Conservative Fascism

I feel there may be some confusion about the relation of economic power, property, business, markets, to fascism, perhaps caused by a determined and ongoing conservative, right wing rhetorical effort to inaptly cast fascism as communism. Let’s discuss it this week.

First, let’s get something out of the way. Both fascism and communism are authoritarian, anti-democracy movements led by aggressive, power hungry “vanguards” who suppose they know better than the voters and are supported by people who agree with them or are complacent, indolent, indifferent. That’s the kernel of truth to conservative rhetorical efforts to associate fascism with communism. Now let’s discuss why they’re different focusing on their views on economic power, markets, the allocation of resources, that sort of thing, and why conservatives resort to such subterfuge. 

Fascism is a conservative, right wing, anti-left movement all about economic power, private property, markets, businesses, stock markets, rich people, and on. Communism is, economically at least, a left wing movement focused on alternative views on how best to allocate scarce resources. Obviously, the allocation of scarce resources, who gets what and why, is very important, which is why historically fascists and communists have always been, at the end of the day, deadly enemies despite their shared disdain for what they both see as weak, ineffective, unnecessary democracy. Thus, for example, fascists back in its European heyday, as the Nazis for example, supported private property, economic power, business, corporations, markets, rich people. They were meant to defend conservative values against left wing views including when delivered by voters in a democracy. Modern US fascists are very much the same. Under the US Constitution, voters may provide normative inputs to economic policy relating to economic values, goals, objectives, evaluation. They may revise the distribution of economic power, use or reject markets in some or all cases, regulate, etc. US conservative, Republican fascists cannot accept that. They perceive voters and democratic government as potential threats that must be stopped and the US Constitution as something that must be terminated because it allows such a threat. When voters agree conservative economic views, conservatives are happy to support democracy as legitimizing their views, but make no mistake, for them pursuing their economic views is not legitimized by democracy but rather democracy is legitimized by congruence with their economic views. US conservatives are fair weather friends of democracy. When winning, they’re meant to be representative of 18th century anti-monarchical “classical liberalism” including its unresolved tensions between democracy and markets, when losing, democracy is out but still they inaptly claim the title.

There are, of course, some relatively superficial differences between the old European fascist and modern US fascist take on conservative economics. Old European fascism was meant to be a paternalistic affair in which ostensibly naturally superior economic elites wisely ruled an organic society. They were meant to want to fix up any rough spots in otherwise free market systems, encourage private firms to care for workers, direct their fascist government to look after the welfare of all under their Great Daddy, the Leader, who was meant to care nothing for himself, only the nation, etc. Modern US fascism is a bit vague and coy on such issues, particularly the moral significance of economic power as evincing ethical merit, but even more importantly whether the rich are meant to then pretend an interest in woke, socialistic, welfare state goals like the welfare of others, society. But it’s not a very significant issue, more a rhetorical curiosity than anything else. In US fascism, one finds all sorts. Are ostensibly naturally superior rich people meant to rule as wise heads of the social family, so rich they’re no longer concerned about money, become philosopher kings? Or are rich people and their fascist government meant to rule like selfish, egoistic bastards because the magic of the marketplace means when they do that everyone else is helped as well, social welfare is maximized? Alternatively, is what happens to other people, social welfare, irrelevant? Modern US fascism is a Big Tent affair. It doesn’t really matter why one hates democracy, wants to terminate the US Constitution, as long as one supports authoritarian government by the rich, the economically powerful, the establishment elite, while keeping out the hoi polloi, voters, the poor.

Want to work out if you’re a fascist or not? Do you support democracy and the right of voters under the US Constitution to deliver views on laws about economic power, markets, property, regulations, economic goals, economic evaluation, and so on, that is, the allocation of resources? Then no. Or do you suppose, contra the US Constitution, one must prevent voters “interfering” or “distorting” the one true take on laws relating to economic power, property, markets, allocation of resources, and one must thus oppose democracy, terminate the US Constitution if necessary? Then yes.

To conclude, contra US conservative rhetoric, supporting conservative views on economics, economic values, policy, objectives, evaluation is consistent with being a fascist, if one rejects democracy to promote such views. Fascism is not communism. Fascism opposes both communism and democracy.

Revolutionary Conservatism

I’ve probably mentioned equivocation on the term “conservative” that can make radical, revolutionary conservatism seem an oxymoron, but someone reminded me of it again the other day, so maybe I can take another shot at that this week? Word games relating to “conservatism?”

One definition of “conservatism” is basically value free except for the one value of supporting the status quo, never mind what it is, just a sort of generalized resistance to change. Under that definition, the idea of a radical or revolutionary conservatism is contradictory and indeed an oxymoron.

Another definition of “conservatism” involves particular values conventionally pertaining to economics involving things like the mechanisms for distributing economic power, property, property rights, markets, how to resolve interpersonal conflicts of preferences, allocation of resources, etc. This is the sense of “conservative” that appears in my formulation “anti-democracy bad economics in the conservative style.” These “conservative values” are not constrained to be economic in nature and may sometimes involve various other matters such as religion, racism, nativism, misogyny, a hatred for sexual and gender minorities, anti-intellectualism and so on, but it’s not really relevant here. Under this sense of “conservative,” it’s perfectly sensible to talk about radical or revolutionary conservatives who perceive the status quo as unacceptably lacking in the relevant conservative values and want sudden, drastic correction.

Now when conservatives of the conservative values camp think the status quo properly exhibits conservative values, they may appear conservative in the other sense of opposing change, supporting the status quo, but that’s a matter of coincidence. It needn’t be the case. Currently, in the USA, we have a curious hybrid “conservative” movement: One branch supports the status quo, some possibly because they perceive it consistent with “conservative values,” supports the existing establishment elite and opposes democracy because voters might change that status quo. The other branch opposes the status quo because they suppose it does not reflect conservative values and they blame voters and “activist” democratic government for that unfortunate result, and thus want either inactive, ineffective democratic government or non-democratic government. The conservative movement is in no hurry to resolve the issue of the relationship of status quo economic outcomes, as the establishment elite, to conservative values, because both branches want to end democracy, albeit for different reasons, so they work well together just now. One supposes eventually the faction favoring the status quo establishment elite, economic power, will prevail, given their resources, and indeed that is what we’re seeing, as Lord Dampnut regularly ignores traditional conservative economics, although his rhetoric is inconsistent on that point. It’s why some “conservatives” seem a bit confused and may be seen asking themselves whether Lord Dampnut is a “true” conservative. Yes, and no. Surely, he’s one type of conservative, albeit possibly not the other, but as long as one supports his efforts to end democracy, maybe that’s enough?

One saw the same pattern in fascism in Europe in the early to mid 20th century. Some fascists supposed voters, democracy might change the status quo and were concerned to prevent it. Others supposed the status quo already flawed and were concerned to change it. This fundamental disagreement within original fascism about the status quo establishment elite was resolved in Nazi Germany through violence, of course, when the status quo, establishment elite friendly wing led by Mr. Hitler turned against what they saw as the rather overly radical elements of the SA. 

I don’t think it too important given the shared goal of ending democracy to fret much about the meaning of “conservatism” writ large. Both are unfortunate. Conservative values are fairly well-defined if a bit variable. Traditional conservative economics is well defined. Liberals oppose “conservatism” in both senses. They reject the notion we should blindly support the status quo, resist change, that change is inherently bad. They support democracy with its potential for change. They reject traditional “conservative values” including bad economics.

What’s my point? I suppose just don’t get distracted by verbal equivocation or conflation of issues, rhetorical techniques conservatives use to sow confusion and conflict, manipulate others. Yes, “conservatism” can mean different things. Disambiguate as necessary. Otherwise, carry on.

Liberalism versus Conservatism in the USA

Can we talk a bit more this week about liberalism, classical liberalism, neoliberalism, and conservatism in the context of US political discourse? I know I do it a lot, but not sure I’ve done a storm recently, and I have a few additional thoughts on the matter.

One thing that might help is to consider that 18th century anti-monarchical “classical liberalism” had a political component, democracy, and an economic component, markets. Equivocation on the term “liberal” as it applies to those two components is I suppose a common source of confusion. We’re not fighting monarchism again just yet. We have a democracy of sorts. And we commonly use markets of sorts. Political discourse in the USA has long been about the interaction of those two: democratic government and markets. It’s no longer about the historical artifact “classical liberalism.” The economic, markets, element of “classical liberalism” is what leads some modern US conservatives to call themselves “classical liberals” or “true” liberals or what have you. That’s a rhetorical word game that seeks to suppress the real issues between modern US liberalism and conservatism.

In terms of real issues, modern US liberalism is all about the political component of “classical liberalism,” democracy, and specifically how it interacts with economic policy, markets, and so on. US conservatism is all about the economic component of “classical liberalism,” all about markets. US liberals see economic systems as created by and properly responsive to democracy, so responsive to voters providing normative inputs on economic values, objectives, goals, evaluation, policy. US conservatives see markets as sacrosanct and are all about keeping voters, democracy out of it. Formerly, both sides accepted democracy as the political mechanism, so the debate between liberals and conservatives was all about economics, markets. In general, liberals perceived some issues with our economic system conservatives did not, and they wanted to use democracy to address those issues. By “economic systems” I mean here broadly speaking the resolving of interpersonal conflicts of preferences as over goods, services, scarce resources, so systems for allocating or distributing resources, which might involve the use of economic power in markets or various other systems. Liberals argued for activist democratic government expressing voters’ normative, ethical, moral views on economics including via regulation, market interventions, alternatives. Conservatives argued for “small” or “inactive” democratic government that did little or nothing beyond setting up markets.

Recently, of course, their views have diverged to a greater degree. Liberals have remained where they have long been, arguing voters should be able to use democracy to express economic values, and expressing their own typically “left” values as well. However, conservatives have moved to the right. Whereas formerly conservatives were willing to make their case to voters, accept the results, modern conservatives have taken the anti-democracy sentiments latent in their market utopianism and moved on to trying to undermine, manipulate, or end democratic government. Modern conservatives have various views giving rise to anti-democracy sentiment running from activist “crony capitalist” fascism with a deal making boss to authoritarian conservative government that does little but enforce conservative economic values and keep other people out of it. Modern conservatives play a lot with utopian anarchism (rhetorically useful for ending democracy) and fake anarchism / crypto-fascism / “libertarianism” as far as promoting the idea small, inactive government that does nothing but express conservative economic values is like no government at all. Then, of course, there are conservative theocratists as Christo-fascists who go beyond secular market utopianism to imbue markets with divine attributes or provenance and profess to want to keep democratic government out of it on that account.

The final wrinkle, which I’ve discussed before, and often, but let’s do it here as well just to complete the set, is this business about “neoliberalism,” which creates problems because of the ambiguous nature of the “neo” playing off the formerly mentioned issues with the word “liberal.” One take on the “neo” in “neoliberalism” is that it is new as in resurgent, which makes it resurgent (classical) “liberalism,” which if one focuses on the market component makes “neoliberalism” into “resurgent US conservatism.” An entirely different take on the “neo” in “neoliberalism” is that it means new as in changed, revised, reformed, in which case it becomes revised liberalism and specifically US liberalism revised to become, as far as economics at least, conservatism, US liberalism revised to become its opposite. In both formulations, “neoliberalism” ends up meaning US conservatism; however, agreement at that level masks underlying confusion at the level of the term “liberal” by which for some a “neoliberal” is also a “liberal,” while for others a “neoliberal” is the opposite of a “liberal.” I have long argued interpreting “neo” to mean revised, reformed, changed US “liberalism” makes a great deal more sense than interpreting it to mean “resurgent” because it was historically first applied to erstwhile US liberals circa 1980s, while economic conservatism long pre-dates that era. Also, of course, because the resurgent interpretation of “neo” brings up the issues I mentioned earlier relating to trying to apply the historical combined political and economic concept of 18th century anti-monarchical “classical liberalism” to modern political issues and controversies.

My own views? I’m a (US) liberal. I support democracy including the right guaranteed by the US Constitution of voters to register their normative views on economic values, objectives, policies. I myself have what would likely be generally considered “left” economic values and I argue for those. However, I’m not trying to set myself up as ruler of the world, and if voters use democracy to demand something else, then so be it. I’ll continue to argue my positions, of course. I oppose conservatism formerly for its flawed take on economics and now especially also its opposition to democracy.

Conservatism Two Ways

The rhetoric of anti-democracy bad economics in the conservative style straddles and harnesses two strands of conservative thought: conservative socialism and conservative egoism. However, it doesn’t do it properly but falsely as a sort of grift. Let’s discuss that this week.

May we revisit the 18th century for just a moment? Wigs, clay pipes, breeches, that sort of thing? Why not? Fine. A popular theological and philosophical movement of the day was Deism, which sought to establish the beneficent nature of, basically, nature, including human nature. The basic idea was the good lord had carefully engineered the world for the benefit of mankind, and if one thought, for a moment, some element of nature wasn’t as beneficial as all that, the challenge was to show how, no, actually it was, once one truly understood how it was meant to work. It was this creed, characterized to humorous effect by Voltaire in the character Pangloss, that motivated and informed early economist / moral philosopher / theologian Adam Smith, who struggled to show how greed and egoism were beneficial to mankind, if we could create the proper context.

Flash forward to the early 19th century and we have the classical economists, who by then had taken Mr. Smith’s careful but rather fanciful ideas and simplified them by taking out not only the divine but also nuance, context. In their theory, greed and egoism increased the welfare of all.

Flash forward to the late 19th century / early 20th century and classical economics was increasingly criticized as clearly flawed. In response, economists developed “neoclassical” economics, an artful bit of rhetoric designed to maintain the conclusions of classical economics via clever word play. To be specific, they took concepts like “utility,” “welfare,” “efficiency,” “socially optimal,” previously social-based concepts typical of classical economics and increasingly untenable within that system, and redefined them to refer to individuals only, taking out interpersonal, social concerns. This rhetorical sleight of hand, or let’s just say grift, solved the practical problem of how economics could continue to promote certain conservative normative views on economic power, allocation of resources, in the face of withering criticism. However, it came at a price. The falseness and unreality of the project created two types of “conservatism.” 

One was what one might call “conservative socialism” (to avoid less relevant here “social conservatism”), which focused on what was ostensibly best for society, the individual’s responsibilities in that area. That is the strain of conservatism that was successfully captured by fascists in Europe during the run up to WWII. Their rhetoric was all about what was best for society, the people, even if in reality their policies were rather more about what was best for the wealthy establishment elite. Because of local conditions, fascist rhetoricians were unable to maintain the 18th and 19th century unity of conservative egoism and conservative socialism in classical and neoclassical economics. They also supported conservative values on economic power, property, markets, but differently. Their justification was all about supposed natural differences in the component individuals that formed society in which some, the economic establishment elite, rich people, their friends in the Nazi Party elite, were meant to be superior and more important than others, but all had a proper place.

The other branch of “conservatism” was conservative egoism, which latched onto the supposed significance of egoism and greed rather than the laudable social outcomes meant to follow. They upheld neoclassical welfare economics and associated anti-democracy bad economics in the conservative style. Conservative egoists, understanding the misleading rhetorical nature of normative neoclassical economics, were all too happy to continue to profess concern for society, utility, welfare, social optimality, all that, understanding implicitly it was all now fakery and not to be taken literally. At the same time, expressing the true normative or ethical values promoted by bad economics in the conservative style, conservative egoists were also happy to sometimes lambaste, repudiate any concern for social welfare, caring about other people, one’s society, the nation, ethics, morality.

Because of the correspondence of the real underlying normative values of conservative socialists and conservative egoists, if not always of their rhetoric, they got along quite well. American conservative egoists back then were soft on European fascism, supposed it quite good for business. But a grand conservative axis wasn’t in the cards. To the Nazis’ surprise, the USA joined forced with communist USSR to end fascism in Europe. Conservatives were thwarted, for the moment. It was an age of increasing liberalism, New Deal policies, social welfare policies and regulations, all that. 

However, the ensuing struggle against anti-democracy communism provided US conservative egoists with new rhetorical opportunities. They would play up anti-social egoism and their rejection of social welfare state thinking to equate the latter with communism, then democracy, then fascism. Conservatives’ sometime egoism and opposition to welfare state thinking was the basis of US conservative rhetoricians proposing their vision of conservative, right wing, authoritarian government was not fascism and risibly proposing instead fascism was in fact a liberal or leftist creed. At the same time, they famously upheld the misleading social welfare arguments of neoclassical welfare economics as seen through the lens of bad economics in the conservative style, promoted their economic ideas as best for everyone, America, society in general.

And that’s basically our context today. Some US conservatives talk about what they suppose is best for everyone, America, the nation. Others emphatically reject that sort of thinking entirely as socialistic, leftist, welfare state thinking. Others talk from both sides of their mouths. Neoclassical welfare economics abides, as does anti-democracy bad economics in the conservative style and assorted sequelae. It’s all a grift now, but possibly accepted by some as real, not only by the obvious marks but even by some innocent minds in academic economics, themselves played by others. Voters victimized by conservative grifters don’t know which way is up. They dutifully ape the language of market utopianism, conservative socialism, conservative egoism, but one suspects some have doubts. Yet they fear and loathe alternatives, seem to prefer wallowing in delusion and self-harm. In this sad, false, poisoned environment, voters may laud any populist gas bag, no matter how crackpot and disproven by history the ideas involved: fascism, anarchism, theocratism, communism. The people don’t seem able to grasp or consider the real issues in economics, politics, or philosophy. 

We have work to do. We must address anti-democracy bad economics in the conservative style and sequelae as “Austrian” economics, fake anarchism / “libertarianism.” We must clarify the real meaning and limitations of neoclassical welfare economics. It’s time to wake the hell up and get real.

Liberals, Neoliberals, And Democrats

Maybe we can talk this week about liberals, neoliberals, Democrats, and the way some real or fake “leftists” promote anti-democracy right wing fascist and theocratist causes, act as their tools, useful idiots. I’ve said some already, but let’s do it in one place, shall we?

I’ll discuss the issue here from an economic perspective. Back when basically everyone in the USA supported democracy, the US Constitution, “liberalism” in the USA as far as economics basically meant the opposite of the simplistic market utopianism of “conservative” economics. Safety and health regulations, public education, New Deal policies as social security and medicare, Keynesian macroeconomics, all that sort, were “liberal.” It basically just meant supporting democratic government involving itself in the economy to reflect voters’ normative or ethical views. The opposite of traditional American progressive, democratic leftist liberalism as far as economics was “conservatism,” which argued democratic government has no business “interfering with” or “distorting” markets, the economy, and proposed democratic government should be small, weak, inactive.

Famously, in the 1980s, in response to local conditions, the traditional false, simplistic rhetoric of bad economics in the conservative style and its market utopianism became so dominant many erstwhile liberals threw in the towel to adopt conservative economics to become “neoliberals.” That Grand Coalition of economic conservatives in the Republican Party and economic “neoliberals” (conservatives) in the Democratic Party was unchallenged for years and led to the impression there was really no difference as far as economics between the two parties, it was really a “uni-party.” Recently, liberal economics has been staging a bit of comeback and the rhetoric of bad economics in the conservative style, although still dominant, may be starting to lose its potency, which has led some conservatives to see an impending crisis and driven them away from democracy toward fascism. With the movement of conservatives from promoting small, weak, inactive democratic government to promoting no democratic government at all, liberalism has come to mean not only the rejection of market utopianism, but simply the belief government should reflect the views of the voters. Thus, it now makes sense to talk about liberalism as simply the view voters in a democracy should be able to provide normative inputs on economic policy, goals, objectives, and so on, whatever they may be. And then a liberal left that adds support for “leftist” economic ideas, values, policies.

The ongoing struggle between conservatives and liberals in the USA involves some interesting issues in rhetoric or terminology. My topic today is the insistence of some “leftists” to address issues with conservative economics entirely in their adopted or reflected expression in “neoliberalism.” The reason it matters rhetorically is that the distinction between liberal and neoliberal is lost on many in the USA now (and indeed the words are used subtly differently in the UK and elsewhere), and some in the USA seem now to suppose “neoliberalism” is “liberalism.” The confusion hangs on the archaic term “classical liberalism,” which is basically now a misleading, archaic, and rather twee name for US “conservatism,” and ambiguity in the English language between “neo” or new referring to new as changed, different or new as the same but resurgent. This allows “conservatism” to fly undefined and under the radar for many, who regardless of whether they’re opposed to progressive, democratic leftist ideas or their opposite, right wing market utopianism, rush to support Republicans fighting oxymoronic (in the US) “liberalism / neoliberalism.” Some now seem to suppose this oxymoronic “liberalism / neoliberalism” dominates the Democratic Party, which leads them to support the Republican Party, regardless of whether they support or oppose the traditional conservative economics that has long been the province of Republican Party. The resulting ignorance among voters about “conservative” economics has been remarked upon by many traditional conservatives and has led to Republicans opposing democratic government not only in favor of market utopianism but also corporatist plutocratic fascism / “crony capitalism.” At a somewhat more advanced level are those who perceive differences between neoliberals and liberals, but suppose liberals rather than neoliberals have dominated the Democratic Party for years thus again confusing liberal policy with neoliberal to oppose the liberal wing of the Democratic Party. In this context, it’s easy to see how anti-liberal, anti-Democratic, ostensible “leftists” function as tools of right wing, conservative fascists and theocratists. On the one had, conservatives tout various iterations of “conservative” economic views and support Republicans in a positive sense. On the other hand, anti-liberal, anti-Democratic “leftists” ignore conservatives entirely and spend their time attacking liberals and Democrats, thus helping the Republican Party in the negative sense. It’s why one supposes conservatives are quite happy to hear people discussing “neoliberals.” 

My recommendations: talk about “neoliberal” economic views as “conservative” or maybe “conservative / neoliberal,” acknowledge and support the liberal wing’s efforts to regain influence in the Democratic Party, acknowledge Republicans don’t have a liberal wing and the parties aren’t the same. If you suppose yourself a “leftist,” but you spend all day attacking liberals and Democrats, literally the only other people in our political scene who accept voters discussing leftist economic ideas, values, views, and may even sometimes endorse them, consider if it’s the best use of your time.