Julian Wells wrote:
> What did Mises (or, if you will, von Mises) have to say in 1941 and after,
> when the inheritors of "some thousands of years of civilisation" were
> demonstrating their higher culture to "the barbarian peoples on both sides
> of the Urals"?

I don't see what the purpose of this question is. Mr. Leeson presented a couple of chopped-up sentences as quotes to insinuate that Mises was a fascist (that is, an antiliberal), and I responded with longer quotes from the same source (the book Liberalism), in which Mises clearly states that both communism and fascism are "atrocities." The point was to show that one cannot read Mises's discussion on fascism and come out thinking he was a fascist (unless, I suppose, one has ulterior motives with such a reading). Mises was indeed opposed to both, but considered communism the greater threat (to the liberal order) at that time. (Note that this was after Lenin and several years of Stalin's rule over Soviet Russia, and at the beginning of Mussolini's dictatorship.)

In writing a book defending the ideas and advocating a return to liberalism (in 1927), Mises's observation was that fascism constituted a lesser evil than communism BECAUSE it tended to be moderated by the classical liberal heritage in Western nations. He really presents an argument for liberalism (not for fascism), which is also the purpose of the book. The liberal heritage of these nations would, in his view, limit the atrocities of fascism, and this is in fact the only difference he identified between fascism and communism. Mises obviously thought this "moderating" effect of liberalism would make fascism less atrocious with the passage of time. 

Considering Mises's complete argument, I really don't see the point with asking what he "later" thought of fascism - or of the moderating effect of liberal ideas on this destructive ideology. Quite obviously his prediction was wrong, and, considering that Mises was himself a Jew who fled for his life from the Nazis upon the annexation of Austria (in 1938, 11 years after Liberalism), he was sure to realize this. Since he had already dismissed these ideologies as antiliberal - which, to Mises, means they're terrible, destructive, oppressive, and anti-all-that's-good -, I don't see what one could possible want with asking this question. 

But just to be clear, and to avoid further misunderstandings, Mises persisted with dismissing all kinds of "antiliberalism" in the 1940s and beyond. One can, for instance, consult the section on "polylogism" in his magnum opus Human Action (1949), the English (revised) version of the German language Nationalökonomie (1940). (Both are, as far as I know, available online.) In this section, Mises discusses communism, fascism, and nazism side by side (without distinguishing between them) when dismissing despotic/dictatorial ideologies and their unscientific approaches to society and economics. To Mises, as a utilitarian economist, liberalism was a science as much as a set of values (but that's another debate). 

And, for the record, I have never liked Liberalism. Neither of these e-mails have been intended to defend the book or otherwise advocate Mises's take on liberalism. I've but felt compelled to correct blatantly erroneous (and, it seems to me, intendedly defamatory) statements about Mises's personal views.


PLB

_____________________
Per L. Bylund, Ph.D.
Baylor University
 
[log in to unmask]
www.PerBylund.com
(573) 268-3235

-----Original Message-----
From: Societies for the History of Economics [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Wells, Julian
Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2014 5:03 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [SHOE] can we please get back to business

Per Bylund asks us to

>look at what Mises actually writes about fascism in Liberalism (1927, pp.
>25-30). It actually sorts things out and makes any claims of fascism
>advocacy fall flat.

And the answer is . . .

>the Fascists carry on their work among nations in which the intellectual
>and moral heritage of some thousands of years of civilization cannot be
>destroyed at one blow, and not among the barbarian peoples on both sides
>of the Urals, whose relationship to civilization has never been any other
>than that of marauding denizens of forest and desert accustomed to
>engage, from time to time, in predatory raids on civilized lands in the
>hunt for booty. 

Per's comment is . . .

>I grant that the wording is not what we would expect from a 21st century
>point of view (it is perhaps even offensive)

And my question is . . .

What did Mises (or, if you will, von Mises) have to say in 1941 and after,
when the inheritors of "some thousands of years of civilisation" were
demonstrating their higher culture to "the barbarian peoples on both sides
of the Urals"?

Best wishes,

Julian Wells




This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs Email
Security System.