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.
