Mises was a Fascist?

This claim was referenced by a publication put forth by Lyndon LaRouche a while back and the posters on Mises.org freaked out, all gasping at such a scandalous claim.

I've noticed that historically economic liberals have been sympathetic -- and sometimes even worked with (see the French fascist party, Faisceau) -- Fascists to crush Socialism. In a discussion I had over at anti-state, the market anarchists over there seemed to acknowledge this. Mises' and Rothbard's unfounded attacks on unions as inherently coercive sets them apart from other Libertarians. On immigration, Mises supported open borders because he claimed that superior ethnic groups supplant inferior ones. (It's in Omnipotent Government. I can dig out a specific citation if you'd like.)

In the past, I did not think this was good enough evidence to call Mises a Fascist, although I think Walter Block and Hans Hoppe certainly are -- the former for his "slave contract" theory and the latter for his homophobia, opposition to open borders, and support for aristocracy.

I didn't think this was good evidence because claiming someone's a Fascist simply because they associate with them is guilt-by-association. On the issue of immigration, a lot of people believed in such silly racial theories back then, including Margaret Sanger, Karl Marx, and black author, W.E.B. DuBois.

However, I recently came across this quote by Mises:

http://www.mises.org/liberal/ch1sec10.asp

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.

Thoughts?

I still don't think that's substantial enough evidence to prove the existence of Mises' Fascism, but combined with his support for the Austrian monarchy, it is rather startling. In that chapter he seems to suggest Fascism stems from a regard for property rights, even though it violates them:

It has often been said that nothing furthers a cause more than creating, martyrs for it. This is only approximately correct. What strengthens the cause of the persecuted faction is not the martyrdom of its adherents, but the fact that they are being attacked by force, and not by intellectual weapons. Repression by brute force is always a confession of the inability to make use of the better weapons of the intellect better because they alone give promise of final success. This is the fundamental error from which Fascism suffers and which will ultimately cause its downfall. The victory of Fascism in a number of countries is only an episode in the long series of struggles over the problem of property. The next episode will be the victory of Communism. The ultimate outcome of the struggle, however, will not be decided by arms, but by ideas. It is ideas that group men into fighting factions, that press the weapons into their hands, and that determine against whom and for whom the weapons shall be used. It is they alone, and not arms, that, in the last analysis, turn the scales.

Anyone at least willing to admit Mises was wrong?

I don't see anything here that suggests that Mises supported fasism. And I've read plenty to believe he didn't. I must be missing something... 

mises was clearly describing fascism as the lesser of two evils, given that in the situatons he described they were pretty much the only games going. we know mises wasnt a fan of fascism for itself. further just to pick out that fascists had good intentions doesnt say much, i mean the socialist that we here all oppose might have 'good intentions'. we have good intentions too. good intentions arent really the way to decide on which ideology has merits.

also in the last paragraph you qoute, mises is explicit that the fascists do not have coherent ideologoy or good ideas. that their resort to violence betrays this. (so too the communists) so how can he be a fan of it if he calls it stupid....?

 I'm not sure what a fascist or fascism is.

From the Latin fasces, a group of tightly bundled rods with an axe head protruding from one end, a Roman symbol of power and unity. As a political philosophy, it describes an authoritarian regime that exalts the state above the individual, readily resorts to military action to solve international disputes and seeks to control every aspect of the nation's existence — political, social, religious and economic. Fascism does not embrace communism's devotion to a classless society. First applied to Benito Mussolini's National Fascist Party in Italy in the 1920s, and later to Adolf Hitler's National Socialist Workers' Party in Germany and Francisco Franco's Falange Española Tradicionalista in Spain. The term fascist is sometimes more loosely used to describe a state or person willing to employ propaganda, intimidation and violence to achieve its ends.

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1451.html

Are you trying to be offensive, Nathyn. Are you daring to imply that this is a school of fascist idealism?

That you would somehow confuse monarchists and fascists I believe to be impossible. The only conclusion is that you are a horrible troll out to slander the reputation of liberalism. 

This thread's proper title would be 'Is Nathyn a troll?' Your 'demonstration' of Hoppe being a fascist is pure nonsense, to put it mildly. You make a series of specious arguments, then expect people to buy into it. Unless Hoppe is willing to impose his conservatism on others by means of force (i.e. the State), your argument is void of any sense. I fail to see how Block is a fascist based on his position that voluntary slave contracts are okay, however wrong he may be. Modern social democracies have far more in common with fascism than any monarchy, so again, this is a moot point. Of course, you only mentioned these two guys because you wanted to troll a bit. Note, however, you're on thin ice. The other mods and I have been very tolerant of you so far - continue a bit more, and that tolerance will wane. Take that as a warning. 

The title of this thread is, of course, absurd. What is actually in question here are the political judgements of Mises during a very critical time in European history, when socialism threatened to wipe out civilization and fascism was its only political opposition. 

 For those willing to do some reading on this question, the most extensive article to appear on Mises's comments on fascism come from Ralph Raico writing in the Journal of Libertarian Studies. Here it is to download. 

 

Fried Egg:

I don't see anything here that suggests that Mises supported fasism. And I've read plenty to believe he didn't. I must be missing something...

I think that saying Fascism was supported out of "the best intentions" is inaccurate, at best.

nirgrahamUK:

mises was clearly describing fascism as the lesser of two evils, given that in the situatons he described they were pretty much the only games going. we know mises wasnt a fan of fascism for itself. further just to pick out that fascists had good intentions doesnt say much, i mean the socialist that we here all oppose might have 'good intentions'. we have good intentions too. good intentions arent really the way to decide on which ideology has merits.

And that sets him apart from Libertarians. No Libertarians today would try to put forth apologists for Fascism. Rothbard once wrote the ridiculous nonsense that "Fascism = Socialism".

nirgrahamUK:

also in the last paragraph you qoute, mises is explicit that the fascists do not have coherent ideologoy or good ideas. that their resort to violence betrays this. (so too the communists) so how can he be a fan of it if he calls it stupid....?

I agree with you there, but Mises argued that Fascism could be consistent if they simply avoided violence and economic regulation.

What I'm talking about is demonstrated in the short-lived French Fascist party, Faisceau: It was made up of economic liberals and Fascists. Both claimed to support "corporatism", but had disagreements on how it ought to be achieved. The Liberals argued for deregulation, the Fascists argued for regulation, but at the time, they both acknowledged their goals were the same.

To clarify, here: I'm not saying that Capitalism is Fascism or that Mises was a Fascist, just that both claims aren't wholly unfounded.

Before modern times, there were no "Capitalists" (I'm talking about the Marxist usage of the term for "large business leaders"). Under the aristocracy of mercantilism, those who controlled large businesses saw it in their best interest to have the government to continue to grant their guilds monopolies, and so on.

After it became clear by the late 19th and early 20th century, however, that many businesses benefited from deregulation (or at least selective forms of regulation\deregulation), business leaders instead demanded de-regulation. You saw this shift happen in the Republican party during the New Deal. The Republicans themselves, on the one hand, were instrumental in passing Smoot-Hawley and were a protectionist party, because at the time, businesses favored it. The New Deal, however, threatened their constituents. As a result, the Republicans over time shifted away from protectionism and towards free-trade and selective de-regulation. I suspect something similar happened in Europe, leading to the development of Fascism -- which wasm't laissez-faire, but was supported by European business leaders, the same as with economic liberalism.

Also, see the Austrian Freedom Party, in Mises' own countries. Like Faisceau, it was made up of Fascists and Economic Liberals. Despite being a Fascist party, for a while it was a part of Liberal International, but after facing a proposed expulsion it withdrew.

Bank Run:

 I'm not sure what a fascist or fascism is.

    From the Latin fasces, a group of tightly bundled rods with an axe head protruding from one end, a Roman symbol of power and unity. As a political philosophy, it describes an authoritarian regime that exalts the state above the individual, readily resorts to military action to solve international disputes and seeks to control every aspect of the nation's existence — political, social, religious and economic. Fascism does not embrace communism's devotion to a classless society. First applied to Benito Mussolini's National Fascist Party in Italy in the 1920s, and later to Adolf Hitler's National Socialist Workers' Party in Germany and Francisco Franco's Falange Española Tradicionalista in Spain.

The term fascist is sometimes more loosely used to describe a state or person willing to employ propaganda, intimidation and violence to achieve its ends.

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1451.html

Are you trying to be offensive, Nathyn. Are you daring to imply that this is a school of fascist idealism?

Good job appealing to an obscure website to prove your point.

One only has to go to do the Thesaurus to find that Fascism and Socialism are widely regarded as antonyms:
http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/fascism

Stranger:

That you would somehow confuse monarchists and fascists I believe to be impossible. The only conclusion is that you are a horrible troll out to slander the reputation of liberalism.

Stranger, you're oversimplifying what I said. I'm not saying Mises was a Fascist because he supported Monarchism. That was something stupid which LaRouche supposdly said.

I'm saying, "Mises was an economic liberal, with racist immigration views, who supported monarchy and was sympathetic to Fascism."

Inquisitor:

This thread's proper title would be 'Is Nathyn a troll?' Your 'demonstration' of Hoppe being a fascist is pure nonsense, to put it mildly. You make a series of specious arguments, then expect people to buy into it. Unless Hoppe is willing to impose his conservatism on others by means of force (i.e. the State), your argument is void of any sense. I fail to see how Block is a fascist based on his position that voluntary slave contracts are okay, however wrong he may be. Modern social democracies have far more in common with fascism than any monarchy, so again, this is a moot point. Of course, you only mentioned these two guys because you wanted to troll a bit. Note, however, you're on thin ice. The other mods and I have been very tolerant of you so far - continue a bit more, and that tolerance will wane. Take that as a warning.

Inquisitor, as Mises says in the section quoted in the OP, the use of force simply demonstrates your inability to use the tools of intellect.

jtucker:

The title of this thread is, of course, absurd. What is actually in question here are the political judgements of Mises during a very critical time in European history, when socialism threatened to wipe out civilization and fascism was its only political opposition.

 For those willing to do some reading on this question, the most extensive article to appear on Mises's comments on fascism come from Ralph Raico writing in the Journal of Libertarian Studies. Here it is to download.

Yes, it's a mistake to assume that I'm claiming "MISES WAS A FASCIST, OMG!!!11" Anyone here reacting like that is just being ridiculous.
 

It seems to me that there's a link between conservatism (ancien regime), monarchy and fascism. Of course, I tend to lump all anti-free-market ideologies together, so maybe I'm just being slopy...Anyway, I also see a very real link between conservatism and socialism, something wich I imagine Nathyn would desperately deny...

Spencer says :
"The new Toryism
Most of those who now pass as Liberals, are Tories of a new type. This is a paradox which I propose to justify. "

http://www.constitution.org/hs/manvssta.htm

Inability to use them in doing what? Argue with a flamebaiting troll who has a history of posting threads like this?

Another thing, you mention that Mises argues that fascism stems from a respect for property rights - how could you possibly deduce that from the paragraph you quoted?

Inquisitor:

Inability to use them in doing what? Argue with a flamebaiting troll who has a history of posting threads like this?

Another thing, you mention that Mises argues that fascism stems from a respect for property rights - how could you possibly deduce that from the paragraph you quoted?

 

Inquisitor, if he doesn't think they believe in property rights, then what does he mean when he says they have the "best of intentions"?

Given that the man spent his entire life recording ways in which fascism violated property rights, I am not sure how such an inference follows at all. Mises valued bourgeois liberal civilization - one could just as easily infer that he meant that they were a preferable evil to that of communism in that they at least, like liberals, valued this civilization. That again does not necessarily imply any significant regard for private property.

Inquisitor:

Given that the man spent his entire life recording ways in which fascism violated property rights, I am not sure how such an inference follows at all. Mises valued bourgeois liberal civilization - one could just as easily infer that he meant that they were a preferable evil to that of communism in that they at least, like liberals, valued this civilization. That again does not necessarily imply any significant regard for private property.

 

That begs the question: Why would anyone see Communism as a threat to civilization, hmm?

Communism was not limited to the destruction of property; it was a much broader phenomenon. Besides, you've yet to show that fascism stems from a respect for property. It stems, perhaps, from a respect of tradition, authority and the like, and to the extent that property has been a feature of Western civilization, fascism is willing to defend it, if only nominally. Thus it might exhibit a higher regard for property than communists do, but it most certainly does not stem from a respect of it (something Mises knew all too well.)

Inquisitor:

Communism was not limited to the destruction of property; it was a much broader phenomenon. Besides, you've yet to show that fascism stems from a respect for property. It stems, perhaps, from a respect of tradition, authority and the like, and to the extent that property has been a feature of Western civilization, fascism is willing to defend it, if only nominally. Thus it might exhibit a higher regard for property than communists do, but it most certainly does not stem from a respect of it (something Mises knew all too well.)

 

Is attempting to protect "tradition, authority, and the like" from Communists the "best of intentions"?

Nathyn:

Inquisitor:

Communism was not limited to the destruction of property; it was a much broader phenomenon. Besides, you've yet to show that fascism stems from a respect for property. It stems, perhaps, from a respect of tradition, authority and the like, and to the extent that property has been a feature of Western civilization, fascism is willing to defend it, if only nominally. Thus it might exhibit a higher regard for property than communists do, but it most certainly does not stem from a respect of it (something Mises knew all too well.)

 

Is attempting to protect "tradition, authority, and the like" from Communists the "best of intentions"?

 well,

 IF " protection of tradition, authority , and the like...." is good for the people

AND IF "having the best of intentions involves striving for the good of the people"

THEN " protection of tradition. authority and the like... is having the best intentions"

 

 I thought the quiz on that "obscure site" was fun.

It may be economicly the case that free market functions in a corpatist fascism, can prevail better in that system as opposed to a system that takes property away. I suppose both systems try to bamboozle the status quo with the idea of, this is for the publics good. 

I like the bookmarks, you get from the store here. "Government is essentially the negation of liberty" from Liberty and Property.

Nathyn I think you should read some Mises and this is a nice start, it is short and very insightfull. I think his lesson of "the chocolate king" is one that will help you.

And could the store sell some varieties of bookmarks please.

 

For someone who values tradition and insitutions such as the family, the fascists would seem well-intentioned (hence why many conservatives fell for their rhetoric); just utterly incapable of accomplishing their goal in any way possible (again, something Mises had shown in his works.)

Mises, an Austrian jew who fled the Nazi party and spent his life criticizing the abuse of government power was in fact a closet Fascist?!

Are you Naomi Klein by any chance?

nirgrahamUK:

Nathyn:

Inquisitor:

Communism was not limited to the destruction of property; it was a much broader phenomenon. Besides, you've yet to show that fascism stems from a respect for property. It stems, perhaps, from a respect of tradition, authority and the like, and to the extent that property has been a feature of Western civilization, fascism is willing to defend it, if only nominally. Thus it might exhibit a higher regard for property than communists do, but it most certainly does not stem from a respect of it (something Mises knew all too well.)

 

Is attempting to protect "tradition, authority, and the like" from Communists the "best of intentions"?

 well,

 IF " protection of tradition, authority , and the like...." is good for the people

AND IF "having the best of intentions involves striving for the good of the people"

THEN " protection of tradition. authority and the like... is having the best intentions" 

 

Mises didn't think that, which is why Inquisitor's invocation of such concepts as what he meant by "good intentions" is B.S.. 

He meant they wanted to protect their property rights -- they simply were msguided in believing such strict regulation was necessary to do that. Anarchists accuse Minarchists of making the same mistake.

And your proof of this is what? That my claim is "BS" because you say so? Sorry, not good enough. Mises was acutely aware of how little fascists respected property rights in practice. Unless you can show that fascism as a movement stemmed from property rights and regarded them as primary, as opposed to mere features of the tradition they sought to guard, you have offered nothing to back your claim up.

Inquisitor:

And your proof of this is what?

Logical inference. You should try it sometime, instead of scrambling to throw together whatever fallacious rhetoric you can, like telling me to go read.

I think Inquisitor put his last post really well, and Nathyn did not even address his point.

 

suffering logical interference 

 

 

Because he can't.

I'm waiting for proof, Nathyn. All I see is an inference, but not very much to do with logic at all.

Inquisitor:

Because he can't.

I'm waiting for proof, Nathyn. All I see is an inference, but not very much to do with logic at all.

 

Perhaps if I put the two sentences together, you'll be able to follow the logical inference more easily.

http://www.mises.org/liberal/ch1sec10.asp

The victory of Fascism in a number of countries is only an episode in the long series of struggles over the problem of property... ...It cannot be denied that Fascism and similar movements aiming at the establishment of dictatorships are full of the best intentions...

Yes, yes, I'm sure Mises thought those "best intentions" were to violate property rights for the same of govenrment and tradition.

Awww, now you're trying to patronise me. Too bad you're still wrong.

Linking the sentences does not prove your argument.Your argument is that fascism stems from a respect of property. That is what I disputed. You've yet to prove it. I argued that it stems from a respect of tradition and authority (Mises indeed would dislike the second, but certainly would consider a defence of bourgeois civilization as well intentioned), and to the extent that property existed in this framework, fascists defended it. In practice, they violated property rights, and held them as secondary, and Mises knew this well; he'd also have known that rhetorically they valued European civilization. So your argument is still full of holes. Clearer now?

Nathyn:

The victory of Fascism in a number of countries is only an episode in the long series of struggles over the problem of property... ...It cannot be denied that Fascism and similar movements aiming at the establishment of dictatorships are full of the best intentions...

 

All the first sentence says is that the victory of fascism is an episode in the struggle over property.  It takes no position at all on whether this was a positive or negative episode, only that it occurred and was relevant in some fashion to issues of property.   I fail to see how anyone can infer from that sentence that Mises was sympathetic to fascism as an economic or political ideal.  As to the second sentence, any fool knows with what the proverbial road to hell is paved.  Admitting that someone may have good intentions is in no way an endorsement of his methods and practices; one may acknowledge good intentions even while believing the chosen means to be highly misguided or even evil.  

Bank Run:

Are you trying to be offensive, Nathyn. Are you daring to imply that this is a school of fascist idealism?

 

DUH! No one has realized this yet?  

waywardwayfarer:

All the first sentence says is that the victory of fascism is an episode in the struggle over property.  It takes no position at all on whether this was a positive or negative episode, only that it occurred and was relevant in some fashion to issues of property.   I fail to see how anyone can infer from that sentence that Mises was sympathetic to fascism as an economic or political ideal.  As to the second sentence, any fool knows with what the proverbial road to hell is paved.  Admitting that someone may have good intentions is in no way an endorsement of his methods and practices; one may acknowledge good intentions even while believing the chosen means to be highly misguided or even evil.  

 

All men believe in their hearts that they are acting virtuously in some grand scheme. No one rolls out of bed in the morning, itches their crotch, and says, "hmm... I think I'm going to be evil from now on *puts on monacle and top hat*." 

Nathyn:

Logical inference. You should try it sometime, instead of scrambling to throw together whatever fallacious rhetoric you can, like telling me to go read.

Oh, hell. I got a good chuckle out of that...

I think it is common knowledge that your logical inference skills are sorely lacking and that you base most of your arguments on fallacious rhetoric.

Frickin' laughable...

And just for the record, telling you to go read is probably the kindest advice anyone has ever given you.  Well, assuming you aren't intending to look like a complete idiot.

How about a full quote:

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. But though its policy has brought salvation for the moment, it is not of the kind which could promise continued success. Fascism was an emergency makeshift. To view it as something more would be a fatal error.

And a better quote of his views on fascism:

For Fascism does nothing to combat [socialism] except to suppress socialist ideas and to persecute the people who spread them. If it wanted really to combat socialism, it would have to oppose it with ideas. There is, however, only one idea that can be effectively opposed to socialism, viz., that of liberalism.

Add in the fact that this book was written in 1927 *before* WWII and it could be somewhat understood why he didn't outright vilify them. 

How you got that he was a fascist from that is beyond me unless you are just trying to troll...

 Don't you have better ways to use time than post trash troll threads?

Caley:

 Don't you have better ways to use time than post trash troll threads?

I agree, sometimes I'm even reluctant to even post here, hence my low post count, due to persistant trolling. Replying to trolls represents an opportunity cost that according to my marginal utility, could have been spent engaging in rational discussion.

Nathyn:

 

Inquisitor, if he doesn't think they believe in property rights, then what does he mean when he says they have the "best of intentions"?

 

Defend their land from the advance of Marxism? One can say they have the best of intentions in result, if not in method, and that their method will yield bad results, such as in socialists being unable to improve welfare or achieve post-scarcity. Remember Mises is not Rothbard; he is not raising ethical issues here, but offering an analysis.

 I'm surprised you asked. Not sure if you are arguing just for the sake of it. 

Nathyn:

Inquisitor:

Given that the man spent his entire life recording ways in which fascism violated property rights, I am not sure how such an inference follows at all. Mises valued bourgeois liberal civilization - one could just as easily infer that he meant that they were a preferable evil to that of communism in that they at least, like liberals, valued this civilization. That again does not necessarily imply any significant regard for private property.

 

That begs the question: Why would anyone see Communism as a threat to civilization, hmm?

 

That begs the question: Do you even have a point?