I was too busy to repost this morning, but I would be remiss if I didn't bring people's attention to LK's post on the German Foreword. Of course this is something I've written on in the past too. This is something I would like to revisit again in the future - there's a ton of implicit German intellectual history in that foreword that gets obscured by the low quality analysis and simple demagoguery surrounding it.
LK makes an explicit comparison to some of the less savory things Mises has said about fascism. After providing the material, he writes: "If anyone is a candidate for having (in Rothbard’s words) a “strong fascist bent,” then it would be Mises, not Keynes."
I would put it this way - as far as I can tell, neither Keynes nor Mises were anywhere remotely in the neighborhood of sympathizing with fascism. However, I would say that if we found out that one of the two of them was a closet fascist or collaborated with fascists to reach other ends, I would be much less surprised to find out that it was Mises. The fact is, neither men were fascists - and that should be the take away. But Mises skirted the boundary in ways that Keynes never did. There is a pretty bold line between libertarianism and fascism. Libertarians are liberals, after all - and fascists are not. But insofar as libertarians tell a society they cannot make certain decisions for themselves and insofar as libertarians weaken the basic liberal institutions of representative democracy, they can make that bold line between liberalism and illiberalism fairly porous. This is a small, small minority, of course. I'm sure you all can think of one well known example of what I'm talking about. That's the sort of thing that worries me about libertarianism. But Mises the man was unequivocally a liberal - as was Keynes the man.
UPDATE: I want to be clear - just because I offered how I would have phrased it, and just because that emphasized that I don't think either are fascists - I didn't mean that to imply that LK thinks Mises was a fascist. He clearly doesn't.
Tuesday, June 7, 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
"If anyone is a candidate for having (in Rothbard’s words) a “strong fascist bent,” then it would be Mises, not Keynes."
ReplyDeleteYou will notice the word "if" in that sentence.
I am saying "if" we had to choose between Keynes and Mises, then Mises would be better candidate for the accusation given his statement:
"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."
Of course, I do NOT accuse Mises of actually being a fascist, or supporting all forms of fascism. Instead, I say Mises:
(1) praised fascism. And he did:
“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."
(2) become an economic adviser to the Austrian fascist Engelbert Dollfuss, even a close adviser, according, not even to me!, but to the anarcho-capitalist defender of Mises, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, “The Meaning of the Mises Papers,” Mises.org, April 1997, and
(3) supported Dolfuss' Austro-fascism as "a quick fix to safeguard Austria’s independence—unsuitable in the long run, especially if the general political mentality did not change" (Hülsmann, 2007. Mises: The Last Knight of Liberalism, Ludwig von Mises Institute, Auburn, Ala. pp. 683–684).
Not (2) and (3) are not even my opinions, but opinions of Austrians themselves.
How can a man who declared "The merit that Fascism has thereby won for itself will live on eternally in history" not be sympathetic to some forms of it, at least in a some qualified way?
That Mises was a classical liberal is undoubtedly true. That he cricised totalitarianism in many other occasions is true.
None of this changes the charges made above. If anything was a hypocrite by making these statments and claiming to a Classical liberal.
Let's start being a little kinder to fascism. ;)
ReplyDeleteWhat I mean is that there is no consistent body of thought of fascism. Even if liberals had pretty broad disagreements, they could easily rally around some core ideas or starting points. Fascists in Italy seemed to be a coalition of all sorts of people.
For the above reason, some of the most dissident, anti-establishment thinkers escaped abuse or mistreatment by authorities and wrote and published for the largest publishing houses. When the authorities themselves came from such a broad range of backgrounds, they had a harder time condemning any heterodox person, given that fascists themselves were rather heterodox.
Two examples.
Antonio Graziadei of the Communist Party of Italy, a distinguished economist of the universities of Parma and Cagliari, and a very famous **orthodox** Marxist managed to write and publish "Le capital e le valeur", "Studi sul Marxismo", and various papers comparing Marxist and classical economic thought during the FASCIST REGIME. Yes, a man wrote hard Marxist literature during fascist years, and also wrote on classical economic doctrine that fascists presumably also would have suppressed in order to promote economia corporativa.
One historian Benedetto Croce managed to write History of Europe and History of Italy, which explicity demanded that Italians secure liberal democratic institutions and fight back the Fascists. His books were openly published and openly read in prisons by violent dissidents of the Fascists, including some liberals, social democrats, anarchists, communists, and others.
That the fascists allowed their biggest opposition to operate so freely indicates that they wanted some degree of openness of ideas, some degree of dissent, and some degree of *gasp* freedom to do whatever you want. Reading and writing are too petty things for authorities to worry about, presumably.
But Mises believed they were leftover habits of old days of free speech in Europe and that fascists were reluctant to change too many of the old ways in which things were conducted. It's not that the fascists were liberal, so much as the fact that people brought in relatively liberal societies don't like to fully abandon it either.
My initials are also "LK". When I read the title of this post, I was confused. The only thing I have said about Keynes's German forward is that I have not read it.
ReplyDelete@ Lord Keynes
ReplyDelete“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."
Think you are on your way home. You are coming from a soccer match, unfortunately on your way hooligans of the losing team A come along, and see that you are for the winning team B. Now they want to engage you and use you as a punching ball to let off some steam. But as a matter of luck, the hooligans of the winning team show up too, and in the last second draw (before the hooligans reach you) the attention away from you of hooligans A. Now you get home and say to your wife: The interventions of the hooligans B, for the moment, saved me from big harm.
Does that mean you are praising hooliganism for anything it stands for? I think the answer is clear.
And regarding the first part: Do you deny that fascists were well intended? Do you deny that Russian Bolsheviks were well intended? Mises did never attack fascism of any other ideology on the grounds that their proponents are purely evil or cold hearted bastards and their only goal is to either destroy the world or enslave it. The only way this part can be a problem for you is, if you actually think that good intentions must cause good outcomes.
But I am sure you are not that naïve and you know the saying: The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Regarding your points 2 and 3, maybe you should also cite this:
“Mises was also a close political adviser to the Austrian government, and to future statesmen and finance ministers. To gain an idea into the political importance of this period, consider this passage from Mises's Notes and Recollections: "My activity from 1918 to 1934 can be divided into four parts: Prevention of Bolshevist Takeover. Halting the Inflation. Avoidance of Banking Crisis. Struggle Against Takeover by Germany."” The Meaning of the Mises Papers, Mises.org, April 1997
Do you think Friedman was a hypocrite when he advised communist China?
“How can a man who declared "The merit that Fascism has thereby won for itself will live on eternally in history" not be sympathetic to some forms of it, at least in a some qualified way?”
This refers to Bolshevist Takeover that he thought would have meant bloody revolution and death by starvation of thousands of people (like in Russia)… But since this didn’t happen and nobody sees this today, one can use this phrase to imply that Mises was “in some qualified way” a closet dictator, which is as true as claiming the guy in my example above must be in some qualified way a closet hooligan.
"Think you are on your way home. You are coming from a soccer match, unfortunately on your way hooligans of the losing team A come along, and see that you are for the winning team B. Now they want to engage you and use you as a punching ball to let off some steam. But as a matter of luck, the hooligans of the winning team show up too, and in the last second draw (before the hooligans reach you) the attention away from you of hooligans A. Now you get home and say to your wife: The interventions of the hooligans B, for the moment, saved me from big harm."
ReplyDeleteAccept that is a shortsighted and misguided analogy.
Hooligans B later turn up later at your house and burn it down killing you and your wife, and go on a rampage in your community committing mass murder.
The only acceptable moral position is to condemn Hooligans B and A and argue that citizens from the community band together to stop both their outrages.
Do you deny that fascists were well intended?
ReplyDeleteWell intended? Which bloody fascists are we talking about? Ones who boldly proclaimed their intention to engage in racist and vicious mass murder and international aggression??
Do you deny that Russian Bolsheviks were well intended?
NO! Anyone who wants to abolish democracy, the law of law, due process in justice, freedom of religion and the press, as Marxists did even in the Communist Manifesto when demanding a dicttaorship of the proletariat, is NOT well intended. These people are pernicious, deluded and dangerous fanatics.
the law of law = the RULE of law
ReplyDeleteUm - yes. Thank you for the clarity of your 5:11 AM post, LK.
ReplyDeleteFascism and Communism have terrible intentions for the human race, period. They might also intend a few good things. But lets not pretend that means they had "good intentions".
Prateek's point is well taken, though, and particularly early on exactly what was meant by "fascism" was unclear. I'm posting a Lovecraft post shortly, and his letters show quite clearly the sort of confusion there was over exactly what "fascism" entailed (he called himself a "fascist" for a period). In many cases, fascism just meant a stronger more centralized government with a mixed economy and a certain degree of intolerance towards Bolshevists. That's not a great thing, but it's a very different sort of thing to embrace. And let's remember that Mises showed measured sympathy with the fascism of the early 20s, not the late 30s. Granted, what he liked about fascism was its violent repression of the communists! But it's still a reasonable point.
@ Lord Keynes
ReplyDelete“Accept that is a shortsighted and misguided analogy.
Hooligans B later turn up later at your house and burn it down killing you and your wife, and go on a rampage in your community committing mass murder.
The only acceptable moral position is to condemn Hooligans B and A and argue that citizens from the community band together to stop both their outrages.”
First: Thats exactly why he said "at the moment" ;)
Maybe it helps to have a bit of the context your quote is from, because interestingly Mises does exactly what you claim from him. He morally condemns fascism:
“That its [fascist] foreign policy, based as it is
on the avowed principle of force in international relations, cannot fail to give rise to
an endless series of wars that must destroy all of modern civilization requires no
further discussion. To maintain and further raise our present level of economic
development, peace among nations must be assured. But they cannot live together
in peace if the basic tenet of the ideology by which they are governed is the belief
that one's own nation can secure its place in the community of nations by force
alone.
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.” Mises 1927
You are by intention conflating Mises statement referring to a specific historical juncture, with his general views of fascism.
I also, as Danial does, propose to read the whole chapter.
“NO! Anyone who wants to abolish democracy, the law of law, due process in justice, freedom of religion and the press, as Marxists did even in the Communist Manifesto when demanding a dicttaorship of the proletariat, is NOT well intended. These people are pernicious, deluded and dangerous fanatics.”
Did they write "We will be the cause for millions of deaths through starvation, executions, war etc... And we love it"?
The difference between ideologies is not in the end (= happy live for all people without exploitation) but the means (freedom of the press, rule of law, property rights, etc)! Wrong means necessarily lead to wrong ends, even if not originally intended! Finally Mises and I agree with you where their policies/means lead to, and they therefore are to condemn morally. But this is done on the grounds of the means they propose, not on the grounds of the end (=their original intention) they seek! So don’t conflate means and the final end.
sorry for the screwed up format of the Mises quote..
ReplyDelete"First: Thats exactly why he said "at the moment"
ReplyDeleteAnd you are a short-sighted idiot if you declare:
"That its [fascist] foreign policy, based as it is on the avowed principle of force in international relations, cannot fail to give rise to an endless series of wars that must destroy all of modern civilization requires no
further discussion."
then say:
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.
How the hell can a ideology that "destroy all of modern civilization" be praised as winning "merit that ... will live on eternally in history"??
Mises is a stupid hypocrite.
"The difference between ideologies is not in the end (= happy live for all people without exploitation) "
Good intentions - which is the issue raised above - includes means as well as ends.
Let's try not to call each other idiots, LK. I want to keep this an inviting comment thread.
ReplyDelete“And you are a short-sighted idiot if you declare”
ReplyDeleteSo it is short sighted to prefer possible destruction of modern civilization later against destruction of modern civilization now?
To prefer death now to death later would be short-sighted. It is all a matter of options you have. Unfortunately sometimes you only have the choice between bad and extremely bad. To call it short-sighted is ignoring historical circumstances. I am quite sure Mises knew a little better than you/we what was at stake after ww1, for him, his family, friends and rest of Europe! Would you have preferred soviet style communism all over Europe if you had lived in 1927?
“Good intentions - which is the issue raised above - includes means as well as ends.”
This would imply that people always know where the means they propose are leading at. Just because they don’t recognize that doesn’t make them bad people! And it is exactly in this sense (the sense of the saying “The road to hell..”) I think he means this. If this was wrong I am absolutely sure we would find ample writing of Mises where he endorses force and violence and asks for arbitrary power to push his agenda. Why do you think there is none of it?
“Mises is a stupid hypocrite.”
But at hand of your terminology and loaded terms you use, I think you discredit yourself enough. I have the feeling this is only a mere play of “People are unfair to Keynes so I am unfair to Mises..” which is a bit childish.
This a statement of a well-intention: "We shall have an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all."
ReplyDeleteI deny, on the other hand, that fascists are well-intended.
Here's Slavoj Zizek on the differences between communism and fascism.
I always thought that the main difference between communism and fascism are the body count; the former being somewhat higher. Otherwise, both fascist and communist regimes banned jazz (it is a sure sign you are in a screwed up country when jazz is banned), they both practiced high levels of censorship and official state propaganda (liberal regimes do the latter, but there are always bullshit detectors that fascist or communist regimes do not have - though the citizenry eventually see through the bullshit over time anyway), they both set upon official enemies with a vengeance (and created new enemies as the old ones were on their way out - if the Nazis had won WWII then racial purification patterns were sure to be used against formerly "racially pure" Germans - and we know if Stalin had lived then the Jewish population of the USSR would have been severely compromised as a result of the phony "doctor's plot), etc.
ReplyDeleteSome people used to argue that fascist regimes had the benefit of being more easily turned into more liberal regimes (e.g., Spain); but that no longer seems to be the case (what with the Czech Republic, Poland, etc.).
Oh, and the responses to Zizek's moronic column are just awesome.
ReplyDelete