Fascism is the new socialism

[Visbek]

Has anyone noticed that the new conservative buzzword is fascism now that socialism is losing its punch (due to the fact that Russia fell in the 80s)?

Not really, no -- at least not around here.

Righties seem to use terms like "Marxist," "socialist," "Communist" and "fascist" interchangeably, without any real understanding of the meaning of the terms.

 

[Fishking]

I am not ignoring what doesn't exist.

Economics of fascism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Fascist movements tended to not have any fixed economic principles other than a general desire that the economy should help build a strong nation.[6] As such, scholars argue that fascists had no economic ideology, but they did follow popular opinion, the interests of their donors and the necessities of World War II. In general, fascist governments exercised control over private property, but they did not nationalize it.[7] Scholars also noted that big business developed an increasingly close partnership with the Italian Fascist and German fascist governments. Business leaders supported the government's political and military goals. In exchange, the government pursued economic policies that maximized the profits of its business allies.[8]

Hoisted on your own petard, yet again.

You are correct in the instance of Muslims and Jews, but incorrect when it comes to Fascism and Socialism since they are very different systems.

Economically, they are very similar.

The goals of socialism and fascism is distinctly different. People's ownership of economic engines has nothing to do with racial purity.

Are you purposefully trying to be dishonest here? I'm talking about the

Then you should reread and actually understand what I wrote. Your definitions are overly broad to be useful because pretty much all societies have rules about how businesses is conducted.

It is overly broad for the reasons I stated.

Nope...not overly broad. The only thing that's happening is your attempt at being obtuse and to ignore your very own words.

Incorrect, as I pointed out people's control over economic engines have nothing to do with racial purity.

Purposeful dishonesty again? Hmmm...

I provided a more useful definition at the top of this reply

That's a biased libertarian source, not an objective one so I am not surprised they use doctored definitions. Especially since the definitions are not referenced by legitimate sources like universities.

First of all, your "more useful definition" is Wikipedia and, secondly, it still supports me.

https://fee.org/articles/economic-fascism/

So-called corporatism was adopted in Italy and Germany during the 1930s and was held up as a “model” by quite a few intellectuals and policy makers in the United States and Europe. A version of economic fascism was in fact adopted in the United States in the 1930s and survives to this day. In the United States these policies were not called “fascism” but “planned capitalism.” The word fascism may no longer be politically acceptable, but its synonym “industrial policy” is as popular as ever.

From an economic perspective, fascism meant (and means) an interventionist industrial policy, mercantilism, protectionism, and an ideology that makes the individual subservient to the state.

Economic fascism in Germany followed a ‘virtually identical path. One of the intellectual fathers of German fascism was Paul Lensch, who declared in his book Three Years of World Revolution that “Socialism must present a conscious and determined opposition to individualism.”[33] The philosophy of German fascism was expressed in the slogan, Gemeinnutz geht vor Eigennutz, which means “the common good comes before the private good.” “The Aryan is not greatest in his mental qualities,” Hitler stated in Mein Kampf, but in his noblest form he “willingly subordinates his own ego to the community and, if the hour demands, even sacrifices it.”[34] The individual has “not rights but only duties.”[35]

 

[Nomad4Ever]

Your quotes:

Yes...like I said, he felt there were flaws in socialism and therefore modified it. Both concepts born out the same collectivist ideology.

Yes...that's the main difference between socialism and fascism. One is ethno-nationalism while the other is internationalist. Part of socialism, especially during that era, was the abandonment of national boundaries. It was very important to the socialists cause and therefor his more towards nationalism would put him at severe odds with socialists.

His main break with the socialist movement was abandoning egalitarianism. That seems like a pretty important difference.

 

[NoMoreDems-Reps]

Has anyone noticed that the new conservative buzzword is fascism now that socialism is losing its punch (due to the fact that Russia fell in the 80s)?

Sadly, many of them don't understand the meaning of either word.

What's wores is that most Americans have been Brain Washed in to thinking America is a Democracy....

 

[NolanVoyd]

But but but that 'S'. The one in 'NSDAP'. That 'S' means Hitler was far-left so fascism and socialism means the same thing now!
Never mind what the Nazi's actually did. That 'S'...

Yeah.....and the Democratic Republic of Congo is actually a democratic republic!

It has to be because the name says it is!

 

[Fishking]

Here's the amazing parts...
Hitler and his cronies got their start in the Freikorps, groups of far-right war vets who literally fought socialists in the streets. They hijacked a party to get a presence in the Reichstag and then, on the Night of the Long Knives, purged it of the old-line socialists. When they consolidated their power one of the first things they did was send military support to Franco's conservative, monarchist rebellion against the elected socialist government in Spain. Socialists were among the first 'guests' in the concentration camps and Hitler considered it his mission, one of his missions, to eradicate socialism from the map of Europe.
Despite all this, rightists still point to the 'S' in NSDAP.
Oh yeah, the German government's hold on the means of production was so tight that the AS had to buy their Zyklon B from Degesh and requested that it be delivered without the indicator, the foul smell that warned of It's presence.

The Kingdom of England and the Kingdom of France were the bitterest of enemies and fought each other for hundreds of years. Since they fought each other, they absolutely could not be the same, using your logic.

So, tell me, which one wasn't a real monarchy?

 

[Jredbaron96]

Socialism and fascism are two peas in a pod on the economic side.

A statement which makes no sense, seeing as the only fascist state in history, Italy under Mussolini, bore little resemblance to the premier socialist state of its time, the Soviet Union.

 

[Fishking]

Does not matter. He tried Socialism and was kicked out of the Socialist party. So then he founded Italian fascist one. This in no way supports the idea that fascism is a subset of socialism.

He was kicked out because the socialism of the era was very internationalist in their ideology.

 

[Slartibartfast]

What's wores is that most Americans have been Brain Washed in to thinking America is a Democracy....

America is a democracy.

 

[Fishking]

A statement which makes no sense, seeing as the only fascist state in history, Italy under Mussolini, bore little resemblance to the premier socialist state of its time, the Soviet Union.

Both had totalitarian control over their economies and industry. One was outright government ownership while the other had nominal private industry ownership so controlled that it may as well have been owned. Both are similar in their collectivist ideology but one was international and the other was ethno-nationalist.

 

[OrphanSlug]

Has anyone noticed that the new conservative buzzword is fascism now that socialism is losing its punch (due to the fact that Russia fell in the 80s)?

Sadly, many of them don't understand the meaning of either word.

I blame the public education system, quickly followed by Republicans capitalizing on that ignorance.

 

[Jredbaron96]

Both had totalitarian control over their economies and industry. One was outright government ownership while the other had nominal private industry ownership so controlled that it may as well have been owned.

That certainly was not the case in Italy, where ownership of private industries remained largely consistent after the Fascists took power. The most overt and "totaltarian" measures the Fascist State took during that time were macroeconomic policies that you could find in any capitalist country.

Both are similar in their collectivist ideology but one was international and the other was ethno-nationalist.

That is a very poor and limited distinction between Italy and the USSR.

 

[NolanVoyd]

The Kingdom of England and the Kingdom of France were the bitterest of enemies and fought each other for hundreds of years. Since they fought each other, they absolutely could not be the same, using your logic.

So, tell me, which one wasn't a real monarchy?

Your analogy fails because a Monarchy isn't an ideology it is a person or a family.

 

[Fishking]

So this is where things get a little nuanced, and in my opinion, much more interesting. Socialism, as with capitalism, is a broad term with many different and conflicting ideologies contained within it. For example, if I starting talking about anarcho-capitalism, but I was describing it as though it was all capitalism you would rightly point out that's just one way of doing capitalism.

Yes...anarcho-capitalism is a form of capitalism. And fascism (economically) is a form of socialism. They are both collectivist economic models whereas one purports to accomplish the good of the people through public ownership, the other claims it's for the good of the people by controlling what the businesses do via severe regulation.

Similarly, there are many "socialisms." What you are doing is talking about Marxist-Leninism as though it was socialism. The "goal" of socialism is not totalitarian control of the economy. Certain ideologies within the socialist umbrella certainly believe that the only way to achieve socialism is a strong state, but so do certain ideologies within capitalism.

The goal of socialism and Marxism is never totalitarianism. It's just that that is what it always turns into. What we have seen accomplished is some socialistic policies and programs be carried on the back of capitalism, but we do not see socialism success or not have significant levels of authoritarianism. Collectivism, by it's nature, it's totalitarianism.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Hoisted on your own petard, yet again.

Assertion without evidence.

Economically, they are very similar.

A bat is similar to a kangaroo, but a bat did not come from a kangaroo.

Are you purposefully trying to be dishonest here? I'm talking about the

Incomplete statement.

Nope...not overly broad. The only thing that's happening is your attempt at being obtuse and to ignore your very own words.

I already pointed out that control of business is overly broad since by that standard, literally every society ever is both fascist and socialist. It is overly broad.

Purposeful dishonesty again? Hmmm...

You are running out of counter arguments, given that you are forced to move onto questioning my motivations.

First of all, your "more useful definition" is Wikipedia and, secondly, it still supports me.

https://fee.org/articles/economic-fascism/

So-called corporatism was adopted in Italy and Germany during the 1930s and was held up as a “model” by quite a few intellectuals and policy makers in the United States and Europe. A version of economic fascism was in fact adopted in the United States in the 1930s and survives to this day. In the United States these policies were not called “fascism” but “planned capitalism.” The word fascism may no longer be politically acceptable, but its synonym “industrial policy” is as popular as ever.

So by this definition, the US and all of Europe is fascist and socialist now. Yup, more proof that your definitions are too broad.

From an economic perspective, fascism meant (and means) an interventionist industrial policy, mercantilism, protectionism, and an ideology that makes the individual subservient to the state.

it lists a bunch of non-socialist economic types and then ... and an ideology that makes the individual subservient to the state which is about racial purity. Also it failed to point out that subservience to the state has nothing to do with socialism.

Economic fascism in Germany followed a ‘virtually identical path. One of the intellectual fathers of German fascism was Paul Lensch, who declared in his book Three Years of World Revolution that “Socialism must present a conscious and determined opposition to individualism.”[33] The philosophy of German fascism was expressed in the slogan, Gemeinnutz geht vor Eigennutz, which means “the common good comes before the private good.” “The Aryan is not greatest in his mental qualities,” Hitler stated in Mein Kampf, but in his noblest form he “willingly subordinates his own ego to the community and, if the hour demands, even sacrifices it.”[34] The individual has “not rights but only duties.”[35]

One, this common good is referencing racial purity, not an economic system and second of all ..

You are just switching from one libertarian social engineering think tank to another. Here is a neutral definition from Britannica.

However, the economic programs of the great majority of fascist movements were extremely conservative, favouring the wealthy far more than the middle class and the working class. Their talk of national “socialism” was quite fraudulent in this respect. Although some workers were duped by it before the fascists came to power, most remained loyal to the traditional antifascist parties of the left. As historian John Weiss noted, “Property and income distribution and the traditional class structure remained roughly the same under fascist rule. What changes there were favored the old elites or certain segments of the party leadership.” Historian Roger Eatwell concurred: “If a revolution is understood to mean a significant shift in class relations, including a redistribution of income and wealth, there was no Nazi revolution.”

 

[Slartibartfast]

I blame the public education system, quickly followed by Republicans capitalizing on that ignorance.

They think that ignorance is politically useful.

 

[Fishking]

That certainly was not the case in Italy, where ownership of private industries remained largely consistent after the Fascists took power. The most overt and "totaltarian" measures the Fascist State took during that time were macroeconomic policies that you could find in any capitalist country.

https://fee.org/articles/economic-fascism/

So-called corporatism was adopted in Italy and Germany during the 1930s and was held up as a “model” by quite a few intellectuals and policy makers in the United States and Europe. A version of economic fascism was in fact adopted in the United States in the 1930s and survives to this day. In the United States these policies were not called “fascism” but “planned capitalism.” The word fascism may no longer be politically acceptable, but its synonym “industrial policy” is as popular as ever.

From an economic perspective, fascism meant (and means) an interventionist industrial policy, mercantilism, protectionism, and an ideology that makes the individual subservient to the state.

Economic fascism in Germany followed a ‘virtually identical path. One of the intellectual fathers of German fascism was Paul Lensch, who declared in his book Three Years of World Revolution that “Socialism must present a conscious and determined opposition to individualism.”[33] The philosophy of German fascism was expressed in the slogan, Gemeinnutz geht vor Eigennutz, which means “the common good comes before the private good.” “The Aryan is not greatest in his mental qualities,” Hitler stated in Mein Kampf, but in his noblest form he “willingly subordinates his own ego to the community and, if the hour demands, even sacrifices it.”[34] The individual has “not rights but only duties.”[35]

That is a very poor and limited distinction between Italy and the USSR.

Really? They seems so similar, imo. Both totalitarian regimes that controlled their economies to achieve the goals of the state.

 

[Slavister]

He was kicked out because the socialism of the era was very internationalist in their ideology.

There are clear differences between the two, e.g. "socialism strives for an equal society, and is based on the idea of democratic ownership, and redistribution of wealth. Conversely, fascism strives for the imposition of national and racial superiority, and advocates for economic growth fostered by national companies and corporations"

Fascism supports religious fundamentalism. Socialism separates church and state (and communism does not allow religon at all).

Fascism allows private ownership of companies and profit (as long as it's aligned with state goals). Socialism does not.

Fascism is nationalistic. Socialism is international (as you acknowledged).

Fascism has strict societal hierarhcy. Under socialism, everyone's supposed to be equal (with government helping out minorities).

This implies one cannot be subset of another. Subset means everything that applies to the subset also applies to the superset. That clearly is NOT the case here.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Really? They seems so similar, imo. Both totalitarian regimes that controlled their economies to achieve the goals of the state.

If you paint drywall and a steel plate wall blue, are both blue walls made of drywall?

 

[Nomad4Ever]

And fascism (economically) is a form of socialism.

That just isn't the case. When Marxists talk about capitalism, they mean the capitalist mode of production;

The capitalist mode of production is characterized by private ownership of the means of production, extraction of surplus value by the owning class for the purpose of capital accumulation, wage-based labour and—at least as far as commodities are concerned—being market-based.

Capitalist mode of production (Marxist theory) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Fascism still has all of those characteristics.

not have significant levels of authoritarianism.

What about Rojava or the Zapatistas?

 

[ultmd]

What color is the sky in your world where you believe that I haven't defended my position.

....the sky is blue in "my world" (i.e. the real world), so that's not the right question.

Your question should be directing inward. What color is the sky in the "world" of people like you who attempt to dispute (in direct conflict with all facts and history) that "Fascism" is in ANY WAY a leftist ideology.

You've tried this before, and in EVERY instance, you've been unable to do anything but duck and dodge when challenged to defend your perspective with FACTS (rather than your own personal opinion). Historians and sociologists (and educated people everywhere) all seem to understand what you cannot (or refuse to) acknowledge.

I've never had an issue with it, so I guess that just shows you vapid your position really is, when you're having fantastical conversations inside your imagination.

....at least you use "vapid" correctly.

But you and I both know you can't defend the argument that Fascism is a leftwing ideology (or, as "subset of socialism"). We've done this exercise before...and you lost. Badly.

Remember?

If not, let's go again, shall we?

Post whatever links or information you can muster to make the case that Fascism is a subset of socialism....and I'll take it from there (again).

Yes, that you aren't able to identify an obvious hyperbolic statement that highlights the sheer hypocrisy of anyone on the left complaining about it's overuse.

.....as I stated, your personal opinions and/or emotions are not worth debating when the topic of discussion is one of objective, provable FACTS. You're certainly entitled to feel and think whatever you wish. No one will (or should) denigrate you for what you think, as long as you don't delude yourself that your baseless feelings are "the facts".

I see that you do not know what socialism means.

.....PROJECTION Alert!

Anyone who doesn't understand that programs like SS, Medicare, Medicaid, public schools, etc. etc. etc.....are in FACT examples of pure Socialism.....is someone who is not prepared to defend himself in debate.

So instead I have two questions for you. Tell me, Fishking:

• -how to people like you actually define "Socialism"?
• -what are the differences (in your mind) between Socialism, Communism and Marxism?

Another ill-informed comment. Fascism isn't a catchall phrase that can be used as a stand in for anti-liberal or authoritarianism.

....either you are confused....or you are trying too hard.

Why would you lie about what I said in this way? There was nothing in my previous remarks that stated that Fascism is a "catchall phrase" for ANYTHING. Neither did I even use the term "anti-liberal". I used "anti-democratic", "illiberal", "authoritarianism" and "Fascism" individually. Did that confuse you in some way?

If not, why would you lie about my remarks as you just did?

It's clear (once again) that your goal here is to Deflect and Project because you can't actually back up ANYTHING you say substantively.

So again....I am challenging you to state your case in defense of the absurd argument that "Fascism is a subset of Socialism".

Put up...or hush up.

And if (i.e. when) you fail to do so, we'll BOTH know (as will everyone else) where we stand with respect to this topic, won't we?

It's as simple as that.

 

[Jredbaron96]

Really? They seems so similar, imo. Both totalitarian regimes that controlled their economies to achieve the goals of the state.

Corporatism achieved nothing of note in Italy, which led Mussolini to being labeled "more rhetoric than revolution". Italy lacked a centrally planned economy ala the USSR exactly because the Italian government did not significantly intervene in the economy, save for responses to economic and financial crisis (The Battle for Grain, the Battle for the Lira). This was because Italy effectively maintained the same economic structure it had prior to the Fascist take over, as evident by the fact that Alberto De Stefani was retained in his position.

While much has been said of the Fascist government buying majority ownership in many corporations, its often forgotten that this never resulted in significant changes of leadership or industrial planning. Like the Nazis, the Fascists did not radically restructure their economic system to suit their political means, because unlike in socialist states, economic matters were always of secondary, and sometimes tertiary, concern.

Compare that to the Soviet Union, which tore down the structures of their economy and completed replaced nearly every facet they could realistically manage to do so, and you have two (technically three) systems that don't resemble each other in any real capacity.

 

[Lisa]

fascism and socialism are both authoritarian collectivist schemes where the centralized government is held to be far more important than the rights of individuals.

You should know better then this and maybe you do but you can't admit it. Socialism is an economic idea and is not automatically authoritarian. Socialism can be authoritarian or it can be libertarian. Democratic socialism is not authoritarian.

Fascism is authoritarian government with a state sponsored capitalism that must be authoritarian. It is very conservative.

 

[Fishking]

Assertion without evidence.

Except I placed it in bold what I was referencing. Dishonesty seems to be what is going to rule your responses.

A bat is similar to a kangaroo, but a bat did not come from a kangaroo.

Silly declarative comment without any cogent reasoning, which is unlike what I've posted.

Incomplete statement.

*I'm talking about the economic model of fascism while you keep focusing on the ethno-nationalism. Your continued conflation between the two things is the dishonesty.

I already pointed out that control of business is overly broad since by that standard, literally every society ever is both fascist and socialist. It is overly broad.

You are running out of counter arguments, given that you are forced to move onto questioning my motivations.

Yes, when you shift the conversation to something else, repeatedly, then I do question your motivations. If I were talking about Ford trucks and you kept talking about Chevy, I'd say the same.

So by this definition, the US and all of Europe is fascist and socialist now. Yup, more proof that your definitions are too broad.

For sure fascism is alive and well.

it lists a bunch of non-socialist economic types and then ... and an ideology that makes the individual subservient to the state which is about racial purity. Also it failed to point out that subservience to the state has nothing to do with socialism.

More dishonesty with your conflation of racial purity into the discussion. Further, socialism has everything to do with subservience to the state. How do you think that private ownership is dissolved? Who controls that? How is it accomplished?

One, this common good is referencing racial purity, not an economic system and second of all ..

Yet everything you've posted has mentioned economics and it's literally supported everything I've said. I've put it in bold, ever single time.

You are just switching from one libertarian social engineering think tank to another. Here is a neutral definition from Britannica.

However, the economic programs of the great majority of fascist movements were extremely conservative, favouring the wealthy far more than the middle class and the working class. Their talk of national “socialism” was quite fraudulent in this respect. Although some workers were duped by it before the fascists came to power, most remained loyal to the traditional antifascist parties of the left. As historian John Weiss noted, “Property and income distribution and the traditional class structure remained roughly the same under fascist rule. What changes there were favored the old elites or certain segments of the party leadership.” Historian Roger Eatwell concurred: “If a revolution is understood to mean a significant shift in class relations, including a redistribution of income and wealth, there was no Nazi revolution.”

Yup...sounds like socialism to me. Look at all the socialist countries and you'll literally find the same exact thing. They purport to do one thing but then do another. Collectivism always results in authoritarianism and the creation of the elite class.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Except I placed it in bold what I was referencing. Dishonesty seems to be what is going to rule your responses.

You are simply reasserting something that I had already shown to be wrong, so yes, so far your assertion is without evidence.

Silly declarative comment without any cogent reasoning, which is unlike what I've posted.

You are comparing superficial things about two different systems and declaring them effectively the same. I am simply using your logic. In this case, by your logic, they are the same because they are both mammals.

*I'm talking about the economic model of fascism while you keep focusing on the ethno-nationalism. Your continued conflation between the two things is the dishonesty.

I have already shown where fascists were middle of the road economically. Do I need to post it again? This is also why your assertion at the top comment fails, as you keep focusing on a disproven economic argument.

Yes, when you shift the conversation to something else, repeatedly, then I do question your motivations. If I were talking about Ford trucks and you kept talking about Chevy, I'd say the same.

If you are unable to understand my responses, just ask for clarification and I will be happy to rephrase, its better than simply assuming the worst.

For sure fascism is alive and well.

Incorrect, the last fascist country was Spain, which gave up on it in 1975.

More dishonesty with your conflation of racial purity into the discussion. Further, socialism has everything to do with subservience to the state. How do you think that private ownership is dissolved? Who controls that? How is it accomplished?

The core of fascism is the idea of the ethno-state and racial purity. It is impossible to discuss fascism without that concept.

Socialism is about worker control of the means of production. It is possible that a socialist state could be anything from a dictatorship to an anarchy (at least in theory). Given that it is an economic philosophy and not a social one.

Yet everything you've posted has mentioned economics and it's literally supported everything I've said. I've put it in bold, ever single time.

I am responding to your economic arguments with economic arguments, but you complain I keep bringing up that fascism is at its core about race. Your complaints are self-contradictory here.

Yup...sounds like socialism to me. Look at all the socialist countries and you'll literally find the same exact thing. They purport to do one thing but then do another. Collectivism always results in authoritarianism and the creation of the elite class.

The very first sentence in the quote is

However, the economic programs of the great majority of fascist movements were extremely conservative, favouring the wealthy far more than the middle class and the working class.

Given that socialism is about worker control of the means of production, it is impossible for socialism to favor the wealthy more than the middle class.

Also you are confusing collectivism with both fascism and socialism. Thats yet another different concept.