Mussolini might have said whatever, but I don’t think it’s accurate to say corporations and the wealthy like fascism, as it tends to be horrible for the economy. Mass consumption gets heavily impacted in such regimes. But that also depends on how you define fascism, because I’ve seen a lot of people lately refer to libertarians and even some liberals as fascists and that just doesn’t hold up. Not wanting to shift the balance in order to address systemic issues does not make someone a fascist.
The wealthy like few regulations and open borders for trade, without proper paths to citizenship so they can pay lower wages locally and exploit lower human rights standards abroad.
It’s pretty accurate to say the wealthy like fascism if you look at how the wealthy keep trying to implement fascism. The Business Plot was an attempted fascist takeover of the United States, and the Trump regime was a successful fascist takeover of the United States. Both were bankrolled by the wealthy.
I’m not interested in defining the word fascist. The word has a definition and if some people use it incorrectly, that is not my concern.
I think when you talk about the “economy” you’re not taking into account income inequality. Economic crashes are great for the capitalist class. They get to buy everything at fire sale prices, and pay their workers pennies. Even if they have slightly less “wealth” than they might, they have enormously more power (which locks in more wealth during the “recovery”).
No, it absolutely hinges on how you define fascism. Lots of people are calling conservativism and even libertarianism fascism and that is just not accurate, and it hurts more than it helps. If that were the case then humanity has lived under fascism its entire history.
Wealthy people are just people, so there are wealthy Marxists and Anarchists just like there are wealthy Fascists, Monarchists and other designations. If there’s any movement that is a wealthy people movement it is neoliberalism or neoconservatives (same thing different color), which has failed horrendously. And despite its failures they keep pushing it, because it’s the only system that can sustain their wealth long term.
Lots of people are calling conservativism and even libertarianism fascism
We do so because they keep siding with fascists and promoting their policies. They side with gutting social safety nets and worker/consumer protections.
Replacing the EPA with a market driven EPA is just not going to solve problems; otherwise the market would have before getting to the point of having an EPA.
Fascist want a small government because it will be easier for them to topple. Libertarians are at best naive to ally with them.
I understand the logic, I just think it’s intellectually dishonest and dilutes the meaning of the word fascist to the point it becomes meaningless.
I agree with what you say, but if there’s one thing I like about libertarians is that they are often the most consistently committed to the ideology. There’s also shades of libertarians; for example I’m somewhat in their camp though I do believe some regulation is needed and that industries where for profit corporations have perverse insentives to not provide the best service possible (ie healthcare) it should be funded by the government and managed by an independent but governmental organization. I’ve seen some say they are socialist libertarians, though I’m not sure how that works exactly. Maybe it’s all coops?
I understand the logic, I just think it’s intellectually dishonest and dilutes the meaning of the word fascist to the point it becomes meaningless.
I dont think it does if they are increasingly fitting the definition. More over there is no definition for fascist; just traits of it. I recommend reading Umberto Eco’s “Ur Fascism” for it.
Still in my corner of the world. Libertarians (as they identify and are members of groups with that branding) only care about “government size” when it comes to helping others. Not a peep when discussing ICE or similar.
Im aware that libertarians online will say they are not real libertarians, but that is what all libertarians say about libertarians. Forgive me for not being concerned for what libertarians have to say about themselves.
libertarians and even some liberals as fascists and that just doesn’t hold up
It’s fair. The entire word “libertarian” was created to distance themselves from liberals.
Otherwise these ‘libertarians’ would have just been liberal and defended liberalism (human rights), and liberal society might have been able to fight off the mammon.
If you aid conservatives/confederates and the corporate cause, it is not unnatural to be associated with them.
Well yes, because liberals tend to believe in state enforced equality while libertarians believe in equality as a moral prerogative but one that cannot be imposed through laws and regulations because the state should not have the right to impose any form of laws that dictate morality or way of living etc. At least that’s my interpretation of it from conversations with libertarians.
So that means that libertarians will be against the use of state power to right systemic wrongs. Which I wouldn’t qualify as helping fascists but a lot of progressives do, which is imo a little bit intellectually dishonest.
The real problem though is that the US only has two parties so you have to choose one that overlaps with most of your views and for libertarians that ends up being the GOP due to the fact that their own party is an insane clown show worst than the GOP. But at the same time I’d like to point out that libertarian adjacent members of the GOP in the past are the ones who have made the biggest strides for human rights in the US. The party it is today is unrecognizable from the one it was 60 years ago. Hell, even 20 years ago.
But calling libertarian fascist just devalues the definition of the word, which the real fascist use to their advantage.
I wouldn’t qualify as helping fascists but a lot of progressives do, which is imo a little bit intellectually dishonest.
We are just treating libertarians for what they are. Not by what they claim to be.
libertarianism fertilizes right wing conservatism, is that it advocates against balancing systems of control (government). This means that since there is no entity intervening in affairs, there is nothing keeping a more excessively authoritarian entity from emerging. This is an oversimplification, but basically right-wing authoritarians want to weaken authority (even more benevolent ones) so that they can take additional power. (Again oversimplification, I also don’t like considering groups as monoliths)
Basically proto rightwing forces, can march in lockstep with libertarians because they both initially advocate for the removal of governing,regulatory, and policing institutions.
Thus I think this is what causes people to see libertarians and conservatives as overlapping, as both initially support the same goals and probably can be found in similar spaces. Once prevailing (more benevolent, or less malevolent) insutituions are removed, by joint action of libertarians and authoritarians, the authoritarins break with the libertarians and can now install their definately more malevolent instituion. (This malevolence may be incidental or the end goal, it depends)
If libertarians don’t want to be seen as fascist, then they should stop welcoming them.
I hear what you say, but again that’s intellectually dishonest. Libertarians find themselves between a rock and a hard place, so they inevitably choose the side that overlaps most with them.
What progressives want is also authoritarian, and libertarians are against authoritarianism on principle, whether it has noble or evil goals because the potential for abuse even with noble goals is too great.
Libertarians find themselves between a rock and a hard place, so they inevitably choose the side that overlaps most with them.
Yeah, there is a word for what they are overlapping with.
What progressives want is also authoritarian
I don’t see how prioritizing civil rights over property is authoritarian.
E: in principal I’m empathetic to the want to be left alone aspects of libertarians. History informs us that many of their ideas don’t work. Even by their own logic of robust individuals they do not work.
It’s one faction among many others, just like there are tankies on the left.
You can’t force social change from the top down. I’ll use the trans issue because what else. It’s not clear to me that there are any civil rights being violated when you say that they are not allowed in women’s bathrooms. Now do I think they should be allowed? Yes, but I think it’s up to the women to allow them in if they so wish to and the government can’t force it.
Are Trans men allowed in female bathrooms or are they now banned due to being male presenting?
If they are banned, then that is depriving the public of access to public facilities which their taxes pay for and the end result being a violation of their rights.
If they are not banned, then the original intent of the ban is bullshit and clearly a move to target a subset of the population and make public spaces less hospitable, which I would argue violates their civil rights to enjoy public spaces without harassment.
Trans people are actually not banned anywhere from using the public restrooms they choose as far as I’m aware. I was using it as an example because it’s perhaps the most salient one along with trans women in sports.
But yes my view is that there should be no law or regulation or order saying anything about this, it is up to the people who use the space to decide who is or isn’t allowed. Same with sports, let the leagues decide.
The end goal of many libertarian policy is to empower corporations (weather libertarians had that intention or not). The guilded age in US history is pretty much what we would go back to.
You can’t force social change from the top down.
I know what you mean. Still the free market didn’t end slavery or give us safe work places. In those issues libertarians today are consistently advocating for those who are against those civil liberties and worker protection. Hence why they have rightfully earned the view of being fascists.
Well yeah, “liberal” has come to mean “progressive” or at least the Democratic Party establishment, which has drifted pretty far from OG liberals. Classical liberals restricted themselves to negative rights (freedom from), whereas modern liberals believe in positive rights (freedom to).
I consider myself a libertarian and a classical liberal. I strongly disagree with both major parties, because neither prioritizes anything I care about.
I think the issue is that the Libertarian Party does a terrible job representing libertarianism. They focus too much on the “less taxes” angle when it should be focusing on less protectionism. Here are some changes I’d like to see related to corporations:
eliminate corporate taxes - also tax stock options/grants above some level as income (at least while we have an income tax)
eliminate corporate liability protections above a certain size (say, $100M?)
eliminate any explicit or implied criminal protections for corporate officers
eliminate any tax benefits for providing benefits, and combine corporate benefit programs (e.g. 401k) with non-corporate programs accessible to all (e.g. IRA); if they offer benefits, they must also offer the cash value if the employee declines
Yet the LP focuses on the first and ignores the rest.
Don’t willy nilly lump libertarians with corporate hacks. Yes, we align on a few issues, but the principles behind where we align are very different, and a libertarian would also push for a bunch of changes the corporate hacks don’t want.
The reasons why the wealthy like liberalisation matters, though. The reasom the wralthy want more wealth matters.
Money is power. The wealthy are competing to have the most power. Eventually, that turns to taking control of the state. So, the wealthy will back free trade and deregulation right up until they, personally, are in a position to attempt a coup. After that, regulation and trade barriers work for the particular rich folk who have taken control over the state.
I don’t think history agrees with what you are saying. From what patterns I notice , dictators rise because they become popular with the masses thanks to the exploitation of grievances both real and perceived, and only when it seems inevitable that they will wrest power from the established order do capitalists align with themselves with the fascists in order to protect their interests and their own heads. The wealthy tend to be one of the first targets for any dictator, as they are the ones who have the means to unravel their power.
Mussolini might have said whatever, but I don’t think it’s accurate to say corporations and the wealthy like fascism, as it tends to be horrible for the economy. Mass consumption gets heavily impacted in such regimes. But that also depends on how you define fascism, because I’ve seen a lot of people lately refer to libertarians and even some liberals as fascists and that just doesn’t hold up. Not wanting to shift the balance in order to address systemic issues does not make someone a fascist.
The wealthy like few regulations and open borders for trade, without proper paths to citizenship so they can pay lower wages locally and exploit lower human rights standards abroad.
It’s pretty accurate to say the wealthy like fascism if you look at how the wealthy keep trying to implement fascism. The Business Plot was an attempted fascist takeover of the United States, and the Trump regime was a successful fascist takeover of the United States. Both were bankrolled by the wealthy.
I’m not interested in defining the word fascist. The word has a definition and if some people use it incorrectly, that is not my concern.
I think when you talk about the “economy” you’re not taking into account income inequality. Economic crashes are great for the capitalist class. They get to buy everything at fire sale prices, and pay their workers pennies. Even if they have slightly less “wealth” than they might, they have enormously more power (which locks in more wealth during the “recovery”).
No, it absolutely hinges on how you define fascism. Lots of people are calling conservativism and even libertarianism fascism and that is just not accurate, and it hurts more than it helps. If that were the case then humanity has lived under fascism its entire history.
Wealthy people are just people, so there are wealthy Marxists and Anarchists just like there are wealthy Fascists, Monarchists and other designations. If there’s any movement that is a wealthy people movement it is neoliberalism or neoconservatives (same thing different color), which has failed horrendously. And despite its failures they keep pushing it, because it’s the only system that can sustain their wealth long term.
We do so because they keep siding with fascists and promoting their policies. They side with gutting social safety nets and worker/consumer protections.
Replacing the EPA with a market driven EPA is just not going to solve problems; otherwise the market would have before getting to the point of having an EPA.
Fascist want a small government because it will be easier for them to topple. Libertarians are at best naive to ally with them.
I understand the logic, I just think it’s intellectually dishonest and dilutes the meaning of the word fascist to the point it becomes meaningless.
I agree with what you say, but if there’s one thing I like about libertarians is that they are often the most consistently committed to the ideology. There’s also shades of libertarians; for example I’m somewhat in their camp though I do believe some regulation is needed and that industries where for profit corporations have perverse insentives to not provide the best service possible (ie healthcare) it should be funded by the government and managed by an independent but governmental organization. I’ve seen some say they are socialist libertarians, though I’m not sure how that works exactly. Maybe it’s all coops?
I dont think it does if they are increasingly fitting the definition. More over there is no definition for fascist; just traits of it. I recommend reading Umberto Eco’s “Ur Fascism” for it.
Still in my corner of the world. Libertarians (as they identify and are members of groups with that branding) only care about “government size” when it comes to helping others. Not a peep when discussing ICE or similar.
Im aware that libertarians online will say they are not real libertarians, but that is what all libertarians say about libertarians. Forgive me for not being concerned for what libertarians have to say about themselves.
It’s fair. The entire word “libertarian” was created to distance themselves from liberals.
Otherwise these ‘libertarians’ would have just been liberal and defended liberalism (human rights), and liberal society might have been able to fight off the mammon.
If you aid conservatives/confederates and the corporate cause, it is not unnatural to be associated with them.
Libertarianism is a traditionally left wing philosophy that started in the 1800s. They’re also typically pretty big on human rights and equality.
The more modern America-centric “tea party” libertarians fit what you’re saying, but they didn’t create the term.
The second paragraph is ultimately what libertarians are and as such how I engage them.
Well yes, because liberals tend to believe in state enforced equality while libertarians believe in equality as a moral prerogative but one that cannot be imposed through laws and regulations because the state should not have the right to impose any form of laws that dictate morality or way of living etc. At least that’s my interpretation of it from conversations with libertarians.
So that means that libertarians will be against the use of state power to right systemic wrongs. Which I wouldn’t qualify as helping fascists but a lot of progressives do, which is imo a little bit intellectually dishonest.
The real problem though is that the US only has two parties so you have to choose one that overlaps with most of your views and for libertarians that ends up being the GOP due to the fact that their own party is an insane clown show worst than the GOP. But at the same time I’d like to point out that libertarian adjacent members of the GOP in the past are the ones who have made the biggest strides for human rights in the US. The party it is today is unrecognizable from the one it was 60 years ago. Hell, even 20 years ago.
But calling libertarian fascist just devalues the definition of the word, which the real fascist use to their advantage.
We are just treating libertarians for what they are. Not by what they claim to be.
libertarianism fertilizes right wing conservatism, is that it advocates against balancing systems of control (government). This means that since there is no entity intervening in affairs, there is nothing keeping a more excessively authoritarian entity from emerging. This is an oversimplification, but basically right-wing authoritarians want to weaken authority (even more benevolent ones) so that they can take additional power. (Again oversimplification, I also don’t like considering groups as monoliths)
Basically proto rightwing forces, can march in lockstep with libertarians because they both initially advocate for the removal of governing,regulatory, and policing institutions.
Thus I think this is what causes people to see libertarians and conservatives as overlapping, as both initially support the same goals and probably can be found in similar spaces. Once prevailing (more benevolent, or less malevolent) insutituions are removed, by joint action of libertarians and authoritarians, the authoritarins break with the libertarians and can now install their definately more malevolent instituion. (This malevolence may be incidental or the end goal, it depends)
If libertarians don’t want to be seen as fascist, then they should stop welcoming them.
I hear what you say, but again that’s intellectually dishonest. Libertarians find themselves between a rock and a hard place, so they inevitably choose the side that overlaps most with them.
What progressives want is also authoritarian, and libertarians are against authoritarianism on principle, whether it has noble or evil goals because the potential for abuse even with noble goals is too great.
Yeah, there is a word for what they are overlapping with.
I don’t see how prioritizing civil rights over property is authoritarian.
E: in principal I’m empathetic to the want to be left alone aspects of libertarians. History informs us that many of their ideas don’t work. Even by their own logic of robust individuals they do not work.
It’s one faction among many others, just like there are tankies on the left.
You can’t force social change from the top down. I’ll use the trans issue because what else. It’s not clear to me that there are any civil rights being violated when you say that they are not allowed in women’s bathrooms. Now do I think they should be allowed? Yes, but I think it’s up to the women to allow them in if they so wish to and the government can’t force it.
Are Trans men allowed in female bathrooms or are they now banned due to being male presenting?
If they are banned, then that is depriving the public of access to public facilities which their taxes pay for and the end result being a violation of their rights.
If they are not banned, then the original intent of the ban is bullshit and clearly a move to target a subset of the population and make public spaces less hospitable, which I would argue violates their civil rights to enjoy public spaces without harassment.
Trans people are actually not banned anywhere from using the public restrooms they choose as far as I’m aware. I was using it as an example because it’s perhaps the most salient one along with trans women in sports.
But yes my view is that there should be no law or regulation or order saying anything about this, it is up to the people who use the space to decide who is or isn’t allowed. Same with sports, let the leagues decide.
The end goal of many libertarian policy is to empower corporations (weather libertarians had that intention or not). The guilded age in US history is pretty much what we would go back to.
I know what you mean. Still the free market didn’t end slavery or give us safe work places. In those issues libertarians today are consistently advocating for those who are against those civil liberties and worker protection. Hence why they have rightfully earned the view of being fascists.
Well yeah, “liberal” has come to mean “progressive” or at least the Democratic Party establishment, which has drifted pretty far from OG liberals. Classical liberals restricted themselves to negative rights (freedom from), whereas modern liberals believe in positive rights (freedom to).
I consider myself a libertarian and a classical liberal. I strongly disagree with both major parties, because neither prioritizes anything I care about.
I think the issue is that the Libertarian Party does a terrible job representing libertarianism. They focus too much on the “less taxes” angle when it should be focusing on less protectionism. Here are some changes I’d like to see related to corporations:
Yet the LP focuses on the first and ignores the rest.
Don’t willy nilly lump libertarians with corporate hacks. Yes, we align on a few issues, but the principles behind where we align are very different, and a libertarian would also push for a bunch of changes the corporate hacks don’t want.
The reasons why the wealthy like liberalisation matters, though. The reasom the wralthy want more wealth matters.
Money is power. The wealthy are competing to have the most power. Eventually, that turns to taking control of the state. So, the wealthy will back free trade and deregulation right up until they, personally, are in a position to attempt a coup. After that, regulation and trade barriers work for the particular rich folk who have taken control over the state.
I don’t think history agrees with what you are saying. From what patterns I notice , dictators rise because they become popular with the masses thanks to the exploitation of grievances both real and perceived, and only when it seems inevitable that they will wrest power from the established order do capitalists align with themselves with the fascists in order to protect their interests and their own heads. The wealthy tend to be one of the first targets for any dictator, as they are the ones who have the means to unravel their power.