Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Socialism Vs Fascism: What Differencies?
#1
Here is a great article, which tackles the similarities and differences between the two Collectivist systems. I'll put out about half of it, and leave the rest to anyone interested in fully undertanding how the NSDAP gained control of Germany before WWII

Quote:Socialism and Fascism

In my recent article on Tony Kushner, I suggested that his socialist views were somehow akin to fascism. Predictably enough, the knee-jerk reaction to this statement was the reassertion of an old historical fallacy: the notion that socialism and fascism are somehow opposed to each other, that they have been historical rivals, that there is nothing but difference between the two -- and that I must have been ignorant of this historical fact. I did not, however, make this comparison glibly. Taken in full historical context, with full consideration of philosophic principle, socialism and fascism are essentially the same.

To know what socialism and fascism are, let us begin by examining some historical examples of each. Fascist states have included Hitler's Germany, Mussolini's Italy, Tojo's Japan, Franco's Spain, Pinochet's Chile, and possibly Peron's Argentina. If we were to focus on each of these concretes, we would observe numerous differences. For instance, Hitler's Fascism was racist. Mussolini's was not. Mussolini's fascism involved belligerent nationalism. Franco's did not. What unites each of these concretes into a group of similars can be seen in a common definition of fascism: "A governmental system with strong centralized power, permitting no opposition or criticism, controlling all affairs of the nation (industrial, commercial, etc.)" (American College Dictionary, New York: Random House, 1957).

Socialist states have included the USSR(1), Communist China, socialist Sweden, socialist England, Cuba, North Korea, and a handful of lesser regimes in Eastern Europe, East Africa, and Southeast Asia. Once again, there is a prima facie difficulty in determining what factor these various states held in common. After all, some socialist regimes (like Sweden's and England's) were elected democratically. Others, like the USSR's and the PRC's, were the result of popular violent revolutions. Still others were the product of either military coup (Cuba, Ethiopia, Vietnam) or foreign invasion (the Eastern Bloc). The trait common to all of these is provided, once again by the definition of socialism: "a theory or system of social organization which advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means or production, capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole" (American College Dictionary).

Now that we have these two concepts (socialism and fascism) squarely on the table, we can spell out their differences and similarities. It is obvious that there are numerous differences between socialism and fascism, the most obvious of which concerns their view of private property. Socialism abolishes the institution entirely; fascism does not. For instance, in the Soviet Union, citizens had to wait years for their names to come up on a list to receive a car from the government. At the same time, everyone is familiar with the existence of wealthy property owners like Oskar Schindler who lived under the Nazi regime. This difference in ideology did in fact manifest itself in actual historical practice. The communists and Social Democrats were, in fact, the main opponents of the rise of Nazi power in Weimar Germany; Nazi Germany and Socialist Russia were at each other's throats in World War II.

True enough: We can put socialism and fascism on a table and stare at them all we like, and all we may see will be differences. What is required to go beyond this is to widen our context of knowledge. For instance, let's say we draw two geometrical figures on the chalkboard: a scalene and an isosceles. If we focus merely on these two concretes, without widening our context, we will see nothing but difference. The two triangles have different angles, different side lengths, different locations, different sizes. Now imagine that we introduce a foil: We draw a square on the board. The difference between the first two triangles is still there, but is made insignificant by the even greater difference between the triangles, on the one hand, and the square on the other. This process of differentiation allows us to see the triangles as similar. If we are able to isolate an essential characteristic of the group (a difference bewteen the triangles and squares which explains all or most of the other differences between them), we can then integrate this group of similars into a single mental unit, uniting it by a common definition, i.e., forming a concept.(2)

We can treat social systems in the same way in which we treat geometical figures. As we observed before, there are probably innumerable differences between socialism and fascism. But what happens if we introduce a foil here, as well? Let's imagine that we introduce a third type of social system. Rather than having society control all property, and rather than having dictatorship in one form or another, we introduce a system in which individuals are free to follow the dictates of their own mind. Rather than having a system in which the choice is between the abridgment of political freedom or the abridgment of economic freedom, we introduce one in which no one's freedom is to be abridged. In short, we introduce capitalism : the social system in which all property is privately owned, and the government's function is restricted to the protection of individual rights.

Once we remember the possibility of the existence of such a system, the differences between socialism and fascism become trivial, superficial and, above all, non-essential. Differentiation of socialism and fascism from capitalism permits the recognition of their similarity. They do differ from each other, but only in the way in which the scalene and the isosceles differ from each other: in degree, but not in kind. Socialism and fascism are each forms of statism, forms of government in which the government is given complete or extensive control over the lives of its citizens.

This theoretical consideration has massive consequences in the practical realm: The differences we noted before turn out not to be as important as we once might have thought.

It is true that fascist systems permitted property ownership, while socialist ones did not. However, fascist "property rights" were only nominal: A businessman (such as Oskar Schindler) would retain legal title to his goods, but he would not retain any control over them. Because he was not politically free, the government could order him to use his property as it desired (such as by using it to produce war implements) -- even if it was _his_ property that was being used. Just as there can be no split between mind and body, there can be no split between political freedom and economic freedom. Man cannot exist without a mind and a body, and he cannot be free if someone else controls either.
................

Unless the political implications of this ethical doctrine of collectivism are not apparent to everyone, the Nazis make them strikingly clear. The Nazis were opposed to authentic private property, and as a result, to capitalism:

Quote:"Private property" as conceived under liberalistic economic order was a reversal of the true concept of property. This "private proprerty" represented the right of the individual to manage and to speculate with inherited or acquired property as he pleased, without regard to the general interests...German socialism had to overcome this "private", that is, unrestrained and irresponsible view of property. All property is common property. The owner is bound by the people and the Reich to the responsible management of his goods. His legal position is only justified when he satisfies this responsibility to the community.

(Ernst Huber, Nazi party spokesman; National Socialism, prepared by Raymond E. Murphy, et al; quoting Huber, Verfassungsrecht des grossdeutschen Reiches (Hamburg, 1939))

To be a socialist is to submit the I to the thou; socialism is sacrificing the individual to the whole.

(Nazi head of propaganda, Joseph Goebbels; In Erich Fromm, Escape from Freedom (New York: Farrar, 1941), pg. 233.)

Finally,

Quote:I have learned a great deal from Marxism, as I do not hesitate to admit. The difference between them and myself is that I have really put into practice what these peddlers and penpushers have timidly begun...I had only to develop logically what Social Democracy repeatedly failed in because of its attempt to realize its evolution within the framework of democracy. National Socialism is what Marxism might have been if it could have broken its absurd and artificial ties with the democratic order.

(Hitler to Rauschning, The Voice of Destruction, pg. 186).

I hope by now that it should be obvious that the philosophical difference between the fascists and the socialists was minor, if existent at all. Each of these schools reject the efficacy of reason, affirm the principle of altruism, and uphold some form of collectivism. The inevitable result of these views is the destruction of freedom, which is exactly what happened in Nazi Germany and in Soviet Russia.

This leads me to reiterate a point I made in my original article on Tony Kushner. Kushner may believe that he can argue for gay rights, he may reject the conclusions of fascism, he may have even openly condemn Nazism in his many works on the holocaust. This, however, is what makes his overall position so utterly contradictory -- and saddening. In my article, I listed each of his positions in epistemology and ethics. These positions were precisely the same as those held by the Nazis. He cannot escape his premises, and their logical conclusions -- no matter how much he wishes to reject the holocaust and affirm gay rights.[/size]

In conclusion, the only real principle difference between socialism and Fascism is that of the veneer of "Property Rights". In both cases, the State is the ultimate entity. It is just that one makes it formal, and the other just pretends to offer property rights,........as long as they conform to the goals of the State. Either system is Collectivism, and is something to be shunned if one wishes to enjoy personal liberty.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#2
Ok, I'll bite:

Quite an odd article to choose.

Let me just pick the most blatant mistake in the reasoning:
Quote:Now that we have these two concepts (socialism and fascism) squarely on the table, we can spell out their differences and similarities.
No, he hasn't introduced these 2 concepts, the author merely named examples of fascist and socialist states, a quasi-empirical comparison which doesn't qualify the nature of either. There are other attempts to define fascism that way, which are equally unsatisfactory in the list of indicators.

Not sure what exactly he means by listing "socialist England" together with "Communist China", what "socialist regime" in England? I haven't got a clue what he is referring to. Which period in history, has he possibly overlooked that England has been part of the UK for a long time now?

Further: Socialism does not necessarily abolish private property, it is Marxist socialism on the road to communism which does that.

More: Yes, social-democrats and communists were the main opponents of the Nazis, which in itself should be proof enough that they are different in principle.

Too many holes in the arguments here, I am afraid.

Oh, and here a definition of fascism how it is commonly understood, it's far from "socialism" in this sense:
Quote:fas·cism (făsh'ĭz'əm) pronunciation
n.

1. often Fascism
1. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
2. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
2. Oppressive, dictatorial control.

[Italian fascismo, from fascio, group, from Late Latin fascium, from Latin fascis, bundle.]
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.
Reply
#3
stroll,
pointless to honour that crap with your opinion. Something in you post wasn't correct,
Quote:Further: Socialism does not necessarily abolish private property, it is Marxist socialism on the road to communism which does that.
no private property of the means of production (which existed to a smaller extent anyway), but anything else could be and was mainly in private property. I'd say it was protected a lot better than today, where there's great pressure to recirculate property in order achieve growth and accumulate wealth by removing it from others. I don't know what those fellows talk about when the issue is property rights.
"You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." Dick Cheney
Reply
#4
quadrat Wrote:I don't know what those fellows talk about when the issue is property rights.

You've never heard me bitch and rant about Kilo??? Shock

I'd actually like to hear where you stand on that one Q. It has to represent a logical conundrum for you. On one hand, it's about as anti-Robin Hood as you can get, but on the other it empowers the state supposidly to tend toward the "good of the community" by seizing people's homes. It was also put in place by the lefty portion of SCOTUS .... (+ a turn coat stealth lefty).

I'll go out on a rickety limb here and suggest that the Kilo decision represents the ultimate blend of socialism and fascism.
"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard."
-- Henry Mencken
Reply
#5
mr_yak Wrote:
quadrat Wrote:I don't know what those fellows talk about when the issue is property rights.

You've never heard me bitch and rant about Kilo??? Shock

I'd actually like to hear where you stand on that one Q. It has to represent a logical conundrum for you. On one hand, it's about as anti-Robin Hood as you can get, but on the other it empowers the state supposidly to tend toward the "good of the community" by seizing people's homes. It was also put in place by the lefty portion of SCOTUS .... (+ a turn coat stealth lefty).

I'll go out on a rickety limb here and suggest that the Kilo decision represents the ultimate blend of socialism and fascism.

"Q" is not up to speed on "Kilo" and would not reac about it anyway, since he is not living in the US. I will be willing to bet you that he never read what you or I have had to say about that and the taking of property.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#6
John L Wrote:"Q" is not up to speed on "Kilo" and would not reac about it anyway, since he is not living in the US. I will be willing to bet you that he never read what you or I have had to say about that and the taking of property.

Well beyond that, I'm wondering how secure I am on my creaky branch. Again, I see Kelo as fascism based on the pretext of socialism. What could possibly be more autocratic than a municipal government that evicts it's own citizens from their homes to advance the centralized authority of it's own development schemes? ... as well as stuffing the pockets of the various developer cronies ... all in the name of the "common good" ... :roll:
"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard."
-- Henry Mencken
Reply
#7
I tend to look at it more from the position of it being Statist in nature. Doesn't matter if it is Fascist, Marxist, Socialist, or just plain dictatorial. It's still statist, in that the State takes precidence over the property rights of the Individual.

Naturally, there are instances where the taking of property is admissible, with such things as highways, or other government needs. But this has been going on since the Founding. However, compensation of the fair value of the property is necessay, AND not for use in obtaining a higher tax revenue base.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#8
What's more 'Statist' than using the authority of government to condemn and seize someone else's property so that your brother-in-law can build a strip mall on some juicy piece of real estate under the guise of raising tax revenue for the "common good"?

It seems like one of the corrupt central tenets of these isms is that the people with the party "ins" get the perks. Whether it's Dachas seized from the gentry, or gold plucked from the teeth of dead jews, or setting up some juicy development deal for your cousin on the back of some unfortunate evictee. Kilo is pretty much the same corruption on a local level.
"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard."
-- Henry Mencken
Reply
#9
Our pseudoindividualists debating stuff they don't understand? The only cases I ever heared of in GDR about seizing private homes by the government was when their owners fled to the West. Seldom and far between. They didn't have use for their home in the new country anyway, did they? Secondly, more often, people gave up their property because the rents were so hideous low that maintenance was difficult, say 1/20 of the average income. My rent back in the eighties was Mark 20 when I earned about 1,500 monthly, for 62 sq meters.
Read in a Grisham novel recently, that when the old Mississipi judge died, his sons had to pay 50% of the value of his home as taxes. Unknown in communist nations. Love you lecturing about property rights.
"You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." Dick Cheney
Reply
#10
"Means of production", yes, thanks quadrat.
Even those evil Marxists don't want to 'steal' our hifi-systems and our children's toys.

I started a topic a while ago about socialism and its various forms, including several links.

That was shot down quickly with the customary Jane rhetoric.

More useful and informative than the opinion-piece which doesn't even define terms we have here.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.
Reply
#11
John L Wrote:I will be willing to bet you that he never read what you or I have had to say about that and the taking of property.

Sure looks like you'd win that bet. Wink1
"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard."
-- Henry Mencken
Reply
#12
mr_yak Wrote:
John L Wrote:I will be willing to bet you that he never read what you or I have had to say about that and the taking of property.

Sure looks like you'd win that bet. Wink1

I don't think either one of our Komrades have ever bothered to read it. Wink1
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#13
If you could decide between the two of you how it is spelled, whatever you are on about, and perhaps add a link, I might read and comment, unless it's some obscure example from somewhere in the US to prove how the 'commies' are taking over the place. 8)
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.
Reply
#14
stroll Wrote:If you could decide between the two of you how it is spelled, whatever you are on about, and perhaps add a link, I might read and comment, unless it's some obscure example from somewhere in the US to prove how the 'commies' are taking over the place. 8)

Well ... here goes nothin' ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._New_London

Hopefully wiki will be neutral enough for you with regards to the "commies' are taking over" - [I did not see any scathing right wing rantings in it's explaination]. Again, it represents a conundrum for the left leaning. Essential, low income home owners were screwed by the city of New London under eminent domain. Their properties seized and turned over to a private developer for his exclusive private use. The "public use" argument that was unfortunately (foolishly) accepted by our SCOTUS was that it's OK to rob these folks because it would presumably increase tax revenues ... for "the common good".

... it stinks ... and (for) now it's the 'law' regarding how private property issues are dealt with in this country. :x

If you'll note here, the argument being made here is against buisness (via government) screwing the vulnerable little guy. I thought you guys were all over that sort of thing. :? I'll pass on quadrat's attempt to infer that this doesn't happen in communist systems as well ... the only difference is that the evictee doesn't get a bullet in the back of the head.
"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard."
-- Henry Mencken
Reply
#15
We're wasting our time with the Two Komrades. Almost sounds like a movie title. Get one more Leftist Kraut, and we will have the three Komrades(almost like the Three Amigos). 8)
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#16
John L Wrote:We're wasting our time with the Two Komrades. Almost sounds like a movie title. Get one more Leftist Kraut, and we will have the three Komrades(almost like the Three Amigos). 8)

Hey, it sounded like a challenge, and I hate to see those go unanswered ... even if nothing comes from it. Wink1

Anyway, I can't think of any better (local) example of people getting screwed by their government under the guise of "good intentions".
"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard."
-- Henry Mencken
Reply
#17
mr_yak Wrote:Hopefully wiki will be neutral enough for you with regards to the "commies' are taking over" - [I did not see any scathing right wing rantings in it's explaination]. Again, it represents a conundrum for the left leaning. Essential, low income home owners were screwed by the city of New London under eminent domain. Their properties seized and turned over to a private developer for his exclusive private use. The "public use" argument that was unfortunately (foolishly) accepted by our SCOTUS was that it's OK to rob these folks because it would presumably increase tax revenues ... for "the common good".

... it stinks ... and (for) now it's the 'law' regarding how private property issues are dealt with in this country. :x

If you'll note here, the argument being made here is against buisness (via government) screwing the vulnerable little guy. I thought you guys were all over that sort of thing. :? I'll pass on quadrat's attempt to infer that this doesn't happen in communist systems as well ... the only difference is that the evictee doesn't get a bullet in the back of the head.
Interestingly, this case happened in your "individualistic" US, and the governor of Connecticut is a Republican.

As I pointed out some time ago, the issue is not dramatically different from what goes down in Germany and other European nations.
This decision would be equally controversial and opposed by a variety of groups from all sides of the political spectrum.

Not a good example. Now, if you were to bring an instance where publicly owned land is allocated for commercial development instead of for public services such as a library or youth-center, than you'd narrow the difference down - but even then you won't find opposing camps clearly divided by being "Left" or "Right" in terms of party-politics, though you'd find more "Leftists" in favour of a youth center.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.
Reply
#18
I wonder why some people try so frantically to prove American democracy and fascism are different, if they aren't? There's an important point left out in all arguments about fascism here, the one having faith in free market democracy themselves regard as the defining feature: the private property rights. Which are the same under fascism as they are in the American democracy, the means of production are privately owned. Therefore, your democracy and fascism are two branches of the same tree.
"You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." Dick Cheney
Reply
#19
quadrat Wrote:I wonder why some people try so frantically to prove American democracy and fascism are different, if they aren't? There's an important point left out in all arguments about fascism here, the one having faith in free market democracy themselves regard as the defining feature: the private property rights. Which are the same under fascism as they are in the American democracy, the means of production are privately owned. Therefore, your democracy and fascism are two branches of the same tree.

Great Heyoka logic "Q".
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#20
Why don't you present some chief bloviator logic to refute the argument? Simple, you can't. :lol:
"You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." Dick Cheney
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)