I thought I might just briefly take a step back this week and make another pitch for why I think addressing bad economics is so important. The recent attacks on the US Capitol and on American democracy itself in the form of one hundred and forty-seven Republicans in the US Congress attempting to throw out certified, verified, legally vetted votes in order to steal the recent presidential election for Mr. Trump, after several decades of arguing that “activist” democratic government is a great evil that must be minimized or “drowned in a bathtub” according to the shockingly violent imagery famously espoused by one of their guiding lights, has raised the very real danger of fascist ideology becoming firmly established here in the USA. In that context, it occurs to me one of the most comical yet destructive manifestations of the suppression within bad economics of the role of economic power in resolving interpersonal conflicts on the basis of economic power in markets, as well as the significance of the distribution of economic power and other relevant ethical issues in creating, maintaining, and evaluating market systems and outcomes, and hence the role of democratic government in creating an ethically acceptable market economy, is the risible notion that both fascism and communism are “leftist” political movements and hence what we’re seeing today on the part of right wing American conservatives and Republicans cannot possibly represent or be described as fascism. So maybe I should take a day off from unraveling how bad economics works its dark magic to talking about this one particular unfortunate consequence of bad economics.
Under the influence of bad economics, one is led to view non-democratic, authoritarian market based or market friendly states not in common terms as right wing fascist states oriented toward preserving and enhancing the power of an economic elite and the markets in which they exercise their economic power, but as something else that really I suppose has no proper name, that apparently has never existed before, but perhaps might be interpreted by its supporters as a non-democratic, authoritarian “libertarian” state or perhaps some sort of non-democratic, authoritarian market based fake “anarchy” state. By the same token, the determination to see an anti-democracy ethos as unique to “leftism,” to see fascism and communism as both “leftist” movements because of their shared anti-democracy ethos, that is to say, the studious ignorance or avoidance of the all important economic dimension, the issue that historically led and still now leads some people to the one ideology and some to the other, blinds one to clearly democratic forms of “leftism” including traditional American leftist liberalism, progressivism, democratic socialism, social democracy, etc.
One might have reasonably expected the resulting inability to explain the animosity between adherents of fascism and communism, mortal enemies from opposite ends of the ideological spectrum, and the bloody carnage it famously created in the not so distant past, would be enough to suggest to those making the “fascism is leftist” argument suspect they may be missing some important distinction between the two. However, it seems the rhetorical impulse to smear “leftism” as inherently anti-democracy and indeed having a monopoly on anti-democratic political thought trumps all for many people in this area, at least for many people in the very large conservative and right wing contingent of the US population.
Of course, it seems common enough to propose that although fascism was clearly dominated by right wing ideological concerns relating to defending the power of economic elites and the market system in which they wield that power, it also incorporated certain elements of what is generally considered left wing ideology in the sense of at least a feigned interest in overall social welfare. That sort of thing seems quite common when one starts talking about any sort of government system. Indeed, even today only the most strident and confident “free market” conservative is willing to suggest he or she literally doesn’t care if society, in general, is better off or worse off under the proposed economic arrangements. Much more common is some nod to the fundamentally socialist idea that society matters, in this context arguments that the proposed market system is best for society at large and not just certain people at the top, that is, that the proposed economic arrangements maximize total social welfare or even more socialistically “everyone’s” welfare in some way, rather than more accurately as ostensibly representing how well or how poorly everyone should fare according to one’s ethical beliefs. In some ways, the non-democratic, authoritarian libertarian state or non-democratic, authoritarian market based fake anarchy conservatives are so concerned to establish fails to correspond fully to other historical fascist states may be considered the distilled essence of fascism, non-democratic, authoritarian government shorn of even the pretense of concern for society at large and, in particular, for the economically weak or powerless. Of course, one understands it’s the nature of non-democratic, authoritarian governments once free of democratic and legal constraint to grow uncontrollably once established, and what one has at the start of the day may not correspond to what one has at the end of the day.
The main point to keep in mind is that the danger posed by what most people have in mind by traditional right wing, market based or market friendly, non-democratic, authoritarian, right wing fascism remains even if those who support it at any given time happen to prefer a different name or think of it in different terms for one reason or another. It’s just as dangerous, just as toxic, just as violent, just as anti-democratic under any other name as is it when called by its conventional and traditional name. A market economy enforced by even a “small” non-democratic, authoritarian government doesn’t eliminate the role of power in society, it accentuates the power of rich folk at the expense of their less well off fellows, who in a democratic system have a modicum of countervailing political power. The associated ethical questions of whether any given economic / legal system properly or adequately distributes economic power to those who should have it, and the proper social status of who do not have it, powerless or not so much, get to the heart of the democratic ethos. At the heart of the democratic ethos as well are the controversial ethical issues associated with the extent of the market, when to use economic power in markets to resolve interpersonal conflicts, and the ethical issues associated with markets under realistic conditions. Interestingly, those are issues obscured by bad economics.
If we’re to defend the democratic ethos and secure the future of political democracy here in the USA and elsewhere, then we need above all else to fix bad economics, which creates confusion and conflict everywhere. If one is an academic economist and understands the relevant normative and theoretical issues, one shouldn’t just idly sit by and bemoan the state of economic pedagogy. One should do something. Clear up the misunderstandings. Improve the texts. When one sees real neoclassical welfare economics dumbed down, misrepresented, mangled beyond all recognition by people clearly intent on misusing it for rhetorical effect, one shouldn’t just chuckle about it and walk away. One should call it out. Explain loudly and clearly why it’s incorrect. We should all fight the baleful influence of bad economics.
