NationStates Jolt Archive

Do you think Fascism can be a form of Socialism?

They don't call it "National Socialism" for nothin'!

In socialism, the workers have control and ownership over the means of production and distribution.

Under fascism, they do not. So no.

No; while both tie industry and the government together, they do so in different ways.

Under Lenin-type communism (which is what I assume you're talking about), corporations are destroyed and integrated into the state. According to the government rhetoric, the state allies itself with the workers over the industrialists.

Under Mussolini-type fascism, specific corporations are chosen by the government to develop its pet projects. Corporations are not only left unweakened, but they're strengthened. Basically, the state allies itself with industrialists and other money-holding powers against the mob.

I'll also point out that while Hitler's party was, indeed, named the "National Socialist" party, that name was mainly to draw support from the working classes- in Europe, 'socialism' has a somewhat positive connotation to the lower classes; America's weird in that regard.

The US hates socialism and communism because of the Red Scare in the early 1900s. Look it up, it's interesting.

The US hates socialism and communism because of the Red Scare in the early 1900s. Look it up, it's interesting.

I recommend a book that touches on the subject by Barbara Tuchman, "The Proud Tower". It deals with European politics during the period between thew late 1800's to Pre-WWI.

Do you think Fascism can be a form of Socialism?

Fascism and Socialism are as opposite as two political doctrins can be.

While socialism goal is to free workers from the chains of exploitation (you can agree or not that socialism is the way to do it, but you can't deny it's the goal), the goal of fascism is to bind forever the workers to the chain of exploitation, and denying them the right to the resist.

While socialism is about giving the control of the means of production back to the workers, breaking the classical authority shcemes, fascism is about enforing authority.

While socialism is about everyone being equal and deserving the right to enjoy life, fascism is completly built on the idea that some people deserve more than the others.

While socialism promotes working together and solidarity, fascism promotes competition, being the best, and too bad for the one who fails at least as much, if not more, than pure capitalism does.

Also, don't forget that "communists" and "socialists" were the first targets of fascism (be it by Mussolini, Hitler or Franco), and were also among the first to fight for freedom during those dark hours.

Do you think Fascism can be a form of Socialism?Can be? It is. No doubt about it. Not even worth arguing about. Fascism is viewed as heretical by socialists and communists so they vehemently disavow any connection to it. The main rift is Fascism is nationalist/ethnocentric and socialism and communism are internationalist.

Mussolini was a socialist before he spawned fascism. Hitler was a socialist and at first was an apostle of Mussolini. Later the roles switched because Mussolini did everything half assed and the Italian military didn't want to fight for him.

One of the things that bothers me is that if I were to walk around with picture of Hitler on my t-shirt, people would not take kindly to it. But it's perfectly Ok to walk around with a picture of Che Guevara or Mao on my chest. That's cool and hip. But all three were monsters who brought nothing but misery and death to millions and they all shared the same basic political and economic beliefs.

In socialism, the workers have control and ownership over the means of production and distribution.

Under fascism, they do not. So no.

Thats odd, I live in a Socialist state and the workers are the ones that own jack. And I can garnentee the Good People of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea don't have much control of anything.

Thats odd, I live in a Socialist state and the workers are the ones that own jack. And I can garnentee the Good People of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea don't have much control of anything.

Then they aren't socialist either, duh.

[Snipped, and abridged] Socialists like sunshine and kittens. Fascists do not.

Now, to tear your post to pieces.

Firstly, what distinguishes socialism from other economic systems is not the attitudes held to kittens and sunshine, but the way in which the economy works.

Fascism is a form of socialism. Fascists are more refined in their economic and political thinking than other solutions. They realise that the traditional socialist model, of the state taking ownership of all productive property, does not only create huge resistance, but isn't necessary. Fascists and other socialists have the same econonic idea, namely that the individual has no right to control his economic affairs, his government must do it for him. Taking ownership directly is a simple and obvious method, if you own something, of course you would control it. The fascists take a more nuanced view of affairs. They realise that ownership entails many different "powers" over that property, and government can control/take/regulate those powers without taking ownership. Ownership then becomes a purely nominal affair.

While socialism goal is to free workers from the chains of exploitation (you can agree or not that socialism is the way to do it, but you can't deny it's the goal), the goal of fascism is to bind forever the workers to the chain of exploitation, and denying them the right to the resist.

Nonsense, and irrelevant nonsense at that. Talking about what you see as good intentions proves nothing.

While socialism is about giving the control of the means of production back to the workers, breaking the classical authority shcemes, fascism is about enforing authority.

Simply wrong. Socialism is about centralising ownership within the state, fascism is about the state exercising all the real powers of ownership. They are in fact the same approach. The State decides how much of what is produced by what methods, and to whom it is distributed in what quantities.

While socialism is about everyone being equal and deserving the right to enjoy life, fascism is completly built on the idea that some people deserve more than the others.

Soundbite, not a useful point.

While socialism promotes working together and solidarity, fascism promotes competition, being the best, and too bad for the one who fails at least as much, if not more, than pure capitalism does.

Incorrect. Fascism promotes unity and solidarity, they promote it in every sphere, from the cradle to the grave. Fascism abolishes economic competition, they cartelise, and centralise the economy under the government. The only non-Marxian socialists who talked about Darwinism were the National Socialists, who only ever practiced in biological terms. They did not practice it in economic terms.

The fascists too held to socialistic sloganeering about the economy serving the people, which always means private enterprise is forced to serve state interests.

Also, don't forget that "communists" and "socialists" were the first targets of fascism (be it by Mussolini, Hitler or Franco), and were also among the first to fight for freedom during those dark hours.

Firstly, no socialist can ever fight for freedom and stay a socialist. Socialists fight for socialism.

Secondly, why do you think the rivalry proves anything? If anything, it would tend to show a similarity. The reason for the rivalry with the communists, and not for conservative, or classical liberal groups, is that the populations of the countries involved all steped into the same trap, of going for demagogues to provide the solutions. The communists were Hitler's only dangerous rivals for power, no other party could threaten them, nor could they form a coalition that could. They fought so hard against the communists not because they found communism objectionable, but because the communists were strong, almost as strong as the National Socialists, they were the main threat to Hitler.

The US hates socialism and communism because of the Red Scare in the early 1900s. Look it up, it's interesting.

WTF?

That statement is a non-sequitor.

Under Lenin-type communism (which is what I assume you're talking about), corporations are destroyed and integrated into the state. According to the government rhetoric, the state allies itself with the workers over the industrialists.

Under Mussolini-type fascism, specific corporations are chosen by the government to develop its pet projects. Corporations are not only left unweakened, but they're strengthened. Basically, the state allies itself with industrialists and other money-holding powers against the mob.

Acutally, the two are the same (although your statements about fascists are factually wrong). Fascists take control of the economy with a huge mass of government regulation, and bureaucracy. Communists simply take ownership. The difference in approach (without a difference in result) would tend to explain why fascists tend to enter office legally, and communists never.

What fascists do is play all sides against the middle. They get big business on side by promising to secure them from union action, and competition. They get the mob on side by promising full employment at good terms. They do in fact deliver on these promises, but the promises never have the result intended.

In socialism, the workers have control and ownership over the means of production and distribution.

That is not socialism. Firstly, the rhetoric about "workers' control" is simply that, rhetoric. In reality, the state takes control.

Secondly, workers' control is a perfectly capitalistic concept. Capitalists in this respect of course respect the rights of all individuals. Socialists, even if they did actually hand industry over to the workers, would not do it in a way that respected the rights of all individuals.

Fascists and other socialists have the same econonic idea, namely that the individual has no right to control his economic affairs, his government must do it for him.

That's not at all what socialism is. Learn what socialism is before speaking about it, please.

Firstly, no socialist can ever fight for freedom and stay a socialist. Socialists fight for socialism.

This is an insult to the memory of the tens of thousands socialists (or communists) all around Europe who gave their blood for freedom.

I ask you to apologize immediatly.

That is not socialism. Firstly, the rhetoric about "workers' control" is simply that, rhetoric. In reality, the state takes control.

Control of the means of production by workers is what socialism is. Everything else is not socialism, but something who claim to be what is is not.

Secondly, workers' control is a perfectly capitalistic concept.

No, capitalism, in its core principles, empowers the OWNERS and not the WORKERS with the control.

Learn what capitalism, socialism and communism are before speaking about them.

This is an insult to the memory of the tens of thousands socialists (or communists) all around Europe who gave their blood for freedom.

I ask you to apologize immediatly.

Keep your shirt on, Vanessa.

Socialism has nothing to do with freedom.

Control of the means of production by workers is what socialism is. Everything else is not socialism, but something who claim to be what is is not.

No, that is the rhetoric. Socialism should not be judged by the rhetoric of socialists, but by what socialists actually do. So far, 170 million deaths at least can be attributed to socialist governments.

No, capitalism, in its core principles, empowers the OWNERS and not the WORKERS with the control.

Learn what capitalism, socialism and communism are before speaking about them.

You have no idea what you're on about. Capitalism is about the soverignty of the individual. His right to live, trade, and prosper without interference.

Do you think Fascism can be a form of Socialism?
Seeing as to how they're polar economic opposites: no.

Good stuff everyone. I agree with Disraeliland 3. I think Fascism is a form of Socialism. In both systems, the means of production are still controlled by the government, they are just different approaches.

Seeing as to how they're polar economic opposites: no.

Are you sure about that? Are you just basing this on the one dimensional left/right political spectrum? If you plot the two ideologies on the Nolan Chart, you would be surprised at how close they actually are.

Are you sure about that? Are you just basing this on the one dimensional left/right political spectrum? If you plot the two ideologies on the Nolan Chart, you would be surprised at how close they actually are.
Aw...crap. The American in me was showing again.

*mainstream American train of thought =
Socialism --> Communism --> Stalin, Lenin, and loads of other baddies --> Economy run solely by the government --> Hates Facists
Facism --> Nazism and the government in Italy & Spain --> Rather centeralized economy, however, there is some capitalism --> Hates Communists*

Well, my answer is still no. But, that's what I was thinking. In Socialism, the people own the things, and the people run the government (in theory of course). However, under Facism, its more like the government is ensuring thier prosperty, and its not really the peolpe's decision. So, pretty much what Kanabia said, and I quote it for agreement.

In socialism, the workers have control and ownership over the means of production and distribution.

Under fascism, they do not. So no.
Close, but no cigar. People have made more fuss over smaller things.

My 0.02 American

Just a side point here which is really relevant but I thought i'd mention.

"Language is fascist because it compels speech. Language uses us and decides what can and cannot be spoken. In this sense language is repressive. Even to acquire language in the first place involves repression in the individual on a pretty massive scale."

"Language is fascist because it compels speech. Language uses us and decides what can and cannot be spoken. In this sense language is repressive. Even to acquire language in the first place involves repression in the individual on a pretty massive scale."
The only thing is, language is often considered a way of freedom. Its a way to express ourselves. How is language repressive when it allows us to express our thoughts, feelings, ideas, disperse information easily, and help us record where we came from?

They don't call it "National Socialism" for nothin'!
They called it National Socialism because they felt that would go over better than calling themselves fascists, in fact.

Mussolini was a socialist before he spawned fascism. Hitler was a socialist and at first was an apostle of Mussolini. Later the roles switched because Mussolini did everything half assed and the Italian military didn't want to fight for him.

Nice rewriting of history there. Mussolini was a socialist until he was expelled from the party for his extreme views. Try again.

The other difference between fascism (and its sister, National Socialism), and other types of socialism is how they make appeals for popular support. They are both collectivists in this sense, however, they preach to different collectives, socialists tend to preach at the working class (in spite of this, socialism has always been, and remains a middle and upper class ideology), fascists tend to preach to the whole nation in nationalistic terms. The National Socialists (unlike Italian fascists) defined nationality in more racial terms. The closest mainstream socialists get to nationalistic appeals is so-called "buy-American" campaigns.

They called it National Socialism because they felt that would go over better than calling themselves fascists, in fact.

The term National Socialist did fit their ideology well. The term fascism did too, though with more brevity.

however, there is some capitalism

No, there isn't, no real capitalism. Fascism has the outward appearance of capitalism, because ownership is left in private hands, however, this private ownership exists in name only because the nominal private owners had no control over their property.

Well, my answer is still no. But, that's what I was thinking. In Socialism, the people own the things, and the people run the government (in theory of course). However, under Facism, its more like the government is ensuring thier prosperty, and its not really the peolpe's decision. So, pretty much what Kanabia said, and I quote it for agreement.

You're mistaking socialist rhetoric for socialist reality. In reality, the only way the workers can actually gain real control over the means of production is to buy them in a free market. In this way, the workers can acquire an indisputable title to the assets, and can exert real control over them without anyone being able to legitimately intervene.

Socialism in reality means government control, while talking about workers' control. Of course, any such talk is deceptive. "The People" isn't an incorporated association that can be treated as a single entity. There are only individuals. The only sense in which "the people" can be said to be incorporated is within a state. Of course, in any such arrangement, ownership is removed from authority and control, as it is in a corporation, the board of directors make the decisions, while the shareholders own it. In the case of a state, the government makes the decisions.

Under fascism, the government doesn't ensure property rights. Perhaps I could use wood as an analogy for property rights: socialists tend to set fire to the wood, fascists are like termites, eating it away from the inside. It might look sound from the outside, but it is hollow and rotten on the inside.


It is an age-old tactic of socialists and their apologists to distinguish themselves from the totalitarian socialist regimes. In this they contradict themselves, because socialism cannot survive without a totalitarian state, or at least not in a stable manner.

George Reisman explains this better than I can: http://www.mises.org/story/1937

Now I think that a fundamental fact that explains the all-round reign of terror found under socialism is the incredible dilemma in which a socialist state places itself in relation to the masses of its citizens. On the one hand, it assumes full responsibility for the individual's economic well-being. Russian or Bolshevik-style socialism openly avows this responsibility — this is the main source of its popular appeal. On the other hand, in all of the ways one can imagine, a socialist state makes an unbelievable botch of the job. It makes the individual's life a nightmare.

Every day of his life, the citizen of a socialist state must spend time in endless waiting lines. For him, the problems Americans experienced in the gasoline shortages of the 1970s are normal; only he does not experience them in relation to gasoline — for he does not own a car and has no hope of ever owning one — but in relation to simple items of clothing, to vegetables, even to bread. Even worse he is frequently forced to work at a job that is not of his choice and which he therefore must certainly hate. (For under shortages, the government comes to decide the allocation of labor just as it does the allocation of the material factors of production.) And he lives in a condition of unbelievable overcrowding, with hardly ever a chance for privacy. (In the face of housing shortages, boarders are assigned to homes; families are compelled to share apartments. And a system of internal passports and visas is adopted to limit the severity of housing shortages in the more desirable areas of the country.) To put it mildly, a person forced to live in such conditions must seethe with resentment and hostility.

Now against whom would it be more logical for the citizens of a socialist state to direct their resentment and hostility than against that very socialist state itself? The same socialist state which has proclaimed its responsibility for their life, has promised them a life of bliss, and which in fact is responsible for giving them a life of hell. Indeed, the leaders of a socialist state live in a further dilemma, in that they daily encourage the people to believe that socialism is a perfect system whose bad results can only be the work of evil men. If that were true, who in reason could those evil men be but the rulers themselves, who have not only made life a hell, but have perverted an allegedly perfect system to do it?

It follows that the rulers of a socialist state must live in terror of the people. By the logic of their actions and their teachings, the boiling, seething resentment of the people should well up and swallow them in an orgy of bloody vengeance. The rulers sense this, even if they do not admit it openly; and thus their major concern is always to keep the lid on the citizenry.

Consequently, it is true but very inadequate merely to say such things as that socialism lacks freedom of the press and freedom of speech. Of course, it lacks these freedoms. If the government owns all the newspapers and publishing houses, if it decides for what purposes newsprint and paper are to be made available, then obviously nothing can be printed which the government does not want printed. If it owns all the meeting halls, no public speech or lecture can be delivered which the government does not want delivered. But socialism goes far beyond the mere lack of freedom of press and speech.

A socialist government totally annihilates these freedoms. It turns the press and every public forum into a vehicle of hysterical propaganda in its own behalf, and it engages in the relentless persecution of everyone who dares to deviate by so much as an inch from its official party line.

The reason for these facts is the socialist rulers' terror of the people. To protect themselves, they must order the propaganda ministry and the secret police to work 'round the clock. The one, to constantly divert the people's attention from the responsibility of socialism, and of the rulers of socialism, for the people's misery. The other, to spirit away and silence anyone who might even remotely suggest the responsibility of socialism or its rulers — to spirit away anyone who begins to show signs of thinking for himself. It is because of the rulers' terror, and their desperate need to find scapegoats for the failures of socialism, that the press of a socialist country is always full of stories about foreign plots and sabotage, and about corruption and mismanagement on the part of subordinate officials, and why, periodically, it is necessary to unmask large-scale domestic plots and to sacrifice major officials and entire factions in giant purges.

It is because of their terror, and their desperate need to crush every breath even of potential opposition, that the rulers of socialism do not dare to allow even purely cultural activities that are not under the control of the state. For if people so much as assemble for an art show or poetry reading that is not controlled by the state, the rulers must fear the dissemination of dangerous ideas. Any unauthorized ideas are dangerous ideas, because they can lead people to begin thinking for themselves and thus to begin thinking about the nature of socialism and its rulers. The rulers must fear the spontaneous assembly of a handful of people in a room, and use the secret police and its apparatus of spies, informers, and terror either to stop such meetings or to make sure that their content is entirely innocuous from the point of view of the state.

Socialism cannot be ruled for very long except by terror. As soon as the terror is relaxed, resentment and hostility logically begin to well up against the rulers. The stage is thus set for a revolution or civil war. In fact, in the absence of terror, or, more correctly, a sufficient degree of terror, socialism would be characterized by an endless series of revolutions and civil wars, as each new group of rulers proved as incapable of making socialism function successfully as its predecessors before it. The inescapable inference to be drawn is that the terror actually experienced in the socialist countries was not simply the work of evil men, such as Stalin, but springs from the nature of the socialist system. Stalin could come to the fore because his unusual willingness and cunning in the use of terror were the specific characteristics most required by a ruler of socialism in order to remain in power. He rose to the top by a process of socialist natural selection: the selection of the worst.

I need to anticipate a possible misunderstanding concerning my thesis that socialism is totalitarian by its nature. This concerns the allegedly socialist countries run by Social Democrats, such as Sweden and the other Scandinavian countries, which are clearly not totalitarian dictatorships.

In such cases, it is necessary to realize that along with these countries not being totalitarian, they are also not socialist. Their governing parties may espouse socialism as their philosophy and their ultimate goal, but socialism is not what they have implemented as their economic system. Their actual economic system is that of a hampered market economy, as Mises termed it. While more hampered than our own in important respects, their economic system is essentially similar to our own, in that the characteristic driving force of production and economic activity is not government decree but the initiative of private owners motivated by the prospect of private profit.

The reason that Social Democrats do not establish socialism when they come to power, is that they are unwilling to do what would be required. The establishment of socialism as an economic system requires a massive act of theft — the means of production must be seized from their owners and turned over to the state. Such seizure is virtually certain to provoke substantial resistance on the part of the owners, resistance which can be overcome only by use of massive force.

The Communists were and are willing to apply such force, as evidenced in Soviet Russia. Their character is that of armed robbers prepared to commit murder if that is what is necessary to carry out their robbery. The character of the Social Democrats in contrast is more like that of pickpockets, who may talk of pulling the big job someday, but who in fact are unwilling to do the killing that would be required, and so give up at the slightest sign of serious resistance.

As for the Nazis, they generally did not have to kill in order to seize the property of Germans other than Jews. This was because, as we have seen, they established socialism by stealth, through price controls, which served to maintain the outward guise and appearance of private ownership. The private owners were thus deprived of their property without knowing it and thus felt no need to defend it by force.

I think I have shown that socialism — actual socialism — is totalitarian by its very nature.

-snip-
So, are we talking about reality or theory here. Are we taling about Socialism (pretty much every state on the planet) or Communism?
I started out with reality.
Someone got up in my face and said, "Dude, that's not right at all!"
*points to above post and next padge*

And now, again. Although my name wasn't included, which was all rather confusing.

socialists tend to set fire to the wood, fascists are like termites, eating it away from the inside. It might look sound from the outside, but it is hollow and rotten on the inside.
Which is why the economies collasped under war time.

http://econ161.berkeley.edu/TCEH/Slouch_title.html

So, in essence, we agree.

Thats odd, I live in a Socialist state and the workers are the ones that own jack. And I can garnentee the Good People of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea don't have much control of anything.


saying you're a flying wombat doesn't make it so

Can be? It is. No doubt about it. Not even worth arguing about. Fascism is viewed as heretical by socialists and communists so they vehemently disavow any connection to it. The main rift is Fascism is nationalist/ethnocentric and socialism and communism are internationalist.

Mussolini was a socialist before he spawned fascism. Hitler was a socialist and at first was an apostle of Mussolini. Later the roles switched because Mussolini did everything half assed and the Italian military didn't want to fight for him.

One of the things that bothers me is that if I were to walk around with picture of Hitler on my t-shirt, people would not take kindly to it. But it's perfectly Ok to walk around with a picture of Che Guevara or Mao on my chest. That's cool and hip. But all three were monsters who brought nothing but misery and death to millions and they all shared the same basic political and economic beliefs.



you joking???............people don't dislike Hitler because of his views on effective economic policy...I think it was more that whole.......mass murder of anyone who opposed him and a fair proportion of a race kinda thing. Also the other guys you mentioned weren't overly socalist either, for explanation see earlier post for wombat references.

Heh, it's always amusing when people invoke the ultimate Godwin by comparing facism to socialism, and by extension Nazism to socialism. Never mind the fact Hitler really didn't give a shit about how the economy was run, as long as it worked - he was adament about his social policy, but not economic.

But, if it makes it easier for you to define anyone evil as left wing so you can be confident with your idea that "Right wing good, left wing bad", then go ahead.

Next up - how Pinochet was a goddamn commie!

So, are we talking about reality or theory here. Are we taling about Socialism (pretty much every state on the planet) or Communism?

Except that socialism doesn't blight almost every country on the planet. You probably should have read the Reisman excerpt in more detail.

Most countries have hampered market economies. The driving force of economic activities in these countries (even such places as Sweden, or Norway) is still private owners, who are motivated by private profit. What happens is not socialism, but merely a government hampering of the economy, by taxation, regulation, tariffs, etc. The state doesn't drive the economy, it just takes some of the proceeds.

These undermine private ownership, but do not eliminate it, in either the de-jure sense of communism, or the de-facto sense of fascism.

Communists of course eliminate it by simply stealing everything. Fascists do it in a more stealthy manner. The most important instrument is probably price and wage controls, combined with rampant inflation. I refer you back to Reisman again:

De facto government ownership of the means of production, as Mises termed it, was logically implied by such fundamental collectivist principles embraced by the Nazis as that the common good comes before the private good and the individual exists as a means to the ends of the State. If the individual is a means to the ends of the State, so too, of course, is his property. Just as he is owned by the State, his property is also owned by the State.

But what specifically established de facto socialism in Nazi Germany was the introduction of price and wage controls in 1936. These were imposed in response to the inflation of the money supply carried out by the regime from the time of its coming to power in early 1933. The Nazi regime inflated the money supply as the means of financing the vast increase in government spending required by its programs of public works, subsidies, and rearmament. The price and wage controls were imposed in response to the rise in prices that began to result from the inflation.

The effect of the combination of inflation and price and wage controls is shortages, that is, a situation in which the quantities of goods people attempt to buy exceed the quantities available for sale.

Shortages, in turn, result in economic chaos. It's not only that consumers who show up in stores early in the day are in a position to buy up all the stocks of goods and leave customers who arrive later, with nothing — a situation to which governments typically respond by imposing rationing. Shortages result in chaos throughout the economic system. They introduce randomness in the distribution of supplies between geographical areas, in the allocation of a factor of production among its different products, in the allocation of labor and capital among the different branches of the economic system.

In the face of the combination of price controls and shortages, the effect of a decrease in the supply of an item is not, as it would be in a free market, to raise its price and increase its profitability, thereby operating to stop the decrease in supply, or reverse it if it has gone too far. Price control prohibits the rise in price and thus the increase in profitability. At the same time, the shortages caused by price controls prevent increases in supply from reducing price and profitability. When there is a shortage, the effect of an increase in supply is merely a reduction in the severity of the shortage. Only when the shortage is totally eliminated does an increase in supply necessitate a decrease in price and bring about a decrease in profitability.

As a result, the combination of price controls and shortages makes possible random movements of supply without any effect on price and profitability. In this situation, the production of the most trivial and unimportant goods, even pet rocks, can be expanded at the expense of the production of the most urgently needed and important goods, such as life-saving medicines, with no effect on the price or profitability of either good. Price controls would prevent the production of the medicines from becoming more profitable as their supply decreased, while a shortage even of pet rocks prevented their production from becoming less profitable as their supply increased.

As Mises showed, to cope with such unintended effects of its price controls, the government must either abolish the price controls or add further measures, namely, precisely the control over what is produced, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it is distributed, which I referred to earlier. The combination of price controls with this further set of controls constitutes the de facto socialization of the economic system. For it means that the government then exercises all of the substantive powers of ownership.

This was the socialism instituted by the Nazis. And Mises calls it socialism on the German or Nazi pattern, in contrast to the more obvious socialism of the Soviets, which he calls socialism on the Russian or Bolshevik pattern.

Of course, socialism does not end the chaos caused by the destruction of the price system. It perpetuates it. And if it is introduced without the prior existence of price controls, its effect is to inaugurate that very chaos. This is because socialism is not actually a positive economic system. It is merely the negation of capitalism and its price system. As such, the essential nature of socialism is one and the same as the economic chaos resulting from the destruction of the price system by price and wage controls. (I want to point out that Bolshevik-style socialism's imposition of a system of production quotas, with incentives everywhere to exceed the quotas, is a sure formula for universal shortages, just as exist under all around price and wage controls.)

At most, socialism merely changes the direction of the chaos. The government's control over production may make possible a greater production of some goods of special importance to itself, but it does so only at the expense of wreaking havoc throughout the rest of the economic system. This is because the government has no way of knowing the effects on the rest of the economic system of its securing the production of the goods to which it attaches special importance.

In real socialist countries, the motivator of economic activity is state decree. The government actually decides how much of what is to be produced by what methods, to whom it is to be distributed, and what prices will be charged, and wages paid.

Also the other guys you mentioned weren't overly socalist either, for explanation see earlier post for wombat references.

Typical socialist apologist nonsense.

Heh, it's always amusing when people invoke the ultimate Godwin by comparing facism to socialism, and by extension Nazism to socialism. Never mind the fact Hitler really didn't give a shit about how the economy was run, as long as it worked - he was adament about his social policy, but not economic.

But, if it makes it easier for you to define anyone evil as left wing so you can be confident with your idea that "Right wing good, left wing bad", then go ahead.

Next up - how Pinochet was a goddamn commie!

Rubbish.

Firstly, Hitler did care about how the economy was run, and was determined to run it. Economics was an important part of his plan, and an important part of his appeal.

The rest of your post is nothing more than fact-free ridicule.

In real socialist countries, the motivator of economic activity is state decree. The government actually decides how much of what is to be produced by what methods, to whom it is to be distributed, and what prices will be charged, and wages paid.
Okay, I know what you're talking about now.

You don't really have to argue with me. I've always thought that the USSR for instance wasn't turely "Socialist," and it helps that names don't mean anything the realm of politics. We have a misunderstanding of certain definitions, as some words, namely "socialism", aren't clearly defined.

I'm done here, as I'm not really in the mood for debate.

Rubbish.

Firstly, Hitler did care about how the economy was run, and was determined to run it. Economics was an important part of his plan, and an important part of his appeal.

The rest of your post is nothing more than fact-free ridicule.

He cared because he wanted it to be effective and solve the problems of the depression. Beyond that, he wasn't that bothered how he ran it - he just wanted Germany to be strong.

I had to study the differences between the German and American economic responses to the Great Depression for a history seminar. One of the points made by an article I read was that both FDR and Hitler had overall visions about how things should be done, but left most of the nitty gritty economics to others to sort out for them.

George Reisman explains this better than I can: http://www.mises.org/story/1937

I love the smell of strawmen in the morning...:rolleyes:

He cared because he wanted it to be effective and solve the problems of the depression.

That distinguishes him from other politicians of the time how, exactly?

I had to study the differences between the German and American economic responses to the Great Depression for a history seminar. One of the points made by an article I read was that both FDR and Hitler had overall visions about how things should be done, but left most of the nitty gritty economics to others to sort out for them.

Again, this proves nothing. Both leaders favoured socialism, and surrounded themselves with those who would do the work. All political leaders do this, they have a vision, and when in office, surround themselves with people who have the actual abilities necessary to bring it into reality (or at least try).

I love the smell of strawmen in the morning...

Bollocks.

I've always thought that the USSR for instance wasn't turely "Socialist," and it helps that names don't mean anything the realm of politics. We have a misunderstanding of certain definitions, as some words, namely "socialism", aren't clearly defined.

I would say that no economy can ever be totally socialist, but that is not because the leaders aren't fully socialist, it is because one can't change the fact that individuals have their own interests, and will try to advance them. A black market would be the result, and the USSR had a thriving black market, in spite of the efforts to stop it.

I think socialism is quite clearly defined, as a political and economic system that advocates state control over all the economy. Some people do obscure the definition, so as to place their ideas in a good light, but this changes nothing.

There are things that are claimed by socialists, but are not in fact socialistic, like collective ownership. A corporation, surely the Devil to most socialists, is a collectively owned entity. Workers' control is also not inheriently socialist, and in fact, the successes of capitalism have made it possible for workers to gain more control over the means of production, through being prosperous enough to invest. A welfare state is not socialist (although the advocates of it do draw upon their rhetoric, and to good effect, evidenced by the fact that it is so widespread).

The talk of socialism being based on cooperation rather than competition I regard as false, because there is no opposition between competition and cooperation. Voluntary cooperation can be said to be what drives capitalism, competition enhances this by enabling us to choose with whom it is best to cooperate in terms of advancing our interests. Socialists commit a lot of rhetorical tricks in talking about cooperation, one is that for cooperation to happen, we all have to agree common goals, then the issue is how to achieve them. Of course, one cannot change the fact that individuals have their own interests, and will try to advance them, so I would cooperate with you if I believed it improved my situation, and vice versa for you.

I would not describe the various forms of "voluntary socialism" as actually being socialism. Since the participants made a free decision to pool assets, they can presumably make a free decision to remove themselves, and their assets, were such a decision impossible, it would not be voluntary. I don't see a real difference between investing in a corporation, or moving to some socialistic commune.

a little late, but. . .

socialism is a broad term. it cannot be totally compared to fascism.
fascism is dictatorship in a socialism blanket.

damn nazis

Whether you liberals like it or not Fascism and Nazism are two forms of left wing governments(big government,high taxes,public programs,big public projects) One big difference is that Nazism is a racialist form of a type of socialism. Meaning Nazism favors socialism for their race only (if you were a German worker you recieved the usual socialist benefits, if you were a jew you got nothing)

And Hitlers party was actually called the German Workers Socialist Party. It took several years for them to add the word National in their name.

I think they can be the same thing. I'm no political scientist, but I thought facism was a form of dictatorship whereby they have total control of the economy. So facists can use they're control to institute any kind of economic system they want. Whereas socialism the government has total economic control, but it uses it to evenly redistribute wealth.

Bollocks.

I don't see why.

Whether you liberals like it or not Fascism and Nazism are two forms of left wing governments(big government,high taxes,public programs,big public projects) One big difference is that Nazism is a racialist form of a type of socialism. Meaning Nazism favors socialism for their race only (if you were a German worker you recieved the usual socialist benefits, if you were a jew you got nothing)

And Hitlers party was actually called the German Workers Socialist Party. It took several years for them to add the word National in their name.

ROFLMFAO!!!:p

So now you're equating Nazism, Fascism, Socialism and Liberalism as the same? You must be a puppet.

No, socialism, whether the right likes it or not, is about working class self-liberation and ownership of the means of production. Names really don't mean squat unless you believe China is a people's republic.

Whether you liberals like it or not Fascism and Nazism are two forms of left wing governments(big government,high taxes,public programs,big public projects)

me thinks that your definition of 'left wing' is incoherent at best.

question, do you find old school monarchy to be on the left?

me thinks that your definition of 'left wing' is incoherent at best.

question, do you find old school monarchy to be on the left?
Of course it is: the monarch probably isn't a member of Skull and Bones from when he got into Yale on a cheerleading scholarship.

Of course it is: the monarch probably isn't a member of Skull and Bones from when he got into Yale on a cheerleading scholarship.

LOL.


Okay, I had kind of a question, I don't think anyone answered it yet but I may be wrong... aren't there generally differences in the amount of social control the government has over the people in fascist versus socialist countries? And I'm not talking about countries that just say they're socialist. I could say I was a strawberry pop-tart and that wouldn't make me one.

LOL.


Okay, I had kind of a question, I don't think anyone answered it yet but I may be wrong... aren't there generally differences in the amount of social control the government has over the people in fascist versus socialist countries? And I'm not talking about countries that just say they're socialist. I could say I was a strawberry pop-tart and that wouldn't make me one.

Yep, Fascism offers very limited freedoms wheras the only freedoms you lose under Socialism are economic freedoms (ie. the right to start a business etc.).

Okay, I had kind of a question, I don't think anyone answered it yet but I may be wrong... aren't there generally differences in the amount of social control the government has over the people in fascist versus socialist countries?

depends. some forms of socialism call for a lot of control over people, at least at some stages of their program. some don't.

Re: OP:
It depends what you think socialism is. Socialism in the truest sense involves worker control of the means of production, which has pretty much never happened on any sort of scale.

If you accept modern definitions and would class Scandinavian nations as socialist thanks to their extreme welfare state approach, then yes.

Nazi Germany had extensive healthcare programs (for aryans) and a comprehensive pensions system (for aryans) as well as big gov't. spending in other areas.

Many fascists were welfare-state socialists.

The US hates socialism and communism because of the Red Scare in the early 1900s. Look it up, it's interesting.

What about the Korean War, Vietnam, the whole Cold War? That was more pressing than the Red Scare.

Many fascists were welfare-state socialists.

or - more accurately - many fascists were fascists, which sometimes entails claiming to support a welfare state (to a certain extent) if they think it would be helpful in achieving their actual goals.

Are fascists welfare statists? Absolutely. This distinguishes them from other forces on the political right, and gives them something in common with liberals, etc.

What liberalism, Stalinism, and fascism all have in common--but Marxism rejects absolutely--is the premise of, as Stalin put it, "building socialism in one country," or in other words, building a "national socialism." This premise requires the sacrifice of the international solidarity that is central to Marxist scientific socialism in favor of a nationalism that inevitably leads to class collaboration.

The relation of fascist 'socialism' to Marxist socialism thus parallels the relation of a company union to a militant class-struggle union ... with the Gerhard Schroeders, Joseph Stalins, and Clement Attlees, if we press the analogy, occupying the intermediate position of corrupt bosses of a bloated and insular dues base (e.g. Jimmy Hoffa).

or - more accurately - many fascists were fascists, which sometimes entails claiming to support a welfare state (to a certain extent) if they think it would be helpful in achieving their actual goals.

It's not claiming when you spend gazillions of Deutschmarks on it. Hitler genuinely believed in government support and control of health, education and old age (of Aryans).

It's not claiming when you spend gazillions of Deutschmarks on it. Hitler genuinely believed in government support and control of health, education and old age (of Aryans).

fascists will say and do pretty much anything in their quest towards power. including institute a welfare state. but the fact that they did so does not imply that it was part of their essential program. they would be equally fascist with an even more massive welfare state or if they lacked one entirely.

Do you think Fascism can be a form of Socialism?
Define "socialism" and "fascism", first. Nobody can ever seem to agree on what each means.

If I were to go by what I've seen by how socialists and fascists describe themselves, there is a difference. Sure, they both want State control, but they've got a different methodology about it. Socialists say "Workers need control of the means of production", while fascists say "The State should control everything". The difference here being that the fascists don't care so much about taking things for the workers, and they'd rather the State control everything for everyone, while the socialists generally say they want state control as an extension of worker's democratic choice or something.
What they both are is command economies.

fascists will say and do pretty much anything in their quest towards power. including institute a welfare state. but the fact that they did so does not imply that it was part of their essential program. they would be equally fascist with an even more massive welfare state or if they lacked one entirely.

We can say this about anyone. What possible criteria can we judge a leader's ideology on other than what they say AND do? Hitler both said he supported pensions, healthy living etc., and implemented programs to make them happen. What evidence, in comparison, is there that these things were NOT a part of his ideology?

Fascism and Socialism are as opposite as two political doctrins can be.

While socialism goal is to free workers from the chains of exploitation (you can agree or not that socialism is the way to do it, but you can't deny it's the goal), the goal of fascism is to bind forever the workers to the chain of exploitation, and denying them the right to the resist.

While socialism is about giving the control of the means of production back to the workers, breaking the classical authority shcemes, fascism is about enforing authority.

While socialism is about everyone being equal and deserving the right to enjoy life, fascism is completly built on the idea that some people deserve more than the others.

While socialism promotes working together and solidarity, fascism promotes competition, being the best, and too bad for the one who fails at least as much, if not more, than pure capitalism does.

Also, don't forget that "communists" and "socialists" were the first targets of fascism (be it by Mussolini, Hitler or Franco), and were also among the first to fight for freedom during those dark hours.

This is absolutely TRUE. There is such thing as democratic socialism; lots of civil and social rights, few economic rights. Regular socialism just deals with economic rights, including the liberation of the working class. By definition, fascism does not even deal with economic rights (the basics of fascist economic rights were not set up by the founder of fascism but fascist leaders instead) and includes low social freedoms. I find these two to almost be polar opposites, but they are judged on two different scales.

Oh, and Nazis are not socialists. The name National Socialist is more accurate in the National (nationalism) part than the Socialism. The Nazis weren't socialists, just people who were either evil or brainwashed. Socialists aren't always evil. I would know; I am a socialist.

The Nazis weren't socialists, just people who were either evil or brainwashed.

The Nazis majorly sucked, but that is still a gross generalisation.

Whether you liberals like it or not Fascism and Nazism are two forms of left wing governments(big government,high taxes,public programs,big public projects) One big difference is that Nazism is a racialist form of a type of socialism. Meaning Nazism favors socialism for their race only (if you were a German worker you recieved the usual socialist benefits, if you were a jew you got nothing)

And Hitlers party was actually called the German Workers Socialist Party. It took several years for them to add the word National in their name.

And names have no significanace. The Nazis were not socialists at all.
Also, that first sentece was only half right. Nazism was liberal, but Fascism was extremely conservative.

The Nazis majorly sucked, but that is still a gross generalisation.
At least it described the Nazis that actually got anywhere. The rest just followed along because they were pressured into it, or would be killed otherwise.

One isn't really a form of the other; they're both forms of authoritarianism.

You're talking about in reality. In theory, socialism operates on a solely economic scale, while fascism operates on a solely social scale. HUGE difference there.

True socialists believe in the "in theory" definition.

The US hates socialism and communism because of the Red Scare in the early 1900s. Look it up, it's interesting.

that... and most of us don't want it do destroy our way of life/economy.

we like our financial freedom. probably most democrats don't want their taxes raised... unless they're superpoor and will benefit financially from increased redistribution of wealth.

Fascism and Socialism sort of are opposites. One has superior humans and the other has equal.

Define "socialism" and "fascism", first. Nobody can ever seem to agree on what each means.

Fascism - A government policy that has, as its goal, the consolidation of power in a very small elite. It attempts to secure the loyalty of the general public by appeals to cultural identity, needs for security by a powerful military/law enforcement body with broad authority and discretion, and opposition to a particular percieved threat.

Socialism - A government policy that has, as its goal, the peaceful acquisition of the means of production by a broad segment of the population from the previous elite owners. It attempts to achieve these goals via leverage of workers political capital. i.e. labor strikes, demonstrations, collective bargaining, and cooperative business ventures (sort of like a corporation, except the board of directors don't just work in the boardroom). Violence is not an accepted means of progress under the socialist paradigm (if it's an accepted tool, then it's just not socialism anymore), but when socialism meets conservatism the result is usually tear gas and hurled rocks. When it meets fascism the result is usually a massacre.

We can say this about anyone. What possible criteria can we judge a leader's ideology on other than what they say AND do? Hitler both said he supported pensions, healthy living etc., and implemented programs to make them happen. What evidence, in comparison, is there that these things were NOT a part of his ideology?

firstly, we are talking about fascism not hitlerism. secondly, if you asked hitler, he would not say that the welfare state was the vital essence of fascism. for fascists the vital essence comes in a rejection of modernism and democracy and reason, and a glorification of action for its own sake as a remedy to national/racial decline. it was never about specific policy proposals, but rather about the destruction of the democratic system and a national rebirth into a new organic form which transcended the divided loyalties and interests present before, with the national will embodied by the leader.

Most socialists believe that the workers should own the companies that they work on, since they are the ones that produce the cars, the computers, and the money, and that the money be equally split by the workers. This doesn't mean that the janitor is going to earn as much as the doctor but since the workers own the company they are the ones that get to decide how much each position should earn. Instead of the president of the company getting all the profit and giving some of it away to the workers, the workers get all of the profit and split it equally with each other

-Socialism

Fascism is a form of authoritarian government and autocracy. In fascism, the state is more important than the individual. A country under this form of government is usually run by a dictator. In fascist regimes, the state tries to have power over all aspects of life.

-Fascism

And to the second poster: You're horribly wrong. Socialism is not National Socialism, for National Socialism is a branch of Socialism. It's like saying that all humans are carnivores. Try doing a little research before leading people the wrong way.

Fascism and Socialism are two distinct things. The answer is no, no matter how many anti-Socialists, Capitalists, or the undereducated want to misguide you.

And names have no significanace. The Nazis were not socialists at all.
Also, that first sentece was only half right. Nazism was liberal, but Fascism was extremely conservative.

How the hell was Nazism liberal? Liberals believe in personal freedom. The Nazi's executed publishers of dissenting opinion. It's the conservatives that are trying to limit freedom of speech in this country ("free-speech zones" my ass. America is a free-speech zone). Nazism and fascism lie at the end of George Bush's road. Not the liberal one. The liberal one isn't even a road. It's a meandering mish-mash of cross-purpose and conflicting interests shared by people who know that the so-called conservatives of the US are so bloatedly corrupt that they're only the party of Enron and the Saudi royal family.

Now, to tear your post to pieces....
Here you go again...

Why is it so difficult to understand that in political theory, intentions matter?

Practical attempts at Socialism may have ended up with a different form of totalitarianism, but that does not make it a totalitarian ideology. Marxist Socialism is first and foremost a prediction of how society might develop, that some people have taken an unhealthy liking to. It's a scientific thing - you'll see Socialists use various maths, statistics, formulae, historical analyses, dialectical analyses and all the rest of it.

Fascism is against things like that. It loathes too much thinking and not enough doing. In fascism, action has an inherent value already, independent of whether you do the right thing or the wrong thing. Fascism is an anti-brain ideology, while socialism/communism/marxism is a pro-brain ideology.

Fascism appeals to religion, patriotism, personality cults and other emotional things.
Marxism appeals to scientific study, to rational considerations of what they consider class interests (which were differing in Marx' time, no doubt about it).

In fascism, the state is a biological entity, a being with a destiny (a "manifest destiny"?) - expansion or stagnation, war or death.
In marxism, the state is an arbitrary line, meant to divide the workers. Society, the individual itself is no more than the invariable result of economic pressures.

And importantly, Fascism is an end to itself. It's considered the perfect and only durable way of life.
Socialism is a means to the end of a peaceful, perfect utopia (however unattainable we may consider it).

Actually if youre interested in this topic, www.chetzar.com/fascism.html has a very interesting analysis of fascism and what makes a nation or leader "fascist". Also, to the person who said that Hitler hijacked the word "Socialist" in his climb in the NSDAP. Actually there was a notable minority in the party who were actually "Nationalist-Socialists". Two of the best known of this minority (who were eventually purged anyway) were Gregor Strasser and his brother (whose name escapes me at the moment). But there was a faction of the NSDAP (that Hitler got rid of) who were actually trying to set up a Nationalist-Socialist type of platform for the party.
Just throwing in my 2 cents :)

Fascism is against things like that. It loathes too much thinking and not enough doing. In fascism, action has an inherent value already, independent of whether you do the right thing or the wrong thing. Fascism is an anti-brain ideology

it's amazing how few people understand this as being a major aspect of fascism. it is essentially the basis of their rejection of liberalism and socialism, and especially parliamentarianism, but is widely ignored or forgotten.

You're talking about in reality. In theory, socialism operates on a solely economic scale, while fascism operates on a solely social scale. HUGE difference there.

True socialists believe in the "in theory" definition.

...yeah, shouldn't the question posed in this thread be, instead, "Communism a form of Fascism?" or vice versa?

Whether you liberals like it or not...

Whether you conservatives like it or not stating something untrue in a definative and authoritarian fashion doesn't make it true. Your contention that Nazism is left wing will require some defense.

...Fascism and Nazism are two forms of left wing governments(big government,high taxes,public programs,big public projects) One big difference is that Nazism is a racialist form of a type of socialism. Meaning Nazism favors socialism for their race only (if you were a German worker you recieved the usual socialist benefits, if you were a jew you got nothing)

But socialism requires that the workers themselves work to peacefully aquire the means of production. We have some of that here. Farmers cooperatives and such.

You may be thinking of radical communism in which the means of production are taken by force, but even then, it's not fascism. Fascism means that the people who already posess the means of production are allowed to enlist the force of the government to ensure complicity in their workers. It isn't about big government or small government. It's about who the government favors.

If it sides with the owners you're going fascist. If it sides with the workers you're going socialist. While it isn't an all or nothing proposition, every single descision that the government makes will favor either the workers or the employers. Even the descision not to act.

If the government acts to break a strike by arresting demonstrators and replacing the workers, like Reagan did with the air traffic controllers, it's not being "small government." If it refuses to act, it is small government, but this isn't necessarily going to be anti-socialist. A determined strike could bankrupt a company if the government doesn't decide that the company is more important than the people who make it function.

And Hitlers party was actually called the German Workers Socialist Party. It took several years for them to add the word National in their name.

So what? We've got a party called the Constitution Conservative party, but it is in fact a party of big-government theocrats. Names of parties mean nothing. Especially when a new leader takes over. If names mattered then the Democrats would have direct democracy as part of their platform and the Republicans would be complaining about Democrats being anarchists, not "big-government liberal elitists."

Seriously, put down the Flav-r-ade.

it's amazing how few people understand this as being a major aspect of fascism. it is essentially the basis of their rejection of liberalism and socialism, and especially parliamentarianism, but is widely ignored or forgotten.

Because anti-intellectualism is still popular here. If people go around remembering that the Nazis were anti-intellectuals, they'd have to have Bush recalled.

Because anti-intellectualism is still popular here. If people go around remembering that the Nazis were anti-intellectuals, they'd have to have Bush recalled.
Sounds like Australia. The government always tries to win votes by saying that any position that contradicts them is espoused by the "latte sipping leftist elite." And Tony Abbott (how I hate that little scumbag) wrote the foreward to a book on the "elite."

FFS, all those politicians are the REAL elite! So many of them are from well off families with a history in politics. Most of them are white males. Hmmm... :mad:

they're both similiar in that they are incompatible with individualism, but they go about turning individuals into a group using different methods.

I've always thought of it as a line.

Fascism at one end and true socialism at the other.

with liberal capitalism in the middle.

basicly it would go like this

Socialism-democratic (parliamentary) socialism-left leaning capitalist (i.e. welfare state and things like that)-liberal (either in the middle with no paticular left wing or right wing adgenda or a mixture of both overall no effect though)-right leaning capitalist (i.e. tries to do their best to make the bosses happy)-Neoliberal-Fascist.

So basically at the socialist end of the line, everything is done for the benifit of the working classes while at the fascist end everything is done for the bosses (either directly or indirectly).

everything else can basicly be slotted in somewhere along the line.

some exceptions to this can be made (for example monarchy) but you generally change the name bosses for monarch (or aristochracy or what ever) and your away.

anarchy and true "libertarianism" are off in their own little strange world and can effectivly be ignored

I had always kind of seen it like this:


.................................economically permissive..................................
...................................................|...............................................
f..................................................|...............................................
a.................................................|................................................
s.................................................|................................................
c.................................................|................................................
i..................................................|....................................socially..
s.................................................|..................................permissive
m................................................|.................................................
...................................................|................................................ .
...................................................|................................................ .
...................................................|................................................ .
...................................................|................................................ .
...................................................|................................................ .
...................................................|................................................ .
...................................................|.....................................socialism


In which they are almost completely opposite from each other.

*Sits back, watches sparks fly*

I had always kind of seen it like this:

In which they are almost completely opposite from each other.

fascism isn't what one would call 'economically permissive'. nor does socialism have any necessary connection to 'social permissiveness'

In socialism, the workers have control and ownership over the means of production and distribution.

No, that's anarcho-syndicalism.

In socialism, the workers have control and ownership over the means of production and distribution.

Under fascism, they do not. So no.

Yeah, Mao and Stalin were notable workers and Mugwabe is sure a skilled farmer.
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes::rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Sorry, but whether it's facism or socialism the people in control are still a bunch of emptry suits. Only in a free society do the people who own things ever have a clue. :p

Yeah, Mao and Stalin were notable workers and Mugwabe is sure a skilled farmer.
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes::rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Sorry, but whether it's facism or socialism the people in control are still a bunch of emptry suits. Only in a free society do the people who own things ever have a clue. :p

Agreed.

Agreed.


Nazi= National Socialist Party

Nazi= National Socialist Party
Fascism and Nazism are not the same thing.
Nazism didn't do anything that actually fits the Socialist Agenda.
Fascism (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/mussolini-fascism.html) was founded as a reaction to socialism - it was a complete renounciation of it. It's Anti-Socialism.

Fascism is Corporatism. It's big labour and big business deciding together with the government what is done.
Nazism is the "Herrenstaat", a sort of pyramide scheme, a complete top-down system. The leader (Führer, if you want) tells his party bosses, they tell big capitalists, they tell their managers, they tell their shift supervisors, they tell their workers. Everyone is their own little Führer for a while. It's part of the appeal of the system.
Socialism is the complete abolishment of private property with only organised labour owning things.

Fascism is all about the State. Nazism is all about race. Socialism is all about Class.

Fascism is about nationalism and patriotism and a bit of religion. Nazism is about racism and racial pride. Socialism is about an attempt to explain history using economic variables.

Fascism and Nazism are about Darwinism, about eternal struggle, about action being inherently good, and compassion being a mistake.
Socialism is all about creating a better world for those who have it worst.

Facism and Nazism are about eternal warfare. Socialism is about abolishing states, militaries and borders and eternal peace.

There is simply no case to be made to equate Fascism with Socialism, and Nazism shouldn't even enter the argument. To me, this just smells like one giant Godwin argument.

Do you think Fascism can be a form of Socialism?

Do you think ignorance can be a form of stupidity?

Think about it Tyrannicalopia... the answer is there somewhere.

Fascism and Nazism are not the same thing.
Nazism didn't do anything that actually fits the Socialist Agenda.
Fascism (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/mussolini-fascism.html) was founded as a reaction to socialism - it was a complete renounciation of it. It's Anti-Socialism.

Fascism is Corporatism. It's big labour and big business deciding together with the government what is done.
Nazism is the "Herrenstaat", a sort of pyramide scheme, a complete top-down system. The leader (Führer, if you want) tells his party bosses, they tell big capitalists, they tell their managers, they tell their shift supervisors, they tell their workers. Everyone is their own little Führer for a while. It's part of the appeal of the system.
Socialism is the complete abolishment of private property with only organised labour owning things.

Fascism is all about the State. Nazism is all about race. Socialism is all about Class.

Fascism is about nationalism and patriotism and a bit of religion. Nazism is about racism and racial pride. Socialism is about an attempt to explain history using economic variables.

Fascism and Nazism are about Darwinism, about eternal struggle, about action being inherently good, and compassion being a mistake.
Socialism is all about creating a better world for those who have it worst.

Facism and Nazism are about eternal warfare. Socialism is about abolishing states, militaries and borders and eternal peace.

There is simply no case to be made to equate Fascism with Socialism, and Nazism shouldn't even enter the argument. To me, this just smells like one giant Godwin argument.


Now from what I understood socialism was not the full abolishment of private property like you stated, it is only partial abolishment.

Now from what I understood socialism was not the full abolishment of private property like you stated, it is only partial abolishment.
Well, that then depends on what you think Socialism is. I take it to be Marxism, the sort of thing Lenin and Mao tried without success.

Well, that then depends on what you think Socialism is. I take it to be Marxism, the sort of thing Lenin and Mao tried without success.


Ok a command economy correct? Well from my understanding el Duce (Mussolini) was more of a true Fascist correct? Well he set up his economy with a minister in charge of a full sector of the economy and he effectively controlled the economy putting it in the states hands (socialism).

By your deffinition. Now by mine socialism is only big business owned by gov small business (local bakery's and such owned by the people), I call Marxism, just communism, now fascism went basically socialistic to avoid communism, which they probably saw as a threat to government(if true Marxism was ever employed which it wasn't.).

But then again, Lenin himself DID consider Mussolini to be basically socialist, even AFTER he founded the fascist party. Lenin lambasted the italian communists for having failed to keep the later Duce within the fold.
Lenin and Mussoline were corresponding with eachother on a regular basis, and exchanging ideas.

Source: Dr. Martin De Vlieghere, FACS vzw (Free Association for Civilization Studies).

Ok a command economy correct?
Not really. Nazi Germany had a command economy, but nothing was ever nationalised, and capitalists made a killing. A command economy could be many things, it's not exclusively socialist.

Well from my understanding el Duce (Mussolini) was more of a true Fascist correct?
Yes, he defined Fascism, he was the only man ever to try and put it into practice. And he was an intellectual.

Well he set up his economy with a minister in charge of a full sector of the economy and he effectively controlled the economy putting it in the states hands (socialism).
Not really. The economy minister's primary function was to facilitate the coordination of different interests in the economy through negotiations between the top representatives. And the whole thing was reorganised more along Nazi lines later anyway, when Germany started to take control of Italy.

There was some playing around with the money supply and prices, but that didn't happen against big business. It was together decided that that was the best way to do it, and where it wasn't, usually there was compensation to the affected parties.

Of course fascism is about the common interest of the State above the interests of single people. The State is the real organism, the individual an illusion - an individual without a State is nothing. The State is a totality (hence "Totalitarianism"). In that way it is of course very different from liberalism. But in that way it also is very different from Socialism.

Nazi= National Socialist Party

I bet you also think the Democratic Republic is Democratic too.

But then again, Lenin himself DID consider Mussolini to be basically socialist, even AFTER he founded the fascist party. Lenin lambasted the italian communists for having failed to keep the later Duce within the fold.
Lenin and Mussoline were corresponding with eachother on a regular basis, and exchanging ideas.

Source: Dr. Martin De Vlieghere, FACS vzw (Free Association for Civilization Studies).
Mussolini was a socialist in his early life. He wrote many a book (good ones too) on socialism.
As I understand it, it was WWI, which Mussolini thought would be the end of capitalism, that changed his view. Instead of commonly rising against their oppressors, the workers were quite happy to slaughter each other in the name of patriotism.

So he abandoned the ideal of internationalism, and instead took up the rather Hegelian ideas of States and Peoples. But when WWII was ending, and he was only put into "control" of a little bit of North Italy by the Germans, he did try to get back into Socialism.

He's an interesting character, that. But the fact remains that his definition of fascism, his actions while trying to implement it, and even the society that came from it, was not socialist.

Not really. Nazi Germany had a command economy, but nothing was ever nationalised, and capitalists made a killing. A command economy could be many things, it's not exclusively socialist.


Yes, he defined Fascism, he was the only man ever to try and put it into practice. And he was an intellectual.


Not really. The economy minister's primary function was to facilitate the coordination of different interests in the economy through negotiations between the top representatives. And the whole thing was reorganised more along Nazi lines later anyway, when Germany started to take control of Italy.

There was some playing around with the money supply and prices, but that didn't happen against big business. It was together decided that that was the best way to do it, and where it wasn't, usually there was compensation to the affected parties.

Of course fascism is about the common interest of the State above the interests of single people. The State is the real organism, the individual an illusion - an individual without a State is nothing. The State is a totality (hence "Totalitarianism"). In that way it is of course very different from liberalism. But in that way it also is very different from Socialism.


But tampering with the economy and having it follow the governments lead and letting the government control your economy in any way is socialism. And the individual being nothing without the state is very much socialism. The individuals become the state in some delusional state and they all share and all put in ect ect becoming in effect nothing without the state to support them. The left (liberalism) also supports this with their high taxes and making the people rely on the state for everything, and making private or other choices impossible. These two systems are totalitarian in nature, they force you to rely on the government and on the state, and no one is self reliant.

Have you ever done a PoliSci course or anything like that? I think you should, you'd enjoy it.

But tampering with the economy and having it follow the governments lead and letting the government control your economy in any way is socialism.
No, it's not. That's not in the definition.

And the individual being nothing without the state is very much socialism.
No, in socialism, the individual is a product of economic pressures. States (which are generally considered arbitrary divisions created by capitalists) and societies are the product of economic pressure. Everything is economics.
In fascism, states are organism, vying for resources, living space and superiority.

The individuals become the state in some delusional state and they all share and all put in ect ect becoming in effect nothing without the state to support them.
That has some truth in it, except that in Socialism it's not about the State as much as it is about class. It's the Proletariate, not the State that they are a part of.

The left (liberalism) also supports this with their high taxes and making the people rely on the state for everything, and making private or other choices impossible.
See, this is where I'm starting to doubt you have thought very much about this. Liberalism has nothing to do with the left.

Have you ever done a PoliSci course or anything like that? I think you should, you'd enjoy it.


No, it's not. That's not in the definition.


No, in socialism, the individual is a product of economic pressures. States (which are generally considered arbitrary divisions created by capitalists) and societies are the product of economic pressure. Everything is economics.
In fascism, states are organism, vying for resources, living space and superiority.


That has some truth in it, except that in Socialism it's not about the State as much as it is about class. It's the Proletariate, not the State that they are a part of.


See, this is where I'm starting to doubt you have thought very much about this. Liberalism has nothing to do with the left.


Actually I'm taking an AP (College Courses for Highschool students here in the states) US history class (Made a 5(highest score) and will recieve all my credits for an AP European History class last year), and PoliSci will be next year.

And I would like to thank you for actually producing results unlike certain other members of this forumn.

Left is simply a abreviation for the more accurate term "Progressive" here in the states as I'm sure you know.

And yes socialism is about class but after the proletariat revolution Marx always envisioned a proletariat state being formed for a short while, this in effect would be a socialist (My deffinition) state, then that would eventually transform into a communist state, and the people would still be completely dependent on working together (or more loosely a state).

And yes socialism is about class but after the proletariat revolution Marx always envisioned a proletariat state being formed for a short while, this in effect would be a socialist (My deffinition) state.
Yeah, although economically, it would be set up completely differently from a fascist state.
There would be no real private property (excluding maybe a few consumer goods), a council of workers (make that "Soviet" in Russian) was meant to coordinate the economy completely, telling everyone what to produce, for whom, when and how. Didn't work.
That's why Nazism worked: They had the same intent, but they let people do it themselves. Instead of saying "We need 1000 trucks, tell the rubber farm to make 20 t of rubber for tires, and tell the iron ore mine....", they said "We need 1000 trucks, you organise it yourself."

...then that would eventually transform into a communist state, and the people would still be completely dependent on working together (or more loosely a state).
Yes, very loosely. In Communism, there is no state, no government, no hierarchy, no money, no need to produce. It's anarchism, in a way.
The idea would have been that under Socialism, everyone would be so happy and productive (because they were no longer exploited, and now actually working for themselves) that we would solve the problem of scarcity. There would be no more choices, we would have unlimited goods. Utopia, or as Marx put it:
...in communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic.

But just for the record: I might not be a communist or a socialist, but I still think that we do depend on other people. An individual alone cannot achieve much at all - we need other people around us. How we organise our relations is a matter of opinion, but this foolish cult of the individual, that in its more extreme form rejects the notion of a society completely, is just misplaced and unrealistic.

Yeah, although economically, it would be set up completely differently from a fascist state.
There would be no real private property (excluding maybe a few consumer goods), a council of workers (make that "Soviet" in Russian) was meant to coordinate the economy completely, telling everyone what to produce, for whom, when and how. Didn't work.
That's why Nazism worked: They had the same intent, but they let people do it themselves. Instead of saying "We need 1000 trucks, tell the rubber farm to make 20 t of rubber for tires, and tell the iron ore mine....", they said "We need 1000 trucks, you organise it yourself."


Yes, very loosely. In Communism, there is no state, no government, no hierarchy, no money, no need to produce. It's anarchism, in a way.
The idea would have been that under Socialism, everyone would be so happy and productive (because they were no longer exploited, and now actually working for themselves) that we would solve the problem of scarcity. There would be no more choices, we would have unlimited goods. Utopia, or as Marx put it:


But just for the record: I might not be a communist or a socialist, but I still think that we do depend on other people. An individual alone cannot achieve much at all - we need other people around us. How we organise our relations is a matter of opinion, but this foolish cult of the individual, that in its more extreme form rejects the notion of a society completely, is just misplaced and unrealistic.

Or playing devils advocate haha... I love doing that.

Please take note while reading this that I am a Fascist.
They don't call it "National Socialism" for nothin'!
They don't call it National Socialism at all. National Socialism can be called fascism [note the lowercase F], but they are not the same thing.

Fascism is Socialism, but Fascism as practiced in Italy and Spain is not a full form of Fascism because the socialist portion of the Government was never fully created. And if you wish to include Nazi germany into this you can also say that they failed to impliment the full system. You have to look at Mussolini's political ideals and not how it turned out.

Mussolini tried to create a truly Fascist state when he made the Republic of Salo, but this was nothing more than a Nazi puppet state and they didn't let him use the system.

~~~
Under Mussolini-type fascism, specific corporations are chosen by the government to develop its pet projects. Corporations are not only left unweakened, but they're strengthened. Basically, the state allies itself with industrialists and other money-holding powers against the mob.
Sadly, this is true. Mussolini was unfortunately not powerful enough to impliment all the systems he wanted. He relied on the big corporations and his corrupt blackshirts so much that he had to do what they said basically. This eventually lost Fascism's appeal to the working class and caused it to fail.

Modern Fascist parties seek to follow Sir Oswald Mosely [British Fascist] and Gabrielle D'annuzzio [Name likely misspelled] who both had Fascist ideas based on a concept called National Syndicalism.

If anybody is intersted in this or would like to ask a Fascist some serious questions about Modern Fascism they are free to do so.

While socialism is about everyone being equal and deserving the right to enjoy life, fascism is completly built on the idea that some people deserve more than the others.
People who work harder deserve more than people who work very little.

While socialism promotes working together and solidarity, fascism promotes competition, being the best, and too bad for the one who fails at least as much, if not more, than pure capitalism does.
True Fascism demands the best from all citiezens for the good of their country. But we also prepare ourselves to catch you when you fall.
Also, don't forget that "communists" and "socialists" were the first targets of fascism (be it by Mussolini, Hitler or Franco), and were also among the first to fight for freedom during those dark hours.
There are two reasons for this:
a ) Mussolini didn't ant to be socialist because it had more appeal if it wasn't.
b ) The socialists tried to revolt in Italy, he crushed their revolt and then did his best to stamp out the trouble makers...and they deserved it.
Actually if youre interested in this topic, www.chetzar.com/fascism.html has a very interesting analysis of fascism and what makes a nation or leader "fascist".
That list is not and has not ever been true.

Please take note while reading this that I am a Fascist.

They don't call it National Socialism at all. National Socialism can be called fascism [note the lowercase F], but they are not the same thing.

Fascism is Socialism, but Fascism as practiced in Italy and Spain is not a full form of Fascism because the socialist portion of the Government was never fully created. And if you wish to include Nazi germany into this you can also say that they failed to impliment the full system. You have to look at Mussolini's political ideals and not how it turned out.

Mussolini tried to create a truly Fascist state when he made the Republic of Salo, but this was nothing more than a Nazi puppet state and they didn't let him use the system.

~~~

Sadly, this is true. Mussolini was unfortunately not powerful enough to impliment all the systems he wanted. He relied on the big corporations and his corrupt blackshirts so much that he had to do what they said basically. This eventually lost Fascism's appeal to the working class and caused it to fail.

Modern Fascist parties seek to follow Sir Oswald Mosely [British Fascist] and Gabrielle D'annuzzio [Name likely misspelled] who both had Fascist ideas based on a concept called National Syndicalism.

If anybody is intersted in this or would like to ask a Fascist some serious questions about Modern Fascism they are free to do so.


People who work harder deserve more than people who work very little.


True Fascism demands the best from all citiezens for the good of their country. But we also prepare ourselves to catch you when you fall.

There are two reasons for this:
a ) Mussolini didn't ant to be socialist because it had more appeal if it wasn't.
b ) The socialists tried to revolt in Italy, he crushed their revolt and then did his best to stamp out the trouble makers...and they deserved it.

That list is not and has not ever been true.


I respectfully disagree. Socialism was a lot more moderate, and the basic principles of socialism are that the economy is mostly controlled by the state, aside from maybe a few small businesses. Meanwhile, the principles of fascism have a bit more to do with the social point of view, dealing with personal freedoms.

Fascism and Nazism are not the same thing.
Nazism didn't do anything that actually fits the Socialist Agenda.
Fascism (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/mussolini-fascism.html) was founded as a reaction to socialism - it was a complete renounciation of it. It's Anti-Socialism.

Fascism is Corporatism. It's big labour and big business deciding together with the government what is done.
Nazism is the "Herrenstaat", a sort of pyramide scheme, a complete top-down system. The leader (Führer, if you want) tells his party bosses, they tell big capitalists, they tell their managers, they tell their shift supervisors, they tell their workers. Everyone is their own little Führer for a while. It's part of the appeal of the system.
Socialism is the complete abolishment of private property with only organised labour owning things.

Fascism is all about the State. Nazism is all about race. Socialism is all about Class.

Fascism is about nationalism and patriotism and a bit of religion. Nazism is about racism and racial pride. Socialism is about an attempt to explain history using economic variables.

Fascism and Nazism are about Darwinism, about eternal struggle, about action being inherently good, and compassion being a mistake.
Socialism is all about creating a better world for those who have it worst.

Facism and Nazism are about eternal warfare. Socialism is about abolishing states, militaries and borders and eternal peace.

There is simply no case to be made to equate Fascism with Socialism, and Nazism shouldn't even enter the argument. To me, this just smells like one giant Godwin argument.

Well put. Agreed.

I love the smell of strawmen in the morning...:rolleyes:
The "Libertarian" definition of socialism? Interesting. Thanks for the "mental" link.

Fascism and Nazism are not the same thing.
Nazism didn't do anything that actually fits the Socialist Agenda.
Fascism (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/mussolini-fascism.html) was founded as a reaction to socialism - it was a complete renounciation of it. It's Anti-Socialism.

Fascism is Corporatism. It's big labour and big business deciding together with the government what is done.
Nazism is the "Herrenstaat", a sort of pyramide scheme, a complete top-down system. The leader (Führer, if you want) tells his party bosses, they tell big capitalists, they tell their managers, they tell their shift supervisors, they tell their workers. Everyone is their own little Führer for a while. It's part of the appeal of the system.
Socialism is the complete abolishment of private property with only organised labour owning things.

Fascism is all about the State. Nazism is all about race. Socialism is all about Class.

Fascism is about nationalism and patriotism and a bit of religion. Nazism is about racism and racial pride. Socialism is about an attempt to explain history using economic variables.

Fascism and Nazism are about Darwinism, about eternal struggle, about action being inherently good, and compassion being a mistake.
Socialism is all about creating a better world for those who have it worst.

Facism and Nazism are about eternal warfare. Socialism is about abolishing states, militaries and borders and eternal peace.

There is simply no case to be made to equate Fascism with Socialism, and Nazism shouldn't even enter the argument. To me, this just smells like one giant Godwin argument.
Excellent post and IMHO, right on the money.

They don't call it "National Socialism" for nothin'!

You got to be kidding.

Trying to blame it on the socialist for right-wing nutjobs.

The socialism part was because the Socialist in Germany were the only opposition to the Fascist. They were the only ones that could have beaten them.

Why is it so difficult to understand that in political theory, intentions matter?

Precisely because they do not. Processes and results matter. They are real.

Fascism is against things like that. It loathes too much thinking and not enough doing.

Fascists tend to rail against intellectuals, but since the intellectuals tended to oppose them, there might be a simple, and perfectly understandable reason for fascist anti-intellectualism.

I don't see that the appeals are any more important in evaluating a political idea than advertising is important in evaluating this product against that. Holden might make the best advertisements in the world, but Holdens are still crap.

Fascism is Corporatism. It's big labour and big business deciding together with the government what is done.

This is the outward appearance.

You make it sound as though they are thoroughly equal partners, the only difference being one lot wears fancy uniforms and peaked caps, and the other wears suits.

The key thing to remember here is that big labour, and firms cannot put you in gaol, they can only petition government to do it. They cannot legally get revenue by involuntary means. Government can use such coercive means.

In a government/business partnership, government is always the boss, business always the servant.

Socialism is the complete abolishment of private property with only organised labour owning things.

Again, outward appearance. Firstly, there is nothing non-capitalist about workers' control. The difference between capitalism and socialism on workers' control of process. Capitalists have no objection to anyone buying in, even workers, and they do. Furthermore, the more capitalist country's have more worker's control because of the increased prosperity.

Socialists talk about workers' control, they introduce, and keep government control.

That's why Nazism worked: They had the same intent, but they let people do it themselves. Instead of saying "We need 1000 trucks, tell the rubber farm to make 20 t of rubber for tires, and tell the iron ore mine....", they said "We need 1000 trucks, you organise it yourself."

The government controlled thing very strictly from 1936 onwards (of course, there were struggles within the government about it, but the German Government stayed in control, arguably they did after the war because the Allies kept their economic policies)

But just for the record: I might not be a communist or a socialist, but I still think that we do depend on other people. An individual alone cannot achieve much at all - we need other people around us. How we organise our relations is a matter of opinion, but this foolish cult of the individual, that in its more extreme form rejects the notion of a society completely, is just misplaced and unrealistic.

You've mistaken rhetoric for reality. That we do depend on each other is not in question (and is totally consistant with even what the Rothbardian anarcho-capitalists say). At my end of the spectrum, we tend to speak in terms of "specialisation", or "division of labour", rather than "dependence"

How we organise relations is, even individualists are only really talking about how relations between people (which are essential). The key difference between individualists, and others is that individualists hold that the individual is the best judge of his interests, so it is for him to organise his relations with others on mutually agreed terms.

I respectfully disagree. Socialism was a lot more moderate, and the basic principles of socialism are that the economy is mostly controlled by the state, aside from maybe a few small businesses. Meanwhile, the principles of fascism have a bit more to do with the social point of view, dealing with personal freedoms.

Not to mention that Mussolini was originally part of the Socialist party until his views got him kicked out.

One thing i think every1 is forgetting is this=any aoutharitarian government that is not Communist is considered Fascism, so basicly the term Fascism is highly debateable. Their is no clear cut form of fascism, you have Mussolini fasscism, Franco Fascism, HItler Fascism, Sir Oswald Mosley fascism, etc.

I am currently conducting an experiment with my nation. Teutonic Aryan States,(I am an ex-nazi so sorry for the name) I am seeing which is better Fascism or Communism, I was more Hitler fascist. But i am comparing it with Communism to see how it will effect my economy.

Check out my nations and remember, i use to be a neo-nazi but i changed so i apologize for the names.

teutonicaryan_states
Aryanvarta
The Pure Aryan States
Sir_Oswald_Mosley
Rlhey

oh, and if you want check out www.americanfascistparty.com
:mp5: :sniper: :headbang: :gundge:

One thing i think every1 is forgetting is this=any aoutharitarian government that is not Communist is considered Fascism, so basicly the term Fascism is highly debateable.

That doesn't follow. The term "fascism" is one of the most misused tems around.

Fascism is a very definite set of ideas, as has been outlined here in this thread.

Right wingers would love if fascism was equal to socialism in order to "wash their hands" but they aren't that lucky.

In a socialist society, the means of production are owned by all, and there is no distinction amongst classes.

Fascist societies are, however, corporative. Not only there is no such thing as colllective ownership of the means of production, but more importantly, classes are rigidly grouped (ence the term corporativism), very well distinguished.

Fascism and socialism are diametrically opposed. Deal with it.

PS: If Hitler was a socialist because he was a leader of a "national-socialist" party, is Mao Tse Tung a Republican because he was the president of the people's REPUBLIC of China? Duhh

Superficial as several superficial things in a pod.

You've produced no argument, just spouted socialist slogans. Can you respond with something other than a cliche?

Superficial as several superficial things in a pod.

You've produced no argument, just spouted socialist slogans. Can you respond with something other than a cliche?

Lets try reality then:

my country had a Fascist state for over 60 years. In that period, confederations and corporations (named as such) were created (conveniently led by goverment officials). These included, as example, miner's corporations, doctors corporations, etc.. In this period, the economy, while regulated, counted heavily with support from private interests, Private owned companies of wealthy families that supported the existing regime. If fascism equals socialism, then please explain to me why never were attempts to control those companies, and why private interests held hands with the goverment.
It was beneficial for those companies. Strikes were illegal (somehow, the workers corporations were never friendly to the workers), the communist party AND the Socialist party were forbidden (like all others), and themes of the traditional fascist rethoric were played in the cultural scene: Ultra-Nationalism, Ultra-Conservatorism, etc..

This is totally reality, historical, as lived by my parents. If you doubt any fact , I will provide you links, though I cannot garantee that they don't come out in Portuguese.

So you now produce arguments, instead of spewing theoretical rethoric.

Firstly, the definition of socialism you use corresponds with no real socialism. Real socialism is government ownership. I have addressed this before.

Secondly, and government/business partnership is unequal. One member of the partnership cannot legally use force against anyone it doesn't like. One member of the partnership can get its money through the threat of force.

Government/business partnerships always favour government because governments don't have to offer people things they want to get money, and government can use force as it likes.

Fascism is socialism because ownership means more than simply having one's name on the deed. The owners of property have a number of powers regarding that property, but in a fascist state, the government exercises those powers itself, not the private owners.

This constitutes de-facto socialism.

Calling something a corporation doesn't make it a business meant to turn a profit, or any other sort of capitalist institution. Most organisations are incorporated, meaning they have a legal personality. I would go further to say that a commune, or a kibbutz are basically the same as privately owned corporations.

The corporations formed by fascist governments are simply a way to get the government's wishes regarding the economy carried out without too much resistance. This shows the origin of fascism. It is a reaction to communism, fascists and communists both seek government, and government control of the economy, but the communist method creates huge resistance, while fascists tend to get in legally, with substantial popular support.

I hardly think it needs to be pointed out that all corporations are an institution of collective ownership. Many people pool their property into a single entity. It isn't something that can be discretly split into blocks for each owner. If I own Microsoft shares, I can't go actually go up to Mr. Gates and say "could you please point me to the part of the Windows XP code I own. I would like to improve it, and increase my investment. The corporation owns it entirely, I just own a piece of the corporation. Ownership and control are separated, as they are in all arrangements of collective ownership.

The banning of the communist and socialist parties proves nothing, except that Mr. Salazar wanted to remain in power, and therefore had to get his rivals out of the way. There is nothing inheriently fascist about this. It doesn't support your argument at all.

The banning of strikes actually supports my argument. Since any socialist state regards all productive means as its to control, the workers must logically be controlled by the state.

Your so-called "traditionalist fascist rhetoric" doesn't support your arguments any more than McDonalds advertising supports the notion that their food is healthy.

Of course, that certain private property owners supported fascism does not prove anything, and the very fact that you'd even bring it up (and take most of your post discussing it) shows the weakness of your argument.

Firstly, the definition of socialism you use corresponds with no real socialism. Real socialism is government ownership. I have addressed this before.

This is the definition YOU are giving, not that socialists give to themselves. Your argument is flawed here.


Secondly, and government/business partnership is unequal. One member of the partnership cannot legally use force against anyone it doesn't like. One member of the partnership can get its money through the threat of force.

Goverments have the monopoly of the use of coercive force, they can make legal all sort of abuses to private property and private association. In essence, this is what economical regulations in market economy states do. Do you really think anti trust laws don't violate the right of property


Government/business partnerships always favour government because governments don't have to offer people things they want to get money, and government can use force as it likes.

This is true in a democracy. Are you calling democracies fascist?


Fascism is socialism because ownership means more than simply having one's name on the deed. The owners of property have a number of powers regarding that property, but in a fascist state, the government exercises those powers itself, not the private owners.

What powers are we speaking? The power of management, and basically doing whatever they saw fit? In many fascist states, such as Chile and Spain, private companies did what they saw fit, and the goverment actually protected them from unpleasentries such as workers rights.


This constitutes de-facto socialism.

Again, you invent definitions.


Calling something a corporation doesn't make it a business meant to turn a profit, or any other sort of capitalist institution. Most organisations are incorporated, meaning they have a legal personality. I would go further to say that a commune, or a kibbutz are basically the same as privately owned corporations.

Oh no, a corporation doesn't need to be a business, true. In the case I was refering, classes of workers were organized into corporations. This was the mean that the goverment used to control society, by keeping it segmented. But they didn't violated, nor did any major interference with property rights of at least, the "favored" corporations (i.e., the ones that had money). For example, a corporation that still exists today is the Pharmaceticals corporation. Until not so long ago, it was legal to ONLY people with phd's in pharmaceuticals to open a pharmacy. But they could open the pharmacy, and it was theirs, not for the goverment.


The corporations formed by fascist governments are simply a way to get the government's wishes regarding the economy carried out without too much resistance. This shows the origin of fascism. It is a reaction to communism, fascists and communists both seek government, and government control of the economy, but the communist method creates huge resistance, while fascists tend to get in legally, with substantial popular support.

You tend to link control of the economy with control of society. Two distinct things (albeit positively correlated). It is (and reality proves this) not necessary to exert too much control on the economy, to control the society. And I wonder were was all that popular support you talk about when (post ww2) fascist regimes started to crumble, too rotten for anyone to defend them.


I hardly think it needs to be pointed out that all corporations are an institution of collective ownership. Many people pool their property into a single entity. It isn't something that can be discretly split into blocks for each owner. If I own Microsoft shares, I can't go actually go up to Mr. Gates and say "could you please point me to the part of the Windows XP code I own. I would like to improve it, and increase my investment. The corporation owns it entirely, I just own a piece of the corporation. Ownership and control are separated, as they are in all arrangements of collective ownership.

Exactly: Ownership and control are separated. You don't need to own the economy to control it. Fascist states did this well, owning the society by simply controling the different classes, a control made easy since they are so tightly organized in corporations of interests.


Of course, that certain private property owners supported fascism does not prove anything, and the very fact that you'd even bring it up (and take most of your post discussing it) shows the weakness of your argument.

On the contrary: It proves EVERYTHING. Its not just that they supported it, the goverment took care of their interests. Would a "socialist" goverment take care of private interests, than those of its own? No. But fascist goverments do so. Reality shows that total control of the economy, a characteristic of socialist states, was never done in fascist states (excluding regulation that we can find in democratic states) post WW2. I mean, do you really want to convince us that a "socialist" fascist state that never did any major attempt for nationalisations or any other control of the economy in over 60 years in Portugal and Spain, and in over 20 in Chile, is out to grab all the economy for its own control?? You need a reality check!

This, coped with your ill-definitions of socialism shows that your argument is wrong. You can debate whatever you like, but what is real is real, 2+2=4, not 5, and fascist states don't control economies or property rights.

Fascism isn't socialist. Socialism requires working class ownership and management of the means of production (to put it simply). Trying to smear socialism with the fascist label is highly inaccurate, not to mention dirty debating. If you have a problem with working class liberation itself, say so, but don't try to portray it as authoritarian.

Fascists tend to rail against intellectuals, but since the intellectuals tended to oppose them, there might be a simple, and perfectly understandable reason for fascist anti-intellectualism.

actually, fascism came out swinging on this one. it didn't adopt anti-intellectualism and irrationalism because intellectuals rejected fascism. it did so because that is fundamental to what it is.

Fascism and Socialism are as opposite as two political doctrins can be.

While socialism goal is to free workers from the chains of exploitation (you can agree or not that socialism is the way to do it, but you can't deny it's the goal), the goal of fascism is to bind forever the workers to the chain of exploitation, and denying them the right to the resist.

While socialism is about giving the control of the means of production back to the workers, breaking the classical authority shcemes, fascism is about enforing authority.


That's actually anarchosyndicalism.

Fascism isn't socialist. Socialism requires working class ownership and management of the means of production (to put it simply). Trying to smear socialism with the fascist label is highly inaccurate, not to mention dirty debating. If you have a problem with working class liberation itself, say so, but don't try to portray it as authoritarian.

Socialism is not about giving the control over the means of production to the workers, it is about giving it to the government.

Anarcho-communism and anarchosyndicalism require workers ownership of their factories and production. Sadly they are usually just forgotten and negleted when discussions like this take place, and are mixed with socialism and communism.

Socialism is not about giving the control over the means of production to the workers, it is about giving it to the government.

of course, since socialism in this sense is a thoroughly modern political idea, it already accepts the idea of government as the representative of the people.

Socialism is not about giving the control over the means of production to the workers, it is about giving it to the government.

You're just wrong there. It is about giving it to the workers. Workers taking control of the government is one means by which to do it. Workers Cooperatives are another. That's why fascism can't be socialism, because the workers don't have control in the government. They might happen to be given everything that they want, but that won't make it socialist because they're dependent on the good will of the government. Although, one of the first things that Mousollini did when he took power was to outlaw labor unions.
In fact, all fascist regimes have been distinctly anti-worker. That's why it's not unreasonable to accuse the Bush adminsitration of fascist tendencies.

Fascism isn't socialist. Socialism requires working class ownership and management of the means of production (to put it simply). Trying to smear socialism with the fascist label is highly inaccurate, not to mention dirty debating. If you have a problem with working class liberation itself, say so, but don't try to portray it as authoritarian.

But dirty debating and trying to bundle everything you oppose under the same label is core to fascist schemes. In Mein Kampf Hitler said that the best way for a propagandist to get people to hate what he hates is to convince them that all the things you hate are just part of the one thing that they hate. So he joined the Socialist Workers Party and turned it into an anti-union, anti communist, anti free enterprise party by saying that labor unions, communism, and the American banking system were all Jewish institutions.

Now fascism is a dirty word, so fascists have to call it conservatism and so they call liberalism, communism, and socialism fascist to further disaccosiate themselves from it. Much like how Bush, a cowardly deserter, accused John Kerry, a decorated war hero, of being weak on national defense so that no one would realize how bad he was about national defense.

This is the definition YOU are giving, not that socialists give to themselves. Your argument is flawed here.

No, it isn't. If you would bother to read the thread, you'd find it pretty complete.

Goverments have the monopoly of the use of coercive force, they can make legal all sort of abuses to private property and private association. In essence, this is what economical regulations in market economy states do. Do you really think anti trust laws don't violate the right of property

Of course they do. However in a fascist state, this interference is total.

This is true in a democracy. Are you calling democracies fascist?

No. All governments have an effective legal monopoly on the use of force. Fascists use this to gain control of the economy.

Oh no, a corporation doesn't need to be a business, true. In the case I was refering, classes of workers were organized into corporations. This was the mean that the goverment used to control society, by keeping it segmented. But they didn't violated, nor did any major interference with property rights of at least, the "favored" corporations (i.e., the ones that had money). For example, a corporation that still exists today is the Pharmaceticals corporation. Until not so long ago, it was legal to ONLY people with phd's in pharmaceuticals to open a pharmacy. But they could open the pharmacy, and it was theirs, not for the goverment.

Exactly my point. Rather than let workers bargain in a free market, or let them make cartels (trade unions), they formed them into a group established and run by and for the government. The fragmentation (or rather the outward appearance of it) was purely tactical.

You tend to link control of the economy with control of society. Two distinct things (albeit positively correlated). It is (and reality proves this) not necessary to exert too much control on the economy, to control the society. And I wonder were was all that popular support you talk about when (post ww2) fascist regimes started to crumble, too rotten for anyone to defend them.

If one can control the economy, one is pretty close to controlling society, beyond economic control, there isn't that much. As to the popular support, no socialist system can ever keep popular support because of their economic failures.

Exactly: Ownership and control are separated. You don't need to own the economy to control it. Fascist states did this well, owning the society by simply controling the different classes, a control made easy since they are so tightly organized in corporations of interests.

Quite right.

On the contrary: It proves EVERYTHING.

No, it doesn't. It can not prove anything because it only shows they they supported, or appeared to support something. It doesn't show why, or whether or not they were satisfied. One could just as easily argue that businessmen supporting fascists against other socialists showed only that they were stupid.

Its not just that they supported it, the goverment took care of their interests. Would a "socialist" goverment take care of private interests, than those of its own? No.

All fascist governments advance their own interests. They 'protected' the interests of people in private enterprise by bringing them into government-run organisations. One might call that protection, but the government established through this means full control of the economy, thus carrying out what other socialists carry out by actually seizing ownership.

That some of the bosses thought this would benefit them is neither here nor there.

Reality shows that total control of the economy, a characteristic of socialist states, was never done in fascist states (excluding regulation that we can find in democratic states) post WW2. I mean, do you really want to convince us that a "socialist" fascist state that never did any major attempt for nationalisations or any other control of the economy in over 60 years in Portugal and Spain, and in over 20 in Chile, is out to grab all the economy for its own control??

Firstly, Chile wasn't a fascist state precisely because they liberalised their economy, it only had some of the outward trappings of fascism, like the uniforms.

Fascists don't liberalise their economies, they bring them under government control by the means you pointed to (forming all parties in a specific sphere of work into a government owned and run corporation). Your talk of nationalisations betrays the fact that you've not actually read a word I've written. Ownership and control are two different things. Fascist governments leave nominal ownership in private hands, but exercise all the powers that private owners would have is their property rights were actually respected.

You are of course contradicting yourself. You agreed with me earler about the methods fascists use to gain control of the economy.

of course, since socialism in this sense is a thoroughly modern political idea, it already accepts the idea of government as the representative of the people.

Yet no socialist government has ever been that. The socialists use the rhetoric of workers' control, but they only ever bring in bureaucratic government control. Your argument really doesn't address what government is.

Yet no socialist government has ever been that. The socialists use the rhetoric of workers' control, but they only ever bring in bureaucratic government control. Your argument really doesn't address what government is.

was it supposed to? i'm an anarchist, so i disagree with that idea. but it is the idea behind socialist government ownership/control of industry.

Yes, it was. One can spout the socialist rhetoric all one likes, but government has never been really representative of anyone except a ruling class.

Yes, it was. One can spout the socialist rhetoric all one likes, but government has never been really representative of anyone except a ruling class.


In theory, what about Athens home of direct democracy? Ruling class isn't necessarily a bad thing because what if the ruling class is the largest class? Then its a true democracy.

Yes, it was.

?

In theory, what about Athens home of direct democracy? Ruling class isn't necessarily a bad thing because what if the ruling class is the largest class? Then its a true democracy.

Have you heard of spontaneous order?

People in a society tend to create their own forms of order without external pressure, in any direct democracy, leaders would come to the fore. A ruling class would eventually form.

Id say yes it is.
Fascism is Socialism.

Id say yes it is.
Fascism is Socialism.

not by any reasonable understanding of the terms

[QUOTE=. Much like how Bush, a cowardly deserter, accused John Kerry, a decorated war hero, of being weak on national defense so that no one would realize how bad he was about national defense.[/QUOTE]


Oh my you've played way to much pacman and now rational thought is beyond you. Some war hero--visits enemy leaders and talks trash about his country, espouses giving constitution a more european feel. Only place he could be elected is right where he is at, a place I'll not even visit:mp5: :sniper:

Some war hero--visits enemy leaders and talks trash about his country, espouses giving constitution a more european feel.
How much of that is true, and how much is from Faux News?