Photo Credit

I am writing this post as an entry to the LeoFinance Zealy campaign. I hope that this piece will be accepted in the Politics Writer Quest under CYOA Finance Bro.

In this post, I just want to share with you a conversation on Quora that happened sometime in September 2020. I was asking a question regarding the nature of central banks and their relationship to socialism or capitalism. Unfortunately, the initial respondent didn’t like my post and bombarded me with the typical caricature charged against those who defend the free market economy.

Among the five arguments he raised, I just want to limit myself to three of them. Here, we touch on relevant topics about sources of economic information, Fascism, and socialism.

Your Mind is Polluted

Yes, that is the first charge thrown at me. The guy postures to be an authority when it comes to socialism. He accused me of misinformation. That’s the lighter version. What he exactly said is that my mind is polluted because I get my information from Mises’ institute and he added that is my big problem.

I responded to him by saying why getting my information from Mises Institute is my problem. Could I say the same thing to him that his problem is that he is listening to all socialist intellectuals except Mises? Would I be correct in saying that?

No one can decide which of us is right in the absence of a set of standards. Perhaps a more realistic statement that he should say would be, "My problem with you is that you are getting your information from the Mises Institute." That is his issue, not mine since I don't consider acquiring information from the Mises Institute as being an issue for me.

Ludwig von Mises is a Fascist

And then he made a popular remark about Ludwig von Mises being a fascist, and even quoted a passage from Mises’ 1927 book to prove his point:

It cannot be denied that Fascism and similar movements aiming at the establishment of dictatorships are full of the best intentions and that their intervention has, for the moment, saved European civilization. The merit that Fascism has thereby won for itself will live on eternally in history.

To this follow-up response, I then replied that I am not sure if he believes in Moral Law. The rule of giving a false account of another person is one of the laws in Moral Law. If you notice someone doing it, correct them and refrain from aiding in the propagation of such accusations. Before repeating such a thing if you are unsure of it, you should do your research. Not unless you are certain that the false charge is true, in which case you have every right to repeat it.

Unfortunately, there is no way for him to hear the other side of the issue because he has already decided that the material from the Mises Institute is harmful. He has no idea that the quote he used was misinterpreted and does not prove that Mises supported fascism. Nobody would ever guess that Mises was merely confirming the widely held belief that many people in his time saw Fascism as a savior. Recognizing a widely held opinion does not equate to having fascist sympathies. Furthermore, he would never guess that Mises opposed fascism in his heavier works like Human Action and Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis.

In the booklet Planned Chaos, Mises explained the reason for the popularity of the idea that Fascism is related to capitalism. This is the idea that the above respondent wants to parrot and spread without doing his homework first.

Due to the unpopularity of Fascism, both capitalism and socialism disown her as their offspring. However, the prevailing idea is that Fascism is a product of capitalism. This is in agreement with Mises’ statement that such an accusation is a result of semantic innovation on the part of communist intellectuals. Together with Nazism, Fascism was described as "the highest and last and most depraved stage of capitalism" (Mises, Planned Chaos, 1951, p. 29).

To understand the background of Fascism, one must look back to what happened in Italy in 1914 during the prominence of Benito Mussolini. Mises said that at that time, Mussolini who initially played a significant role in Italian socialism displayed strong adherence to Marxist principles.

However, Mussolini encountered a problem. Italian intellectuals were nationalists. Though at first, he attacked this ideology, due to the pressure of Italian academics, Mussolini switched sides, which resulted in the creation of a Fascist party.

Though Mussolini claimed that he protected Italy from the menace of communism, Mises disputes this assertion, asserting that Fascism was not the cause but the consequence of the communist failure.

And so, if we will give Mises a fair hearing, we can see that the way he articulated the traits of Fascism showed that its origin is not in capitalism, but in socialism. He called it “vehemently anti-capitalistic” (p.31) though “it did not suppress the industrial and financial corporations” (p.32). What makes Fascism very dangerous is that it also affirms freedom of speech, the press, and public assembly, but all of these are just lip service. Moreover, even though Fascism was buried in history, Mises asserted that the forces behind it are still active and issued a grave warning to his readers about the likelihood of its resurgence under a different guise.

Socialism is All About the Government Doing Stuff

And for his third argument, he put words into my mouth about his understanding of socialism by saying:

. . . socialism isn’t when the government does stuff okay? Until you get that, no one can reason with you.

He then added a series of memes and concluded with a 21-second YouTube video from Richard Wolff repeating the same meme.

How did I respond to this guy?

The gist of his argument is that anyone who thinks that socialism is all about the government doing more stuff is irrational and therefore no one can reason with him.

I told him to try a better response than that. He appears to assume that his comical way of defining socialism is my understanding of the term. That to me is a huge assumption difficult to prove.

Nevertheless, I still think that he is aware that diverse notions of socialism exist, and therefore defining the term isn’t just that easy.

In my search for socialism’s definition, simply confining my reference to Wikipedia is already complicated. Two things are clear about socialism given in this online encyclopedia:

• That “Socialism is an economic system characterized by social ownership of the means of production and cooperative management of the economy.”

In this definition, we need to further clarify the meaning of “social ownership” and “cooperative management”. In continuing the definition given by Wikipedia, it appears that “social ownership” and “cooperative management” are closely connected. And under the umbrella of “social ownership”, “cooperative enterprises, common ownership, state ownership, citizen ownership of equity, or any combination of these” are included. This definition is not easy to grasp and if this is what we understand by socialism, no wonder, the question is difficult to answer.

• Wikipedia also identified that “varieties’ of socialism exist “and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them.” Then Wikipedia mentioned “markets” and “productive institutions” and I think this is the reason why some people believe that under socialism, a free market can exist. Moreover, I consider that the most important insight Wikipedia pointed out is about the “role of the state in constructing socialism.”

Summarizing and paraphrasing what I wrote here and here:

By examining four references, namely Planned Chaos, Omnipotent Government, A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism, and Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis, it is possible to identify at least seven variations of socialism. These variations include communism, interventionism (also referred to as Nazism or national socialism), social democracy, social engineering, military socialism, Christian socialism, and guild socialism. Additionally, there are three pseudo-socialist systems: solidarism, profit-sharing, and syndicalism.

While I identified seven types of socialism above, it is important to note that this categorization may not encompass the full breadth of socialist ideologies. Wikipedia, a comprehensive online encyclopedia, provides a broader framework. It distinguishes between two general categories of socialism: economic and political.

From an economic standpoint, socialism can be classified into four forms: planned economy, self-managed economy, state-directed economy, and market socialism. These categories focus on different approaches to economic organization within a socialist system.

From a political perspective, socialism can be further divided into five versions. Anarchism, which was removed from this discussion, is recognized separately due to its distinct roots. The remaining versions include libertarian socialism (synonymous with left anarchism), democratic socialism, religious socialism (such as Christian socialism, Islamic socialism, and Buddhist socialism), social democracy, and syndicalism.

Therefore, considering both the economic and political perspectives, it is possible to identify nine or ten distinct versions of socialism within this framework.

That's my recollection of such an unfortunate conversation on Quora that happened three years ago. Since then, I got tired of political topics. They are heading nowhere but hatred and hostility. Since the pandemic and after stumbling upon the potential offered by blockchain and cryptocurrency, I stopped engaging in those kinds of topics both on Facebook and Quora. Instead of wasting my time on such unhealthy discussions, I would rather focus my energy on something productive just like what we're doing here on Hive, LeoFinance, and other tribes.

Grace and peace!

What is LeoFinance?

What is Hive?