Slipping Of The Mask: A Refute Of The Claim That “Fascism Is A Step Towards Liberty”
In a previous article I had refuted a makeshift ideology known as Anarcho-Authoritarianism, exposing it as an attempt of Fascism and the authoritarian right to sneak into and subvert libertarian thought and dialogue. It was a prime example of entryism, an attempt at taking over libertarianism in order that it would follow along with the will of the right. However, it was a more indirect subversion, not outright claiming that Fascism was preferable, but more a pushing of boundaries to see how much of the authoritarian right and its ideas would be tolerated by libertarians.
Such indirectness is forfeited in a recent article brought to light by a friend of mine. Written by an individual who calls himself the Radical Capitalist, the title says it all: “Fascism Is A Step Towards Liberty.” The mask is no longer on: the subversion is made clear for all to see. In the article, he lays out an argument for why Fascism, for the anarcho-capitalist or right-libertarian, is preferable to the current state of affairs, and a step towards a more libertarian society. However, when critically examined, it is clear such an argument is profoundly false, and bases itself on an incomplete review of Fascism based on the works of Hans Hermann Hoppe, and a blatant political bias in regards to social policy.
A few notes
Before we go on to debunk the meat of the article, there are a few small things to mention. Like the Anarcho-Authoritarian article, the point of libertarianism being against central banking is true, and the advocacy for private property is consistent with right-libertarianism. However, the specific use of such facts to support Fascism is misleading, and will be rebutted later on.
The sources one uses can be of certain interest. Since there are varying levels of accuracy and partisanship amongst sources, what certain sources an author uses can tell a lot about how they approach their subject. For the most part, his sources seem relatively tame, mainly being his own articles, or derived from Hoppe, along with a citing of a book on Anarcho-Capitalism. There is also a citing of Adolf Hitler, which makes some sense. If one is talking about Fascism, one would need to cite such sources as Hitler to show what ideas Fascism is based on.
What begins to add suspicion is the sourcing of two “alternative” news and blog sites: Smash Cultural Marxism, and Red Ice. Red Ice, founded by Henrik Palmgren and Lana Lokteff, is a media platform focusing on events through what it calls a “Pro-European perspective”, in which they espouse far-right talking points such as white genocide, the Jewish Question, and cultural degeneracy. Smash Cultural Marxism is a blogging platform that focuses on fighting “cultural marxism” (an ideology termed and made up by the far and alt right to represent the cause for the talking points just mentioned), publishing articles criticizing topics such as Islam, diversity, immigration, communism, etc, etc, and advocating for nationalism and “race consciousness”, two points fervently intertwined in fascistic and far right talking points.
These are definitely strange sources to be using as an Anarcho-Capitalist, or as any libertarian for that matter, but reading on it is understandable why Radical Capitalist uses them. He says himself that, “[The] obfuscation and perversion of the concept of Fascism as well as other concepts and institutions such as nationalism, the nuclear family, monogamy, individualism, and capitalism is an integral facet of the Cultural Marxist agenda.” Such is an admission that he believes in this myth of Cultural Marxism, and is also in favor of those social values pushed by the far right, which he later exemplifies again as being needed for the “…establishment and sustenance of a libertarian social order.”
Now that the small trimmings of fat have been taken care of, the main focus of the article can be combated.
The Precursory Premises of the Main Argument
In the Introduction of his article, he lays out certain basic ideas prefacing his argument:
- An Anarcho-Capitalist society cannot be created from our current society in one step or revolution;
- Because of this, there must be multiple transitions to different forms of State, each more libertarian than before, in order to reach an Anarcho-Capitalist society;
- The United States (the State he uses as the example of current society) is a mix of Fascism and Democracy;
- Because of this and the need to transition to more libertarian forms of state before reaching true Anarcho-Capitalism (as stated in premise 2), we must determine which of these two forms of current society is closer to the libertarian end goal, and pursue that form;
- Since Fascism is closer to the end goal of libertarianism than democracy is, we must move current society towards Fascism in order to reach Anarcho-Capitalism.
There are some problems occurring even at the first point. Why can’t an Anarcho-Capitalist society, or any society wholly different to the status quo, be created from our current society, without the need for intermediary states and societies? If it is simply because of lack of strength, in the American Revolution the colonists were poorly trained at the start, fighting off the strongest army in the world at that time, but were able to defeat the British anyways. They didn’t need any intermediary forms of state to change from current society to their preferred society. If it’s lack of support for a change to an Anarchist society, we can see throughout history attempts and successes in creating anarchist societies, with one of many such societies still existing today, the Zapatista Municipalities in Mexico. The Zapatistas used a strategy of direct action, without the need to transition into intermediary states. If it’s simply a moral or strategic imperative to go through the transition from state to stateless society gradually, there are already anarchist strategies, such as counter economics or dual power, which aim for the gradual dissolution of the state without needing to change into different forms of intermediary statehood.
The author treats the fact as though it’s an a priori statement, in which there is no justification needed. However, because of the variety of examples proving such a fact false, such treatment is greatly unwarranted. When we take into account his ideological influences, though, it is clear why he treats it as a priori: Hans Hermann Hoppe argued for a strategy in which, to transition to a libertarian or Anarcho-Capitalist society, we would have to forego the process of changing to different forms of state, each new form smaller than the one beforehand. With this in mind, it is no wonder such a statement is treated like an axiom: it is an ideologically driven axiom, not taking into account other strategies.
Keeping that in mind, let us assume, for the benefit of the doubt, that such a point is true. Another problem occurs: the author argues that current society (which he bases off the United States) is a mix of Fascism and Democracy, and we must decide which of these two forms is better for reaching a libertarian society. Again, he is leaving out other options: the United States is not just a mixture of Fascism and Democracy, but also of the Republican, Federalist, and Confederalist system. The last system named being a part of the mixture is important: Confederalism, in which there is no centralized system, but a connected group or confederation of sovereign states, would be more towards the libertarian society than Fascism would be, according to the strategy defined by Hans Hermann Hoppe, the same strategy which defines his first axiom. Not only, then, is he refusing to take into account the strategies of other anarchist groups; he is rejecting the strategy of his main ideological influence, which is the basis of his entire argument.
Here we see the first slip: He is not arguing for Fascism because it fits with his reasoning; he is trying to hamfist his reasoning so that it argues for Fascism. In trying to force a certain train of thought to fit with such advocacy, he has not only rejected the facts and other theories on moving towards a libertarian society, he has rejected the theory stated by the libertarian ideology he subscribes to.
The question now is “Why Fascism?” Why would a self described Anarcho-Capitalist advocate for such an authoritarian system, when it clearly goes against libertarian theories? Well, simply put, he doesn’t care if such an advocacy goes against libertarian theories. His own beliefs are of greater importance to him than consistency with libertarianism; his own “libertarianism” takes extra focus and value on two specific objects: private property and conservative social values, making him blind to the threat Fascism poses for liberty.
Private Property
The Radical Capitalist argues that Fascism is more supportive of private property than the current society, and is thus more conducive to libertarianism. He cites a number of articles helping to defend his points, not taking into account certain facts of the matter that make Fascism detrimental to liberty.
Firstly, let us look at how he defines Fascism. He takes his definition from the far right blogging site mentioned earlier, Smash Cultural Marxism. The definition is in two parts, economic and cultural. For now, we will focus on the economic, as most of his arguments are in regards to that.
Now, the definition states that, in a nutshell, “Fascism is based on free enterprise — but with constraints… Fascism basically tells entrepreneurs, “Go ahead and start a business, earn a lot of money, be successful, but don’t produce any products or services which damage our nation and our nation’s people…” Such a definition is not necessarily at odds with the definitions put out by fascist thinkers, nor at odds necessarily with the actual practice of a fascist state, though the constraints greatly go against libertarian thought. However, from this small basis, it could be claimed that Fascism is more preferable than our current society, when it comes to right-libertarian ideology.
The fleshing out of the ideas and definition of Fascism, though, brings up lapses in the author’s thinking. Firstly, let us look in regards to his response to the claim that Fascism is socialist (a claim only made by the conservative right). He argues that a country’s economics can fall on a spectrum between Socialism and Capitalism, and claims that Fascism leans more towards Capitalism than Socialism, even though it has socialist characteristics.
In helping argue his point, he refutes a claim about Hitler being against Capitalism. Firstly, he points out that, “…the “capitalism” he opposed was the sort of State managed globalist “capitalism” that is as genuinely capitalist as current day thousand page “Free Trade” agreements are genuinely free trade (that is to say, he wasn’t staunchly opposed to the Hoppean definition of Capitalism…)”(1) This is contradicted by the fact that such “globalist” capitalist companies in America, such as General Motors and Ford Motor Company, assisted Nazi war efforts by producing tanks and other goods for them, and the Nazis thusly rewarding such companies with tax exemption to help further production(2). Hitler, then, is as much a supporter of this “State managed globalist “capitalism”” as our current society is, making that point that him, and thus Fascism, are genuinely more capitalist moot.
A second point arguing that Fascism is more towards Capitalism than current society is that fascist countries underwent mass privatization of industries formerly owned by the State. What makes that any different to modern current society is unclear, since, for the most part, the United States is a mixed economy leaning heavily capitalist, as defined by a widespread respect of property laws and entrepreneurial activity with some regulations, similar to Hoppe’s definition of Capitalism with the extra caveat of government intervention. He can argue that in regards to regulations and welfare, they were more geared towards a laissez-faire economic practice, but his own source on fascist economics and the sources cited in it rejects such a claim, stating that, in fascist Italy, “once Mussolini acquired a firmer hold of power […] laissez-faire was progressively abandoned in favour of government intervention, free trade was replaced by protection[ism]…”(3), as well as that, in Italy, “Various banking and industrial companies were financially supported by the state.” And Nazi Germany created their own form of welfare, establishing, “…an agency called the Nationalsozialistische Volkswohlfahrt (NSV, National Socialist People’s Welfare) to achieve its goal of racially directed social welfare.” And on and on his source goes to give plenty of examples showing that Fascism was just as much a mixed economy very similar to the current mixed economy of society, if not more controlling of the economy. Hell, during the Great Depression, Italy’s fascist government, “…nationalized the holdings of large banks which had accrued significant industrial securities.”(4) Private property and enterprise was not an axiom for Fascism; it was, and is, only a means to an end.
The only thing that can be described as remotely libertarian is the abolition of the Central Bank, but even that is an illusion. Because under Fascism, the Central Bank is not abolished; it is merely nationalized. Instead of giving power to the smaller, privately owned banks, it gives more power to the State to control the economy. It is in more ways more authoritarian, more a control economy, than the current Federal Reserve of the United States, which is a mix of public control of the government and private control by representatives of smaller banks.
And while the economy of Germany, under the nationalization of the bank, recovered quickly from such state control and control of inflation, the methods used go against Anarcho-Capitalist theory! From the same source he used detailing the economic policy of fascist states, “[The Reichsbank’s] policies were mostly Keynesian, relying on large public works programs supported by deficit spending… to stimulate the economy and reduce unemployment… price controls prevented the recurrence of inflation.” The German economy did not recover from the free market principles espoused by Hoppe and Rothbard; it was the same intervention advocated by Keynesian economics used by the United States government today that rejuvenated it.
What, then, prompted such a jump back to a pre-WWI economy for Germany? Well, according to a quote from one of Hoppe’s speeches, quoted as a source, it was the increase of productivity, decrease in taxes, busting of unions, and keeping the inflation rate low. From these facts, he concluded that these policies helped the German economy recover much more quickly than the United States economy at that time.
The Radical Capitalist uses this point as evidence that “Fascism is superior” and a “…step towards a libertarian social order with respect to the current (U.S.) State…” However, he ignores the fact that the comparison between Nazi Germany and the United States was made in regards to the same time period, and that economic policy changes over time. Such change has already occurred, with both the then Nazi Germany and the current United States now using the same Keynesian economic policies. With these facts in mind, we can clearly see, as stated earlier, that the claim that Fascism’s economic policies are closer to libertarianism than the U.S.’s economic policies is completely fraudulent.
However, one may retort that, “How come Nazi Germany was able to bounce back from the economic depression so quickly? Surely, it cannot just be from such Keynesian ideas.” And, in part, that is a good question, though the answer is simple: War. Again from his own source, Hitler, in order to prepare for war, “greatly increased public expenditure, especially on military re-armament and infrastructure projects…”, creating jobs and wealth from the pursuit of such a task that is whole- heartedly anti-libertarian.
From such an analysis, it is astounding and surprising to think that any of these arguments for Fascism comes from a right-libertarian, let alone an anarchist. Is he not a practitioner, an advocate for private property, for the individual and for every individual’s own self determination? In short, the truth of the matter is no: he believes in private property, in liberty and individual freedom as much as the modern conservative does; that is, he believes in it only for those who share his conservative values.
Extreme Conservative Values
It is here that we then look at the second half of the definition of Fascism he uses (which we will evaluate in parts): “Under Fascism, government plays a key role in monitoring: film, theatre, art, literature, music, education, etc., in order to maintain a high moral standard, keep things clean and respectable, promote a strong sense of patriotism and honor, and prevent the dissemination of depraved filth which corrupts society.” Here we see that Fascism takes on a very anti-libertarian notion: the censure of any media going against the State’s agenda. It is a violation of the individuals’ autonomy, of one’s freedom to create, two values highly esteemed in libertarian and anarchist circles.
The Radical Capitalist, however, sees no problem in such an ordeal. He shrugs off such a contradiction by stating that “… various forms of artistic expression are regulated (and sometimes prohibited) under the current regime…”, not understanding that just because it is already being done, that it does not excuse such policy for being authoritarian and against liberty. He even proclaims that “…if the regulation and prohibition of certain forms of expression is a given, then it’s certainly better that the more degenerate, cultural marxist, and leftist forms be prohibited than those which promote traditional western values, institutions, and other right wing concepts.” Where he gets the idea that the expression of traditional values is censored is not apparent, as many conservative views are espoused by people and groups like Jordan Peterson, Ben Shapiro, Tucker Carlson, Prager University, etc, etc, on many different forms of media, with no state intervention.
Here we see more clearly where his loyalty lies: it is only in these conservative social norms that he puts any true consistency with; everything else, from property rights to individual liberties, is ignored or discarded if contradicting his wish to enforce such values.
Now, what do these social values entail? Again, we can look at the second part of the definition he uses: “Women are the carriers of new life. They are expected to be educated, worldly, and well read… to pursue their interests and have a career but only if a career won’t interfere with their family’s needs; family comes first, always… encouraged to be strong yet feminine.” Here, we have first the place a woman is to hold. It is the standard conservative value of the housekeeping wife, always doing that which only serves the man and the family. While the preference for such a type of life is not inherently bad, in Fascism it is forced upon all the women in the society; again, the individual’s rights are forfeited in order to serve the wants of the State or society, subservient to the cultural norms instead of choosing their own destiny, and thus inherently anti-libertarian.
This belief goes hand in hand with the valuing of the nuclear family. Again, the concept of the nuclear family is not inherently bad. If a person wishes to have such a family, then they should be free to do so. However, again it is perverted by the forcing of such social norms on everyone. Fascism refutes the idea of individuality inherent in libertarianism and anarchism again, punishing such individuals who went against these norms, such as homosexuals, with forced labor, cruel punishments, and execution.(5) The slave labor in the concentration camps were particularly advantageous to the economic situation of Germany, thus making the Nazi German economy even more authoritarian and controlling than our modern economy.
All actions made are in part to serve this characteristic of Fascism: “…under Fascism all people of one’s ethnicity are considered the greater family of that person… just as one mustn’t do anything to hurt their brother or sister in their immediate family, under Fascism one mustn’t do anything which would hurt the nation/group…” This part of the definition is the view Fascism is most known for: ethno-nationalism. In an effort for the preservation of, as the Germans called it, the Aryan race, such extreme conservative social views were adopted, and enforced greatly by the Nazi German government. Thus, any perversion, rebellion, or rejection of such principles were seen as degenerate and antithetical to Fascism, whether it was not following the sexual norm, or by being politically at odds with Fascism (such as being a libertarian), and such views were promptly destroyed by it.
In order to not deal with such a reality, he uses an argument from his source for Fascism’s definition, saying how, “…under Fascism, if a person doesn’t like things, he/she can leave the country.” This false view is juxtaposed with another false view on Communism (though originating from the Soviet tyranny): “Contrast this with Communism where if you don’t like things, you better keep your mouth shut. And, of course, there is no option to leave the country. You will submit or else be sent to a re-education camp where you’ll be brainwashed to accept the Communist system. And if you still resist, you’ll probably be killed. Again, there is no leaving. Submit or suffer the consequences.” Of course, such generalizations hide the truth of the matter, such as that political opponents and dissidents, specifically Communists and Social Democrats, were taken to early concentration camps, where they were tortured horrifically and worked to the bone, even being goaded by guards into suicide.(6) However, such brutal, indescribable, and anti-libertarian actions would not disturb the author; he said himself in the conclusion that, “…the most satisfying aspect of Fascism is its ability to mercilessly destroy the Communist threat.” Such lust for destruction allows him to waive off principles of liberty and freedom.
He then again tries to prove that there is no contradictory nature between ethno-nationalism and libertarianism by saying that, “The nationalist sentiment of a population does not necessarily translate into a pro State sentiment. In fact, Fascism tends to promote the idea of “family” and “ethnic community” first. This presents a hard limit on the expansion of the State.” This contradicts the teachings laid out by Benito Mussolini in his Doctrine of Fascism: “Fascism reaffirms the State as the true reality of the individual… for the Fascist, everything is in the State, and nothing human or spiritual exists, much less has value, outside the State. In this sense Fascism is totalitarian, and the Fascist State, the synthesis and unity of all values, interprets, develops and gives strength to the whole life of the people.” It is only in this idea and worshipping of the state does nationalism exist under Fascism. The “ethnic community” and “family” are merely parts, all subservient to the State under Fascism. They are important to Fascism, yes; but only as important as the State decides them to be, with the rejection of such ethnic or familial connections allowed if they are in the favor of the State.
As for the limiting of State expansion, it is far from the truth. Again, from Mussolini’s Doctrine: “…the State is not only the authority which governs and gives the form of laws and the value of spiritual life to the wills of individuals, but it is also a power that makes its will felt abroad, making it known and respected, … demonstrating the fact of its universality in all the necessary directions of its development… consequently organization and expansion…” Not only is the will to expand itself expressed in the theory of Fascism, to be and act as a force imperialistic, but also in its application, with Fascist Italy invading such places like Ethiopia, Egypt, Greece, etc., and Nazi Germany invading such places as France and Britain. These conquests were purely for the expansion of the State; it was an offensive strategy for the fascist nations to gain more power.
The Fascist Unmasked
Thus, in all regards, there is truly no libertarian idea behind such advocacy for a Fascist state. In regards to gradual movement to a libertarian society, it is the wrong choice on all accounts; in regards to its respect of private property and individual freedom, it has none unless private property can be of use to itself. The only thing consistent is the extreme right social values, that are forced on the populace by the State, disregarding the rights and autonomy of the individual.
The argument that “…strong nuclear families, ethno-nationalism, and other traditional western values… represent the socio-cultural conditions which enable the establishment and sustenance of a libertarian social order” is no strong defense for such a position as it might have been for Hoppe’s. In advocating for a system that rejects liberty to such a great extent, only allowing such actions when authorized by the State, the Radical Capitalist shows its true colors. He knows no loyalty to libertarianism or to any of its ideals; he only holds close and dear to him the extreme conservative social norms he greatly advocates for, in contrast with the supposed “degeneracy” of “cultural marxism”.
His rejection of history and libertarian theory, including the theory of his beloved influence, Hans Hermann Hoppe, proves his premises for the need of Fascism as blatantly false and ungrounded. His disregard for more historical facts, and the presence of such facts, shows how his view that Fascism respects private property more than the current society is also untrue. And his outgoing support for Far Right social values, and his painting of the rejection of such values under the strawpeople of “degeneracy” and “cultural marxism” show that his true alliances are not with the libertarian right, but with the authoritarian right. He acts as a trojan horse, sneaking in the doctrines and ideology of Fascism into the unsuspecting collection of libertarian thought.
Thus, again, I ask the libertarian right, with even more urgency, to clean house. Among your ranks stand your worst foes, disguised under the language and doctrines of Hoppe, Mises, and Rothbard, perpetuating and leading the movement towards Fascism and Totalitarianism. As the weeds grow amongst the wheat, so do they grow amongst libertarians. Thus, you must destroy such connections at the roots: exclude and push such ideological enemies out from among you, and destroy the roots and seeds of such ideological infiltration before it takes a greater root and swallows the movement as a whole.
Our brothers and sisters and siblings in liberty have fought hard against the outside threats of Fascism and Authoritarianism. Let us not disappoint them by letting such threats grow from the inside. Keep true to liberty and to all her precepts and principles. Do not sacrifice such principles, keep true to them. You may be derided as puritans in the movement; I say that we have become too lax with those who would perpetuate our ideological antithesis. We must not be overzealous, but we must remain true to our values. Only in staying true and pure to such values that we can succeed and build up a society in which Liberty, Truth, and Justice are truly held up high and glorified as they should, guiding us towards a new world, a better world, a more just world.
- “Capitalism… is a social system based on the explicit recognition of private property and nonaggressive, contractual exchanges between private property owners.” — Hans Hermann Hoppe
- Anthony Sutton, “Wall Street and The Rise Of Hitler”, pp. 14
- Patricia Knight, Mussolini and Fascism, Routledge 2003 page 64. A source cited in his source, the wiki page for Fascist economies
- Gaetano Salvemini, “Italian Fascism”. London: Victor Gollancz Ltd., 1938. Another source cited in the wiki page.
- Nikolaus Wachsmann, “KL: A History of The Nazi Concentration Camps”, pp. 127–128
- Wachsmann, pp. 26, 50–51
