I did put alot of issues on the table, none of which were addressed by Gary's reply. Hayek did not argue that Weimar policies "primed the pump for a totalitarian state. Hayek (and Mises) traced this all back to a shift in the intellectual trends in Europe (socialist ideas displacing enlightmenment classical liberalism) and a historical event (The Franco-Prussian War). This was followed by gradual instiutional and phychological changes in Germany (yes, political psychology is not off topic here- its absolutely central to Hayek's RTS), which were pretty much completed by the time Weimar came into existence. Since Hayek stressed changes in public economic thought/political psychology, members of this list are qualified to sort these matters out.

Part of the problem with the Road to Serfdom is that some of its arguments are better explained elsewhere: Hayek discusses the development of late 19th century European thought in greater detail in The Counter Revolution of Science, Robbins examines the international relations angle in his 1937 book, Mises discusses the Franco-Prussian and Enlightenment angles in Omnipotent Government, the Social Justice critique was fleshed out in Law Liberty and Legislation... 

Having a strong welfare state factors into Hayek's explanation of fascism for several reasons. It's part of national economic policy, and the establishment of a national economic policy necessarily sets one set of values/priorities over all others. This is particularly problematic where tradeoffs between personal security and freedom are concerned. It empowers bureaucrats who handle the details of how the plan gets implemented- details which neither the public nor elected officials can possibly fathom.

In any case, I find unsupported use of words like "ludicrous" and "sad" utterly unconvincing. The Road to Serfdom is a complex and subtle book, one which makes a much stronger case than Gary has indicated.   

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


--- On Fri, 7/20/12, Gary Mongiovi <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> From: Gary Mongiovi <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: [SHOE] allusion to Pareto
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Date: Friday, July 20, 2012, 6:35 PM
> 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
> >