Nostr Web Client

It’s what makes the Austrian school such a pernicious school of thought in my mind. It’s why its produced so many outright fascists! Its goal is to convince the liberal by their predilections to reason, to give up on any notion of a Greater Good.

Its goal is two-fold: to convince you there is no Greater Good (to sell you on cynicism). But if you’re just too romantic for that, convince you it’s impossible to know what the Greater Good is (so why try? Leave it to the market!)

The fascist wants to convince you of that, because he’s got big plans. And you’re in them. nostr:note10u7dshfqymr97cx66cwassrz98m35l26t7ut84745q9pzjdvmhlqgu9n5a

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Matt 1y ago

Your idea of "the greater good" and mine, are probably very different, which is a big part of the conflict with other schools of thought.

Mike Brock 1y ago

Mine involves two precepts: cooperation is better than violence. And the truth can be known. The fascist doesn’t really care which one of these he needs to disabuse you of. It only takes one. He’s happy to talk the language of Capitalism (Putin) or Communism (Xi) to you. Whatever it takes to get you to take a knee, and admit there’s no point in fighting it.

Matt 1y ago

None of that speaks against Austrian Economics, which is simply seeing the world as it is.

I agree broadly that cooperation is better than violence, however, as it's an economic decision to engage in violence or not, the truth of the statement lies with the individual. This lies at the heart of Austrian Economics; you can't know everything and you can't decide the desires of other people, people can only act in what they consider to be their best interests with the limits of the information available to them.

I'm not sure where you're at with the second statement that "a truth can be known", I'm not sure how that statement would speak against Austrian Economics.

None of your arguments could be seen to suggest that followers of Austrian Economics are more likely to be fascist.

If anything, every person I know who follows the Austrian School, largely wants to be left alone by authoritarians, whatever the colour of their tie.

Mike Brock 1y ago

Oh, I would argue that praxeology is complete epistemic nonsense. And thus, anything that rests upon its axioms, is not truth-reifying by definition.

Garth 1y ago

I’m not aware of any “Austrians” peddling authoritarianism or fascism during COVID. “Liberals” however…

plor 1y ago

I think your definition of fascism falls into the trap that anything bad is classified as fascist. Would you mind defining your terms?

Mike Brock 1y ago

I am advancing my own category of what I call the “fascist impulse”, yes.

For me, fascism is better understood as an impulse in people to wield permanent political and economic power, by capitalizing on cynicism of polities, and using cultural control (propaganda) and pseudo-religious mythos to contain the political conservation in a cultural envelope, that leads to extreme depoliticization of the average member of the polity.

I think this more intellectually robust characterization of fascism was always staring political science in the face, if you just came at it from a little category theory, and some analytical moral epistemology.

plor 1y ago

I see fascism more as the extreme form of statism or technocracy. The idea that collective action by the state is the best way to achieve the "public good" or "general will". This necessitates that anyone opposed to the state is an enemy of all. That is why I disagree with your definition, because it has little to do with fascism in reality.