Progressive figures like Isabella Weber, who have influenced policymakers such as Kamala Harris on price gouging and Zohran Mamdani on rent control, are advocating for what they call “anti-fascist economics.”
But what does this term really mean, and how does it align with economic principles?
What Is Anti-Fascist Economics?
Weber, a German-born economist at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, describes anti-fascist economics as “an economic policy that offers a solution to socioeconomic decline and can ease people’s fears about the future.”
While almost all economic schools claim to improve societal well-being, Weber’s approach focuses on:
- Stabilizing essential prices (food, energy, rent)
- Increasing wages
In practice, this means price controls and mandated wage increases, rather than market-driven solutions. This approach has faced criticism, including from economist Paul Krugman, who initially called it “truly stupid” on X.
Critics argue that these policies resemble command-and-control strategies used in totalitarian regimes, such as Hitler’s autarky program, rather than promoting true economic freedom.
Economics as a Guardian Against Fascism
Historically, economics has been a strong defender of liberty. The term “dismal science” was coined by Thomas Carlyle, not because economics was boring or overly mathematical, but because economists opposed slavery and championed equality.
Economists rely on price theory and supply-demand principles to explain the world.
While some social engineers may find this approach simplistic or inconvenient, it has consistently served as a check against authoritarianism by emphasizing individual decision-making over state control.
The Controversy Over Intervention
Anti-fascist economics represents a challenge to centuries of economic thought:
- Rent controls and wage mandates ignore fundamental market incentives.
- Government intervention often produces unintended consequences despite good intentions.
George Stigler noted in Memoirs of an Unregulated Economist that economists are often disliked because they “pour cold water” on overly ambitious social plans.
Economics separates intentions from outcomes, teaching intellectual humility—something totalitarian ideologies rarely embrace.
Economics vs. Totalitarian Ideals
Economics is inherently skeptical of central planning.
Friedrich Hayek famously wrote: “The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design.”
Totalitarian systems promise to know all answers and simply require execution.
Economics challenges that notion, revealing the limits of human knowledge.
Anti-economics movements, in contrast, often seek to dismiss these lessons entirely, aiming to “smash the mirror” that exposes their unrealistic plans.
Economics as a Check on Power
At its core, anti-fascist economics may pursue noble goals, but its reliance on price controls, wage mandates, and centralized decision-making conflicts with fundamental economic principles and historical lessons.
Economics remains a tool to safeguard liberty, enforce rational trade-offs, and highlight the limits of human intervention, offering a more effective path to prosperity than command-and-control policies ever could.
