[PEN-L:1822] Re: More Polanyi vs. Hayek

[bill mitchell <ECWFM@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>
>On Thu, 7 Dec 1995, Jim Devine wrote:
>
>> As much as I dislike Hayekian politics, I think it's confusing
>> matters to call them "fascist" as Huseyin Ozel does. Hayekian
>> politics may push us in the direction of an "objectively fascist"
>> system, i.e., strengthen the power of the state, repressing
>> organized labor, etc. (It need not go all the way; I wouldn't
>> call Thatcherism "fascism.")
>
and JIm replied:
>
>	I think Thatcherism was not fascist simply because it did not NEED
>to be... Thatcher herself I consider to be an out-and-out fascist.
>
We should be careful to use terms that are meaningful in the context of which
they have been historically coined. hayek is nothing like a fascist nor is
maggie thatcher.

one doesn't have to be a fascist to be the propounder of structures and
policies which we on the left would find utterly repugnant. both the named fit
that category. but they are not fascistic.

kind regards
bill

--
         ####    ##        William F. Mitchell
       #######   ####      Economics Department
     #################     University of Newcastle
   ####################    New South Wales, Australia
   ###################*    E-mail: ecwfm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
   ###################     Phone: +61 49 215065
    #####      ## ###             +61 49 215027
                           Fax:   +61 49 216919
                  ##
WWW Home Page: http://econ-www.newcastle.edu.au/~bill/billyhp.html