Ask a liberal which is worse, fascism or socialism and you might be surprised how many would say socialism is worse, if they were being honest. Not that they like fascism. Not at all, they hate it. They just hate socialism more. To them, fascism is the lesser of the two evils. And I’m not just making this up, a prominent liberal economist of the 20th century said it explicitly:
As you will understand, it is possible for a dictator to govern in a liberal way. And it is also possible for a democracy to govern with a total lack of liberalism. Personally I prefer a liberal dictator to democratic government lacking liberalism.
Why would you even ask such a thing when fascism was already chosen a long time ago.
Your example would hold much truer for a conservative in the US. Most of them are anti liberal (they don’t know what it means but they hate it) and definitely would choose fascism. I don’t think that most people who consider themselves liberal would pick fascism.
Of course, the framing of the question is rather important. If you describe socialist policies without calling it that big bad scary word most people are very amiable to it.
He is right in the sense that there can be a benevolent dictator like Cinncinnatus who famously was made dictator, saved Rome from an invading army, and retired back to his farm after 16 days. At the same time a liberal democracy can vote that a minority ethnic group should all become slaves.
At the same time a liberal democracy can vote that a minority ethnic group should all become slaves.
That’s not what Hayek was talking about when he referenced a “democratic government lacking liberalism.” He was talking about Chile after the election of Salvador Allende, a socialist. Allende “sought to nationalize major industries, expand education, and improve the living standards of the working class.” No mention of mass enslavement. Although his replacement, Augusto Pinochet, who was supported by Hayek and the US, tortured and/or murdered tens of thousands.
The slavery thing is just an example. It’s a tyranny of the majority thing inherent to pure democracy. Hayek’s statement is right standing by itself. If he was alluding to a democratic society electing to be socialist when he was talking about a democratic government lacking liberalism, he is wrong. But that is to be expected from an economist. Most would rather give up democracy than capitalism.
Ask a liberal which is worse, fascism or socialism and you might be surprised how many would say socialism is worse, if they were being honest. Not that they like fascism. Not at all, they hate it. They just hate socialism more. To them, fascism is the lesser of the two evils. And I’m not just making this up, a prominent liberal economist of the 20th century said it explicitly:
Why would you even ask such a thing when fascism was already chosen a long time ago.
Your example would hold much truer for a conservative in the US. Most of them are anti liberal (they don’t know what it means but they hate it) and definitely would choose fascism. I don’t think that most people who consider themselves liberal would pick fascism.
Of course, the framing of the question is rather important. If you describe socialist policies without calling it that big bad scary word most people are very amiable to it.
Dictatorship and fascism aren’t synonyms.
That’s true. Does that mean you agree with Hayek?
He is right in the sense that there can be a benevolent dictator like Cinncinnatus who famously was made dictator, saved Rome from an invading army, and retired back to his farm after 16 days. At the same time a liberal democracy can vote that a minority ethnic group should all become slaves.
That’s not what Hayek was talking about when he referenced a “democratic government lacking liberalism.” He was talking about Chile after the election of Salvador Allende, a socialist. Allende “sought to nationalize major industries, expand education, and improve the living standards of the working class.” No mention of mass enslavement. Although his replacement, Augusto Pinochet, who was supported by Hayek and the US, tortured and/or murdered tens of thousands.
The slavery thing is just an example. It’s a tyranny of the majority thing inherent to pure democracy. Hayek’s statement is right standing by itself. If he was alluding to a democratic society electing to be socialist when he was talking about a democratic government lacking liberalism, he is wrong. But that is to be expected from an economist. Most would rather give up democracy than capitalism.