Interestingly, Mussolini found much of John Maynard Keynes’s economic theories consistent with fascism, writing: “Fascism entirely agrees with Mr. Maynard Keynes, despite the latter’s prominent position as a Liberal. In fact, Mr. Keynes’ excellent little book, The End of Laissez-Faire (l926) might, so far as it goes, serve as a useful introduction to fascist economics. There is scarcely anything to object to in it and there is much to applaud.”
After the worldwide Great Depression, Mussolini became more vocal in his claims that fascism explicitly rejected the capitalist elements of economic individualism and laissez-faire liberalism. In his “Doctrine of Fascism,” Mussolini wrote: “The Fascist conception of life accepts the individual only in so far as his interests coincide with the State. . . . Fascism reasserts the rights of the state. If classical liberalism spells individualism, Fascism spells government.” In his 1928 autobiography, Mussolini made clear his dislike for liberal capitalism: “The citizen in the Fascist State is no longer a selfish individual who has the anti-social right of rebelling against any law of the Collectivity.”
– Lawrence K. Samuels, The Socialist Economics of Italian Fascism
European and American liked Mussolini before the war. There’s a clip on YouTube of George Bernard Shaw extolling Italian Fascism and calling for “liberal fascism{” (his original coinage) in the UK.
George Bernard Shaw was a vile odious collectivist piece of crap fawned over by people he would have happily seen murdered. So yes, not at all surprising.
Mussolini was the editor of ‘Avante’, the most prestigious socialist publication in Italy. He was a Socialist/Marxist through and through.
Read Jonah Goldberg’s ‘Liberal Fascism’.
Communism, Fascism, Nazism are all Leftist.
The New Republic magazine frequently praised Mussolini and Italian fascism.
Hush, doncha know commies and fascists are completely different and hate each other and all that, well, after they cooperated to divvy up Poland that is.
From an early age, I was drawn to an interest in Italian Fascism [IF], probably related to their flying the (German)Do X, a huge flying boat, which I recall came to the U S N Operating Base, Norfolk, VA.
By that time IF was well into its “nationalistic” phase as a natural and further process to the collectivism required.
Fortunately, probably because of the Swiss origins of our family, my father led me to learn that Fascism – IF – originated as a nothing more than a form of political thuggery (violence) and that all the other trappings of nationalism, modernism, economic management and such were just “add-ons” (some just diversions) for thugs to imitate actual rulers in history.
In Spain the same thing took the form of violence by weapons for the Falagists.
The Nazis used “enhanced” thuggery tactics in their beginnings.
All the other “political” or economic theorizing was tacked on as power through various levels of violence was consolidated; those add-ons were never the basis or motive for power.
So, discount any claim or actual relationship to the scholarship of Keynes. It would be just another brass button on a black shirt. Be aware of the shirt, not the buttons.
I must disagree RRS, the buttons (in this case Keynesianism) are what help hold the shirt in place. Much of modern regulatory statism is *economic* fascism, and Mussolini could certain see it was quite compatible.
As time passes, it becomes more and more clear that Fascism has proved to be the most enduring political philosophy of our time. Scratch almost any modern politician, and, despite their protestations, you will find a Fascist.
In my opinion the three things that separate the modern Progressive from the old school National Socialist are a bath, a clean uniform, and a can of Zyklon-B.
Might I quote Oscar Wilde on GBS?
“He hasn’t an enemy in the World and his friends don’t like him either.”
Seems to me that a lot of people in the West LIKE the fascist economics, but they don’t like the killings that the fascists did historically. So while the modern political parties are not fascists (boo!) in “colloquial” terms, they may well be fascist in “economic” terms.
They are not fascist in *many* ways. Really they are just fascist economically.
Fascism was defined as the opposite of CLASSICAL liberalism from the start – everything for the state, nothing (and no one) outside the state.
Mussolini did not stop being a Progressive intellectual when he gave up strict Marxism – indeed he kept a lot of his Marxist ideas.
He just became to non Marxist leftist influences as well – people like Sorel and, yes, the “liberal” Keynes.
British liberalism had not been clear even in the 19th century (unlike French liberalism in the same period) – it was always a bit of a muddle of different factions and conflicting ideas.
However the rise of the “New Liberalism” made things radically worse in Britain – so that even big government types like Keynes (who had nothing but contempt for thrift, REAL SAVING) could be considered “liberals”.
See Hunter-Lewis “Where Keynes Went Wrong”.
By the way…..
The Italian Marxist P. Straffa (a friend of Maurice Dobb and other Cambridge leftists) mixed Marxism with Keynesianism.
This produced modern leftist “economics” – which dominates such places as Greece and much of Latin America.
The founding ideologues of Fascism were not diametrically opposed to socialism; they emerged from the same philosophical branch. Yet even ‘Laissez-fare’ liberals warmed to fascism. As Ludwig Von Mises (who was also an economic advisor to Austrofascist Englebert Dollfuss) wrote:
“It cannot be denied that Fascism and similar movements aiming at the establishment of dictatorships are full of the best intentions and that their intervention has, for the moment, saved European civilization. The merit that Fascism has thereby won for itself will live on eternally in history.”
The best thing about Mussolini
Ted, I have to disagree. I think the best thing about Mussolini was the sincere effort he put into preventing lamp posts from floating away.
Rosenquist. I do not think that your take on that quote is based on a fair reading of it. Dollfuss was anti-Nazi (as was Mussolini for a while), and in the context of the legacy of the Communist takeovers in Bavaria and Hungary and the spectre of the Soviets, anyone who stopped the Soviets would have been preferable to Stalin’s NKVD.
von Mises said that they had saved European civilisation, which in his view, having lived through it, was a historical fact, it does not indicate that he had warmed to them.
Ted, that is awesome 😀
May i suggest that everybody should read Mussolini’s Doctrine of Fascism (DoF)? best to get it straight from the horse’s mouth. (No offense to Mr Ed.)
A few interesting things that you’ll learn:
* In partial support of RRS’ comment, M. basically admits that he was just a hothead without a coherent philosophy, between his leaving the Socialist party and his actually having to govern.
* In full support of Paul Marks’ comment, DoF states that fascism is diametrically opposed to classical liberalism…
* but take time to ponder on the DoF terminology: contrary to the misleading label used by Lawrence Samuels at the link (in the last paragraph) and Jonah Goldberg, DoF claims that fascism is a movement of the “right” (quotation marks in the original), and by implication classical liberalism a movement of the “left”. Presumably that’s because fascism is about more power to the State and the ruling class, while liberalism is the opposite.
* The trouble with Marxism, according to DoF, is the theory of class conflict, which means disunity of the State, and less power to the ruling class. In this sense, Marxism is (according to DoF) a step towards classical liberalism.
BTW thanks to wikipedia and other sources, i am aware that the Doctrine of Fascism was ghost written by G. Gentile. It seems likely that Mussolini read and approved it, anyway.
If you can, go back and take a scan through James Burnham”s The Managerial Revolution..
cf. Corporatism, etc. (another button).
See how many crank economic policies the Nazis had in their “25 points”
http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/riseofhitler/25points.htm
11. That all unearned income, and all income that does not arise from work, be abolished.
12. Since every war imposes on the people fearful sacrifices in blood and treasure, all personal profit arising from the war must be regarded as treason to the people. We therefore demand the total confiscation of all war profits.
13. We demand the nationalization of all trusts.
14. We demand profit-sharing in large industries.
15. We demand a generous increase in old-age pensions.
16. We demand the creation and maintenance of a sound middle-class, the immediate communalization of large stores which will be rented cheaply to small tradespeople, and the strongest consideration must be given to ensure that small traders shall deliver the supplies needed by the State, the provinces and municipalities.
17. We demand an agrarian reform in accordance with our national requirements, and the enactment of a law to expropriate the owners without compensation of any land needed for the common purpose. The abolition of ground rents, and the prohibition of all speculation in land.
18. We demand that ruthless war be waged against those who work to the injury of the common welfare. Traitors, usurers, profiteers, etc., are to be punished with death, regardless of creed or race.
….
20. In order to make it possible for every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education, and thus the opportunity to reach into positions of leadership, the State must assume the responsibility of organizing thoroughly the entire cultural system of the people. The curricula of all educational establishments shall be adapted to practical life. The conception of the State Idea (science of citizenship) must be taught in the schools from the very beginning. We demand that specially talented children of poor parents, whatever their station or occupation, be educated at the expense of the State.
21. The State has the duty to help raise the standard of national health by providing maternity welfare centers, by prohibiting juvenile labor, by increasing physical fitness through the introduction of compulsory games and gymnastics, and by the greatest possible encouragement of associations concerned with the physical education of the young.
….
25. In order to carry out this program we demand: the creation of a strong central authority in the State, the unconditional authority by the political central parliament of the whole State and all its organizations.
The formation of professional committees and of committees representing the several estates of the realm, to ensure that the laws promulgated by the central authority shall be carried out by the federal states.
The leaders of the party undertake to promote the execution of the foregoing points at all costs, if necessary at the sacrifice of their own lives.
…
Reword them a little and you have most of the modern lefts wishlist.
There is something intrinsic, fundamental, essential that really does divide Left and Right.
I must confess that libertarians/classical liberals are quite incorrect on what the difference is if they claim it is collectivism versus individualism.
It goes back not to a “time” in history so much as the dawn of humanity. King Solomon, one of my two nom de guerres and the wisest man who has ever lived, once correctly noted in Ecclesiastes the wise man’s heart inclines to the Right.
The Left is the side of equality and the Right is the side of hierarchy. Usually, though not always, collectivism is a trait of the Left. Mussolini was an exception in this respect.
Mussolini and Hitler were men of the Right. Fascism is a usually feeble attempt to resurrect hierarchy, which is why folks of misunderstanding confuse monarchy and dictatorship so easily.
Shlomo Maistre
But economically speaking you would have to concede that the fascist “economics” is far closer to that of the left than capitalism. The tiny concessions made (for practical reasons) of leaving an industries owners in place as long as it buckled under to state demands can only be seen as a 1/2 way point.
Tradition is probably closer to what “righties” like, stuff which is changed slowly and carefully, the left just wants to throw everything out of the pram and start from “year zero” again with no regards to the fact that tradition is not the work of a shadowy cabal of evil CIS white males but the gradual accumulation of what has worked best for society as a whole over a very long period of time.
thefrollickingmole,
For the most part I’d agree. That’s one aspect of what i meant by the collectivism of Mussolini being an exception, since he was a man of the Right.
Well, yup. Tradition is inherited wisdom and a primary regulator of culture. It’s inherently good.
BTW it’s not a coincidence that tradition with few exceptions tends to reinforce hierarchy. As I said, tradition is inherently good.
thefrollickingmole, I kind of like #12. The politicians would still like war, but the industrialists wouldn’t so there’s less chance of it occurring.
Laird
Sounds good, but it was written (at the time) with an eye to the “stab in the back” and perfidious Jews myths in mind.
What makes you think a law enacted along similar lines now wouldnt be the same?
So if you had (for instance) donated to Conservative/Republicans you would be a filthy war profiteer, whereas if you were a noble, patriotic democrats/Labour donor then its only right you get awarded the factories of those evil profiteers for your trouble.
(which is not to say the basic idea of those who call for, or profit from war shouldn’t wear some consequences)
May I suggest a simple test to separate the Humans from what we politely call the Progressives?
Do they understand the word NO?
Indeed.
Preposterous. Evolution is usually preferable to revolution but sometimes there really is no substitute for burning it all down and starting again. Sometimes traditions need to be expunged by lining the streets with the hanged bodies of priests and other traditionalists. So let me correct that for you: good traditions are good, and bad traditions are bad, but the notion tradition is inherently good is ludicrous. But next time I meet someone who had their clitoris cut off, I will be sure to tell them you think traditions are inherently good.
To the best of my knowledge this is in accordance with pre-ww2 usage of those terms…but please note that Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and the North Korean Kims are all far-Right by this criterion. Not to mention Obama, environmentalists, and the EU.
If you mean to say that collectivism has not usually been a trait of the Right, then most of human history disagrees with you.
It would be more accurate to say that true equality can only be approached as equality in freedom, because equality in submission to the collective means, in practice, submission to the ruling class, ie extreme inequality.
The first attempt at resurrecting hierarchy after the French Rev. was that of Robespierre. The first attempt at a theory of resurrecting hierarchy was probably that of Saint-Simon, widely considered a founding father of socialism.
What i am driving at is, monarchy and dictatorship (whether communist or fascist, but not military) differ in one main respect: in the former, the hierarchy is explicit; in the latter, there is a pretence that it is actually the popular will that rules. It is true that the latter has been more oppressive than the former **in Europe, in the last millennium** but that is because most European monarchies have had some pretty strong checks in the last millennium. There have been some notable exceptions, though, eg Louis xiv and Leopold ii.
The Left is the side of equality and the Right is the side of hierarchy.
The divide is between authoritarianism and individualism, it is not what you are trying to impose but rather how you intend to impose it, you either force people at gunpoint, or let them decide (and suffer the consequences), or some manner of coercion in between.
collectivism is a trait of the Left
All leftist movements are collective in manner but hierarchical in intent, they fool the lumpenproletariat into support by talking of unity, but they retain the basic self-serving idealism of the monarchs of old and see themselves at the top, they cannot achieve what they desire other than establishing a higher authority and enforcing their methods.
Traditional economics writing regards the economy as the result of individual activities, whereas economists like Keynes et al started to see it as something individuals had to adhere to rather than define. Mussolini and his ilk just admired how the economic theories impose a greater hierarchy by themselves.
Collectivism is just a means to an end, what determines the means is whether collectivism refers to “us” or to “them and us”, it can be a dividing force as much as a unifying one, so it is used by all sides.
Most people are natural Fascists : Capitalists with their own things and Socialists with other people things. I have never met a genuine Communist.
“Presumably that’s because fascism is about more power to the State and the ruling class, while liberalism is the opposite.”
No, you are using the left wing terms.
Fascism was in practice a moderate wing of Marxism – while the Communism wants to exterminate the enemy classes even by the millions, the Fascism wanted to do it with a carrot and a stick. Fascism was like all socialist movements, communitarian and ferociously anti-individual. Wanted to achieve a political melting pot under the state umbrella.
Many leftist intellectuals went to Fascism. Several books deal with “La Sinistra Fascista”, but are Italian books -one of them has that title – so mostly ignored.
There was even a magazine Rosso-Nero(Red-Black) in late and post war.
Journalist usually left wing censor that a founder of Italian Communist Party was hung with Mussolini( after being shot). That photo with Mussolini hung has also a friend of Lenine at his side.
The english wikipedia article about Mussolini death, it is not there the name of Nicola Bombacci one of most important persons in Italian Communism at start of the XX century.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dH_epzyl5xI
Sorry, i didn’t wanted no force the video on everyone. If the owners of the Samizdata want to take down and put only a link i have no problem. The text in youtube link is a speech by him. Btw this is posted by an anti-semitic group bridging Fascism and Bolchevism.
Not a problem Lucklucky
In terms of what left and right represent, outside of economics they are vague labels affixed to things to try and make people act in a tribal fashion…
So Facism was clearly left-wing, because their economic policy was geared towards the state not the individual (to simplify). Their other policies tended to be illiberal, retrogresive and reactionary, but are in no way particularly right wing. Indeed, properly right-wing (as opposed to anti-leftish) dictatorial regimes tend to be quite unusual until recently (see now China and Vietnam, adding to Singapore) because dictatorial control tends to lead to control of the economy as well as the people…
The whole ‘right wing left wing’ thing is largely meaningless today. It made perfect sense in the late 18th and early 19th century. Such notions are simply obsolescent. Collectivist vs. Individualist. Stasist vs. Dynamist. Statist vs. Anti-Statist. These at least have some viable meaning attatched. Left and right really do not any more.
lucklucky
No need to apologise, thats a fact I had never heard before and quite interesting.
Snorri Godhi,
I don’t know what exactly you mean by an attempt to resurrect hierarchy in theory, but my guess is that the works of Louis de Bonald and Plato both qualify and precede Saint-Simon by a couple decades and millennia, respectively.
Actually, not at all.
A primary difference (and there are many) between dictatorship and monarchy is in how they are defined: birthright is intended to be the means by which succession is determined in only one of them.
Runcie Balspune,
Well, anyone can define the left-right divide any which way, eh? I guess, without delving too deeply into the more intimate, almost esoteric nature of the left-right divide, i’ll simply state that something is always imposed on society and that that something is imposed inevitably by violence or the implied threat of violence. C’est la vie.
The question is not “how do we eradicate an immutable fact of the universe” but rather “how do we mitigate the harmful effect of an immutable fact of the universe”. The answer is harmony, stability, order.
Understanding the right-left divide, which does trace through every human heart, can be achieved on a variety of levels. Individualism or freedom that is manifested in society at large stems from stable rule, while authoritarianism or oppression that is manifested in society stems from unstable rule. Stable rulers have better things to do than to oppress. This is one reason why in democracies governments expand so dramatically – democracy, which is war by other means, is inherently unstable and so the government must DO, do a lot in order to secure recognized right of rule.
Government informed by hierarchy is more stable. We see then how individualism (or manifested freedom) quite literally derives from hierarchy.
Snorri Godhi,
On the basic surface level, yes. But I happen to think the right-left divide is much deeper, more fundamental than that. It comes back to religion actually – as most everything does, of course.
Agree.
With respect to Obama – I disagree for the mundane factual reason that he is a liberal Democrat in the modern USA so he is pro-equality in pretty much every sense of the word. With respect to environmentalists and the EU…. kinda agree, but it’s complicated.
Perry de Havilland,
A tradition is inherently good in the sense that we can know that it serves (or, at least, almost certainly served) a social purpose by virtue of its existence.
Society evolves in myriad ways for sundry factors that are unobservable and even unknowable. What we know is that tradition represents the sum of inherited wisdom over great periods of time and just because one offends your taste does not mean it could never have been worthwhile to institute across a certain society facing certain circumstances. Furthermore, when a tradition does offend, one should nevertheless allocate due consideration of its unseen benefits and consider if perhaps doing away with the whole thing entirely might not render unintended consequences rather more offensive than what was done away with in haste. This tends to be what ends up happening – not always, but usually and certainly more than would be expected.
In other words, bad traditions are not as bad as they are thought to be.
I said agree, but let me kindly qualify that.
The post-WWI world is a warped mess that is difficult for us to understand in a clear sense because we are living too near to it. And because of America. And because of technology.
The Kims are right-wing as compared to what else is in the world, but the Kims rely on popular propaganda in ways the Stuarts, for example, did not need to. Then again, the Stuarts in England did not face an America in the world or have to contend with Twitter/Facebook/Google etc ad nauseum. So. It’s tough to make apples to apples comparisons.
Depending on how we define hierarchy – and to what we are comparing it to – I guess one can make an argument for Lenin and Stalin, but again the propaganda was pretty important and by hierarchy I really meant hierarchy so explicit that it’s assumed to be beyond popular reproach, outside the bounds of public opinion.
We know why female genital mutilation was and is done: making it easier to control women’s sexual behaviour by making sex less appealing. The same effect of stopping unwanted sexual behaviour could be achieved by lopping two inches off a male cock, but strangely that never caught on.
Many traditions are about controlling someone in the interests of someone else. If the reasons are good (discouraging theft or violence) then the tradition might be good. If it is bad then the tradition is bad. But yes, some traditions are great: cheese rolling, clog dancing, Krampusnacht, naval mutinies etc.
Yes, often they are far worse. The accumulated ‘wisdom’ of our ancestors is also the accumulated wisdom of people who thought diseases were caused by evil spirits, so unsurprisingly a lot of traditions are well worth jettisoning. The Romans may have had running water but it was also traditional to locate the crapper in the kitchen right next to where food was prepared. Lets hear it for the time hallowed wisdom of the ancestors.
Very interesting to learn from Lucklucky about Bombacci and the Italian “fascist left”. Without denying that there is much truth in his analysis, i should think that most Marxists saw fascism as an enemy because it represented the interests of the petite bourgeoisie: public sector white collar workers (many of whom were and are women), as opposed to blue collar workers in heavy industry (most of whom are men). See also The Road to Serfdom, end of chapter 8.
Of course, the US Democrats, New Labour, and the Nordic social democratic parties also tend to represent the petite bourgeoisie, and therefore are fascist from a Marxist point of view (as i understand it). Still, it’s good to know that Bombacci saw things pretty much the way we do, looking from the other side.
That is equally true “inside” of economics: in the xix century, classical liberalism was both “of the left” and “of the right”, in different times and places.
Even right now, in Italy it is “the left” that has been implementing free-market reforms since the mid 1990s, while Berlusconi dragged his feet (which is why the financial markets forced him out). Nor is Italy the only example: see Hawke and Keating in Australia, or Lange and Douglas in New Zealand.
Sorry, i meant the first after the French Revolution; though that still lets in de Bonald.
Perry,
Pointing to one bad tradition to castigate the badness of tradition is like pointing to one unemployed man to castigate the badness of capitalism. In both cases, one is pointing to data that is insufficient in quantity and cherry picked AND entirely missing several points. One is that the benefits of tradition are usually unseen. Another is that tradition is replaced by something worse more often than not (and more often than would be expected). A third is that a particular tradition that suits one society very well may be disastrous for another society for reasons either/both endogenous and exogenous to the traits of said society.
Tradition is often irrational. The irrationality of a tradition is correlated with both its durability over great lengths of time and the unseen benefits of its use but that’s a discussion perhaps for another time.
Thanks for your time and input Perry, I enjoy chatting.
No Shlomo, not at all. I merely have to point out one truly lousy tradition to demonstrate that your contention that tradition is “inherently good” is wrong. I am just falsifying that notion. Tradition is not inherently good. Good traditions are good, and bad ones are bad.
Perry, “tradition is inherently good” is an absolute statement, and as you have demonstrated it is incorrect (or at least overbroad). However, if one softens it a bit to say that “tradition is generally inherently good” I think it’s a pretty fair generalization. There are always reasons why traditions arose and have endured, and one would be wise to exercise caution in abandoning them. There will be unexpected consequences. Which is not to deny that some traditions are bad and need to be rooted out (the tradition of human slavery, for example), only that merely because a given tradition offends your sensibilities or appears to defy logic is not ipso facto a reason for abandoning it.
I have nothing against tradition per se, Laird. Indeed there are many fine traditions worth defending bitterly. And the fact a tradition is ‘irrational’ does not bother me in the slightest. Irrationality alone is no cause for abominating a great many things… unless it is. But the mere fact something is traditional should not place it above criticism.
“Left” and “Right” are relics from the sociopaths who butchered their way through France a while back. It was all about on which side of the “ruling” table one sat.
I prefer the terms “Real People” vs. “murderous scumbags” to describe political players.
Most “acceptable” political “descriptors” are there specifically to disguise the REAL motivations of the guilty bastards.
Speaking of old Benito:
https://xkcd.com/282/
Just for the record, Benito was not strung up from a lamppost, it was the roofing of a petrol station.
http://historiabarriga.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/la-muerte-de-mussolini.html