

[nirgrahamUK]

I think Inquisitor put his last post really well, and Nathyn did not even address his point.

suffering logical interference [:P]

[Inquisitor]

Because he can’t.

I’m waiting for proof, Nathyn. All I see is an inference, but not very much to do with logic at all.

[Nathyn]

@Inquisitor

Because he can’t.

I’m waiting for proof, Nathyn. All I see is an inference, but not very much to do with logic at all.

Perhaps if I put the two sentences together, you’ll be able to follow the logical inference more easily.

Mises Institute

The victory of Fascism in a number of countries is only an episode in the long series of struggles over the problem of property… …It cannot be denied that Fascism and similar movements aiming at the establishment of dictatorships are full of the best intentions…

Yes, yes, I’m sure Mises thought those “best intentions” were to violate property rights for the same of govenrment and tradition.

[Inquisitor]

Awww, now you’re trying to patronise me. Too bad you’re still wrong.

Linking the sentences does not prove your argument.Your argument is that fascism stems from a respect of property. That is what I disputed. You’ve yet to prove it. I argued that it stems from a respect of tradition and authority (Mises indeed would dislike the second, but certainly would consider a defence of bourgeois civilization as well intentioned), and to the extent that property existed in this framework, fascists defended it. In practice, they violated property rights, and held them as secondary, and Mises knew this well; he’d also have known that rhetorically they valued European civilization. So your argument is still full of holes. Clearer now?

[waywardwayfarer]

@Nathyn

The victory of Fascism in a number of countries is only an episode in the long series of struggles over the problem of property… …It cannot be denied that Fascism and similar movements aiming at the establishment of dictatorships are full of the best intentions…

All the first sentence says is that the victory of fascism is an episode in the struggle over property. It takes no position at all on whether this was a positive or negative episode, only that it occurred and was relevant in some fashion to issues of property. I fail to see how anyone can infer from that sentence that Mises was sympathetic to fascism as an economic or political ideal. As to the second sentence, any fool knows with what the proverbial road to hell is paved. Admitting that someone may have good intentions is in no way an endorsement of his methods and practices; one may acknowledge good intentions even while believing the chosen means to be highly misguided or even evil.

[Niccolo]

@Bank Run

Are you trying to be offensive, Nathyn. Are you daring to imply that this is a school of fascist idealism?

DUH! No one has realized this yet?

[Niccolo]

@waywardwayfarer

All the first sentence says is that the victory of fascism is an episode in the struggle over property. It takes no position at all on whether this was a positive or negative episode, only that it occurred and was relevant in some fashion to issues of property. I fail to see how anyone can infer from that sentence that Mises was sympathetic to fascism as an economic or political ideal. As to the second sentence, any fool knows with what the proverbial road to hell is paved. Admitting that someone may have good intentions is in no way an endorsement of his methods and practices; one may acknowledge good intentions even while believing the chosen means to be highly misguided or even evil.

All men believe in their hearts that they are acting virtuously in some grand scheme. No one rolls out of bed in the morning, itches their crotch, and says, “hmm… I think I’m going to be evil from now on puts on monacle and top hat.”

[Anonymous_Coward]

@Nathyn

Logical inference. You should try it sometime, instead of scrambling to throw together whatever fallacious rhetoric you can, like telling me to go read.

Oh, hell. I got a good chuckle out of that…

I think it is common knowledge that your logical inference skills are sorely lacking and that you base most of your arguments on fallacious rhetoric.

Frickin’ laughable…

And just for the record, telling you to go read is probably the kindest advice anyone has ever given you. Well, assuming you aren’t intending to look like a complete idiot.

[Anonymous_Coward]

How about a full quote:

It cannot be denied that Fascism and similar movements aiming at the establishment of dictatorships are full of the best intentions and that their intervention has, for the moment, saved European civilization. The merit that Fascism has thereby won for itself will live on eternally in history. But though its policy has brought salvation for the moment, it is not of the kind which could promise continued success. Fascism was an emergency makeshift. To view it as something more would be a fatal error.

And a better quote of his views on fascism:

For Fascism does nothing to combat [socialism] except to suppress socialist ideas and to persecute the people who spread them. If it wanted really to combat socialism, it would have to oppose it with ideas. There is, however, only one idea that can be effectively opposed to socialism, viz., that of liberalism.

Add in the fact that this book was written in 1927 before WWII and it could be somewhat understood why he didn’t outright vilify them.

How you got that he was a fascist from that is beyond me unless you are just trying to troll…

[Caley]

Don’t you have better ways to use time than post trash troll threads?

[equack]

@Caley

Don’t you have better ways to use time than post trash troll threads?

I agree, sometimes I’m even reluctant to even post here, hence my low post count, due to persistant trolling. Replying to trolls represents an opportunity cost that according to my marginal utility, could have been spent engaging in rational discussion.

[hugonz]

@Nathyn

Inquisitor, if he doesn’t think they believe in property rights, then what does he mean when he says they have the “best of intentions”?

Defend their land from the advance of Marxism? One can say they have the best of intentions in result, if not in method, and that their method will yield bad results, such as in socialists being unable to improve welfare or achieve post-scarcity. Remember Mises is not Rothbard; he is not raising ethical issues here, but offering an analysis.

I’m surprised you asked. Not sure if you are arguing just for the sake of it.

[hugonz]

@Nathyn

@Inquisitor

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.

That begs the question: Why would anyone see Communism as a threat to civilization, hmm?

That begs the question: Do you even have a point?