You must be logged in.
You must be logged in.
Fascism is just another form of socialism
Jeffrey Tucker wrote in pertinent part “You can choose the socialist who wants to wreck the world in one way, or the fascist who wants to wreck the world in another way.” Since fascism is just another form of socialism, is Mr. Tucker arguing “you can choose the socialist who wants to wreck the world in one way, or the socialist who wants to wreck the world in another way?
I think the fact that the question sounds ridiculous highlights his point that they amount to the same thing.
That is my point: fascism is socialism so why use “fascist” and “socialist” when they mean the same thing?
In my personal view fascism is something better than socialism from a purely economic point of view. Both of them are horrible but if one has to choose between two bad choices one must prefer fascism. I find it strange that many liberal authors wonder why fascism could function somehow. In my view they neglect the fact that Hitler’s national-socialism has had a price system, so it has been possible for it to distribute the resources of the economy much better than prue socialism. In short: fascism is more capitalistic than socialism. Still the comparison resembles the following question: Do you wish to be burned alive or shot?
It depends how you define socialism. Here is what stays in Wikipedia (quote):
“Fascist economics supported a state-controlled economy that accepted a mix of private and public ownership over the means of production.[177] Economic planning was applied to both the public and private sector, and the prosperity of private enterprise depended on its acceptance of synchronizing itself with the economic goals of the state.[178] Fascist economic ideology supported the profit motive, but emphasized that industries must uphold the national interest as superior to private profit.[178]”
So, there is private property in fascism. There is also the profit motive. So, fascism has been a mixed economy. Mixed economies are better able to distribute resources efficiently than socialism.
Fascism is the result of failed Socialism; the military/forceful side that starts killing 20 million people who disagree with the Socialism.
Adam, I agree, they are the very same thing: coercion and physical force.
Call it by any “ism” you prefer, color it any color you prefer, defend it with any belief or reason you prefer… coercion and force is the lowest common denominator, and at the root of most every problem, and the elephant in the room.
“We are socialists, we are enemies of the capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions.” – Adolf Hitler, May 1st, 1927
This is my point. Fascists are socialists. (What I was hoping for was someone to point out that while all fascists are socialists, not all socialists are fascists (or are they?).
Does it matter which label one places on an evil-system which TAKES based on deception, backed up by FORCE and uses PROPAGANDA as the justification?
Since fascism is socialism then just use socialism. I think what was meant when J. Tucker used “fascism” in reference to D. Trump was “nazism”?
If we are talking about meant or meaning are we talking about the mental-picture derived from a definition of the words socialism or fascism. If that is the case do the definitions lack sufficient precision for an individual to make a distinction between the two systems without confusion or ambiguity in the mental-picture?
The Cryps & Bloods are both violent urban street gangs, yet they have different names. They wear different colors and the world knows them by their different names. So too the Fascist and the Socialist.
The real inaccuracy in Mr Tucker’s words is the statement that both the fascist and socialist “want” to wreck the world. I do not believe that for a minute! While their ideas surely would wreck the world over time, their true sentiment is to make a better world as they see it.
The word “gang” includes both Cryps & Bloods. The word “socialism” includes both fascism, nazism, communism. “Socialism” has different names just as “gangs” has. Mr. Tucker’s premise makes no sense: “You can choose the socialist who wants to wreck the world in one way, or the fascist who wants to wreck the world in another way.” He is simply stating you can choose the socialist (name the gang) who wants to wreck the world in one way, or the socialist (name the gang) who wants to wreck the world in another way.” Fascism is a form of socialism. Query: when Mr. Tucker uses the term “socialist” for Bernie Sanders what does he mean (fascist, Nazi, communist?)? When he uses the form of socialism, namely, fascism, for Donald Trump we may or may not understand what he means (does he mean that Trump is an “Italian fascist (Mussolini),” a Nazi (Hitler), or a “Spanish fascist” (Franco)?).
Well my personal opinion is that Mr Tucker used the terms Socialist and Fascist in the more readily understood general sense of the words that most people in contemporary society understand them; to wit, socialist as a general term for far left wing authoritarianism, and fascist as a general term for far right wing authoritarianism. Regardless of the lack of precision of these every more ambiguous terms, the point Mr Tucker was likely shooting for was the instantaneous well accepted mental picture of what most in society think of when they hear these words.
I am not aware of the actual article or story in which Tucker mentioned this, but my inclination is to suspect it was not a scholarly investigation of the etymology and expansive manifestation of these terms in society in every instance of their use.
Here are some other words that can be dissected to death for imprecision in usage: Liberal, conservative, aggression, coercion, gay, consent, good, bad, sustainable…
Just sayin’…
Our language has 7 parts of speech and a conjunction. The typical Dictionary devotes almost 1/4 of a page to giving us “definitions” of THE. How is anyone supposed to figure out what anything “means”?
ELL oh ELL (LoL) good point Frank. Language can be a struggle, especially when conversing about highly charged controversial subjects. Often biases impose themselves into the space reserved for listening, such that the listener is crafting the killer response rather than actually listening and considering the opponents works and point of view. I sure have been guilty of this more times than I wish to admit. (but I sorta AM right now… so I feel a little cleaner) ELL oh ELL
“Often biases impose themselves into the space reserved for listening, such that the listener is crafting the killer response rather than actually listening and considering the opponents works and point of view.” Is that the infamous rush to judgement? We swim through a sea of words with little quality-training on how to swim and almost no training on navigation, yet we marvel at the notion that two individuals can read the same string of words and derive different meanings from the same message. May be there will be something NEW in the New Year!
The first few minutes of this Unbiased America episode includes the guys riffing on fascism, socialism, and mainstream crony capitalism:
Good video. I like these guys. Between Liberty.me and Mises.org I find tons of new material, insights and sources than I would ever know of in the absence of these forums.
If we open our Hayek hymnals to page.. sorry, tongue & cheek. Socialists and Communists could recruit from each other quite easily (see Hayek, Road to Serfdom). In fact, Hayek proposes that Socialism and Communism are required on the road to Fascism. Socialism & Communism are the so-called “ideal states” that are implemented, and when they don’t work as expected, harsher means are required to get there (Fascism).
(See Jeff, someone tuned into your weekly broadcast! 🙂 )
Some select passages from Hayek.. Chap 2, Road to Serfdom.
===================
Observer after observer, in spite of the contrary expectation with which he approached his subject, has been impressed with the extraordinary similarity in many respects of the conditions under “fascism” and “communism.” While “progressives” in England and elsewhere were still deluding themselves that communism and fascism represented opposite poles, more and more people began to ask themselves whether these new tyrannies were not the outcome of the same tendencies.
======================
“The complete collapse of the belief in the attainability of freedom and equality through Marxism,” writes Peter Drucker, “has forced Russia to travel the same road toward a totalitarian, purely negative, non-economic society of unfreedom and inequality which Germany has been following. Not that communism and fascism are essentially the same. Fascism is the stage reached after communism has proved an illusion, and it has proved as much an illusion in Stalinist Russia as in pre-Hitler Germany.”
====================
While to many who have watched the transition from socialism to fascism at close quarters the connection between the two systems has become increasingly obvious, in the democracies the majority of people still believe that socialism and freedom can be combined. There can be no doubt that most socialists here still believe profoundly in the liberal ideal of freedom and that they would recoil if they became convinced that the realization of their program would mean the destruction of freedom. So little is the problem yet seen, so easily do the most irreconcilable ideals still live together, that we can still hear such contradictions in terms as “individualist socialism” seriously discussed. If this is the state of mind which makes us drift into a new world, nothing can be more urgent than that we should seriously examine the real significance of the evolution that has taken place elsewhere. Although our conclusions will only confirm the apprehensions which others have already expressed, the reasons why this development cannot be regarded as accidental will not appear without a rather full examination of the main aspects of this transformation of social life. That democratic socialism, the great utopia of the last few generations, is not only unachievable, but that to strive for it produces something so utterly different that few of those who now wish it would be prepared to accept the consequences, many will not believe until the connection has been laid bare in all its aspects.
“Fascism is the stage reached after communism has proved an illusion, and it has proved as much an illusion in Stalinist Russia as in pre-Hitler Germany.””
So, Hayek just confirms what I said before, namely, that fascism is not equal to communism ( or socialism ). And if we ssume socialism stays at the left-most position then fascism with all its atrocities is more capitalistic. Please, DO NOT presume I support fascism in any way. I am just comparing two terrible systems from a purely economic point of view.
“from a purely economic point of view.” How many civilizations rose and fell before the word economics even “evolved” as an element of what drives a society. What is the difference between a King, an Emperor a Dictator, or even a President where the acquisition and distribution of wealth is concerned?
The difference “from a purely economic point of view” between a King and a President is that under the President the rights to obtain and keep personal property are better supported, i.e. that a society under a President is more capitalistic (Note: Presidents exist only in democratic societies).
Note the: United States of America is a Republic. If one looks only at the Executive Orders that have been written recently one would not call what we have democratic. Some would say that we are only waiting for a trigger event for Obama to declare himself “President” for life (dictator). Once a “leader” takes over a country by force I am guessing that he/she will call himself/herself whatever they want. Who is going to argue? If you are a citizen of ordinary means and THIS government wants whatever you have I would like to see you stop them from TAKING IT.
And a majority of the US Supreme Court Justices can rule that it is “constitutional” under our “living constitution” to allow a president to declare himself president for life. And it will be a fait accompli.
Now that’s the problem, the language tells us that It can’t be a “fact” because it is established by Court opinion, but it can be a “living reality” or a “painful illusion”.
I would argue that there are some distinct differences between socialism and fascism. In a socialist society the means of production and their associated supply chains and distribution channels are owned and controlled by the state. Under a fascist system, such as that of Mussolini, the means of production are mostly privately owned, but largely controlled by the state. Thus, fascism is the politically more elegant solution to tyranny. Under the socialist system the inevitable failure of production and distribution will be widely recognized as caused by the State, whereas under fascism the owners of the business (who were coerced by the State into doing exactly what the State ordered them to do) become the target of blame for the failures that inevitably result.
Therefore, I do not think of socialism and fascism as synonyms. A much closer comparison for fascism is crony capitalism, which is, in fact, simply a euphemism for fascism. In summary, using the common highly inaccurate terms of left-wing for socialism and right-wing for fascism: When the boot is on your throat, nobody notices if it is the left boot or the right boot.
That is a good point: Who gets blamed for the problems in a society. Functionally does it make that much difference who “owns” the means of production if the state controls? If the state “owns” the media, whether by actual ownership or because it is so biased that you not hear any opposition to the state line, how does one effect change?
Who takes the blame is fundamentally important in any ongoing criminal enterprise. Take, as one example: The Fed. Originally, inflation was correctly understood as artificially inflating the money supply. However, over time, people have been conned into believing that what is inflating is the price of goods and services, rather than the devaluation of currency via the inflation of the money supply. As a result, the Fed (read cartel of the largest banks) has been able to perpetuate, for over 100 years, one of the most elaborate con games in the history of mankind. But when inflation is rampant, who takes the blame? Businesses take the blame for raising prices! It’s amazing how well this scam has worked, but it is only possible due to the utter lack of understanding, by the public, of the monetary system and of banking practices.
In answer to your question about change, the easy answer is educate ourselves and then work to educate others. Of course, that’s not a very easy thing to accomplish, nor sufficiently effective, particularly since the vast majority of the people have been well-taught from childhood, through the myriad of modern educational institutions, to live in the state of willful ignorance that they like to call “the real world.” Ultimately, the key to creating long-term change, follows the identical path that the progressives have taken for the last 100 years. The two most important of those steps are to: 1. Get control of the system of education and 2. Get control of the media. Neither of those things are short-term solutions. However, the Progressives realized that to attain their goals, gradual change would be effective, even though they would never live to see the completion of the work they began. They may have been horribly misguided, if not outright evil people, but they where utterlly committed and very clever.
“Get control” This is the conundrum for the Libertarian-Community, because libertarians are independent-thinkers and don’t want to be controlled. I don’t think that this can happen unless we find a way to de-centralize the education system and break up the big media corporations. I have observed that size is a major contributor to disfunction and corruption.
Frank, you are putting too much emphasis and an imprecise connotation on the word “control,” as I mean it — perhaps my meaning is closer to authority. Let me give you one brief example. I attended a major university, as a young man. I was involved in a campus political party called the “Arts and Sausages Party.” The party took “control” of student government in an overwhelming landslide election. Ultimately, once in “power” there was only one vote held. That vote was to abolish student government at that university. The vote was held, the measure passed and student government at that university ceased to exist, at least for the duration of my time there. Rather than intellectually theorizing about freedom, change, or the ridiculous concept of student government itself, through action we were able to bring about actual change — trivial though this example may be in the larger scheme of things. Nevertheless, it illustrates that only through action and “control” or authority can one achieve real goals within the existing statist framework. In short, taking “control” doesn’t always mean that you want to control anyone.
‘In short, taking “control” doesn’t always mean that you want to control anyone.’ I don’t disagree with your point, but you have to get control or at least motivate the critical mass to make the change. It is not difficult for me to understand why someone would want to abolish “student government”, but difficult to understand why one would want to abolish government by the students. I would only be guessing why there was a need to abolish. Corruption, oppression, tyranny, misuse of authority or popular whim? College students tend to have a liberal view of the way the world should work. A young enthusiastic leader can use crowd mentality to effect a change, but just because a change is made is not evidence that the change is valid. Have you checked to see what has happened since you left. It would be helpful to have some information on why students involved in learning about government is a ridiculous concept.
