In response to the recent discussions regarding Fascism, the arguments have proceeded without any attempt at DEFINING the term.  Mason Gaffney's "oversimplification" is a case in point.

 

The best statement I have seen is by Paul Einzig, in his 1933 Economic Foundations of Fascism:

 

"[B]esides being a political movement, Fascism is essentially a economic system -- a compromise between pure individualistic Capitalism and complete State control." (p.6).

 

He continues:

 

"In the Corporate State, private property is respected just as in any capitalist country.  There is no expropriation without compensation.  The State reserves the right, however, to limit and guide the employment of the means of production, and to intervene in the process of distribution, in accordance with public interest. ...  [T]he government reserves the right to supplement individual initiative whenever this is considered necessary; to prevent it from developing in directions detrimental to public interest; and to guide it so as to obtain the maximum benefit for the community as a whole." (p.6)

 

What this has to do with Hayek, and Gaffney's other demons, is a mystery.  Nothing in Hayek's writings would suggest such an interpretation.  (One must read them of course, to know this.)  It is, however, completely consistent with the economic and political philosophy of the current Progressive movement.

 

Also, it must be noted that Mussolini, before taking power in Italy, was a noted Socialist theoretician.  Fascism was a means of introducing Socialism gradually, without the dislocations that followed from the experience in Russia.

 

Charles McCann