Mussolini, Economic Fascism and Universal Healthcare

I recently became aware of a 1994 article that discusses the concept of "economic fascism".  It was written by Thomas DiLorenzo, an economist who wrote for a publication called the Freeman, published by the Foundation for Economic Education.

DiLorenzo describes the industrial policy embraced by Mussolini in Italy during the 1930's.  This "corporatist" policy entails, according to DiLorenzo, the state coming before the individual; planned industrial harmony with the objectives of the central state; government-business partnerships in which government calls the shots; and a massive system of governmental payments to the private sector.

And thus, he describes "economic fascism", or the economic component of fascism, which was also seen in Germany.

DiLorenzo's article was written at a time when the Clinton health plan was being discussed.  He said:

"As most of the rest of the world struggles to privatize industry and encourage free enterprise, we in the United States are seriously debating whether or not we should adopt 1930s-era economic fascism as the organizational principle of our entire health care system, which comprises 14 percent of GNP...

"The state and its academic apologists are so skilled at generating propaganda in support of such schemes that Americans are mostly unaware of the dire threat they pose for the future of freedom."

During the upcoming presidential campaign, when we hear repeated plaintive cries for SCHIP's and universal health care, remember what DiLorenzo said about Mussolini and economic fascism.
 

Comments

[Roger Greene]

""As most of the rest of the world struggles to privatize industry and encourage free enterprise, we in the United States are seriously debating whether or not we should adopt 1930s-era economic fascism as the organizational principle of our entire health care system, which comprises 14 percent of GNP..."

I wonder if we haven't crossed that line in other areas. Look at the influence of corporate money on our legislative bodies at both the federal and state levels. Locally look at incentives being given. They're almost taken for granted by businesses these days. I'd say we're tilting dangerously away from free enterprise and competition to favored multi-national corporate entities totally uninterested in free or fair competition.

[Joe Guarino]

Roger, DiLorenzo also mentions in his article other segments of the economy, other than healthcare, impacted by these trends. I think he agrees with you, for the most part. He mentions specifically automobiles, airlines and communications, but there are others.

We have crossed that line. I think there is little doubt about that.

[Everest]

Great post Joe, particularly with the Iowa caucuses upon us. Not sure if you've ever read Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged", but it speaks to this is a large way. The sacrificing of private rights (both economic and personal) for the "greater good." What's really frightening though Joe, is that while she wrote this novel more than 50 years ago, you would find the causes she rails against at any meeting of any of the top Deomcratic presidential candidates, and in abundance on most college campuses...and the Republicans have not recently been all that much help in battling this shift.

[Joe Guarino]

Thanks, Everest. Yes, the Democratic presidential candidates are eagerly interested in further limiting economic freedom.

As for the Republicans, at times they have only been successful at slowing the rate at which statist schemes are adopted. And at times, they have not even done that. I know that some adverse developments affecting the economics of health care have occurred under Bush-- as well as some very positive ones.

[Bubba]

Gee, do you think if we elect a Democratic as President that he/she would be able to make the trains run on time?

[Joe Guarino]

Oh, certainly, Bubba, if we make enough of an "investment", and give the feds more control over the system. The key thing is that the structure of the whole thing be managed by people who know much more than the information provided by free markets.

DiLorenzo tells us this is one of the things Mussolini and Hitler did very well. They made the trains run on time, didn't they?

[Billy The Blogging Poet]

Might I remind you that Senator Prescott Bush was very fond of fascism, so much so that during WW2 the US Senate had to force him to stop selling steel to Hitler.

George W and his Neocons are cut from exactly the same cloth and while they spend their time beating up universal health care the continue to support the merging of government and big business which according to Mussolini was the very definition of fascism.

For the Neocons this isn't a battle against fascism in-so-much as it is a battle between regimes. Insurance and Health Care industry vs every other industry in the nation.

Might I remind you of the old conservative saying, "What's good for GM is good for the nation." All three American automakers are calling for universal health care.

And yes, Henry Ford and many more of America's great industrialists were in-fact supports of Hitler which continues to make my case that this argument is really about fascism vs. fascism.

Continue to believe what you like but remember that Industry has been controlled by Conservatives for hundreds of years and it's Industry that calls the shots in American politics today.

Go ahead and point your fingers at the liberals as the new communists-- it's what the Neocons are hoping you'll do.

[Joe Guarino]

Billy, I don't think true conservatism gives an unfair disadvantage to large businesses over smaller businesses.

But one thing needs to be pointed out. In contemporary politics, both parties accept considerable support from large corporations; and in fact, at times the Democrats have outdone the Republicans in this department. Both have unfortunately represented the interests of larger corporations.