What Is Fascism?

I’ve been getting rather more political than economical lately, but maybe just one more, to complete the set? Because I thought this week I’d say a few words about “fascism,” and what it means, to me, at least. What piqued my interest is the degree to which fascists in the USA seem to consider identification of their position as “fascism” empty name calling. One wonders if they’re just playing their usual rhetorical games, or if they really have a different understanding of fascism. Indeed, one right wing wag, apparently accustomed to calling pro-democracy liberals “fascists” when they support policies he or she doesn’t like, complained plaintively to me recently “everyone can’t be a fascist.” No, indeed. Let’s discuss who is, shall we? 

To understand fascism, one must first understand social power, in any lawful society at least, comes in two separable but related forms: political power, voting, etc., and economic power, the ability to resolve interpersonal conflicts over resources in one’s favor in markets. In terms of political power in isolation, one may contrast democratic government with non-democratic authoritarian government of whatever sort one wants to think about, monarchism, right wing fascism, left wing communism, etc. However, to understand the difference between types of authoritarian government, communism versus fascism in particular, one must move on to the views expressed on the definition, distribution, use of economic power (or alternatives) to resolve interpersonal conflict. Right wing fascism involves particular views on those issues, exogenous to neoclassical welfare economics. Similarly, left wing communism involves particular views on those issues, which differ from those of fascists. The main point here is just distinctive ethical positions on economic issue differing from those of fascists. Fascism and communism are just different forms of authoritarian government expressing different and conflicting views about the definition, distribution, use of economic power. Of course, everyone has views on those issues, even those who support democratic government. What moves one from being a valued citizen of a democracy expressing one’s views on the definition, distribution, use of economic power, to being a fascist or communist, is the determination one’s ethical views must prevail and democracy opposed if it suggests otherwise. Fascism has its Leader, Party, shadowy cabal of plutocrats, financiers, industrialists, etc. Communism has its Vanguard of Know It Alls, committees of local toughs, etc. They both have in mind that the people don’t really know what they’re doing, must be kept in check.

Historically, fascism was the response of certain people to a fear not just of authoritarian communism but the possibility voters in a democracy might deliver unwelcome verdicts on normative economic issues. It was both anti-communism and anti-democracy. Fascism in the past was associated with many peripheral side hustles designed to prop up and defend the fascist regime. These, I would suggest, do not speak to the essence of fascism, but are merely accidental adjuncts based in local conditions and expedience. The Nazis famously played the race card for everything it was worth, not only as a way to make money, but to appeal to the particular prejudices of a good part of the German population at that time. Italian fascists famously found it all rather odd, but went along, eventually. Fascists used a very deliberate policy of aggressive warfare as a sort of economic stimulus, a way to make a buck, for both the economic elite and the people, that didn’t involve re-distributing existing resources, which as right wingers they considered anathema. Fascists were forever concerned they might lose popular support, so they engaged in various sorts of social control, banned and burned books, interfered with public education and universities, restricted free speech, lied, controlled media, issued propaganda relentlessly. One important element of social control in fascist society was the secret police, the Gestapo, famously known in parts of the benighted American south as the “gazpacho police,” who didn’t just threaten political opponents with violence and murder but carried it out, and how. On the carrot side, fascists tried to maintain the conceit their regime was a welfare state, concerned with the welfare of the people, not just economically powerful fat cats, generals, political leaders, etc., so they embarked on social programs and policies of various sorts. The most prominent and famous fascist jobs and social program was, of course, the German military, where cannon fodder were assured a paying job until their number came up, and a hearty round of thoughts and prayers afterward, to the apparent satisfaction of all concerned. Again, these various add-ons do not speak to the essence of fascism, nor are they peculiar to it. What defines fascism is a rejection of democratic input into the definition, distribution, use of economic power, and the use of authoritarian government to enforce certain views.

Anti-democracy conservatives and Republicans in the USA, particularly when lambasting support for democracy as communism, leftism, etc., are classic fascists, and would be so even without the associated attraction to street thuggery, political violence, lying, racism, etc. Anti-democracy bad economics in the conservative style is an important rhetorical tool for fascists in the USA because it suppresses awareness and understanding of economic power as such, and the role of democracy, political power, in defining and enforcing economic power. To appreciate democracy in an economic context, one must understand the limited, ethical half-theory structure of neoclassical welfare economics, the need for exogenous normative inputs, the modern secular understanding of ethics as based in the moral senses of individuals. Academic economists, by being soft on anti-democracy bad economics in the conservative style, failing to forcefully repudiate it, have been the de facto primary advocates for fascism in the USA for many decades. They should be ashamed of themselves and change their ways. 

When will I ever talk stop talking about it? I sound like a broken record? Sure, I’ll stop. Some old day. Not any day soon, if fate allows. Get used to it. Or learn to use mute. I’m happy in my mountain home, shouting into the void. I could do it all day long.

The Big Tent Of Anti-Democracy Sentiment

I may have mentioned before but I’m quite interested in the relationship between fascism and utopian anarchism, linked by bad economics in the conservative style. It’s gotten me wondering if it might represent a rhetorical innovation of the right wing here in the USA. I think the great insight of conservative rhetoricians here in the USA is that it’s much easier to create a Big Tent of people critical of our current iteration or version of democratic government for any reason than of people who support any particular alternative. In this view, all it takes to generate popular support for ending our current version of democracy is to show it’s imperfect, flawed, which is rather like shooting fish in a barrel. The trick is to not focus on any ostensibly superior alternative, let everyone’s imagination run wild. If one ignores or at least downplays the choice of alternatives to our current iteration of democracy, one can form a motley coalition against it including at least explicit fascists, fake anarchists / “libertarians,” and utopian anarchists.

Straight-up authoritarian fascists are simply people who oppose democracy because they think voters don’t understand the positive and normative issues involved. They prefer a partnership of government, business, finance, economically powerful individuals. This is the sort of fascism that often appeals to conservative voters who support giving economic power a dominating role in democratic government, who support Supreme Court decisions like Citizens United, oppose campaign finance and lobbying reform, vote for plutocrats, etc.

Fake anarchist / “libertarians” come in two main varieties. Some support authoritarian government meant to defend “The Free Market,” defined to include market failures, all market structures, etc., so authoritarian government that merely prevents or blocks voter efforts to address market failures, etc.  Others support authoritarian government meant to express certain beliefs relating to the definition (legal property “rights”), distribution, use of economic power in markets (extent of the market), and protect those from democratic government. This sort does not necessarily want a close working relationship between existing business interests, economic power, and authoritarian government, as much as a technocratic authoritarian government enforcing certain beliefs relating to economic power.

The various types of fascism can be tricky to distinguish because they all bemoan democratic government involvement in the economy, “controlling” it, “interfering” with it, being “active” with respect to it, etc. But what, exactly, that means, seems open to a certain amount of leeway, interpretation. In many cases, fascists have internal disputes with one another about the preferred “size” of the authoritarian state, its proper functions, whether democracy may be permitted for some peripheral issues, etc., but the defining feature of fascism always concerns economic power. They’re all on that slippery slope between opposition to authoritarian communism, to opposition to “The Left,” in general, democratic socialism, liberals, democracy, and finally to support for some form of authoritarian fascism, a popular and well-travelled road to serfdom.

Utopian anarchists, by rejecting democracy and indeed all government, create the conditions for a sort of practical fascism based on violence and economic power, guns and money, very amenable indeed to developing into proper, legal, statist, authoritarian fascism. The right can often also enlist the help of authoritarian leftists who feel democracy is too entwined with economic power to work as advertised, and even people who support democracy, if they can be persuaded our imperfect system cannot be improved using democratic mechanisms. 

The distinctive US conservative “confusion” between right and left, fascism and communism, authoritarianism and democracy, government and anarchy, is likely the result of a very purposeful, very calculated, rhetorical project to downplay those distinctions, ignore alternatives. The goal is simply to generate support for ending our current democratic system, a situation those with economic power assume they will then be able to manipulate to their own advantage and thus establish authoritarian fascism of one sort or another. In that sense, one may view modern US fascism as rather like an old time movie vampire. We, as a society, must first invite it in, that’s the first order of business. But once that phase is over, all bets, deals, alliances are off, and for many, there will be hell to pay.

Purveyors of bad economics in the conservative style do yeoman work in this rhetorical enterprise. Bad economics in the conservative style erodes support for democracy by suppressing its role in creating socially acceptable, ethical markets and alternatives. Some purveyors of bad economics in the conservative style work to conflate positive and normative issues in bad economics, to foster the notion it’s all a matter of science, logic, math, suggesting voters simply don’t know enough to get involved, including in normative issues. Some purveyors of bad economics in the conservative style work to establish ethical egoism, “greed is good,” with the implication one should oppose democracy if it threatens results inconsistent with one’s desires, preferences, ethical beliefs, bank accounts, etc. Some purveyors of bad economics in the conservative style work to blur the distinction between authoritarian government supporting economic power, markets, and utopian anarchism rejecting law, property, contracts, markets. That’s the “libertarian” / fake anarchist project. Some purveyors of bad economics in the conservative style work to highlight the many shortcomings of our current democratic system, arguing it’s fundamentally unethical, unjust, tyrannical, tantamount to a dictatorship, etc. Some purveyors of bad economics in the conservative style work to flip the relationship between democratic government, law, and markets, suggesting markets trump law, and one may evaluate law on the basis of markets. That’s the rhetorical project of law and bad economics.

Newsflash! Everyone knows our current democratic system is imperfect. No one ever said otherwise. Give us concrete suggestions to improve it and we’ll think about them. Hard to suppose it’s impossible when we’ve clearly never all gotten behind the same alternatives. If one’s big idea is just break things, see what happens, hope for the best, just know one is being a tool of fascists because when political power breaks down, economic power and violence in support of economic power rule the roost and lead directly to fascism. I suggest one learn to appreciate the subtle beauty of the imperfect, understand the great struggles that went into even that, the ease with which it can be lost. Always the will to improve, of course, but with an understanding as well the value of what we have. The first order of business should be addressing the unnecessary confusion and conflict caused by anti-democracy bad economics in the conservative style. Don’t rely on academic economists, who seem quite often simply not up to the task. Learn what you need to do it yourself.