Doug put a lot of issues on the table with his simple question.

I've always thought that Hayek's slippery slope argument from The Road to Serfdom is one of the most unconvincing things he ever uttered. I guess any society, under a particular set of circumstances can veer in the direction of authoritarianism. I don't see, though, that a strong welfare state is one of those contributing factors. It is hardly evident that Nazism or Fascism were consequences of a growing welfare state. I can never decide whether Hayek's claim that the  Weimar Republic's economic policies primed the pump for a totalitarian state is ludicrous or just sad. In Spain, the Fascists went on the warpath before any of the socialists' policies could get any traction. Since the end of the Second World War European states with large government sectors and strong social welfare programs have had no trouble maintaining themselves as functioning democracies. And come to think of it, in its heyday the Progressive movement in the US gave rise to no nascent totalitarian tendencies (though, as Charles notes, we must not ignore the repugnant violations of individuals' reproductive rights that resulted from the eugenics movement). 

Modern-day militarism and nationalism seems to me to be entirely different matters--and addressing them really doesn't fall within the scope of this discussion board. We're moving into political psychology now, a field that is fascinating but a bit off-topic. To bring the discussion back (sort of) to the topic at hand: we've recently had a discussion of Hayek's views on authoritarian regimes in Latin America. Does anyone know if he ever had anything directly to say about the Spanish Civil War? I don't recall him mentioning anything about it in The Road to Serfdom (which, when you think about it is rather curious, given when the book was written).

Gary


Gary Mongiovi, Co-Editor
Review of Political Economy
Economics & Finance Department
St John's University
Jamaica, NEW YORK 11439 (USA)

Tel: +1 (718) 990-7380
Email: [log in to unmask]
________________________________________
From: Societies for the History of Economics [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Doug Mackenzie [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Friday, July 20, 2012 5:08 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [SHOE] allusion to Pareto

Gary is right about the extreme nationalistic/militaristic nature of the Axis powers, this does set FDR apart from Hitler and Mussolini, but not quite so far from Bismark. Here we get to the real issue- how did Bismark's Germany end up as Hitler's Germany? Was it a historical accident or was Bismark's state a start down the "Road to Serfdom"?

Hayek detailed forces that move a social welfare state towards tyranny, nationalism being at or near the top of the list. What forces act in the opposite direction? And there is a nationalistic tendency in the US welfare state, and policy generally- how much was spent on the War on relative poverty in America, versus aid to truly poor people in places like Haiti? What about immigration and trade policy- aimed at maintaining US wages against competiting foreigners?

Here is my question for Gary: how can you either break nationalist feelings so as to allow wealthy nations to really help the poor of the world (assuming that transfers work), or how can you avoid militarism in a world where each nation tries to use scarce resources better its own people at the expense of others? Option #1 (World Socialism) seems as out of reach now as it was when Hayek wrote the RTS in 1943. Option #2 (each nation with its own citizen's welfare as the primary goal) seems impossible. Without a resonable answer I can't discount the danger of a welfare state gradually turning bad.


D.W. MacKenzie, Ph.D.
Carroll College, Helena MT



--- On Fri, 7/20/12, Alan G Isaac <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> From: Alan G Isaac <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: [SHOE] allusion to Pareto
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Date: Friday, July 20, 2012, 4:08 PM
> On 7/20/2012 10:53 AM, Samuel Bostaph
> wrote:
> > Well, every fascist leader has personal goals.
>
>
> Yes, that's a syllogism!
>
> Axiom: Every person has personal goals.
> Def: Every leader is a person.
> Def: Every fascist leader is a leader.
> Conclusion: Every fascist leader has personal goals.
>
> But as Gary points out, however, it is useful to consider
> commonalities in those goals.  I take it that a reason
> to do so is to consider the adequacy of definitions
> we introduce to categorize historical ideologies.
>
> So starting with the first item on my posted list, we might
> ask whether Hitler, Mussolini, and Franco shared anything
> in
> their approaches the role of free trade unions.  If
> so,
> we can ask whether we can we find a contrast
> with the approach to labor unions by the coeval progressive
> left
> (as represented, say, by the Political Quarterly).
> Or taking the last item on my list, we might ask about
> anti-semitism.
> Or taking an item not on my list, we might ask about
> democracy. Etc.
>
> None of this is meant to discard the susceptibility of
> Progressive
> Era economists in the US to the eugenics fad of the the
> early 20th century.
> Naturally. But even Thomas Leonard, who stands all too ready
> to call
> "progressive" anyone who advocated active policy during the
> Progressive Era,
> admits that this susceptibility was not a criterion for
> being "progressive".
>
> Alan Isaac
>