Welcome friends!
I read a rather comical discussion online the other day in which someone argued anti-democracy conservatives and Republicans here in the USA cannot properly be called “fascists” because in his or her estimation fascism is a “leftist” political movement and conservatives and Republicans are opposed to leftism. My first thought was, if the comment was meant at all sincerely, and one never knows these days, one can only assume it came from an unusually poorly educated young person because surely anyone else would be sufficiently familiar with the history of the twentieth century to perceive the important distinction between right wing, anti-democracy, authoritarian fascism and its mortal enemy left wing, anti-democracy, authoritarian communism. However, after a few additional moments of thought, it occurred to me the element that distinguishes the two, the economic dimension, the significance of the distribution of economic power and the use of that economic power in markets to resolve interpersonal conflicts, are exactly those elements of economics so studiously and self-consciously submerged by what my fellow traveller, Hansel Krankepantzen, would call bad economics, by which he has in mind certain ubiquitous misinterpretations of neoclassical welfare economics that systematically draw attention away from issues relating to the distribution and use of economic power in markets, the role of government force in establishing and maintaining markets, and the important role of democratic government in deciding the ethical issues relevant to evaluating markets.
In bad economics, and the bad folk economics it engenders, such as so-called “libertarianism,” “Austrian” economics, fake market based anarchism (I believe called “anarcho-capitalism” or some such), markets do not require government force to be created or maintained, there is no system defined by government and law to distribute economic power, and markets don’t really resolve interpersonal conflict on the basis of economic power. Instead, a market economy is “free” and everyone involved has the “liberty” to do whatever he or she likes, there is no social conflict, everyone gets exactly what they want or deserve, and the only thing democratic government does is interfere and render everyone less free. Young people, and those prone more to fantasy and magical thinking, appear to imagine spontaneous laws that spring forth and are followed with no enforcement or justice system required. More mature and realistic people who understand the role of government in creating and maintaining market system imagine an authoritarian system impervious to the problems and machinations of democratic government, that is to say, incapable of being captured by the ethically compromised hoi polloi and used as a weapon to interfere with ethically correct market results, pick people’s pockets, take from the virtuous rich and give to the deservedly poor, and so on.
Setting aside the young and those oriented to fantasy, who as always inhabit their own special world older and more reasonable people could never hope to enter, the likely reason the more mature and realistic element of the conservative and Republican movements don’t appreciate the relationship between the non-democratic, plutocratic, authoritarian government they have in mind and old time European fascism is American conservatives and Republicans want and suppose the non-democratic, authoritarian government they have in mind will be small, while the non-democratic, authoritarian governments associated with the European fascist movements were big, and they believe accepting big government is invariably a leftist idea. That is to say, rather than that looking at the distinction between mortal enemies fascism and communism in an intellectually serious way, focusing on questions of social power and who wields it, the intent or purpose of the governments, the difference in situations of the people who support the one or the other, they look to something rather less well defined and conceptually significant, the ostensible size of the government sector, and conclude risibly that fascism and communism were basically the same thing and all the fighting and warfare was really for nothing.
With that sort of thought process in mind, I thought it might be worthwhile to suggest European fascism wasn’t authoritarian big government for shits and giggles. That is to say, it’s rather difficult to imagine anyone supporting fascism because they thought it might be nice to have a large, powerful government sector. It seems rather more likely fascism led to a big and pervasive government sector for two very sensible reasons: 1) security and self-preservation, and 2) economic expediency. Let’s consider those two in turn.
I would suggest one important impulse for the relative size and power of the government sector in European fascism was simply the need to prevent what they considered morally corrupt supporters of political democracy and leftists in general from “interfering” with the “free market” and the power of the economic elite, which supported fascism specifically because of its undoubted ability to crack down on organized labor, preserve their economic power, prevent them paying taxes especially for programs they did not support, and ensure they could wield their enormous economic power without interference on the market. Turns out in a country like Germany of that time one needed a rather large and draconian government security sector to prevent unrest, stop people organizing, keep a lid on free speech, control media and academia, and promote propaganda positive to the government. Keeping everyone in line in a fascist society is a big deal.
The other important impulse for the eventual size of the government sector in European fascism was likely simple economics. Stimulating economic growth is always of paramount importance in very unequal economic systems in which government cannot address distributional issues directly or separately from economic growth. To keep the less well off portion of the population on board and thinking things are getting better for them specifically while not inconveniencing in any way those who already hold vast economic power far beyond their practical needs, economic growth must be robust enough that the rising tide lifts even the most broken down and derelict of boats. The fascists hit pretty quickly upon the power of what we would now call Keynesian fiscal policy to get their economies moving, launching military and infrastructure stimulus spending sprees. However, even that appears to have been inadequate to their needs, and they famously settled on continuous, aggressive warfare as the engine they thought would make their economic machine go where it needed to go, while also enriching the economic elite, and allowing the fascist political elite to expand their political power. It was what we in the USA we would call a win-win situation, at least until they rather unexpectedly met their comeuppance militarily, in which it rapidly transformed into a lose-lose situation, albeit with the economic elite surviving rather more in tact than the political elite. In that context, it might be noted there does seem to have been some development in the relationship between the fascist political elite and the economic and business elite that supported them over time with the fascist political elite eventually throwing their weight about more and more as they consolidated power even to the point of occasionally lambasting free market economics as a Jewish plot when it suggested conclusions that did not fit their military and economic agenda, and the economic and business elite, formerly the driving force and great patrons of the fascist movement, arguably became more of a silent and somewhat abused partner, but they were certainly never at odds entirely. The fascist political elite was always on warm terms with the business and free market oriented economic elite of the day.
Given these rather predictable reasons for the eventual size of the European fascist state, there seems little reason to suppose the trajectory of American fascism would be significantly different however much American conservatives and Republicans suppose their movement entirely different because of their focus, initially at least, on small non-democratic, authoritarian government. Comically, of course, it seems quite likely the government would continue to appear “small” to American fascists even if it followed the same trajectory as European fascism because government would be confined to only those activities they believe necessary, which is really the only sensible definition of the size of the government sector in the first place. In a market system government is inevitably and necessarily large at least along the dimension of creating, maintain, and enforcing the laws that make property, contracts, and markets possible. What one wants to add to that function while contending the government remains suitably small seems a rather subjective exercise. National defense? It’s not a small undertaking by any means. Other activities?
Of course, the similarity of modern American conservatism and Republicanism to European fascism is not simply the anti-democracy element nor the intent of preserving the current distribution of economic power and preventing society from interfering with the unrestricted exercise of that economic power in markets. European fascism famously made great political use of racism, nativism, and nationalism. It was famously corrupt, lawless, and nepotistic. It was anti-intellectual and relied heavily on simple violence and intimidation. It focused great energy on disinformation, propaganda, the staging of mass rallies, and so on. One cannot even list these non-essential characteristics of European fascism without being immediately struck by the many obvious similarities to the current American strain of fascism represented by conservatives and the Republican Party.
So what’s the conclusion? Fascism was and is a right wing political movement predicated on doing whatever is necessary to maintain the “free market” and defend the power of the economic elite from potential interference by political democracy as well as anti-democratic leftist political movements like communism. Anti-democracy, plutocratic, market based American conservatism and Republicanism is a right wing, fascist movement. However, at the end of the day, deciding the definition of fascism and determining the right wing and arguably left wing elements is very much an intellectual side show. The danger posed by the recent anti-democracy activity we’ve been seeing by right wing conservatives and Republicans is the same whether one recognizes it as a form of fascism or not.
