The question was put to me in the form,
"So what does Mussolini have in common with the Libertarians?"
When what I actually asserted was that,
"Libertarianism, logically leads to fascism at best, anarchy at worst."
To which came the reply:
"How does Libertarianism logically lead to expanded government interference?"
Followed by the first question above.
Libertarianism is all about individuality, individual liberty, individual power but, it breaks down at the level of companies, corporations, and capitalism. Because of two points, the first of which, is supremacy of power in numbers, not only employees but also those influenced in the market, that is patrons, consumers even competitors will be under the influence of said company's ideologies. And secondly, the accumulation of wealth, the real power, will without a doubt be used to suppress the individual. The Libertarian's liberties are suspended not by an accountable government for the sake of social cohesion and cooperation, but by a totalitarian capitalist enterprise for the sake of profit, expediency and monopoly. This will lead, in turn, to a collapse of the free markets, inter-corporate warfare, intra-corporate power mongering and eventually anarchy. This state will be supplanted by an extremely ridged dictator or worse a theocracy. This state, as our history shows, will be overthrown by various degrees of democracy from which the cycle will begin again to perpetuity. So as an ideology, it fails on the grounds that it becomes very Darwinian which is extremely antisocial.
Although, this is quite damning to the libertarian ideology it is not the primary concern chronologically, or a direct answer to the question.
Some assert that Fascism is the control of industry by the government, it is not, and is best understood from the viewpoint of the public as a partnership, a complicity of cooperation between government and industry to the detriment of the population at large. But Fascism is, actually, only a step on the way to the logical conclusion of libertarianism (which I described above) from the democracy we have now. For as government concedes power and industry garners that power through the accumulation of numbers and the real power, financially based, government will become the complicit protector of the emergent corporatist system which is Fascism.
If you are wondering how this could come about, just watch the News - it is happening right now. Even with a cursory understanding of Hitler's Germany, gathered through a perusal of authoritative history on the subject. It is easy to see the chilling similarities in Germany, during Hitler's rise through the economic system of Fascism, and the last forty years of events in the US. Hitler availed himself to a multi-tiered approach (because it was readily available), just as the Right Wing in this country has been doing since the dawn of the cold war. Hitler used the economic devastation of a global depression to finally tip the political balance in his favor after a decade of ideological suppression of those people, the outsiders, gypsies, gays, Jews, Lutherans, any but the true German Catholics. He would expound vitriolic diatribes about the evil "atheistic communists" at the Homeland's gate, to instill fear and loathing in the ignorant masses. Who were ripe for such manipulation through their Catholic ideology and Stalins unbelievable brutality in a system that was neither true communism or Marxism, but a dictatorship based on a cult of personality, (Stalin learned basic properties of this style, from his years in seminary.) mixed with a loose interpretation of Marxism. This is the USSR of history, but I digress.
After gaining the trust of the masses with his simple black and white, either you're in or out, with us or against us exclusionary ideology that appealed to the baser instincts of the masses under the guise of true Catholicism (another ideology that appeals to baser emotions), he was free to mandate regulations that lead to Nazism through a political process known as Fascism. The Libertarians, standing there with their mouth agape, wondering where it went wrong were then tossed aside in a war torn pile of confusion. They thought they were free of the opinions and voting rights of the "outsiders," those Elitists, those that didn't follow their god, didn't live or work hard like they did, those that met challenges in different ways, those that were not supposed to be qualified to take their jobs. They thought they were free. The libertarians were glad to see business booming do to the public regulations and deregulation of the German Military Industrial Complex. They thought they were free to pursue happiness, they thought.
You see, libertarianism has a basic flaw in its logic and ideology that is not readily visible to those who long for the freedom to be self-serving, selfish, or self-centered: we are members of the populace, a society and in a society power must stay with the majority. The Libertarian is left with only the semblance of freedom, the myth of liberty, a childish wish that can lead to so many heinous ideologues gaining power of which Hitler and Mussolini were only two. But more specifically to the political process known as fascism, libertarianism has another flaw that is, at its root, far worse than selfishness, it is based on a Herbert Spencer's Social elitism (sadly, this was inappropriately named Social Darwinism), a survival of the fittest, a jungle mentality that states; Those that can - should, and those that can't, should be left behind. Forgetting, for obvious reasons, that we are all in this together. This is what Ayn Rand never understood. This is why no one should trust Ron Paul, Teabaggers or libertarians. And, this is why our Founding Fathers are my personal Heroes, they were Liberals that new the best system for liberty was a combination of Greek and Roman systems that could be governed by the Three Tier system described in Baron de Montesquieu's "Spirit of Laws"(1731), a book banned by the Pope, by the way.
So, to the question:
"So what does Mussolini have in common with the Libertarians?"
The answer is:
"Mussolini's Fascism manipulated a longing for social, national and cultural supremacy of the population not understanding that this leads to, and is fueled by, social elitism (Herbert Spencer's, survival of the fittest). The consequences of which, leaves the powerful internal institutions (like churches and other corporations) at the helm, while destabilizing the government, initially. Then, Italy regrettably found itself manipulated by and at the whim of powerful corporations. Libertarianism is vulnerable to the same 'survival of the fittest' mentality; but worse than that, it is a corporatist ideology that has nothing to do with our Founding Fathers. Mussolini had to have regretted his decisions as much as the libertarians of Hitler's Germany."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hmmm...came here by way of a tweet.
ReplyDeleteI like what you said about the Founding Fathers.
The Tea Party Movement is a part of the American tradition. It is what the elite few who want to rule the many, as the current Democrat Party and many old-line Republicans, would oppose. It is something I believe Ayn Rand would support. It comes from a unique tradition of local home rule, where government was no further from the governed than one day’s horseback ride, and individual interests were more important than are community interests. That led to the more involved citizen, the town hall meetings and even the vigilante movement. From the early days, the Tea Party Movement is but an extension of American traditions and perfectly correct. Surely, the Old World, such as England and France, would never permit such a thing, as their traditions were inclined to be bloody conflicts, not peaceful demonstrations. The differences are cited in the Changing Face of Democrats, Our Libertarian Roots Lost, on Amazon and claysamerica.com.
ReplyDeleteTo Clay;
ReplyDeleteActually it is not, this movement, as you call it, is nothing more than an astroturfing from corporate backed special interest groups. The original Tea Party was against taxation without representation; this current group only mouths the words while looking to raise the national debt and take corporate taxes and associated loopholes to new extremes. For example, Rand Paul's 23% sales tax is a tax on the poor; because, for one thing, corporations need not by their goods from the US. Also, these astroturf groups are an amalgamation of the Religious Reich and many Christian Supremacist groups, the John Birch Society along with similar White Supremacist groups, and International corporations looking to weaken our government by any means possible, because most corporations are more powerful than state governments and wealthier as well. This would be the result of any states rights legislation or the overturning of the 17th Amendment, which was implemented in the first place due to corporate corruption of state legislatures.
The second tea Party group was a liberal movement of the '70s; this is when the original 'don't tread on me' banners flew. This second tea party movement was a reaction to corporate and religious involvement in federal legislation.
This current movement is nothing more than right wing manipulation of the political landscape: even after the Republican debacle known as the Bush years. The evidence for this is that they scream about the national debt while blocking any attempt to end the Bush tax cuts. They claim to be strict constitutionalists while clambering on about the changes in the Constitution they will make. This is in line with the same modus operandi used by Republicans to get the South East to vote against their own best interests on economic matters by injecting racism into political discourse—it's nothing new. It is corporations using manipulation of the basest of primitive emotions of an ignorant populous to vote against their own best interests, so as to facilitate lower wages by increasing employment competition, eliminate regulations, and eliminate unions among other things, which will increase corporate profits. Corporate mind control is big business; they use it all the time in commercials. The Tea Party is no different.
The Tea Party Movement is a part of the American tradition. It is what the elite few who want to rule the many, as the current Democrat Party and many old-line Republicans, would oppose. It is something I believe Ayn Rand would support. It comes from a unique tradition of local home rule, where government was no further from the governed than one day’s horseback ride, and individual interests were more important than are community interests. That led to the more involved citizen, the town hall meetings and even the vigilante movement. From the early days, the Tea Party Movement is but an extension of American traditions and perfectly correct. Surely, the Old World, such as England and France, would never permit such a thing, as their traditions were inclined to be bloody conflicts, not peaceful demonstrations. The differences are cited in the Changing Face of Democrats, Our Libertarian Roots Lost, on Amazon and claysamerica.com.
ReplyDelete