Yes Richard, it can be

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.

13 thoughts on “Yes Richard, it can be”

  1. So Much For Subtlety

    “It’s exactly what Mussolini, Salazar and Franco all said they were doing.”

    Salazar being not merely an economist, but an economist of some distinction. I wonder if he too rejected neo-classical economics? Certainly I don’t see neo-liberalism having a big influence on him.

    “The difference between Fascism and Marxism is a lot smaller than you seem to think.”

    Mussolini and Lenin being part of a mutual admiration society back in the day before they were both called to greater things.

  2. I’d imagine Murph uses the term ‘Fascist’ in the way kid’s use ‘gay’ – to describe something he doesn’t like. Conversely, he’ll see ‘marxist’ from a Johann Hari perspective.

  3. Uh, Tim, isn’t this a bit of the Hitler Ate Sugar fallacy on your part? The goal doesn’t seem to be exclusive to facists or Marxists.

  4. Neo-liberal or Neo-classical?

    Far right libertarian or Fascist?

    “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.”

  5. Brian, follower of Deornoth

    He’s never heard of “Kuche, Kinder, Kirche” then? (Sorry of this is a breach of Godwin’s Law.)

  6. Corporatism (which I think was Prof. Salazar’s economic policy):

    “a system of social organization that has at its base the grouping of men according to the community of their natural interests and social functions, and as true and proper organs of the state they direct and coordinate labor and capital in matters of common interest.”

    Sounds like the sort of thing Murphy could come out with. Obama as well.

  7. Wasn’t Prof. Salazar also keen on national self-sufficiency, with plenty of State support for companies developing self-sufficient technologies?

    Plus increased taxes, high tariffs on imports, lots of State infrastructure spending.

    Sounds very Green New Deal to me.

  8. The Murph ruined* my Sunday evening when he popped up on the BBC news at 10, being interviewed about the St Paul’s protests. His contribution was to make some wild totally unsubstantiated accusations that the trustees were all connected to the City. Which even if true seemed to have nothing to do with anything.

    *Actually it had already been ruined when I heard the result of the Manchester derby, but there you go.

  9. I wonder how the closure of St Paul’s Cathedral due to these protesters will influence the thinking of the not-terribly-bright Archbishop of Canterbury towards such folk.

  10. So if I have this correct:

    Church – which he supports and upon which he relies to justify his outlook

    Is financed, at least partially, by Fin’l services industry – which he doesn’t support

    So attacking Fin’l services industry potentially leads to their pulling support for Church

    So church can’t pay for its upkeep, so goes into decline, both absolutely and metaphorically.

    Is it just me ? Or is he really the false prophet some of us have proclaimed for so long ?

  11. @ Ian Reid
    Since St Paul’s is in the City, the Trustees have, ipso facto, some connection with the City. I fail to see how any Trustee could carry out his/her duty properly if he/she stayed in Wandsworth or Warwickshire the whole time.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *