In 2008, I wrote a book called “Liberal Fascism.” That title came from H. G. Wells, one of the most important socialist writers in the English language. He believed, as did his fellow Fabian socialists, that Western democratic capitalism had outlived its usefulness.
What was needed was a new, bold, forward-thinking system run by experts with access to the most modern techniques. For Wells, the label for such a system mattered less than the imperative that we implement a revolution-from-above. He admired how the Germans, Italians, and Russians were getting things done. In 1932, he proposed calling his revolutionary movement “enlightened Nazism” or “liberal fascism.”
Advertisement
Wells was hardly alone. Such arguments were being made in all the Western democracies, under a thousand different banners. Most progressives rejected terms like “fascist” or “Communist,” but they still touted foreign tyrannies as superior to the outmoded democratic capitalism of the 19th century.
Lincoln Steffens, the muckraking journalist, was a great fan of both Italian fascism and Soviet Communism. He returned from a trip to Russia to proclaim, “I have seen the future, and it works!”
Some things never change.
Andy Stern announced recently that he’s been to the future, and it works. In this case, the future resides in China, which he says has a superior economic system. “The conservative-preferred, free-market fundamentalist, shareholder-only model — so successful in the 20th century — is being thrown onto the trash heap of history in the 21st century.”
Who’s Andy Stern? He’s just the guy who, until last year, ran the Service Employees International Union, which under his leadership spent more than any organization to get Obama elected in 2008, some $28 million. Comparatively, Stern’s influence in the Democratic party eclipses that of, say, the allegedly sinister Koch brothers or anti-tax activist Grover Norquist among Republicans. Stern himself visited the White House more than any other person during Obama’s first year in office (53 times).
Stern sees the Chinese government’s allegedly keen ability to “plan” its way to prosperity as the new model for America. It is an argument of profound asininity. China had five-year plans before it started getting rich. Under the old five-year plans, China killed tens of millions of its own people and remained mired in poverty. What made China rich wasn’t planning, it was the decision to switch to markets (albeit corrupt ones). The planners were merely in charge of distributing the wealth that markets created.
Indeed, rapid economic growth always makes government planners look like geniuses when the reality is that the planners are more like self-proclaimed rainmakers who started dancing only after it started raining. When the rain stops, which it will, they’ll have much to answer for.
Oh, and what about labor? There’s one labor union in China, and it’s run by the government. (The Nazis had pretty much the same system.) Stern doesn’t seem to care.
Not wishing to detract from the central theme of this piece (i.e the tendency of some western intellectuals to idolise foreign autocracies), but in fairness it's worth noting that H. G. Wells broke from the Fabian Society in 1908. While he regarded himself as a socialist, he could hardly be regarded as typical.
Great piece--although some things do change: In 1928, Steffens also said, "“Big Business in America is producing what the Socialists hold up as their goal: food, shelter, and clothing for all. You will see it during the Hoover administration.” Oops....
I read the WSJ article in which Andy Stern, in a long line of apologists and boosters of an authoritarian, technocratic and corrupt guailo arsehats, sees the potemkim illusion and finds salvation. The SOEs and CCP membership is the the corrupt bargain dressed up as capitalism with Chinese characteristics. I suggest he goes live there and he will be chewed up and spit out. 疯了
What continues to amaze us on the classical liberal (pro-free market) side is the almost universal belief in the superiority of political power over economic power on the command economy side. The first time I read that observation was when I was reading Hayek's Constitution of Liberty. There is always this belief that if we tried it, we'd look less like China and more like the ideal philosopher-kings of Plato.
Just take a look at the corrupt, back-scratching morons that we've empowered over the years. Blagojevich of Illinois was known widely to be a crook and he still won re-election 60-40. It took an indictment and two trials to finally put him down.
"the almost universal belief in the superiority of political power over economic power"
Command economies ARE superior.
As long as your definition of superior is "me and mine in charge of it" rather than "widespread economic prosperity."
Likewise, people wonder how people like Howard Zinn and his acolytes could genuinely hate this country, what with its unprecedented record of human rights and prosperity.
They don't hate America for its success. They hate America BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT IN CHARGE OF IT! (Note to webmaster: If we had italics available, we wouldn't have to resort to all caps kthxbai.)
Once you realize that, their behavior makes perfect sense.
I have little doubt, if given the chance, that the far left of this country would act just like the Chicoms if given the chance, including mass arrests, execution and genocide. They don't just disagree with us about how the country should be governed, they want control and submission. Those who would resist need to be eliminated. What serious person could see the behavior of our attorney general and think otherwise? Evil exists in the world. We like to think it's always in some far off place like Africa or Iran, but it exists here at home too. Right now it's closer to power than at any time in our history.
"Authoritarian capitalism" is a contradiction in terms. Simply because production is taking place does not imply that the system is capitalistic.
Semantics aside, when Mr. Stern said this:
"“The conservative-preferred, free-market fundamentalist, shareholder-only model — so successful in the 20th century "
did anyone think to ask him WHY it was so successful? Could it have had something to do with the relative amount of freedom America and a few other countries enjoyed?
No matter. Even granting, temporarily for the sake of argument, that an authoritarian system did somehow lead to greater production, a laissez-faire system is still morally superior. Given the (absurd) choice between freedom and prosperity, I would choose freedom every time. What good is a bunch of cheap goods if you're a slave?
The moral case for markets cannot be repeated too often. Markets are the cumulative dynamic of individuals exercising their liberties: rights to property, speech, and free association.
Those rights are vested in the individual, and not merely because they are enshrined in the Constitution. They are in the Constitution because they reflect natural, innate human rights.
What are we to make of a union or a political party so intent to roll back those basic (one might say inalienable!) human rights?
There is no moral case for markets. There is a case that markets best serve moral ends.
The difference identifies the fundamental flaw of conservative political economic philosophy. You're like a computer scientist who forgets that the purpose of computers is not to compute.
Seriously, you might think you exist to serve the state but I do not. You have to trust people to solve their own problems -- and not threaten them with bondage when you disagree with how they live their lives.
Oh, and the point you thought you were making: virtue does continue to be important, especially in a market system. At least there morality has some chance of being rewarded -- unlike statist regimes where virtue (of the authentic, individual sort) is uniformly punished. Sometimes very harshly.
I suspect you have the virtue and the judgment to determine your own purpose in life. Salute.
But in addition to the moral imperative of respecting your virtue and judgment, markets do have utilitarian outputs as well.
A Yankee fan might say Derek Jeter exists to play baseball. The utilitarian nature of markets somehow got him onto the playing field. Even more importantly the moral aspect of markets gave him the choice to play, not play, to name his price, etc.
I know nothing about Jeter as a man but presumably he sees himself as existing for purposes higher than baseball -- individual liberty allows him those pursuits as well. Government should not try to direct his pursuits. Or mine. Or yours. We're all better off that way.
Follow
