Libertarianism, Fascism, fellow travelers.

EDIT: the original post asked if libertarianism is practically speaking a species of fascism. I have defended here whether they are fellow travelers. The further elaboration will continue, but the main thrust will be that the effect, if they are successful, would be to create a form of stateless fascism, but their real effect is to be abused by their status as fellow travelers. This elaboration, of course, is more tendentious than noting the overlaps in the groups.

I made a post the other day noting a thought that libertarians are often "fellow travelers" with fascism in America, and that prompted some discussion, so I will explain more discursively what I mean by this. Now, of course, the question of what fascism really is is a common one. Orwell notes that it essentially got turned into a word meaning "anybody I don't really like" for a while in English political discourse. In one sense, there was only ever one fascist party: the Italian one. Since discussions of fascism are often really just one step away from argumentum ad hitlerum (cf Godwin), it is probably important to have some reasonably clear meaning in mind that seems reasonable when accusing groups of either being fascist or enabling fascist goals.

I should also clarify what I mean by "fellow traveler". What I mean by this is that they often work alongside those organizations and either use their supporters for their ends or their supporters are used by those other organizations for their own ends.

Anyway, so when discussing fascism, I don't find it useful to use expansive and pejorative definitions such as Jonah Goldberg's, which really really wants to call Bill Clinton a fascist but just cannot. Rather, I'd prefer to limit it to organizations that draw their inspiration from "real fascism", so this would be movements like the BNP (later the National Front) in England or the French National Front in France or Svoboda in Ukraine. Generally, very nationalist, somewhat racist, aligned with corporate interests and private property against the workers, and most especially antidemocratic (perhaps claiming to be meritocratic).

What prompts me to label Libertarianism as "fellow travelers" with these movements is their occasional association with violent far-right movements - tolerating their racism and sexism, not objecting to their anti-democratic nature because libertarianism itself is anti-democratic - as long as they are willing to uphold the pro-business, low tax, lack of regulation end of the bargain. This is a weighty accusation, the association is well-documented. Neo-Confederates pass in and out of leadership positions in libertarian groups, some even working as staffers for high profile libertarian-leaning politicians. Though the SPLC does not have a "neo-fascist" category, a few of the categories could qualify and several identified groups have substantial presence in the movement. Have you ever read anything written by Murray Rothbard or Lew Rockwell? Or the old Ron Paul newsletters? MR, LR, and RP are sometimes "defended" as having written this kind of crap as a modern extension of the "Southern Strategy": write this racist crap to appeal to extant racists and convert them to your cause, as the other side isn't going to stoop to that. That's what some of their defenders say they were doing! Reason Magazine, the flagship publication of the movement, devoted an entire issue in the '70s to Holocaust denialism. I am not saying that every libertarian today should feel bad about what some people who are popular in their movement wrote 20 or 40 years ago. But some of these people are still active today and doing the same sort of thing. And there are these major figures in a movement that they are a part of, and perhaps they support them, and those major figures at times are willing to work with whatever group will uphold the anti-democratic, low tax, no regulation end of the bargain, even if it involves actively courting racists are even neo-fascists.

Okay, sure, this sounds like guilt by association, but this is somewhat relevant if you are a fringe group in politics. Especially when the vision of the end goal sounds a lot like a form of stateless fascism, anyway.

EDIT: If you do want argumentum ad hitlerum, here is why you want pro-business groups to be careful about who they get in bed with:

On Monday, 20 February 1933, at 6.00 p.m., a group of about twenty five businessmen were summoned to attend a private meeting in the villa of Hermann Goering, now acting as president of the Reichstag, at which Hitler, the Reich Chancellor, was to 'explain his policies'. The guests were an oddly assorted bunch. The invitees included leaders of German industry, men such as Georg von Schnitzler, second in command at IG Farben, Krupp von Bohlen, who was both head-by-marriage of the Krupp empire and the current chairman of the Reich industrial association, and Dr Albert Voegler the CEO of the Vereinigte Stahlwerke, the world's second largest steel firm...

Hitler... launched into a general survey of the political situation... the experience of the last fourteen years had shown that 'private enterprise cannot be maintained in the age of democracy'. Business was founded above all on the principles of personality and individual leadership. Democracy and liberalism led inevitably to Social Democracy and Communism...[the NSDAP] would show no mercy towards [its] enemies on the left. It was time 'to crush the other side completely'... [Hitler] planned to crush the German left and in the process he was more than willing to use physical force. At least according to the surviving record, the conflict between left and right was the central theme of the speeches by both Hitler and Goering on 20 February... Since German business had a major stake in the struggle against the left, it should make an appropriate financial contribution. 'The sacrifice[s]', Goering pointed out, 'would be so much easier...to bear if it [industry] realized that the election of 5 March will surely be the last one for the next ten years, probably even for the next hundred years.'

Over the following three weeks [the NSDAP] received contributions from seventeen different business groups. The largest individual donations came from IG Farben (400,000 Reichsmarks) and the Deutsche Bank (200,000 Reichsmarks). The association of the mining industry also made a generous deposit of 400,000 Reichsmarks. Other large donors included the organizers of the Berlin Automobile Exhibition (100,000 Reichsmarks) and a cluster of electrical engineering corporations including Telefunken, AEG and the Accumulatoren Fabrik...it was the donations in February and March 1933 that really made the difference. They provided a large cash injection at a moment when the party was severely short of funds and faced, as Goering had predicted, the last competitive election in its history.

The Wages of Destruction: the Making and Breaking of the Nazi Economy, by Adam Tooze, Cambridge University Press

But a rising tide lifts all boats, right? Right?