So I'll let Wikipedia do the talking this time:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

"No doctrines of fascism were more obscure than its economic goals and systems. Fascists promoted their ideology as a "third position" between capitalism and communism. Fascism often involved corporatism but to equate fascism with corporatism is a mistake as the German National Socialists and other fascists rejected corporatism, often as being too conservative or capitalist. What fascists did have in common was the goal of a new national multiclass economics which is either labeled national corporatist, national socialist or national syndicalist. Thus, Third Position economics stipulates fascists' opposition to the elements of capitalist and communist political and economic systems. Fascism opposes the demands by capitalist systems for little government intervention, opposes capitalism's unequivocal support of free trade (i.e. fascists enacted protectionist policies), and opposes capitalism's support for free international movement of capital, and opposes capitalism's support of individualism. Fascism opposes communism for its promotion a class-based world society where nations would cease to exist. Fascists see communism as unpatriotic and a major enemy to their agenda.

Fascists opposed what they believed to be laissez-faire or quasi-laissez-faire economic policies dominant in the era prior to the creation of the Federal Reserve and the Income Tax, and the subsequent Great Depression. People of many different political stripes blamed laissez-faire capitalism for the Great Depression, and fascists promoted their ideology as a "third way" between capitalism and Marxian socialism. Their policies manifested as a radical extension of government control over the economy without wholesale expropriation of the means of production. Fascist governments nationalized some key industries, managed their currencies and made some massive state investments. They also introduced price controls, wage controls and other types of economic planning measures. Fascist governments instituted state-regulated allocation of resources, especially in the financial and raw materials sectors.

Other than nationalization of certain industries, private property was allowed, but property rights and private initiative were contingent upon service to the state. For example, "an owner of agricultural land may be compelled to raise wheat instead of sheep and employ more labor than he would find profitable."[66][66] According to historian Tibor Ivan Berend, dirigisme was an inherent aspect of fascist economies. The Labour Charter of 1927, promulgated by the Grand Council of Fascism, stated in article 7:

"The corporative State considers private initiative, in the field of production, as the most efficient and useful instrument of the Nation," then goes on to say in article 9 that: "State intervention in economic production may take place only where private initiative is lacking or is insufficient, or when are at stakes the political interest of the State. This intervention may take the form of control, encouragement or direct management."

Fascists thought that private property should be regulated to ensure that "benefit to the community precedes benefit to the individual." They also introduced price controls and other types of economic planning measures."

The "bail-out" is state protectionism of industry and corporate welfare, and is really nothing new. All these companies have been receiving political favors and protection from "failure," i.e. market competition, for decades. It has nothing to do with "free markets," and everything to do with the implementation of a massive police state.

It's very simple: the Republicans introduce authoritarian social and police controls into the society, then the Democrats introduce authoritarian economic controls. They both support each other in these policies, and they don't allow any alternatives to this so-called "two-party" system.

Yep Glenn, I just logged in to the Post site, and saw it on the front page, just about spitting out my coffee. So of course I said, what's Glenn got to say about this?!

Thanks for your blog postings.

The collapse of free market capitalism position (ideology?) is a sight to behold. Where does one turn when the fundamental assumptions and theories are wrong?

The strange arguments of Pearlstein are just the start of the many we will hear over the next few months and years.

Now we have real fears unlike the made up fear of a few thousand Al-Qaeda terrorists that are dressed up to be fear of a new cold war. The real fear is a potential collapse of the world economy. Economics is not a science: it does not have the ability to predict and control outcomes.

While it may be a shock to those who are self important, old fashioned argumentation and dialog may make a come back. The blogger community will play an increasing role in developing a new common sense.

The purpose of the banking system, loosely speaking, is to make production and commerce function well. It is a service that should pay those who perform it a reasonable living. But the proximity to all that money leads to a belief among those in charge of these businesses that they are justified in taking some significant fraction of what passes through their hands. They are not; banks merely provide a simple set of services, having a direct pipe into the source, under the control of the voters through their representatives. Perhaps as it becomes better known how little banks do and how much they take, the calls for punishmnet will become, well, capital.

Thanks for this, Glenn:

It was precisely that concern that fueled much of the anti-bailout sentiment in the first place. Of course Wall Street -- in the absence of mandates -- will use the hundreds of billions of dollars they receive for their own self-interest, rather than the "public good". That's just the nature of the beast. That's precisely why there was so much opposition to the transfer of huge amounts of taxpayer money to these firms without any controls over how it would be used.

The propensity of Wall Street to look after their own self-interest rather than the public good is what got us into this problem. The lack of true oversight and regulation in the bailout plan is what doomed it from the start and is why so many of us have been against it.

Ian Welsh had a great retrospective (complete with colorful graphs!) that builds a compelling case for this situation having its roots in the onset of Reaganomics and its inevitable self-triggered collapse today. It can be seen here:

http://tinyurl.com/57ba7l

Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush redistributed wealth upward into a system that could not sustain itself. They did so by removing precisely those safeguards that force financial institutions to value the public good. Until the public good is restored to higher priority than the self-interest of those running the financial institutions, we will continue to see vain attempts at action by Paulson and his minions that will result only in further enrichment of those at the root of the problem.

As for Pearlstein, you hit that one precisely, too. Had he engaged his critics rather than resenting them, he would have done his Pulitzer proud. By reacting as he did, it's looking a bit tarnished to me.

I will give Pearlstein this, though, by having argued every possible side of the bailout, he's guaranteed to be able to use his "I told you so" no matter the outcome.