So promoting economic and social policies that support the family, community and society so that people can achieve their own goals is fascist, is it?
It\’s exactly what Mussolini, Salazar and Franco all said they were doing.
There is one irony though: when he also wants ( as no doubt he will) to cast it as Marxist he might now have a problem. That would be rationally inconsistent, after all, and a libertarian could never be that, could they?
The difference between Fascism and Marxism is a lot smaller than you seem to think. But I\’m sure I\’ll have no problem in describing your ideas as at times one at times the other: you\’re not going to be consistent enough for me not to be able to.
I will admit to being rather looking forward to the book. The internal contradictions are going to be just wonderful to point out.
For example, you tell us that you reject neo-classical economics. And yet here you rediscover marginal utility which is what the whole neo-classical model is based upon.
Might have been worth paying attention to the lectures the first time around really.
Oh, and how could I miss this?
I note further down the blogpost that he describes Keynes as a “neoclassical” economist…. that’s a pretty broad definition of “neoclassical”.
To which Our Ritchie responds:
And if he thinks Keynes’ maths is the same as the standard neoliberal thinking he’s very, very wide of the mark
Which is going to be yet another thing to pick upon. Neo-classical!= Neo-liberal.
Neo-classical is the marginalist revolution, the very foundation of all modern economics. Neo-liberal is anything from Hayek and Friedman through to stuff you don\’t like. But just about everyone, other than the Marxists, from the 1880s onwards is neo-classical, yes, including Keynes.