Ever think about conservative notions of “socialism” and the “welfare state” in the context of fascism or the ostensibly “utility” maximizing, social welfare optimizing free market utopianism of bad economics in the conservatives style? Let’s discuss. Fun issue.
Conservative antipathy toward “socialism” and the “welfare state” is especially evident in their peculiar take on fascism, which they view as defined by “welfare state” pretensions, not be support for anti-democracy, authoritarian government in support of conservative views on economic power. They feel they aren’t fascists by supporting anti-democracy, authoritarian government in support of conservative views on the ethics of economic power, but rather those who support democracy are fascists, if they engage in welfare state thinking, hold socialistic views. However, if one delves into conservative economic and political rhetoric and ideology, particularly anti-democracy bad economics in the conservative style, the relationship of socialistic or welfare state thinking to their own ethics of economic power may appear a bit murky.
Clearly, one may espouse conservative views on the ethics of economic power in a thoroughly egoistic or amoral way in which the well-being or welfare of others in one’s society, or some of them anyway, is meant to have no normative or ethical significance. One can see a thoroughgoing ethical egoism or amorality in some forms of anarchism (including fake anarchism / crypto-fascism), monarchism, theocratism in which there either is meant to be no “society” or the well-being of others in society is meant to be ethically irrelevant. However, that’s clearly not the case for everyone who supports conservative ethics relating to economic power, and in particular not for those who endorse or promote anti-democracy bad economics in the conservative style, loosely based on neoclassical welfare economics. At the most simplistic, popular level, one may perceive welfare state or socialist thinking in conservative rhetoric in the form of claims their ethical views on economic power, economic policies, are about what’s best for “everyone” or “America” or society. However, at that most basic level, one may suppose they have in mind simply a proposed shared satisfaction from government expressing conservative ethics on economic power rather than everyone’s welfare being accommodated in any more tangible sense, so it’s not entirely clear. Fun question: if everyone in society agrees the fate of society, the well-being or welfare of others in that society, irrelevant, and everyone is made happy or satisfied by government expressing that, is support for that creed consistent with socialistic, welfare state thinking? Seems obviously to depend what one means by “society” (a society of people who don't believe in society?), “welfare” in terms of “happiness” and “satisfaction” (the well-being that comes from the satisfaction of perceiving others indifferent to one’s well-being?). Fun with words. But it doesn’t seem all at that level of arch word play. Some conservatives seem to propose their policies will make everyone “better off," maximize “social welfare” in some more tangible sense, often involving conventional indicators of welfare, economic power, health, etc. That’s where the conservative free market utopianism associated with anti-democracy bad economics in the conservative style comes in, based on confusion generated by the peculiar definitions of “utility,” “welfare,” and related words in neoclassical welfare economics.
The only welfare, utility, neoclassical welfare economics addresses is individuals moving up their own preference ranks; anything relating to relative welfare or well-being in terms of resolving interpersonal conflicts of preferences, allocating resources, is exogenous. If one has any notion of “welfare” or “utility” that relates to anything anyone might suppose evident, relevant in interpersonal contexts, economic power, material well-being, health, smiling faces, whatever, that’s not what we're talking about in neoclassical welfare economics. It’s meant to show how little one can say without getting into the ethics of resolving interpersonal conflicts of preferences, but aided by the sly, clever, arch, creative, rhetorical misuse of language, many come away instead with bad economics in the conservative style instead. Thus, it’s true one who merely expresses the unreal, limited conclusions of neoclassical welfare economics about individual preference ranks is not really expressing any socialistic concern for others, any “welfare state” thinking, nor expressing conventional “utilitarianism.” Ironically, however, conservatives opposed to socialistic or welfare state thinking typically misinterpret neoclassical welfare economics in the style of bad economics in the conservative style to express socialistic, welfare state, utilitarian goals. It’s really rather comical.
And to put the cherry on top, the pretense of socialistic, welfare state sentiment on the part of the fascist Nazis, their risible claim to represent an alternative, right wing form of “socialism,” can hardly be considered a defining feature of fascism, per se. In the years after the Great Depression leading up to WWII, democratic government in the USA pursued socialistic, welfare state policy in the forms of New Deal programs meant to help economically struggling people. Communist government in the USSR proposed welfare state goals. The fact the fascist Nazis felt similarly compelled to portray an interest in the well-being of German society, the welfare of its citizens, is hardly unique, noteworthy, even interesting, although the funny way they expressed it, military spending, aggressive war, theft, may be. No, the defining feature of historical fascism such as Nazism was not the movement’s welfare state pretensions but their view undemocratic, authoritarian government was necessary to fight “leftist” ethics relating to economic power, including from voters in democracy.
When you hear an anti-democracy conservative or Republican lambasting socialistic and welfare state sentiment about the well-being of other people in one’s society, ask their own views on the significance of the well-being of other people. And just be aware conservatives lambasting socialistic, welfare state thinking who themselves propose the welfare of society matters, propose to speak for “everyone,” “America,” for a system that makes everyone better off, are speaking insincerely, playing rhetorical games.
