History

Re: Mises and Austrofascism

Guillermo — Sat, 30 Mar 2013 20:22:08 GMT

Hi Johnny! Here you have my recent complete refutation of this accusation. Bye! :D

Re: Mises and Austrofascism

Malachi — Thu, 15 Dec 2011 03:10:57 GMT

Are you sure people who are openly racist today, would stop being racist, if discrimination was legal?

no, that is not what I said. If people were allowed to discriminate, then racists would make less money because of their discrimination. Racist acts have costs.

as it is now, the racists do not have to pay this cost and can resolve the cognitive dissonance by using the existence of the state. If they were faced with the real costs of racist behavior, there would be no cognitive dissonance, just a growing realization that racism is unproductive and unprofitable. Thus, anti-discrimination laws preserve racist attitudes and behaviors.

Re: Mises and Austrofascism

Marko — Tue, 29 Nov 2011 15:41:57 GMT

So as somebody who doesn't know, what exactly is so horrifyingly disqualifying about Dollfuss? From having glanced at the wiki article it seems he tried hard to prevent the incorporation of Austria into Nazi Germany. He cracked down on the Nazi party and was in turn assasinated by Nazis. His was a 'Christian Social' party and he was some kind of corporatist (like Roosevelt!). Also he was bad on the whole democracy and open society schtik and abolished it so as to be better able to fight Nazism and Communism (like Lincoln established the imperial presidency, censorship and prisontime without charges to "save the Union"). Is there even reason to believe he was a racist (like there is with Lincoln)?

Just because he was a bad guy from the perspective of consistent Rothbardian Anarchists doesn't mean some Norwegian pinkos who (chances are) worshipp at the alter of even worse characters (say Obama — the wager of so many wars we lost count) get to stand there in indignation over — the horror, an "Austrofascist".

Re: Mises and Austrofascism

Praetyre — Tue, 29 Nov 2011 12:10:37 GMT

Neither of these parties are fascist, so it's a moot point. You can't have fascism without communism; it's called a "reactionary" movement for a very good reason. The BNP's policies are closer to syndicalism than any other political party in the UK, but in practice no fascist regime utilized syndicalism. The BNP is populist-nationalist in character, representing chiefly a working class white English constitutency angered with the population replacement programs of the cosmpolitan London elites. The FN, I gather, is fairly similar, but with more of a base in France's rural areas and with traces of Vichy recidivists.

If you want a modern day fascist party, look at the PAP. I predict even they will melt into garden variety law and order conservatives once Lee Kuan Yew dies, though.

Re: Mises and Austrofascism

CrazyCoot — Tue, 29 Nov 2011 11:46:42 GMT

Have you ever checked out the economic policies of parties like the BNP or the FN? I'll give you a clue, they're not free market.

Re: Mises and Austrofascism

Anenome — Tue, 29 Nov 2011 09:52:33 GMT

Praetyre:

Mises did state that fascism had succeeded in saving Europe from communism for the time being (which was certainly true, looking at the existant and influencial political factions of the time)

In that period, those were virtually the only two political outlooks around. Classical liberalism had long since died off and only reemerged around 1960. We're in a politically dark era of the enlightenment. Science of the natural world has progressed rapidly, but the science of political organization, itself predicated on the understanding on human beings and ethical systems, has not.

Re: Mises and Austrofascism

Peter Sidor — Mon, 28 Nov 2011 13:57:35 GMT

"Actually, all racists have to do in a collective is get into a position of power and systematically deny state benefits to people they hate."

Also, a great move for racists would be to pass minimum wage laws and other measures to "support" the poor minorities. That is one of the best ways to hurt them.

"Are you sure people who are openly racist today, would stop being racist, if discrimination was legal?"

Not at all; but see above what Johnny Doe said.

Re: Mises and Austrofascism

Porco Rosso — Mon, 28 Nov 2011 12:02:15 GMT

"Free market attracts racists."

This is like saying that the subject of history attracts racists. While it may be true that racists can be interested in history, this doesn't say much about the subject itself.

Re: Mises and Austrofascism

Johnny Doe — Mon, 28 Nov 2011 11:06:36 GMT

Malachi:
Johnny Doe:
In a collective one is coerced into living/sharing with everyone, so to a racist free-markets are alot better, i.e. they get to choose who to cooperate with.
Actually, all racists have to do in a collective is get into a position of power and systematically deny state benefits to people they hate. They also get to take it easy and ride on the work undoubtedly performed by some members of his disliked race in a multicultural collective. If society really wanted to eliminate racism, they would make it legal to discriminate, so we would know who the actual racists were. Its much easier to use the pejorative of "racist" as a political/social weapon in a society where no one is allowed to do anything that would be considered racist. If there wasnt any actual or perceived racism, then there wouldnt be any affirmative action or any political benefits for being a racist. It's kind of like the cycle of violence. The cycle of insidious racism.

Are you sure people who are openly racist today, would stop being racist, if discrimination was legal?

Re: Mises and Austrofascism

Malachi — Mon, 28 Nov 2011 04:03:17 GMT

Johnny Doe:
In a collective one is coerced into living/sharing with everyone, so to a racist free-markets are alot better, i.e. they get to choose who to cooperate with.

Actually, all racists have to do in a collective is get into a position of power and systematically deny state benefits to people they hate. They also get to take it easy and ride on the work undoubtedly performed by some members of his disliked race in a multicultural collective. If society really wanted to eliminate racism, they would make it legal to discriminate, so we would know who the actual racists were. Its much easier to use the pejorative of "racist" as a political/social weapon in a society where no one is allowed to do anything that would be considered racist. If there wasnt any actual or perceived racism, then there wouldnt be any affirmative action or any political benefits for being a racist. It's kind of like the cycle of violence. The cycle of insidious racism.

Re: Mises and Austrofascism

Clayton — Mon, 28 Nov 2011 03:27:29 GMT

+1 vive ... these political labels are meaningless

The trouble with being a thorough-going, ethical anti-statist is that you are easily confused with all the other opportunistic anti-government types who only oppose this government simply because they're not running it. I remember telling one of my Democrat friends in 2008 that "I'm an anarchist, I don't believe we need government at all" and his reply was "I'm not surprised - with Obama about to sweep into office, it only makes sense that a hardline conservative like yourself would have an 11th hour conversion to anarchism." The implication is that I'll regain my faith in government once a Republican President takes power again.

It is interesting to observe the often strange use of cui bono by leftists. "You're just saying that because you're right-wing." "Oh, you're just repeating the tired old anti-government rhetoric of the ultra-conservatives." It's as if they believe that being "right-wing" or "conservative" is some kind of psychic motivation in itself. Right-wing! Hurrah! Long live conservatism! Why do I care about conservatism again!?

The use of cui bono as a component of critical thinking, on the other hand, looks for real benefits. Monetary benefits. Promotional and status benefits. Stuff you can take to the bank. This is always termed "corruption" nowadays but it used to just be called politics which shows just how far down the rabbit-hole we've gone.

So, how did Mises benefit from his supposed Austrofascism? Cui bono?

Clayton -

Re: Mises and Austrofascism

vive la insurrection — Mon, 28 Nov 2011 02:33:07 GMT

Any one who focuses on Anarchism, freedom, fascism, democracy, authoritarianism, republicanism, etc are focsing on some of the most empty and retarded rhetorical musings and ponderings an individual can waste time doing. These things are very literally nonsense, and not worth the words they are used to type with. Mises focused on actual factual forces and actions that could be discussed - not BS ideal words as "things in themselves". I may dare go as far to say, If you miss this point you miss a major point of the Austrian outlook on what a market is.

If anything this is a somewhat good rule of thumb/ rubric what Mises meant by utlitarianism and liberalism. Focusing on suc words is the last gasp of a scoundral aka lefty French deconstructionist - at least Marx and Hilferding had the balls and mind to actually try to say something and not gleefully hide behind subsidy and fashionable word play.

Re: Mises and Austrofascism

James — Mon, 28 Nov 2011 00:48:10 GMT

Engelbert Dolfuss did call his plans "Austrofascism", but he was trying to suck up to Mussolini, who wasn't entirely trusting of Hitler at that point. He was trying to galvanise some sort of nationalist impetus against the immanent Nazi takeover of Austria. He saw Nazism and Bolshevism as very similar things, and he thought he could use nationalism against them. He was wrong, and Nazi assassins gunned him down in his office.

If use of fascist symbols is so terrible, what are we to make of the fasces decorating the US House of Representatives? Ron Paul is clearly a racist Nazi, because of all the times he's stood up in Congress in front of those terrible symbols to advise the House of what a mess they've been making. The link between von Mises and fascism is essentially as close.

Re: Mises and Austrofascism

Johnny Doe — Sun, 27 Nov 2011 20:57:20 GMT

In a collective one is coerced into living/sharing with everyone, so to a racist free-markets are alot better, i.e. they get to choose who to cooperate with.

Re: Mises and Austrofascism

z1235 — Fri, 25 Nov 2011 22:52:04 GMT

aervew:

The reverse is certainly true. Check out racist and white supremacist communities - Stormfront is dominantly free-market thin government minded in the policy view polls they have published, as are the crypto-facist republican sub-communities. The fact is clear - free-market attracts racists.

With brain processing capabilities such as these, I have to question your ability to cross a road or go down a flight of stairs. Honestly, can you do all of these by yourself?