No abstract

Abstract. Vilfredo Pareto has been labelled a fascist and ‘a precursor of fascism’ largely because he welcomed the advent of fascism in Italy and was honored by the new regime. Some have seen in his sociological works the foundations of fascism. This is not correct. Even fascist writers did not find much merit in these works, and definitely condemned his economic theories. A s a political thinker he remained a radical libertarian till the end, and continued to express serious reservations about fascism, and to voice opposition to its basic policies. This is evident from his correspondence with his close friends. There are strong reasons to believe that, had he lived long enough, Pareto would have revolted against fascism.

Abstract. Léon Walras was one of the few outstanding 19th century economists who, though as a theoretician belonged to the mainstream of orthodox economics, expressed views which at one time were considered to be too radical. He advocated in particular the nationalization of land as the solution to the social problem. This would generate sufficient revenue to government to enable it to do away with taxing income derived from wages and salaries. As a result workers would be in a position to invest their untaxed income and thus acquire their rightful share in the national wealth. Contrary to what many have argued, such ‘socialistic’ policy was not incompatible with Walras’ theoretical model of perfect competition. In the absence of private ownership of land and natural resources, there would be no place for big enterprises and monopolies. His great compromise was: allow social reforms in the realm of distribution, but promote lassser‐faire in the production of goods and services. Walras was convinced that if, on top of a radical land reform, the State sought to secure the working of a free competitive system, then the economic system could function very closely to the theoretical model. Though there are flaws in his proposals, his ideas no longer appear as preposterous as they did in his own time.

Leon Walras'iheory of money, in spite of its serious flaws, provides important insights which should prove of interest to modern monetarists. He was one of the few economists in the classical tradition to detect major deficiencies in the quantity theory of money. He favored a strong public policy to regulate the money supply in order to ensure the preservation of economic equilibrium. Most of his arguments were motivated by his concern for the wage earners because he knew that they were the first to suffer in times of economic crisis.• (Renato Cirillo, M.Sc. Econ., D.D., is professor of economics, the University of Alberta, Edmonton, Albena T6G 2H4 Canada.)

Abstract. Léon Walras strongly believed that without an equitable distribution of wealth there could be no social justice. Though he defended the right of private property, he considered that land was a special case and that it belonged to all the community. His social reform involved the nationalization of land, the abolition of taxation on wages, the curbing of monopoly power, and the promotion of a strong cooperative movement. He insisted that the only way the working class could regain their freedom was by becoming property owners. The influence of Henry George on Walras' thinking is obvious. They both shared the same humanitarian ideals, and both believed in a capitalist system working side by side with the social reforms they advocated.