I'm not an expert on fascism, but I have always had the impression that it was militaristic and nationalistic from the start. Was it not Mussolini's avowed ambition from day one to establish a new Roman empire?

I do not dispute Charles's point about the racist views of Ely, Commons & Ross. But I don't think the point suffices to establish a meaningful link between progressivism and fascism.

I should say, though, that I do agree with him "that 'Fascism' as a political and economic philosophy has no relation whatever to ... classical liberalism." The issue of a link to conservatism is a trickier question, because the definition of "conservatism" is a bit more fluid than the definition of "classical liberalism". If by conservative you mean Edmund Burke & company, then, yes, there is no relation. But no doubt before 1939 in the UK and 1941 in the US many on the political right, who generally favored unencumbered markets and who by & large opposed the welfare state, saw some things to admire in fascism--and it was probably not fascism's commitment to full employment policies and social welfare.

Surely we do agree that we must take care not to abuse language--that means acknowledging that ideological family trees tend to be very tangled things.

I liked very much Robert Leeson's last post, of just a few minutes ago, on this topic.

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]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>

________________________________
From: Societies for the History of Economics [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of [log in to unmask] [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Friday, July 20, 2012 2:41 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [SHOE] allusion to Pareto

Gary,

the point is that "Fascism" as a political and economic philosophy has no relation whatever to conservatism or classical liberalism, but its emphases are more consistent with Progressive thought, especially as it developed in the early 20th century.  You mention the provision of health care, education, etc., but neglect eugenics as a method of social "betterment" -- and the appeal was far from superficial.  Commons, Ely, Ross, to name three, were unabashed racists.  And remember that many Progressives favored entry into World War I (John Dewey, for instance) precisely for its "cleansing" effects.

Militarism and nationalism are not defining characteristics of Fascism, any more than genocide is a characteristic of Communism/Socialism in its various guises (recall Stalin, Pol Pot, and others), but rather are characters attributable to person, time, and place.

To clarify my point made earlier, I return to Einzig:

"In the sphere of production both Fascism and Socialism aim at planning.  From that point of view their interests are identical, and their common foes are the remaining adherents of laissez-faire.  They seek to attain their end by different means.  Socialism hopes to achieve planning by the nationalisation of the most important branches of production.  Fascism aims at planning by a combination of dictatorship and voluntary co-operation, without changing the private ownership of the means of production..  Socialism hopes to be able to dispense with the driving force of individual initiative.  Fascism regards that driving force as indispensable as far as production is concerned, but it endeavours to curtail and supplement individual initiative in accordance with public interest.  From this point of view, again, Fascism is nearer to Socialism than to laissez-faire with its principle of unhampered individual initiative." (pp.107-108)

My concern is with the abuse of language.  I am sure we can agree on that point.

Charles McCann