Posted on 07/13/2015 4:14:35 AM PDT by markomalley
Fascism and (Marxist) socialism are sisters. Close sisters. Both are fundamentally about controlling the economy in a quest for a greater “good.” They have important differences which are more than stylistic differences. But both are fundamentally opposed to free markets, free prices, and fundamentally the free will of individuals. At least most individuals.
What is “socialism” and what is “fascism” is a point of ongoing debate on this site. Invariably someone posts a meme which purports to define fascism as what we see it in the movies. See, FDR and Obama can’t have fascist tendencies. (In FDR’s case it was probably more than just a tendency.) They don’t (didn’t) wear jack boots and goose step around the White House. Fascists have a look. They are “right-wing.” (Right and Left as we know them in this country really are vestiges of another time and are less and less useful.)
But fascism is not about a look. It is about state control of a nominally private economy. And most of the fascists I know of tend(ed) not to watch Triumph of the Will on loop. Many look(ed) perfectly respectable.
I forgot who said it, but it is true that the most dangerous fascist of all may prefer tweed jackets to arm bands and over-starched shirts.
Anyway, more for the debate.
(From The Library of Economics and Liberty)
In The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics, Sheldon Richman succinctly states: “As an economic system, fascism is socialism with a capitalist veneer.”7 He contends that socialism seeks to abolish capitalism outright, while fascism gives the appearance of a market-based economy, even though it relies heavily on the central planning of all economic activities. According to authors Roland Sarti and Rosario Romeo, “[U]nder Fascism the state had more latitude for control of the economy than any other nation at the time except for the Soviet Union.”8
Interestingly, Mussolini found much of John Maynard Keynes’seconomic theories consistent with fascism, writing: “Fascism entirely agrees with Mr. Maynard Keynes, despite the latter’s prominent position as a Liberal. In fact, Mr. Keynes’ excellent little book, The End of Laissez-Faire (l926) might, so far as it goes, serve as a useful introduction to fascist economics. There is scarcely anything to object to in it and there is much to applaud.”9
…As the effects of the Great Depression lingered, Italy’s government promoted mergers and acquisitions, bailed out failing businesses and “seized the stock holdings of banks, which held large equity interests.”12 The Italian state took over bankrupt corporations, cartelized business, increased government spending, expanded the money supply, and boosted deficits.13 The Italian government promoted heavy industry by “nationalizing it instead of letting the companies go bankrupt.”14
Sound familiar?
Different species of the genus Statist.
May be of interest...
https://archive.org/details/SocialistPhenomenon
“Examines the history and development of socialism tracing its origins back to ancient times and the medieval heresies to its supposed scientific development under Karl Marx and his followers.”
For 90% of the people who throw around the terms socialism and fascism, the terms are simply insults with little specific philosophical content.
They are one in the same. An all powerful government run by an all powerful chairman.
I am no Fascist but I must say that, like all philosophies, it does contain some truth: economics is not the be-all and end-all of everything. Unfortunately, many people on this forum don't get that. It's one thing they have in common with their leftist opponents.
It seems that when a leftist insults someone by calling them a fascist, they mean the militant nationalism that seems ingrained in the system. The do not recognize the corporatism/socialism ingrained in the system.
When a conservative calls someone a fascist, they are usually referring to the socialist tendencies.
When one sees the corporatism running rampant today, the governments attitude of “do what we say since it is for the homeland”, the recent pageantry of paid military homage at sporting events, the militarification of police departments, the imperialistic designs on countries with oil and natural gas, the domestic spying, the President ruling by decree, free speech zones and the persecution of dissenters/whistleblowers, etc, it is not hard to make the argument that the US has become a fascist nation. Call it soft fascism.
All the country needs now is an internal enemy to blame on internal problems on.
The primary difference is in how they perceive nations.
National socialists (fascists) are nationalistic, supporting the ethnic heterogeneity, unique cultures and languages, history/mythology, and religions of nations.
(Internationalist) socialists (from Social Democrats to communists), hate and wish to destroy nations as such. Their push for “equality” in all things is for “normality” through homogeneity. They want “gray”, generic people with no distinct culture, pidgin language devolved to newspeak, volatile history changed at whim with no bearing on the truth, and they despise religion as a competitor. They abhor success or failure as they create inequality.
Who cares about the details of socialism or fascism.
To the victim, all blunt instrument beatings feel the same.
The current incarnation of Democrats/Progressives greatly prefer Fascism because of the illusion of private ownership of businesses and capital.
That way they can blame the private ownership for the failures that their collectivist gov’t policies caused.
Railroad trains, Benito and time.
Two, two mints in one.
The important thing to remember is that he ended up hung by his feet on display like a piece of game meat.
The Vampire Economy is a good read on what the economy was like in Germany. Reading the book you will say that is our economy. A very easy read and very interesting. You can down load it here.
https://mises.org/library/vampire-economy
Thank you sir, I will read it tomorrow. I’ve read a lot on Russian communism but very little about Germany’s national socialism. I suppose once I saw the (rough estimate) numbers of political murders during the bolshevik revolution and onward I assumed everything else would pale in comparison, but I am beginning to see that today’s murderers apply a synthesis of various oppressive regimes and their tactics. The russkies never had such efficient and indeed nigh omnipresent surveillance which today’s cowards eagerly employ.
And still overpriced.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.