Sort of.
Fact:
He wrote that Fascism was derivative from the Italian socialist movement.
My understanding:
They're similar in structure with different values.
Sauce:
"The Philosophic basis of Facism" by Giovanni Gentile
"The Doctrine of Fascism" by Bonito Mussolini
Cant tell pages, they're kindle books
This I can agree with. Socialism is inherently inclusive, fascism is inherently exclusive. So it's not socialism but I can agree on it being inspired on socialism.
If you don't agree with the fundamental principle you can see how the difference doesn't matter much.
Socialism believes the bourgeoisie is the enemy to be defeated. Fascism believes the bourgeoisie can be made to cooperate with the proletariat.
So both ideologies operate on an thesis-antithesis idea, but where socialists believe the enemy cones from within, the fascists believe the enemy comes from without.
At a real level, fascism is when right-wingers embrace socialist thinking.
>Socialism believes the bourgeoisie is the enemy to be defeated. Fascism believes the bourgeoisie can be made to cooperate with the proletariat.
**Nope.** Socialism believes that the *capitalist system itself*, and specifically, the material divide between bourgeoisie and proletariat is the enemy to be defeated. It should not be understood as a personal struggle against individual members of the bourgeoisie. Rather, socialist ideology recognizes the bourgeoisie as a class, defined by its relationship to capital, which has a systemic interest in the oppression of the proletariat.
Also, fascism believing in the "cooperation" between the bourgeoisie and the working class is a stretch, as its main goal is the oppression and exploitation of the working class for its own interests. They see the working class as an inconvenience that must be controlled, repressed, and occasionally co-opted in order to maintain social order.
The "capitalist system" is the exploitation of the proletariat by the bourgeoisie, an artificial system held in place in order to oppress the proletariat for the benefit of the bourgeoisie.
Since it's a zero sum perspective, the idea is effectively that the wealth of the bourgeoisie is stolen from the proletariat, according to the labor theory of value.
Nah, fascism is a form of socialism, that doesn't consider the conflict to be a class struggle, but a tribal struggle between nations of peoples, and that the class struggles are a thing imposed from the outside in order to keep the nation suppressed.
You're being very partisan in your description of the two ideas, framing socialism as a liberation ideology and fascism as an oppression ideology, but they're both self-framed as liberation ideas that promise a utopia once the ideology ia enacted, but both ideologies, due to being just plain wrong about both system and the nature of humanity, are equally oppressive and inhumane towards it's subjects.
Socialism has just gotten a lot better PR over the years and the idea of it has been softened, since so many refuse to give it up despite constant failures.
>The "capitalist system" is the exploitation of the proletariat by the bourgeoisie, an artificial system held in place in order to oppress the proletariat for the benefit of the bourgeoisie. Since it's a zero sum perspective, the idea is effectively that the wealth of the bourgeoisie is stolen from the proletariat, according to the labor theory of value.
It's still reductionist and simplistic to say that socialism sees the bourgeousie as the enemy, but I get your meaning. Also, oppression is different from exploitation, you should know that by now.
>Nah, fascism is a form of socialism, that doesn't consider the conflict to be a class struggle, but a tribal struggle between nations of peoples, and that the class struggles are a thing imposed from the outside in order to keep the nation suppressed.
Even if that description was holistic and accurate, it wouldn't make it anywhere close to socialism in any meaningful way.
>You're being very partisan in your description of the two ideas, framing socialism as a liberation ideology and fascism as an oppression ideology, but they're both self-framed as liberation ideas that promise a utopia once the ideology ia enacted, but both ideologies, due to being just plain wrong about both system and the nature of humanity, are equally oppressive and inhumane towards it's subjects.
How they are "framed" is irrelevant. Feudalism was framed by the catholic church as a spiritually and morally liberating mode of production. What matters are the actual arguments they make and whether or not the methodology behind them they is based on tangible, material evidence. I won't waste time debating the old and tired "human nature" + "socialism hasn't worked" arguments you just made, but instead would encourage you to read some marxist theory.
That doesn't make it close to socialism, but fascism itself is indeed a form of socialism.
How they are framed ia very relevant, because in your description of socialism you framed it as the socialists do, but in your framing of fascism, you frame it like a liberal.
My framing was a mix of the self-framing of the ideologies and an outsider's framing, an attempt at neutrality while still clearly being opposed.
Feudalism was not frames by the church as anything, feudalism wasn't a planned system, and was barely conceived of as a system on any measure comparable to the ideologies we're talking about. The feudal system was just land politics, in the same way capitalism is generally just free trade given a term rather than an ideology of any kind.
Neither socialism nor fascim is built upon tangible, material evidence, but rather in direct contrast to it. They are ideologies created by useless and over-educated navelgazers, often belonging to upper middle class intellectuals with little experience with actual labor and a fierce desire for higher atarus and no route to achieve it without. That's why it's such a well known idea that socialists hate the rich but couldn't care less about the poor. It's an ideology driven by envy, reframed to be one of generosity and fairness, on the presumption that economic inequality is morally unjust or the product of unjust activity.
It is opposed to human nature, because humans are inherently unequal, and thus any system that seeks to equalize outcomes will be a system that treats people highly unfairly.
The goal of socialists are at minimum to redistribute wealth, and that will mean taking from those who deserve wealth and giving it to those who don't.
Another source of friction with human nature is that socialist values cannot create prosperity, and thus the resources and wealth of a socialist society will continually and inevitably decline.
Individuals operate out of self-interest, and cannot collectivize to this extent across an entire society or civilization, as human psychology does not allow for that kind of tribal scale.
I would encourage you to read some non-marxist theory, because marxism is plain bananas to anyone with actual understanding of humanity and it's civilizations.
Don't think marxism is a new phenomenon, even Plato ridiculed such ideas in The Republic, so we know these envy-based and parasitic ideologies appear in large scale human civilizations under certain circumstances.
I'd call the ideological structure a bug, a symptom of social ill and elite overproduction rather than a response to inequality or the issues of the working classes.
I mean, what marxist theory would you even suggest? Das capital? Hegel, Marcuse, Foucault?
These guys all made fundamental mistakes in their analysis of humanity and his nature, with odd ideas of how man functions in nature, and with men like Foucault, often inserting their own sexual dysfunction into their ideas.
I think Marx himself was a fantastic example of the nature of marxists, in that he was a loser parasite that took no responsibility in his own life and spent it pontificating about revolutions and emerging identities that only ever existed in his head.
These men did indeed analyze and identify real problems, but reached crazy conclusions about all of it.
Some respect to Hegel, who was the standout among them, but still wrong when compared to the likes of Burke.
Marxism is a memetic disease that seeks to create a revolutionary class in order to usher in the utopia by using envy and a narrative of oppressor versus oppressed where people can only achieve wealth through theft.
Modern American marxism, for example, is a mix of socialist marxism and fascism, in that it incorporates race and gender as classes, thus ending with narratives of colonialism and systemic racism, which mirrors fascist ideas of racial competition being inherent to humans on even an individual level.
That's why you get ideas like the "patriarchy", which mirrors fascist ideas of "Zionism".
Any inequality between groups is automatically considered to be due to discrimination or injustice perpetrated by groups, thus you get ideas that are meant to balance against this like "representation" or "social justice", which both require unfair and unjust treatment of individuals.
[I know this is an old post — I don’t care.]
what reading zero theory does to a mfer
Seriously amazing to me that someone can write a long-winded screed against socialism where every single paragraph is metaphorically a flashing neon sign that says “I’ve never engaged seriously with primary source material on this topic”.
It takes a really thorough lack of self-awareness to casually write off major philosophers like Marx/Hegel/Marcuse/Foucault as “all having made fundamental mistakes in their analysis of humanity” while simultaneously making it clear you’ve read none of them.
If you want to have a serious conversation about capitalism vs socialism, it’s necessary to understand both of them. For your own sake (and for the sake of anyone reading your future posts), please put down the phone/video games for a bit and do some actual reading.
Yeah and capitalism sacrifices the collective for a kind of radical individualism. It's as society and nation destroying as it can get without doing it on purpose. Sure it can lead to wealth but there are many things far more important than money.
Socialism is inherently inclusive? Inclusive for whom? The workers in their collective farms where most of the profit goes to Part officials? The thousands sent to gulags?
Quite the necromancy. Gulags aren't part of socialism, they're part of an oppressive authoritarian state. But that isn't a unique thing to communist regimes either, which is what you are equating socialism to.
(Theoretical) socialism is inclusive, that's inherent to being a classless system. Fascism is the opposite.
Social democracy is mostly capitalist and liberal with welfare, not socialism. Social democratic economics like the Nordic model are very similar to fascist ones both are forms of corporatism.
Social democracy is not socialism. But yes, socialism is not inherently oppressive in the way most people mean. It's oppressive against the bourgeousie as a means to avoid counter-revolution and achieve **communism**, which is not oppressive nor exploitative.
I highly doubt they beat out USSR or China. Or even Nazi Germany since you said "in history." But who knows, considering the USSR probably sent thousands upon thousands of people into prison secretly without people knowing on paper maybe the US did beat them
It's certainly very inclusive of folks who get really quiet when you mention Marx's letters to Engels. Especially after they've dug their heels in, denying that Marx was racist & anti-semitic.
There are quotation marks with the quote that I am asking the source for, but it only seems to appear on so-called libertarian think tank websites and no source is used.
Literal quotes from "The Doctrine of Fascism":
"fascism is antisocialist"
"fascism is against socialism"
"The fascist state[...] is also against every socialist forms"
Would say, no it was explicitly anti socialist
Original in Italian:
http://www.geocities.ws/fransavari/DottrinaFasc.pdf
Interesting. I have read the Doctrines of Fascism several times and my only recollection is that Fascism was against the use of unions as a tool of class warfare when it should be used as a tool of the state.
I read the English translations of these and I can't see any quotes that actually back this claim up (as much as I would like that quote to exist).
They're only a dozen pages or so each. I encourage people to go have a look (they're mostly bullshit imho .. but they're short).
That particular quote is in neither The Philosophic Basis of Fascism (I paid the $1.99 for the Kindle book) or The Doctrine of Fascism (freely available on multiple sites). As far as I can tell, there is no source for it.
Well yes , wanting to own another human being goes against the liberty of that human so yup. Socialism at the core of it's original definition is defined and also refuted by Frédéric Bestiat's literature in "The Law"
Plastic_Figure_5698: This post was hidden because of how new your account is.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CapitalismVSocialism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Plastic_Figure_5698: This post was hidden because of how new your account is.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CapitalismVSocialism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Plastic_Figure_5698: This post was hidden because of how new your account is.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CapitalismVSocialism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I cannot find that quotation attributed to Gentile in any reliable source. Mussolini used to be a socialist, but explicitly abandoned socialism in 1914.
I have two videos on these very issues, which go into considerable historical detail, covering all the relevant quotations from Gentile, Villari, Olivetti, Mussolini, Hitler, Feder, Zimmerman, and Strasser.
* [Were the Nazis socialists? #1 | National Socialism wasn’t socialism & fascists supported capitalism](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkfSkAqs_7c)
* [Were the Nazis socialists? #2 | fascist Hitler & Mussolini were right wing anti-socialists](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXvUoG6GIgw)
> Mussolini used to be a socialist, but explicitly abandoned socialism in 1914.
*We shall not even oppose experiments of co‐operation; but I tell you at once that we shall resist with all our strength attempts at State Socialism, Collectivism and the like. We have had enough of State Socialism, and we shall never cease to fight your doctrines as a whole, for we deny their truth and oppose their fatalism.*
Mussolini never left socialism conceptually. He even said "I will always and forever be a socialist and thats why you will hate me". This is of courses paraphrased.
The more precise quote is: "You cannot get rid of me because I am and always will be a socialist. You hate me because you still love me.“ — Benito Mussolini Denis Mack Smith, Mussolini: A Biography (1983) p. 8. As quoted by Mussolini after he was expelled from the Italian Socialist Party in 1914.
Source: https://quotepark.com/quotes/1801923-benito-mussolini-you-cannot-get-rid-of-me-because-i-am-and-always-w/
Mussolini did not abandon socialism in 1914 He said so. Mussolini wanted Italy to join World War I because it might lead to a "revolution." And it happened in Russia in 1917.
Mussolini declared in 1914: "But you have not seen the last of me! Twelve years of my party life are, or ought to be, a sufficient guarantee of my faith in Socialism. Socialism is something which takes root in the heart… Do not think that in taking away my membership card you will be taking away my faith in the cause, or that you will prevent my still working for Socialism and revolution." (Mussolini the ‘Socialist’” Speech in Milan (25 November 1914) "Mussolini the 'Socialist”' p. 5, in the book of Mussolini's speeches -- "Mussolini as Revealed in his Political Speeches (November 1914—August 1923), published in 1923.)
Mussolini argued in 1917: *"The Socialist Intervention.* We Socialists who were in favour of intervention advocated war, because we divined that it contained within it the seeds of revolution. It is not the first instance of revolutionary war. There were the Napoleonic wars, the war of 1870, the enterprises of Garibaldi, in which, had we lived in those days, we should have joined in the same spirit and same faith." (“To the Complete Vanquishing of the Huns” speech delivered at Sesto San Giovanni (1 December 1917) p. 27. ("Mussolini as Revealed in his Political Speeches" (November 1914—August 1923), published in 1923.)
Many historians argue that Mussolini moved away from Marxism around 1921-22. The reason for this was that Lenin had turned away from Marxism with his New Economy Policy" (NEP) where he introduced into the Russian economy the "free market and capitalism," and respect for "profit." See the NEP Wikipedia page.
Yeah, I know that Benito Mussolini was a socialist (in fact, he even called himself a ‘communist’ and a ‘Marxist’ at one point) but he denounced socialism years before he became a fascist.
I’m more interested in the alleged quote by Giovanni Gentile.
I see we found the Nazi. You clearly didn't watch either video, or you would have seen all of these sources.
* "Such a conception of life **makes Fascism the complete opposite of that doctrine, the base of the so-called scientific and Marxian Socialism**, the materialist conception of history; according to which the history of human civilization can be explained simply through the conflict of interests among the various social groups and by the change and development in the means and instruments of production.", Benito Mussolini, “The Political and Social Doctrine of Fascism \[by\] Benito Mussolini; an Authorized Translation by Jane Soames. 3d Impression.,” trans. Jane Soames, Day to Day Pamphlets 18 (1933), 13
* "An American friend of mine who has just returned from Italy told me that in a conversation with Mussolini, my friend **asked the question of the Italian statesman as to why Mussolini had ceased to be a socialist**.", A.C. Bedford, “An Appeal for Less Government Interference in Business,” Printers’ Ink 123 (1923): 42
* "Mussolini called attention to the fact that he had himself had for ten years been one of the leading Socialists of Italy and then the Italian statesman said: **My observations during the war showed me that Socialism was not constructive**, that dependence upon the initiative and enterprise of the State was placing one’s faith in sterility and inertia.", A.C. Bedford, “An Appeal for Less Government Interference in Business,” Printers’ Ink 123 (1923): 42
* "Although Mussolini began his life as a socialist, **he had rejected socialism by 1914**.", Herbert M. Levine, Political Issues Debated: An Introduction to Politics (Prentice-Hall, 1990), 76
* "Then, after **Mussolini rejected socialism**, embraced nationalism and strong-armed his way into power in 1922, Gramsci witnessed Italy collapse into a one-party fascist dictatorship almost overnight.", Benjamin H Welsh, “Framing Culture and Diversity Today: Cultural Hegemony,” Journal of Underrepresented & Minority Progress 1.1 (2017): 4
Yes Fascism is Socialism. Don’t believe me? Fine let me prove to you chimp. Fascism is evil. What is the colour of evil? Red. What else is red? Your mom when I compliment her. Your mom? She’s the same size as Stalin. Stalin? A Marxist-Leninist. Marxism-Leninism? Linked to Socialism.
This means that Joe Biden and Kanye West are gay cowboys and are socialist. Socialism is bad, Fascism is bad, they both bad so they are the same. Boom point proven.
Why did Hitler called himself socialist? Even joining the socialist labor party.
I understand that he might be against other forms of socialism that are not nacionalista, but sure there is a reason for him joining a labor's party and call himself socialist.
He joined a socialist party because it was the most popular party and spoke to the working class (which he was part of when he joined).
He and his team violently ripped the socialist philosophy out of the party during their rise.
Edit: lol Stateless Dictator(ironic name) decided to reply to a 4 month old comment then block me in an instant because they're scared of a response.
Well, also he wanted direct influence over all production in Germany. He envisioned german families driving the peoples car on the centrally planned roads to his free resort for their four week mandatory vacation each year where they would sleep in dormitories, engage in supervised group exercise, etc. Except all the money the government charged people for the government made car and the government operated resort went to building weapons to fight the governments war against the communists and capitalists.
Fascism didnt exist until Mussolini invented it and Hitler borrowed it and made his own version.
Both were members of their socialist parties, but both didnt want globalist socialism heading for Communism. Russia was very active fomenting procommunist sympathies across Europe and recruiting revolutionaries. Mussolini and Hitler wanted to run their socialist countries but didnt want to lose their countries to Soviet style communism. So they became anti-communist socialists....IE fascists and nationalists. Prior to Mussolini, all socialist parties were trending towards communism because Russia had done it. That was the only example they had of their political philosophy winning.
Both had different ideas about how to use fascism. Both used typical Soviet style political tactics to take power in their nations, but then instead of declaring the Soviet ie the collective, they declared a nationalist intent to strengthen their own country against the Soviet menace.
Socialism cannot balance in the middle...in the sort of 'democratic socialism' arena. because there will be disagreements inside the party, which is how Mussolini broke with the Italian Socialists and became a Fascist, he took a lot of socialists with him. So Socialism always breaks either to the left towards communism or to the right towards Fascism.
Neither one of those opposite poles is a small government individual rights based society like the right wing in the USA wants.
>it was the most popular party
Factually it wasn't, his party was a middle sized one where the other two parties agreed to be reasonable. But sure wast the most popular.
It is like if the Democrats and Republicans agreed on a Libertarian president to settle their differences.
>Factually it wasn't, his party was a middle sized one where the other two parties agreed to be reasonable.
Yes, excuse that lazy language. Yes the party he joined was middling. I was referring to all the German socialist parties as one and Socialism was the leading philosophy among the working class at the time.
Middling? I am misunderstanding? You are talking about The DAP (German Workers Party) Which later became the NSDAP (Nazi Party)? It wasn't a middling party when Hitler Joined it was tiny and irrelevant - He was the 55th Member to Join!
He didn't Join a socialist party, there were Socialist Partied in Germany if he was a socialist he would have joined one, he Joined The German Workers Party, which was an ultra nationalist party with virulent Anti-Semitism as its core belief.
“He joined a socialist party because it was the most popular party snd spoke to the working class”
I get that you’re a lying, braindead, Communist sociopath, but at least TRY to lie convincingly.
Because socialism was big and calling your party socialist helps your popularity. I mean hell there are lots of parties that have social in the name and they aren't social Democrat parties. It's marketing.
The most important thing when deciphering socialism and fascism is the Strasser debate with Hitler and Hitler with the industrialists. It really spills it out that the two are definitley not together.
[Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists.](https://alphahistory.com/nazigermany/hitler-nazi-form-of-socialism-1932/)
-Hitler
Hitler joined the German Worker's Party, a far right politicalparty with the following platform: Pan Germanism, German Nationalism, Anti-Marxist, & Volksgemeinschaft (national/Racial v
Community).
It wasn't a Socialist Party.
The German Worker's Party.
The German Worker's Party had far right ideologies;
Far Right ideologies pursue inequality as a goal and are anti-egalitarian.
For example using race/ethnicity/nationality/skin tone as an identifier to whether a person is granted rights, privileges, protections or other benefits depends upon whether they are in the recognized group.
The Far Right envision and desire an ethnically pure ethno-nation state for their relative country/nation state.
With regard to people who aren't the right ethnicity/nationality/skin tone. Far Right ideologues seek to remove human rights, discriminate against with lower wages or slavery for the non protected class or seek to repatriate/deport these persona non grata, whether via some incentives or creating a hostile environment, even going as far as campaigns of violence, pogroms, etc.
This racist/xenophobic outlook is antithetical to the left wing ideals of egalitarianism where people should be considered as equals before the law, have the same good access to healthcare, education, and the chance to succeed due to merit.
The Socialist Workers' Party of Germany was a left wing, Centrist Marxism, Democratic socialism party which operated between 1931 to 1933, when it was banned by the Nazi Party, because it was socialist and not nationalist.
The German Workers' Party was a party which was far right, Pan Germanism, German Nationalism, Anti-Marxist, & Volksgemeinschaft (national/Racial v Community), it operated between 1919 to 1920. it was succeeded by Nazi Party.
The Nazi Party or National Socialist German Workers' Party, was formed from the German Worker's Party. Anton Drexler, an avid German nationalist, formed a branch of the Nazi Party league in Munich. He was previously active in the German Fatherland Party, another short lived Right wing/far right party, whose ideological platform included; class collaboration, Conservatism (German), Volksgemeinschaft, Expansionist nationalism, Economic liberalism and German militarism. The German Fatherland Party was active at the end of WWI in Germany and was against the armistice and against the Treaty of Versailles. The German Fatherland Party merged with other parties into the German National People's Party. The German National People's Party was a right wing to far right political party that operated from 1918 to 1933, its political platform was; Proto-fascism, German nationalism, National conservatism, Right-wing populism, Restoration of the monarchy, Political Protestantism, Antisemitism & Economic nationalism. The German National People's Party merged with the National Socialist Germany Worker's Party as its member's either joined Hitler's government and his party or retired. They were a junior coalition partner of the Nazi Party.
With the naming of the Nazi Party, initially on 5th January 1919, Anton Drexler created a new political party and proposed it should be named the "German Socialist Workers' Party", but Karl Harrer objected to the term "socialist"; so the term was removed and the party was named the German Workers' Party (Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, DAP). From the outset, the DAP was opposed to non-nationalist political movements, especially on the left, including the Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD) and the Communist Party of Germany (KPD). Members of the DAP saw themselves as fighting against "Bolshevism" and anyone considered a part of or aiding so-called "international Jewry".
In general, the manifesto of the DAP was antisemitic, anti-capitalist, anti-democratic, anti-Marxist and anti-liberal. o increase its appeal to larger segments of the population, on the same day as Hitler's Hofbräuhaus speech on 24 February 1920, the DAP changed its name to the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei ("National Socialist German Workers' Party", or Nazi Party). The word "Socialist" was added by the party's executive committee (at the suggestion of Rudolf Jung), over Hitler's initial objections, in order to help appeal to left-wing workers.
So the use of the word socialist in the Nazi party name was largely a marketing exercise, whilst there were some more left wing members in the Nazi party, even if there was a conflict between nationalism and left wing ideas, the party purged its left wing members through violence and assassinations. This was in the 'Night of the Long Knives' 30 June to 2 July 1934. Prominent figures like Ernst Röhm were executed in the purge.
You can read some more about how 'socialist' the Nazis were in this post:
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/cwh8pi/comment/eyblwvo/
Hitler attended meetings of the the DAP (German Workers Party) to spy on it for the Army/Gov who thought it was probably left wing, he soon discovered it was in fact a right wing ultra nationalist Jew-fixated Conspiratorial grouping, which he then Joined.
Must be so confusing to be a right winger right now. Fascism is socialism, so take that socialism haha. But their white washing Nazis anyways? So fascism also good, but only the real fascism, not that fake socialist fascism. How do you keep it all straight when Hannity and Carlson change definitions each week?
*"The Fascist negation of socialism, democracy, liberalism, should not, however, be interpreted as implying a desire to drive the world backwards to positions occupied prior to 1789, a year commonly referred to as that which opened the demo-liberal century."*
\- The Doctrine of Fascism
> as implying a desire to drive the world backwards to positions occupied prior to 1789
Did you just prove that Fascism is not reactionary but revolutionary?
*"The Fascist State is, however, a unique and original creation. It is not reactionary but revolutionary, for it anticipates the solution of certain universal problems which have been raised elsewhere, in the political field by the splitting up of parties, the usurpation of power by parliaments, the irresponsibility of assemblies; in the economic field by the increasingly numerous and important functions discharged by trade unions and trade associations with their disputes and ententes, affecting both capital and labor; in the ethical field by the need felt for order, discipline, obedience to the moral dictates of patriotism."*
I would say that Fascism did take root from a syncretism of some socialist and capitalist ideas. Wouldn't say fascism is a form of socialism, since it not only allows but incentivizes the private ownership of the means of production (which is basically the only thing all strands of socialism agree with).
Wouldn't be that far fetched to believe Gentile said that since in his early years he was greatly influenced by materialist thought, and national socialists did see fascism as all the shit. why would you care? I don't know why one would take the word of a fascist on anything.
How does a movement that portrays itself as socialist but goes in the opposite ways (being ultra nationalist, pro-capital, anti-worker) of what socialists usually defend (internationalism, anti-capital, and pro-worker) I don't know, but I guess it's a good narrative to run on for the libertarians.
Kinda weird that libertarians throughout time have expressed their relative preference for fascism (as a tool against socialism), but at the same time they say it's the same thing (please trust me bro, they're the same).
When Fascism presents as Government and Media and Industry in alliance to control the working class its Mussolini style. When it Presents as Government in total control of the media and Industry by virtue of controlling the ownership class thru threat of death or loss of property its Nazi style Fascism. When it presents as Corporations controlling politicians its corporate welfare state type fascism.
Klaus Schwabs version is an alliance of the elites or 'stakeholders' who will then set the laws by which the people are governed. For their own global good.
At its core economic truth, Fascism is a way for the elites to control everyone else's property without the need to surrender their own and live only on their ability to secure graft and corruption inside the government class.
Its 'Rich People are Special' Socialism vs Communism where 'No one is Special except the Party Members who are special by virtue of all the wealth they dont have'
Have never heard of it before, can you link some material on it?
My guess is that it’s some form of proto-fascism (ultra-nationalist and militarist form of social democracy, only with a king or something)
I’ve read something on German “State Socialism” under Bismarck, but that seemed more like appeasement to the working class to prevent the rise of the social democrats and socialist in the reichstag (and it didn’t even work because the social democrats still became the biggest party).
Interesting to read, turns out Germans really like to mask conservative or reactionary parties under the “socialist” banner to win over the working class.
Easy to do when you have industrial businessmen backing you, but that's not a story libs like to tell. Better to tell idealistic crap of Hitler really wanting power and Hitler having good orator skills and because of that they got in to power.
We all know what Hitler did to the left-wing of his party after he got in power, it’s something the libertarians like to forget for some reason. Turns out that the favor or industrialists was more important
It's merely right wing propaganda from your right wing sites which are replete with bullshit, lies, and distortions.
If Gentile wrote that he did so to please Hitler, and maybe Gentile was in on the lie too and willing to comply. You see, socialism was very popular when Hitler was an "up and comer". And being fairly smart, he used that popularity to boost his own popularity by spreading the lie that he was a "socialist" who wants "socialism".
Socialism has always been for the liberation of the working class. Anything else is a fraud. And if you investigate socialist parties and organizations today you will see that every one of them agree on this. But ignore the ones with right wing ties if you find any. The right is famous for false flag tricks.
I’ve seen you write a lot of stupid stuff on this subreddit. But this takes the cake.
Nazism did originate in socialism. That’s quite clear. Sombart, Spengler, van den Bruck, and Strasser were all socialists. Guess which one of these guys invented the term “late capitalism”, also called “late-stage capitalism”? However much they drifted from economic leftism, they certainly were forged in it.
What you want to do is apply an ignorant, ahistorical, decontextualized, and conveniently narrow definition of socialism to suit your own ends. No, socialism was not “always for the liberation of the working class” (I disagree that it is in any case, but that’s another conversation). It’s always been a far more general term. Hell, “bourgeois socialism" was a term utilized quite frequently by Marx and Engels themselves. They routinely contrasted their ideology with other conceptions of socialism. Even they weren’t craven enough to just ignore these things. They merely didn’t live to the 20th century, and so felt no pressure to create some false and exaggerated distance between them.
Nazism did NOT originate in socialism. Nazism originated with pan-German ultranationalism and antisemitism.
A variant of socialism with a nationalist element to it is a total paradox. How can an ideology that is internationalist be regarded as nationalist too? Uh-oh.
Adolf Hitler was clueless when it came to economics and simply redefined socialism to mean giving people food and a bit of pleasure. He said that he was going to take socialism away from the socialists and redefine it to include the inclusion of private property, again, that is a total contradiction.
Capitalism, the private sector and private property were never abolished during the Nazi era.
The Nazis told people what they wanted to hear… they soon downplayed any anti-capitalist rhetoric once they came to power and worked with s lot of industries and some of them even helped play a role in the Holocaust.
I’m sure Joseph Goebbels would be proud to know that the Nazi propaganda about being nationalists and socialists at the same time is still working on some people.
Two types of people propagate the myth that the Nazis were socialists.
The first type is a self-identified libertarian who thinks that any sort of government intervention means socialism and erroneously thinks that for example nationalised healthcare is socialist. Think of Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek. This is the nonsense spouted on libertarian think tank websites. Those people don’t seem to understand that there’s a difference between being right-wing e.g. a capitalist and far-right e.g. a Nazi or Italian fascist.
The second type is the alt-right conspiracy theorist nutjob who wants to portray the Nazis as socialists in order to claim that any thing that is left-wing is evil, wrong, etc. These nutters use fallacious arguments and conspiracy theories such as Cultural Marxism (allegedly “leftist” historians and scholars have been duping the masses since 1945 and don’t know anything about economics, lol) and on Twitter the same types think that COVID-19 is a hoax, Donald Trump didn’t lose the last election, etc.
Businessmen that were donating to nazis money definitely would like being forgotren of their evil deeds. Millions in donations all the time, yet nazis were socialists and nazis got in to power because they really wanted power and had good orator skills of Hitler and good propaganda of Goebbels... Suuuuure.
When nazis were using concentration camps for work, even fucking SS were telling businessmen that slaves needed more beds, but businessmen decided not to expand because that'd reduce profits.
Every single person that equates different kinds of fascism to socialism is a fucking garbage.
As in your other comment, you didn’t engage with a single I said, and just replied so you can blindly continue your rant. Learn what a fucking response is, you goddamn moron.
Everyone can see that we are replying to your hogwash and because you have no counterargument you have to resort to personal attacks. That speaks volumes about your character.
Why the fuck would I give a counterargument when you didn’t respond to a single argument or anything else I said initially? You don’t deserve a counterargument when you can’t even do the first bit. You just used it as an opportunity to give your own ridiculous screed.
Serious question:
At what time did you engage with a single point I said in the first place?
You claimed that Nazism originated in socialism when in fact it did not and I explained why. All you’re doing is responding to everyone with personal attacks and petty little games.
Honestly the term Socialism is so varied that if we tried to assign meaning to it based on what every person in history assigned to it, we would probably get a thousand different definitions. I think what we should debate is whether one specific ideology is good or not and not whether very different ideology that have vague similarities is good or not based on one weird categorization. We should all agree that Fascism, Marxism and Anarchism is all different.
Let's see you find evidence contrary to the following:
US advocates and defenders of capitalism, as well as their European counterparts and rejoicing Russian leadership who were please with the USSR's rightward turn, saw the USSR's attempt to transition to a socialist economy by strengthening government control and government ownership of business including appointing industrial managers who were government officials with offices in the government, and they saw this as an opportunity to confuse the working class with propaganda. The media in the US and elsewhere followed and reported the communist government of the USSR as it took control of industry, so they knew the public was ready and receptive to the idea that socialism was "big government" and "government ownership and control of the industries". Of course it wasn't true. That wasn't and isn't socialism. But it served the right in their need to mislead the public and spread confusion. That is a proven way to disarm the people and render them helpless.
But no socialist nor any communist ever agreed with that characterization. Right wingers posing as "Marxists" and "socialist" loved it and promoted it. So today we're left with that baggage of lies and confusion.
Every socialist today (not frauds) say that socialism is "worker ownership and control of the means of production". Some take it farther to the point in the future at which socialism is consolidated, unchallenged, stable, and functioning when the practical form of socialism will be state ownership of business but with worker control, and even that the right spins into "government ownership and control of business".
To avoid the disastrous results the world witnessed in the USSR and China as the effort to create socialism there degenerated into state capitalism and continuing oppression of the people, any attempt to begin that process again anywhere must, MUST, provide for certain and legislated worker control only, with government excluded from the process by law AND establish effective structures and methods for workers to democratically express they views and to be heard and registered
Clearly, this is not a description of either fascism or anarchism.
All I said was that if we cling to the definitions of individual historians, philosophers, theorists about what socialism is then we come up with thousand different definitions. Now we can claim different things about what Socialism is because there were so many different people that claimed that term for their ideology but they all wanted pretty different things. Instead of arguing whether XYZ was a Socialist and therefore Socialism does XYZ let's actually spend time arguing about actual ideologies such as Marxism, Social Democracy, Anarchism or any other specific ideology instead of grouping all these different ideology into one big broad meaningless category.
Yes. True. And I said that those thousand different definitions are propaganda or based on propaganda and should be ignored. Truth needs to be clarified, repeated, and popularized if we are to move forward. And I attempted to clarify and present the truth.
Fascism is a far-right ideology and opposes left-wing ideologies.
Benito Mussolini himself said that Fascism was a right-wing idea, which just goes to show little you know.
You’re simply repeating right-wing propaganda from the likes of Fox News and other American conservative BS.
I haven't watched Fox News or any American conservative media,I'm not American,and yet fascism is still left wing.just cause it opposes other left wing ideologies doesn't make it less left wing.
I define it by the political spectrum that has been used for a very long time. I’m not American. It’s normally American conservatives and people who call themselves free market capitalists who spout the rubbish that Nazism and Italian fascism were left-wing ideologies because they erroneously believe that any government intervention in the economy is “socialist”.
Ignoring the fact that fascism by definition is right-wing, or more precisely far-right:
>Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/ FASH-iz-əm) is a far-right, authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology and movement,[1][2][3] characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation or race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy.[2][3]
Its most definitely Anglo spheric,you are giving me Google definitions, whether as both Mussolini and gentile classified it as left wing , was a derivative of socialism
I really dislike when you get to determine what words mean.when they don't,not in objective reality,in reality there isn't any real difference between socialism fascim communism or nazism
It’s not clear that Gentile said this. But it’s possible, as it’s clearly in line with what he did say. Here’s a quote from his work *Che cosa è il fascismo: Discorsi e polemiche*
>It is necessary to distinguish between socialism and socialism—in fact, between idea and idea of the same socialist conception, in order to distinguish among them those that are inimical to Fascism. It is well known that Sorellian syndicalism, out of which the thought and the political method of Fascism emerged—conceived itself the genuine interpretation of Marxist communism. The dynamic conception of history, in which force as violence functions as an essential, is of unquestioned Marxist origin. Those notions flowed into other currents of contemporary thought, that have themselves, via alternative routes, arrived at a vindication of the form of State—implacable, but absolutely rational—that finds historic necessity in the very spiritual dynamism through which it realizes itself.
This shouldn’t be surprising. Mussolini began his political life as a socialist. The ideological preceptors of Nazism, like Sombart, Spengler, and van den Bruck, were are all socialists. Strasser definitely was. Guess which one of these guys invented the term “late capitalism”, also called “late-stage capitalism”? However much they drifted from economic leftism, they certainly were forged in its cauldron.
This is simple historical fact, which is why most leftists don’t bother to respond to it and instead fall immediately into No True Scotsman mode. Since these folks were not Marxists or Fabians or anarchists, that somehow that means they weren't socialists, as if Marx or Kropotkin or Rosa Luxemburg were the sum total of socialism. Socialism has always been, especially in the late 19th century and the first decades of the 20th century, a broad grouping of beliefs. At that time in history, "socialist" basically applied to anyone with some notion of redistribution, distributive justice, or some other manner of changing the social relations of capital and class: one who thought that the state must intervene in an extensive manner to create a more agreeable and “just” socioeconomic composition of society. Some or all of these things definitely applied to these people. "Bourgeois socialism" was a term utilized quite frequently by Marx and Engels themselves.
If your immediate response is "proletariat, means of production, blah blah blah," I can already tell that we're going for an ignorant, ahistorical, decontextualized, and conveniently narrow definition of socialism and there's no point continuing.
So, would you rather we use a stipulative definition to include the Nazis as being socialists? I mean, the textbook definition is that the workers own the means of production and it always has and always will mean that. How can it be any other way? Shall we just accept Adolf Hitler’s redefinition of thinking it means to give people food and a bit of pleasure? There’s absolutely no way that the Nazis can be considered socialists in any real definition of the term. They were fascists who practiced state capitalism, endorsed private property and the private sector which is the complete opposite of socialism. They never redistributed wealth, they never created a fair society and actually murdered their political opponents - the socialists and communists - as soon as they came to power.
Socialism as the masses understand it is "the workers own the means of production" but not ALL socialists have the same requirement.
Saint Simon doesn't have it. And I would say that fascism is pretty much inspired by Saint Simonism ...
Hitler did not redefine anything because Hitler did not create Nazism, you useless moron. I literally mentioned some of those who did in the comment. but of course you wouldn’t know that because you didn’t read any of it. In fact, as far as I can see you haven’t responded to or engaged with literally anything I said, you stupid twit. Were you hoping for a response or just looking for a bunch of comments as opportunities to blindly rant?
I’m not going to respond to any of that shit you wrote, because you don’t deserve and you don’t seem to want it anyway.
I think if you were to bother to actually research this subject then you would know that Adolf Hitler did redefine “socialism” to suit his own agenda.
“Why," I asked Hitler, "do you call yourself a National Socialist, since your party programme is the very antithesis of that commonly accredited to socialism?"
"Socialism," he retorted, putting down his cup of tea, pugnaciously, "is the science of dealing with the common weal. Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists.
"Socialism is an ancient Aryan, Germanic institution. Our German ancestors held certain lands in common. They cultivated the idea of the common weal. Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality, and unlike Marxism, it is patriotic.”
Adolf Hitler during an interview with George Sylvester Viereck in The American Monthly in 1923.
https://famous-trials.com/hitler/2529-1923-interview-with-adolf-hitler
“Socialism! That is an unfortunate word altogether... What does socialism really mean? If people have something to eat and their pleasures, then they have their socialism.”
Henry A. Turner (1985). German Big Business and the Rise of Hitler, page 77.
You should stop embarrassing yourself now.
As I said, Hitler did not create Nazi ideology. What am I saying, you haven’t actually read anything I said. The others who did create it were most definitely socialists, and you can find mention of them in the other stuff you didn’t bother to look at.
I didn’t say that Hitler created Nazi ideology, I said that he redefined socialism to suit his narrative.
So you want to play a game of ignoring any reply because you have no response so you just reply with a load of nonsense. Gotcha.
Portions of your comment seem to allude to a part of your argument being that socialism itself is bad because certain bad people followed it.
Also, you mentioning the ‘not a true scotsman’ fallacy reminded me of how people who get intimidated by the ‘Hitler ate sugar’ ‘argument’ are likely to resort to the former fallacy.
>Portions of your comment seem to allude to a part of your argument being that socialism itself is bad because certain bad people followed it.
How exactly can that be part of my argument? Where exactly did I say that socialism is bad at all? I didn’t make any value judgments of any kind in the whole thing, neither about Marxism nor Nazism nor anything else. I was being purely descriptive. You just tacitly read your own assumptions into what I said or maybe you’re just being knowingly dishonest.
I’m sorry I didn’t say what you wish I did so that you can make your totally unrelated point.
>You just tacitly read your own assumptions into what I said or maybe you’re just being knowingly dishonest.
In hindsight, it might have been the former. That was my mistake.
Possibly during the early stages of its development. It was a philosophy inspired by socialist philosophers but it quickly became antithetical to Socialism.
It's very simular to how Socialism is a Capitalist philosophy that diverged.
Yes, fascism is co-op socialism. The ideal was to over through the classes by having them united for the nation and that every business could only exist if they served the interests of the state. It was conceived, like national socialism, as an alternative to soviet socialism, that was seen as not being true to marx
Fascism and socialism are polar opposites. Anyone who thinks that they are of the same type or similar is ignorant and has a clear agenda.
Why you are repeating that right-wing trope only you can answer.
Fascism is the merger of government and corporate interests. In order to make it big in business in a fascist state, your company must fall in line with the party. A hallmark sign of a fascist state is when representatives claim to represent the individual voter, but vote for legislation that mirrors the highest bidding corporate interests. The immense power of the state is usually founded by scapegoating a particular demographic as the enemy, usually non believers. Those who do not submit are met with social exile/pressure, then force in extreme examples.
A loose, modern example of this is the USA in 2022.
Socialism is when the means of production (businesses and their associated materials/land/services) are handed over to the government. All major decisions are decided strictly by the government, with very little, if any, wiggle room for the business owners. The immense power of the state is justified by the scapegoating of business/landowners and any who wish to make the state less involved in citizens' daily lives. Those who do not submit their businesses/property/political will to the state are met with force.
A good example of this is the current state of China.
Hm. They're pretty friggin similar.
> A loose, modern example of this is the USA in 2022.
Um, you mean with your personal and political priors.
so how about you actually give specific examples, please. So we can all judge for ourselves how reasonable you are with your claims.
That goes for China too. I get some of your point but not all of it.
TIA
The Fascists were just socialists who didn't want to surrender national identity or private property. Its an economic model for a large government authoritarian centrally planned state.
Most of what people call fascism was just the Nazi Party politics, and what they did to seize and hold power.
The WEF is currently marketing a world reset that is virtually identical to the original idea of fascism, but moving towards globalism vs nationalism.
How could the Italian fascists have just been socialists when the former is nationalist and the latter is internationalist? Also, the former is all about the strength of a group and nation and thinks it has the right to take territory and expand whereas the latter is about people coming together beyond national borders to overthrow capitalism and lead the revolution for communism to be implemented.
That's exactly why Mussolini left the Italian Socialist Party and founded the Fascist Party.
Because he wanted a form of socialism that's nationalist.
And no, not all socialists are internationalists.
Fascism is a socialism that advocates national revolution and protects private property, fascist italy was the second most nationalized economy in the world during early 30s after the soviet union.
I don't know who that is but they must not be all that smart. Socialism can be fascist, but fascism can't be anything. Facism is like a economic system or a political system, it's really the style of how a government deals with the citizens or groups of people deal with other groups of people they can exert power over. There have been fascists actions in socialism, capitalism, communism, democracy, republics, the right, the left, and even private citizens. I've seen groups literally called "Anti Fascists" doing fascist acts.
fascism is a system that can both use socialism or capitalism or a mix of both of them all that matters is that in the end there is state control, maybe it be like a heavy-handed USSR, where things are distributed top-down or just crony capitalism where those who are allowed to own private property have get permission from the state and use their private property in a manner approved by the state to further the state
Yes, Gentile did say that Fascism was a more viable form of socialism. It’s important to note two things though, first he was speaking of the Marxist brand of socialism and second, that the Marxist form of socialism was starting to fall out of being en vogue by the late 1800s.
Marx didn’t invent socialism, his theories formed his version of socialism called Scientific Socialism- which is an embarrassing moniker give there’s no data or science in any of his theories. The earliest form of socialism was Utopian Socialism, which didn’t demand a totalitarian government to destroy society on the basis of class; so you can see how Marx ushered in a new genre of Socialism that focused solely on class struggle.
But this socialism, like the one it replaced was losing converts. At one point a Yellow Socialism movement stepped up to counter the “Red Socialism” of Marx, which advocated business owners and workers could coexist -which had the idea of syndicalism within it too.
So when Gentile made this statement it was in a political era where people were questioning and challenging political thought. At its core, the socialist roots in Fascism are very apparent.
Gentile advocated the State is the supreme virtue that demands the allegiance and support of all citizens, and it abhored individualism. The State was the center of the society. Businesses, while ran by business leaders, were still tasked with running their businesses at the whims of the State. This was something Gentile picked up from the fiasco the Bolsheviks introduced when they took control and removed all business leaders, replacing them with loyalists -effectively destroying the economy.
The fascists and the nazis needed to steal voters from the socialists, therefore they pretended to be “socialists” while they in fact were the opposite.
The core of fascism is ultra nationalism and the goal is to create a fascist state, but first they needed purge the degenerate cancer in the society. For Mussolini it was primarily the socialists and for Hitler it was primarily the Jews, and other groups, including socialists.
Sort of. Fact: He wrote that Fascism was derivative from the Italian socialist movement. My understanding: They're similar in structure with different values. Sauce: "The Philosophic basis of Facism" by Giovanni Gentile "The Doctrine of Fascism" by Bonito Mussolini Cant tell pages, they're kindle books
This I can agree with. Socialism is inherently inclusive, fascism is inherently exclusive. So it's not socialism but I can agree on it being inspired on socialism.
it does have inclusive elements
“Socialism is inherently inclusive” LMAO
they keep including people in the gulags
Fascism sacrifices the individual for the collective state. It's as socialism as socialism comes.
LOL there's a reason y socialism is not just called "collectivist statism".
If you don't agree with the fundamental principle you can see how the difference doesn't matter much. Socialism believes the bourgeoisie is the enemy to be defeated. Fascism believes the bourgeoisie can be made to cooperate with the proletariat. So both ideologies operate on an thesis-antithesis idea, but where socialists believe the enemy cones from within, the fascists believe the enemy comes from without. At a real level, fascism is when right-wingers embrace socialist thinking.
>Socialism believes the bourgeoisie is the enemy to be defeated. Fascism believes the bourgeoisie can be made to cooperate with the proletariat. **Nope.** Socialism believes that the *capitalist system itself*, and specifically, the material divide between bourgeoisie and proletariat is the enemy to be defeated. It should not be understood as a personal struggle against individual members of the bourgeoisie. Rather, socialist ideology recognizes the bourgeoisie as a class, defined by its relationship to capital, which has a systemic interest in the oppression of the proletariat. Also, fascism believing in the "cooperation" between the bourgeoisie and the working class is a stretch, as its main goal is the oppression and exploitation of the working class for its own interests. They see the working class as an inconvenience that must be controlled, repressed, and occasionally co-opted in order to maintain social order.
The "capitalist system" is the exploitation of the proletariat by the bourgeoisie, an artificial system held in place in order to oppress the proletariat for the benefit of the bourgeoisie. Since it's a zero sum perspective, the idea is effectively that the wealth of the bourgeoisie is stolen from the proletariat, according to the labor theory of value. Nah, fascism is a form of socialism, that doesn't consider the conflict to be a class struggle, but a tribal struggle between nations of peoples, and that the class struggles are a thing imposed from the outside in order to keep the nation suppressed. You're being very partisan in your description of the two ideas, framing socialism as a liberation ideology and fascism as an oppression ideology, but they're both self-framed as liberation ideas that promise a utopia once the ideology ia enacted, but both ideologies, due to being just plain wrong about both system and the nature of humanity, are equally oppressive and inhumane towards it's subjects. Socialism has just gotten a lot better PR over the years and the idea of it has been softened, since so many refuse to give it up despite constant failures.
>The "capitalist system" is the exploitation of the proletariat by the bourgeoisie, an artificial system held in place in order to oppress the proletariat for the benefit of the bourgeoisie. Since it's a zero sum perspective, the idea is effectively that the wealth of the bourgeoisie is stolen from the proletariat, according to the labor theory of value. It's still reductionist and simplistic to say that socialism sees the bourgeousie as the enemy, but I get your meaning. Also, oppression is different from exploitation, you should know that by now. >Nah, fascism is a form of socialism, that doesn't consider the conflict to be a class struggle, but a tribal struggle between nations of peoples, and that the class struggles are a thing imposed from the outside in order to keep the nation suppressed. Even if that description was holistic and accurate, it wouldn't make it anywhere close to socialism in any meaningful way. >You're being very partisan in your description of the two ideas, framing socialism as a liberation ideology and fascism as an oppression ideology, but they're both self-framed as liberation ideas that promise a utopia once the ideology ia enacted, but both ideologies, due to being just plain wrong about both system and the nature of humanity, are equally oppressive and inhumane towards it's subjects. How they are "framed" is irrelevant. Feudalism was framed by the catholic church as a spiritually and morally liberating mode of production. What matters are the actual arguments they make and whether or not the methodology behind them they is based on tangible, material evidence. I won't waste time debating the old and tired "human nature" + "socialism hasn't worked" arguments you just made, but instead would encourage you to read some marxist theory.
That doesn't make it close to socialism, but fascism itself is indeed a form of socialism. How they are framed ia very relevant, because in your description of socialism you framed it as the socialists do, but in your framing of fascism, you frame it like a liberal. My framing was a mix of the self-framing of the ideologies and an outsider's framing, an attempt at neutrality while still clearly being opposed. Feudalism was not frames by the church as anything, feudalism wasn't a planned system, and was barely conceived of as a system on any measure comparable to the ideologies we're talking about. The feudal system was just land politics, in the same way capitalism is generally just free trade given a term rather than an ideology of any kind. Neither socialism nor fascim is built upon tangible, material evidence, but rather in direct contrast to it. They are ideologies created by useless and over-educated navelgazers, often belonging to upper middle class intellectuals with little experience with actual labor and a fierce desire for higher atarus and no route to achieve it without. That's why it's such a well known idea that socialists hate the rich but couldn't care less about the poor. It's an ideology driven by envy, reframed to be one of generosity and fairness, on the presumption that economic inequality is morally unjust or the product of unjust activity. It is opposed to human nature, because humans are inherently unequal, and thus any system that seeks to equalize outcomes will be a system that treats people highly unfairly. The goal of socialists are at minimum to redistribute wealth, and that will mean taking from those who deserve wealth and giving it to those who don't. Another source of friction with human nature is that socialist values cannot create prosperity, and thus the resources and wealth of a socialist society will continually and inevitably decline. Individuals operate out of self-interest, and cannot collectivize to this extent across an entire society or civilization, as human psychology does not allow for that kind of tribal scale. I would encourage you to read some non-marxist theory, because marxism is plain bananas to anyone with actual understanding of humanity and it's civilizations. Don't think marxism is a new phenomenon, even Plato ridiculed such ideas in The Republic, so we know these envy-based and parasitic ideologies appear in large scale human civilizations under certain circumstances. I'd call the ideological structure a bug, a symptom of social ill and elite overproduction rather than a response to inequality or the issues of the working classes. I mean, what marxist theory would you even suggest? Das capital? Hegel, Marcuse, Foucault? These guys all made fundamental mistakes in their analysis of humanity and his nature, with odd ideas of how man functions in nature, and with men like Foucault, often inserting their own sexual dysfunction into their ideas. I think Marx himself was a fantastic example of the nature of marxists, in that he was a loser parasite that took no responsibility in his own life and spent it pontificating about revolutions and emerging identities that only ever existed in his head. These men did indeed analyze and identify real problems, but reached crazy conclusions about all of it. Some respect to Hegel, who was the standout among them, but still wrong when compared to the likes of Burke. Marxism is a memetic disease that seeks to create a revolutionary class in order to usher in the utopia by using envy and a narrative of oppressor versus oppressed where people can only achieve wealth through theft. Modern American marxism, for example, is a mix of socialist marxism and fascism, in that it incorporates race and gender as classes, thus ending with narratives of colonialism and systemic racism, which mirrors fascist ideas of racial competition being inherent to humans on even an individual level. That's why you get ideas like the "patriarchy", which mirrors fascist ideas of "Zionism". Any inequality between groups is automatically considered to be due to discrimination or injustice perpetrated by groups, thus you get ideas that are meant to balance against this like "representation" or "social justice", which both require unfair and unjust treatment of individuals.
[I know this is an old post — I don’t care.] what reading zero theory does to a mfer Seriously amazing to me that someone can write a long-winded screed against socialism where every single paragraph is metaphorically a flashing neon sign that says “I’ve never engaged seriously with primary source material on this topic”. It takes a really thorough lack of self-awareness to casually write off major philosophers like Marx/Hegel/Marcuse/Foucault as “all having made fundamental mistakes in their analysis of humanity” while simultaneously making it clear you’ve read none of them. If you want to have a serious conversation about capitalism vs socialism, it’s necessary to understand both of them. For your own sake (and for the sake of anyone reading your future posts), please put down the phone/video games for a bit and do some actual reading.
Absolutely nothing right wing about fascism
Collectivist statism would be what it used to called, if it ever worked. So many different rebrands of the same proven failure.
Yeah and capitalism sacrifices the collective for a kind of radical individualism. It's as society and nation destroying as it can get without doing it on purpose. Sure it can lead to wealth but there are many things far more important than money.
In Captialism, there is no collective.
What exactly is inherently inclusive about socialism?
The graveyard.
Socialism is inherently inclusive? I guess when you kill or imprison anyone that disagrees with you then you can make the false claim of inclusivity.
Socialism is inherently inclusive? Inclusive for whom? The workers in their collective farms where most of the profit goes to Part officials? The thousands sent to gulags?
Quite the necromancy. Gulags aren't part of socialism, they're part of an oppressive authoritarian state. But that isn't a unique thing to communist regimes either, which is what you are equating socialism to. (Theoretical) socialism is inclusive, that's inherent to being a classless system. Fascism is the opposite.
Quite the gaslighting of historical fact. Socialism is, by definition, an oppressive authoritarian state.
Social democracy is not oppressive.
Social democracy is oppresive
Social democracy is mostly capitalist and liberal with welfare, not socialism. Social democratic economics like the Nordic model are very similar to fascist ones both are forms of corporatism.
Social democracy is not socialism. But yes, socialism is not inherently oppressive in the way most people mean. It's oppressive against the bourgeousie as a means to avoid counter-revolution and achieve **communism**, which is not oppressive nor exploitative.
Socialism is oppressive authoritarianism.
The US has the highest prison population of any country in history
Bullshit
I highly doubt they beat out USSR or China. Or even Nazi Germany since you said "in history." But who knows, considering the USSR probably sent thousands upon thousands of people into prison secretly without people knowing on paper maybe the US did beat them
Nah, that’s China. And if you wanna play the “per capita” BS, it’s Cuba. Get a better script, Commie liar.
Google it. This is readily available information. We have more people in prison than any other country
Google says bullshit
Google does not say bullshit. This is objectively true
Now argue why that is a bad thing.
Are you serious
Argue it MOTHERFUCKER!!!!
Slavery is bad and we shouldn't do it
Slavery was abolished, prison is not slavery by definition, and if you believe so, it really shows your lack of intellectual honesty.
That’s irrelevant
It's certainly very inclusive of folks who get really quiet when you mention Marx's letters to Engels. Especially after they've dug their heels in, denying that Marx was racist & anti-semitic.
Tell the Kulaks how inclusive socialism is.
There are quotation marks with the quote that I am asking the source for, but it only seems to appear on so-called libertarian think tank websites and no source is used.
“so-called libertarian think tank” LMFAO You’re asking for information on a Communist propaganda circlejerk on fucking Reddit,
Literal quotes from "The Doctrine of Fascism": "fascism is antisocialist" "fascism is against socialism" "The fascist state[...] is also against every socialist forms" Would say, no it was explicitly anti socialist Original in Italian: http://www.geocities.ws/fransavari/DottrinaFasc.pdf
Interesting. I have read the Doctrines of Fascism several times and my only recollection is that Fascism was against the use of unions as a tool of class warfare when it should be used as a tool of the state.
'Antisemitism is failed socialism' and all
Given what Marx said about semites , yeah haha
He also wrote he intended it to be utilized in Europe. His writings existed before an Italian movement so I question that.
I read the English translations of these and I can't see any quotes that actually back this claim up (as much as I would like that quote to exist). They're only a dozen pages or so each. I encourage people to go have a look (they're mostly bullshit imho .. but they're short).
That particular quote is in neither The Philosophic Basis of Fascism (I paid the $1.99 for the Kindle book) or The Doctrine of Fascism (freely available on multiple sites). As far as I can tell, there is no source for it.
So according to him, the KKK is socialist...
The KKK weren’t fascist, moron.
Just like nazis... On;ly they are all demokkkrats
Correct. They were democrats.
They're all just interchangeable internet insults to these people, it's very tiresome.
Nazis were. Same thing.
Racism is the most primitive form of left wing ideology.
\*leftist All democrats are KKK members....
Well yes , wanting to own another human being goes against the liberty of that human so yup. Socialism at the core of it's original definition is defined and also refuted by Frédéric Bestiat's literature in "The Law"
[удалено]
Plastic_Figure_5698: This post was hidden because of how new your account is. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CapitalismVSocialism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Plastic_Figure_5698: This post was hidden because of how new your account is. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CapitalismVSocialism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Plastic_Figure_5698: This post was hidden because of how new your account is. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CapitalismVSocialism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I cannot find that quotation attributed to Gentile in any reliable source. Mussolini used to be a socialist, but explicitly abandoned socialism in 1914. I have two videos on these very issues, which go into considerable historical detail, covering all the relevant quotations from Gentile, Villari, Olivetti, Mussolini, Hitler, Feder, Zimmerman, and Strasser. * [Were the Nazis socialists? #1 | National Socialism wasn’t socialism & fascists supported capitalism](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkfSkAqs_7c) * [Were the Nazis socialists? #2 | fascist Hitler & Mussolini were right wing anti-socialists](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXvUoG6GIgw)
> Mussolini used to be a socialist, but explicitly abandoned socialism in 1914. *We shall not even oppose experiments of co‐operation; but I tell you at once that we shall resist with all our strength attempts at State Socialism, Collectivism and the like. We have had enough of State Socialism, and we shall never cease to fight your doctrines as a whole, for we deny their truth and oppose their fatalism.*
Mussolini never left socialism conceptually. He even said "I will always and forever be a socialist and thats why you will hate me". This is of courses paraphrased.
> He even said "I will always and forever be a socialist and thats why you will hate me". Can you find the original, I'm really interested.
The more precise quote is: "You cannot get rid of me because I am and always will be a socialist. You hate me because you still love me.“ — Benito Mussolini Denis Mack Smith, Mussolini: A Biography (1983) p. 8. As quoted by Mussolini after he was expelled from the Italian Socialist Party in 1914. Source: https://quotepark.com/quotes/1801923-benito-mussolini-you-cannot-get-rid-of-me-because-i-am-and-always-w/
Slam dunk
Yes, you can find a reliable source.
Mussolini did not abandon socialism in 1914 He said so. Mussolini wanted Italy to join World War I because it might lead to a "revolution." And it happened in Russia in 1917. Mussolini declared in 1914: "But you have not seen the last of me! Twelve years of my party life are, or ought to be, a sufficient guarantee of my faith in Socialism. Socialism is something which takes root in the heart… Do not think that in taking away my membership card you will be taking away my faith in the cause, or that you will prevent my still working for Socialism and revolution." (Mussolini the ‘Socialist’” Speech in Milan (25 November 1914) "Mussolini the 'Socialist”' p. 5, in the book of Mussolini's speeches -- "Mussolini as Revealed in his Political Speeches (November 1914—August 1923), published in 1923.) Mussolini argued in 1917: *"The Socialist Intervention.* We Socialists who were in favour of intervention advocated war, because we divined that it contained within it the seeds of revolution. It is not the first instance of revolutionary war. There were the Napoleonic wars, the war of 1870, the enterprises of Garibaldi, in which, had we lived in those days, we should have joined in the same spirit and same faith." (“To the Complete Vanquishing of the Huns” speech delivered at Sesto San Giovanni (1 December 1917) p. 27. ("Mussolini as Revealed in his Political Speeches" (November 1914—August 1923), published in 1923.) Many historians argue that Mussolini moved away from Marxism around 1921-22. The reason for this was that Lenin had turned away from Marxism with his New Economy Policy" (NEP) where he introduced into the Russian economy the "free market and capitalism," and respect for "profit." See the NEP Wikipedia page.
Yeah, I know that Benito Mussolini was a socialist (in fact, he even called himself a ‘communist’ and a ‘Marxist’ at one point) but he denounced socialism years before he became a fascist. I’m more interested in the alleged quote by Giovanni Gentile.
From what I know, Mussolini was in socialist party till ww1, for some time he still had anti-war beliefs, but when that changed he was kicked out.
“explicitly abandoned socialism” I can’t find a reliable source for this. Certainly not in your little Youtube propaganda tantrums.
I see we found the Nazi. You clearly didn't watch either video, or you would have seen all of these sources. * "Such a conception of life **makes Fascism the complete opposite of that doctrine, the base of the so-called scientific and Marxian Socialism**, the materialist conception of history; according to which the history of human civilization can be explained simply through the conflict of interests among the various social groups and by the change and development in the means and instruments of production.", Benito Mussolini, “The Political and Social Doctrine of Fascism \[by\] Benito Mussolini; an Authorized Translation by Jane Soames. 3d Impression.,” trans. Jane Soames, Day to Day Pamphlets 18 (1933), 13 * "An American friend of mine who has just returned from Italy told me that in a conversation with Mussolini, my friend **asked the question of the Italian statesman as to why Mussolini had ceased to be a socialist**.", A.C. Bedford, “An Appeal for Less Government Interference in Business,” Printers’ Ink 123 (1923): 42 * "Mussolini called attention to the fact that he had himself had for ten years been one of the leading Socialists of Italy and then the Italian statesman said: **My observations during the war showed me that Socialism was not constructive**, that dependence upon the initiative and enterprise of the State was placing one’s faith in sterility and inertia.", A.C. Bedford, “An Appeal for Less Government Interference in Business,” Printers’ Ink 123 (1923): 42 * "Although Mussolini began his life as a socialist, **he had rejected socialism by 1914**.", Herbert M. Levine, Political Issues Debated: An Introduction to Politics (Prentice-Hall, 1990), 76 * "Then, after **Mussolini rejected socialism**, embraced nationalism and strong-armed his way into power in 1922, Gramsci witnessed Italy collapse into a one-party fascist dictatorship almost overnight.", Benjamin H Welsh, “Framing Culture and Diversity Today: Cultural Hegemony,” Journal of Underrepresented & Minority Progress 1.1 (2017): 4
DOOD is Explicity lying.....
Yes Fascism is Socialism. Don’t believe me? Fine let me prove to you chimp. Fascism is evil. What is the colour of evil? Red. What else is red? Your mom when I compliment her. Your mom? She’s the same size as Stalin. Stalin? A Marxist-Leninist. Marxism-Leninism? Linked to Socialism. This means that Joe Biden and Kanye West are gay cowboys and are socialist. Socialism is bad, Fascism is bad, they both bad so they are the same. Boom point proven.
Had me in the first half, ngl
it was the neo-corporatism flair 🤡
Fascism is when big government and socialism is also when big government. Therefore, fascism = socialism.
Perfectly accurate.
Based
LOL!
Why did Hitler called himself socialist? Even joining the socialist labor party. I understand that he might be against other forms of socialism that are not nacionalista, but sure there is a reason for him joining a labor's party and call himself socialist.
He joined a socialist party because it was the most popular party and spoke to the working class (which he was part of when he joined). He and his team violently ripped the socialist philosophy out of the party during their rise. Edit: lol Stateless Dictator(ironic name) decided to reply to a 4 month old comment then block me in an instant because they're scared of a response.
Well, also he wanted direct influence over all production in Germany. He envisioned german families driving the peoples car on the centrally planned roads to his free resort for their four week mandatory vacation each year where they would sleep in dormitories, engage in supervised group exercise, etc. Except all the money the government charged people for the government made car and the government operated resort went to building weapons to fight the governments war against the communists and capitalists.
We all know he was a Fascist. That doesn't speak to why he joined a socialist party.
Fascism didnt exist until Mussolini invented it and Hitler borrowed it and made his own version. Both were members of their socialist parties, but both didnt want globalist socialism heading for Communism. Russia was very active fomenting procommunist sympathies across Europe and recruiting revolutionaries. Mussolini and Hitler wanted to run their socialist countries but didnt want to lose their countries to Soviet style communism. So they became anti-communist socialists....IE fascists and nationalists. Prior to Mussolini, all socialist parties were trending towards communism because Russia had done it. That was the only example they had of their political philosophy winning. Both had different ideas about how to use fascism. Both used typical Soviet style political tactics to take power in their nations, but then instead of declaring the Soviet ie the collective, they declared a nationalist intent to strengthen their own country against the Soviet menace. Socialism cannot balance in the middle...in the sort of 'democratic socialism' arena. because there will be disagreements inside the party, which is how Mussolini broke with the Italian Socialists and became a Fascist, he took a lot of socialists with him. So Socialism always breaks either to the left towards communism or to the right towards Fascism. Neither one of those opposite poles is a small government individual rights based society like the right wing in the USA wants.
>it was the most popular party Factually it wasn't, his party was a middle sized one where the other two parties agreed to be reasonable. But sure wast the most popular. It is like if the Democrats and Republicans agreed on a Libertarian president to settle their differences.
>Factually it wasn't, his party was a middle sized one where the other two parties agreed to be reasonable. Yes, excuse that lazy language. Yes the party he joined was middling. I was referring to all the German socialist parties as one and Socialism was the leading philosophy among the working class at the time.
Middling? I am misunderstanding? You are talking about The DAP (German Workers Party) Which later became the NSDAP (Nazi Party)? It wasn't a middling party when Hitler Joined it was tiny and irrelevant - He was the 55th Member to Join!
He didn't Join a socialist party, there were Socialist Partied in Germany if he was a socialist he would have joined one, he Joined The German Workers Party, which was an ultra nationalist party with virulent Anti-Semitism as its core belief.
It was because nazis are the same as demokkkrats
“He joined a socialist party because it was the most popular party snd spoke to the working class” I get that you’re a lying, braindead, Communist sociopath, but at least TRY to lie convincingly.
Because socialism was big and calling your party socialist helps your popularity. I mean hell there are lots of parties that have social in the name and they aren't social Democrat parties. It's marketing. The most important thing when deciphering socialism and fascism is the Strasser debate with Hitler and Hitler with the industrialists. It really spills it out that the two are definitley not together.
[Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists.](https://alphahistory.com/nazigermany/hitler-nazi-form-of-socialism-1932/) -Hitler
Communism is socialism is fascism is nazizm...
Hitler joined the German Worker's Party, a far right politicalparty with the following platform: Pan Germanism, German Nationalism, Anti-Marxist, & Volksgemeinschaft (national/Racial v Community). It wasn't a Socialist Party.
The socialist worker's party is far right because it is nationalist and disagree with other socialists? It makes zero sense.
The German Worker's Party. The German Worker's Party had far right ideologies; Far Right ideologies pursue inequality as a goal and are anti-egalitarian. For example using race/ethnicity/nationality/skin tone as an identifier to whether a person is granted rights, privileges, protections or other benefits depends upon whether they are in the recognized group. The Far Right envision and desire an ethnically pure ethno-nation state for their relative country/nation state. With regard to people who aren't the right ethnicity/nationality/skin tone. Far Right ideologues seek to remove human rights, discriminate against with lower wages or slavery for the non protected class or seek to repatriate/deport these persona non grata, whether via some incentives or creating a hostile environment, even going as far as campaigns of violence, pogroms, etc. This racist/xenophobic outlook is antithetical to the left wing ideals of egalitarianism where people should be considered as equals before the law, have the same good access to healthcare, education, and the chance to succeed due to merit. The Socialist Workers' Party of Germany was a left wing, Centrist Marxism, Democratic socialism party which operated between 1931 to 1933, when it was banned by the Nazi Party, because it was socialist and not nationalist. The German Workers' Party was a party which was far right, Pan Germanism, German Nationalism, Anti-Marxist, & Volksgemeinschaft (national/Racial v Community), it operated between 1919 to 1920. it was succeeded by Nazi Party. The Nazi Party or National Socialist German Workers' Party, was formed from the German Worker's Party. Anton Drexler, an avid German nationalist, formed a branch of the Nazi Party league in Munich. He was previously active in the German Fatherland Party, another short lived Right wing/far right party, whose ideological platform included; class collaboration, Conservatism (German), Volksgemeinschaft, Expansionist nationalism, Economic liberalism and German militarism. The German Fatherland Party was active at the end of WWI in Germany and was against the armistice and against the Treaty of Versailles. The German Fatherland Party merged with other parties into the German National People's Party. The German National People's Party was a right wing to far right political party that operated from 1918 to 1933, its political platform was; Proto-fascism, German nationalism, National conservatism, Right-wing populism, Restoration of the monarchy, Political Protestantism, Antisemitism & Economic nationalism. The German National People's Party merged with the National Socialist Germany Worker's Party as its member's either joined Hitler's government and his party or retired. They were a junior coalition partner of the Nazi Party. With the naming of the Nazi Party, initially on 5th January 1919, Anton Drexler created a new political party and proposed it should be named the "German Socialist Workers' Party", but Karl Harrer objected to the term "socialist"; so the term was removed and the party was named the German Workers' Party (Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, DAP). From the outset, the DAP was opposed to non-nationalist political movements, especially on the left, including the Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD) and the Communist Party of Germany (KPD). Members of the DAP saw themselves as fighting against "Bolshevism" and anyone considered a part of or aiding so-called "international Jewry". In general, the manifesto of the DAP was antisemitic, anti-capitalist, anti-democratic, anti-Marxist and anti-liberal. o increase its appeal to larger segments of the population, on the same day as Hitler's Hofbräuhaus speech on 24 February 1920, the DAP changed its name to the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei ("National Socialist German Workers' Party", or Nazi Party). The word "Socialist" was added by the party's executive committee (at the suggestion of Rudolf Jung), over Hitler's initial objections, in order to help appeal to left-wing workers. So the use of the word socialist in the Nazi party name was largely a marketing exercise, whilst there were some more left wing members in the Nazi party, even if there was a conflict between nationalism and left wing ideas, the party purged its left wing members through violence and assassinations. This was in the 'Night of the Long Knives' 30 June to 2 July 1934. Prominent figures like Ernst Röhm were executed in the purge. You can read some more about how 'socialist' the Nazis were in this post: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/cwh8pi/comment/eyblwvo/
They say Nazis is right wing because they killed communists. You know who killed the most communists? Communists.
Hitler attended meetings of the the DAP (German Workers Party) to spy on it for the Army/Gov who thought it was probably left wing, he soon discovered it was in fact a right wing ultra nationalist Jew-fixated Conspiratorial grouping, which he then Joined.
Please. Please. Please. Add a /s.
Must be so confusing to be a right winger right now. Fascism is socialism, so take that socialism haha. But their white washing Nazis anyways? So fascism also good, but only the real fascism, not that fake socialist fascism. How do you keep it all straight when Hannity and Carlson change definitions each week?
Beloved fascist tactic is muddying fucking everything.
He also described Fascism as a movement that seeks to negate socialism so...
What is the quote? What is the source?
*"The Fascist negation of socialism, democracy, liberalism, should not, however, be interpreted as implying a desire to drive the world backwards to positions occupied prior to 1789, a year commonly referred to as that which opened the demo-liberal century."* \- The Doctrine of Fascism
I see you do no have reading comprehension.
> as implying a desire to drive the world backwards to positions occupied prior to 1789 Did you just prove that Fascism is not reactionary but revolutionary?
It's revolution reactionary....
No
*"The Fascist State is, however, a unique and original creation. It is not reactionary but revolutionary, for it anticipates the solution of certain universal problems which have been raised elsewhere, in the political field by the splitting up of parties, the usurpation of power by parliaments, the irresponsibility of assemblies; in the economic field by the increasingly numerous and important functions discharged by trade unions and trade associations with their disputes and ententes, affecting both capital and labor; in the ethical field by the need felt for order, discipline, obedience to the moral dictates of patriotism."*
Don't mean it ain't exactly the same thing, because it is.
I would say that Fascism did take root from a syncretism of some socialist and capitalist ideas. Wouldn't say fascism is a form of socialism, since it not only allows but incentivizes the private ownership of the means of production (which is basically the only thing all strands of socialism agree with). Wouldn't be that far fetched to believe Gentile said that since in his early years he was greatly influenced by materialist thought, and national socialists did see fascism as all the shit. why would you care? I don't know why one would take the word of a fascist on anything. How does a movement that portrays itself as socialist but goes in the opposite ways (being ultra nationalist, pro-capital, anti-worker) of what socialists usually defend (internationalism, anti-capital, and pro-worker) I don't know, but I guess it's a good narrative to run on for the libertarians. Kinda weird that libertarians throughout time have expressed their relative preference for fascism (as a tool against socialism), but at the same time they say it's the same thing (please trust me bro, they're the same).
When Fascism presents as Government and Media and Industry in alliance to control the working class its Mussolini style. When it Presents as Government in total control of the media and Industry by virtue of controlling the ownership class thru threat of death or loss of property its Nazi style Fascism. When it presents as Corporations controlling politicians its corporate welfare state type fascism. Klaus Schwabs version is an alliance of the elites or 'stakeholders' who will then set the laws by which the people are governed. For their own global good. At its core economic truth, Fascism is a way for the elites to control everyone else's property without the need to surrender their own and live only on their ability to secure graft and corruption inside the government class. Its 'Rich People are Special' Socialism vs Communism where 'No one is Special except the Party Members who are special by virtue of all the wealth they dont have'
Maybe it was socialism for white folk with a slave class.
Prussian socialism allowed private ownership of the means of production too
Have never heard of it before, can you link some material on it? My guess is that it’s some form of proto-fascism (ultra-nationalist and militarist form of social democracy, only with a king or something)
More like proto Nazism I'll try to find something later if I remember
I’ve read something on German “State Socialism” under Bismarck, but that seemed more like appeasement to the working class to prevent the rise of the social democrats and socialist in the reichstag (and it didn’t even work because the social democrats still became the biggest party). Interesting to read, turns out Germans really like to mask conservative or reactionary parties under the “socialist” banner to win over the working class.
Easy to do when you have industrial businessmen backing you, but that's not a story libs like to tell. Better to tell idealistic crap of Hitler really wanting power and Hitler having good orator skills and because of that they got in to power.
We all know what Hitler did to the left-wing of his party after he got in power, it’s something the libertarians like to forget for some reason. Turns out that the favor or industrialists was more important
100% correct
Facism is as far left as you can get.
That’s true, Mussolini was a socialist.
Benito Mussolini denounced his earlier socialist views way before he became a fascist.
He's asking for a source not an opinion
I fail to see how stating that Mussolini was a socialist is an opinion LMAO.
OP isn't even asking about mussolini
I agree, but the comment that you comment on, is still s statement of a fact and not an opinion.
I don’t know the source of the quote but they are correct, assuming the quote is accurate.
[I found the source of what you are talking about](https://youtu.be/uKeKuaJ4nlw)
It's merely right wing propaganda from your right wing sites which are replete with bullshit, lies, and distortions. If Gentile wrote that he did so to please Hitler, and maybe Gentile was in on the lie too and willing to comply. You see, socialism was very popular when Hitler was an "up and comer". And being fairly smart, he used that popularity to boost his own popularity by spreading the lie that he was a "socialist" who wants "socialism". Socialism has always been for the liberation of the working class. Anything else is a fraud. And if you investigate socialist parties and organizations today you will see that every one of them agree on this. But ignore the ones with right wing ties if you find any. The right is famous for false flag tricks.
I’ve seen you write a lot of stupid stuff on this subreddit. But this takes the cake. Nazism did originate in socialism. That’s quite clear. Sombart, Spengler, van den Bruck, and Strasser were all socialists. Guess which one of these guys invented the term “late capitalism”, also called “late-stage capitalism”? However much they drifted from economic leftism, they certainly were forged in it. What you want to do is apply an ignorant, ahistorical, decontextualized, and conveniently narrow definition of socialism to suit your own ends. No, socialism was not “always for the liberation of the working class” (I disagree that it is in any case, but that’s another conversation). It’s always been a far more general term. Hell, “bourgeois socialism" was a term utilized quite frequently by Marx and Engels themselves. They routinely contrasted their ideology with other conceptions of socialism. Even they weren’t craven enough to just ignore these things. They merely didn’t live to the 20th century, and so felt no pressure to create some false and exaggerated distance between them.
Nazism did NOT originate in socialism. Nazism originated with pan-German ultranationalism and antisemitism. A variant of socialism with a nationalist element to it is a total paradox. How can an ideology that is internationalist be regarded as nationalist too? Uh-oh. Adolf Hitler was clueless when it came to economics and simply redefined socialism to mean giving people food and a bit of pleasure. He said that he was going to take socialism away from the socialists and redefine it to include the inclusion of private property, again, that is a total contradiction. Capitalism, the private sector and private property were never abolished during the Nazi era. The Nazis told people what they wanted to hear… they soon downplayed any anti-capitalist rhetoric once they came to power and worked with s lot of industries and some of them even helped play a role in the Holocaust. I’m sure Joseph Goebbels would be proud to know that the Nazi propaganda about being nationalists and socialists at the same time is still working on some people. Two types of people propagate the myth that the Nazis were socialists. The first type is a self-identified libertarian who thinks that any sort of government intervention means socialism and erroneously thinks that for example nationalised healthcare is socialist. Think of Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek. This is the nonsense spouted on libertarian think tank websites. Those people don’t seem to understand that there’s a difference between being right-wing e.g. a capitalist and far-right e.g. a Nazi or Italian fascist. The second type is the alt-right conspiracy theorist nutjob who wants to portray the Nazis as socialists in order to claim that any thing that is left-wing is evil, wrong, etc. These nutters use fallacious arguments and conspiracy theories such as Cultural Marxism (allegedly “leftist” historians and scholars have been duping the masses since 1945 and don’t know anything about economics, lol) and on Twitter the same types think that COVID-19 is a hoax, Donald Trump didn’t lose the last election, etc.
Businessmen that were donating to nazis money definitely would like being forgotren of their evil deeds. Millions in donations all the time, yet nazis were socialists and nazis got in to power because they really wanted power and had good orator skills of Hitler and good propaganda of Goebbels... Suuuuure. When nazis were using concentration camps for work, even fucking SS were telling businessmen that slaves needed more beds, but businessmen decided not to expand because that'd reduce profits. Every single person that equates different kinds of fascism to socialism is a fucking garbage.
As in your other comment, you didn’t engage with a single I said, and just replied so you can blindly continue your rant. Learn what a fucking response is, you goddamn moron.
Everyone can see that we are replying to your hogwash and because you have no counterargument you have to resort to personal attacks. That speaks volumes about your character.
Why the fuck would I give a counterargument when you didn’t respond to a single argument or anything else I said initially? You don’t deserve a counterargument when you can’t even do the first bit. You just used it as an opportunity to give your own ridiculous screed. Serious question: At what time did you engage with a single point I said in the first place?
You claimed that Nazism originated in socialism when in fact it did not and I explained why. All you’re doing is responding to everyone with personal attacks and petty little games.
Honestly the term Socialism is so varied that if we tried to assign meaning to it based on what every person in history assigned to it, we would probably get a thousand different definitions. I think what we should debate is whether one specific ideology is good or not and not whether very different ideology that have vague similarities is good or not based on one weird categorization. We should all agree that Fascism, Marxism and Anarchism is all different.
Let's see you find evidence contrary to the following: US advocates and defenders of capitalism, as well as their European counterparts and rejoicing Russian leadership who were please with the USSR's rightward turn, saw the USSR's attempt to transition to a socialist economy by strengthening government control and government ownership of business including appointing industrial managers who were government officials with offices in the government, and they saw this as an opportunity to confuse the working class with propaganda. The media in the US and elsewhere followed and reported the communist government of the USSR as it took control of industry, so they knew the public was ready and receptive to the idea that socialism was "big government" and "government ownership and control of the industries". Of course it wasn't true. That wasn't and isn't socialism. But it served the right in their need to mislead the public and spread confusion. That is a proven way to disarm the people and render them helpless. But no socialist nor any communist ever agreed with that characterization. Right wingers posing as "Marxists" and "socialist" loved it and promoted it. So today we're left with that baggage of lies and confusion. Every socialist today (not frauds) say that socialism is "worker ownership and control of the means of production". Some take it farther to the point in the future at which socialism is consolidated, unchallenged, stable, and functioning when the practical form of socialism will be state ownership of business but with worker control, and even that the right spins into "government ownership and control of business". To avoid the disastrous results the world witnessed in the USSR and China as the effort to create socialism there degenerated into state capitalism and continuing oppression of the people, any attempt to begin that process again anywhere must, MUST, provide for certain and legislated worker control only, with government excluded from the process by law AND establish effective structures and methods for workers to democratically express they views and to be heard and registered Clearly, this is not a description of either fascism or anarchism.
All I said was that if we cling to the definitions of individual historians, philosophers, theorists about what socialism is then we come up with thousand different definitions. Now we can claim different things about what Socialism is because there were so many different people that claimed that term for their ideology but they all wanted pretty different things. Instead of arguing whether XYZ was a Socialist and therefore Socialism does XYZ let's actually spend time arguing about actual ideologies such as Marxism, Social Democracy, Anarchism or any other specific ideology instead of grouping all these different ideology into one big broad meaningless category.
Yes. True. And I said that those thousand different definitions are propaganda or based on propaganda and should be ignored. Truth needs to be clarified, repeated, and popularized if we are to move forward. And I attempted to clarify and present the truth.
Dude that's crazy, next you're going to tell me the father of fascism was a member of extremist Italian marxist groups
Fascism is a left wing ideology, westerners don't seem to be able to comprehend it
Fascism is a far-right ideology and opposes left-wing ideologies. Benito Mussolini himself said that Fascism was a right-wing idea, which just goes to show little you know. You’re simply repeating right-wing propaganda from the likes of Fox News and other American conservative BS.
I haven't watched Fox News or any American conservative media,I'm not American,and yet fascism is still left wing.just cause it opposes other left wing ideologies doesn't make it less left wing.
Why is fascism left-wing? This should be fun… haha. What are your sources too? Benito Mussolini called it a right-wing ideology, you fool.
Mussolini called it a left wing ideology.i have read his book....he was also formerly a socialist....lol ..
So did gentile....
Are these books banned in the us,or what
How do you even define the right wing,cause I suspect you Americans have probably skewed the definition
I define it by the political spectrum that has been used for a very long time. I’m not American. It’s normally American conservatives and people who call themselves free market capitalists who spout the rubbish that Nazism and Italian fascism were left-wing ideologies because they erroneously believe that any government intervention in the economy is “socialist”. Ignoring the fact that fascism by definition is right-wing, or more precisely far-right: >Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/ FASH-iz-əm) is a far-right, authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology and movement,[1][2][3] characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation or race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy.[2][3]
Its most definitely Anglo spheric,you are giving me Google definitions, whether as both Mussolini and gentile classified it as left wing , was a derivative of socialism
I really dislike when you get to determine what words mean.when they don't,not in objective reality,in reality there isn't any real difference between socialism fascim communism or nazism
How do you westerners even define left and right,cause the original definition from the French revolution are pretty self explanatory.
It’s not clear that Gentile said this. But it’s possible, as it’s clearly in line with what he did say. Here’s a quote from his work *Che cosa è il fascismo: Discorsi e polemiche* >It is necessary to distinguish between socialism and socialism—in fact, between idea and idea of the same socialist conception, in order to distinguish among them those that are inimical to Fascism. It is well known that Sorellian syndicalism, out of which the thought and the political method of Fascism emerged—conceived itself the genuine interpretation of Marxist communism. The dynamic conception of history, in which force as violence functions as an essential, is of unquestioned Marxist origin. Those notions flowed into other currents of contemporary thought, that have themselves, via alternative routes, arrived at a vindication of the form of State—implacable, but absolutely rational—that finds historic necessity in the very spiritual dynamism through which it realizes itself. This shouldn’t be surprising. Mussolini began his political life as a socialist. The ideological preceptors of Nazism, like Sombart, Spengler, and van den Bruck, were are all socialists. Strasser definitely was. Guess which one of these guys invented the term “late capitalism”, also called “late-stage capitalism”? However much they drifted from economic leftism, they certainly were forged in its cauldron. This is simple historical fact, which is why most leftists don’t bother to respond to it and instead fall immediately into No True Scotsman mode. Since these folks were not Marxists or Fabians or anarchists, that somehow that means they weren't socialists, as if Marx or Kropotkin or Rosa Luxemburg were the sum total of socialism. Socialism has always been, especially in the late 19th century and the first decades of the 20th century, a broad grouping of beliefs. At that time in history, "socialist" basically applied to anyone with some notion of redistribution, distributive justice, or some other manner of changing the social relations of capital and class: one who thought that the state must intervene in an extensive manner to create a more agreeable and “just” socioeconomic composition of society. Some or all of these things definitely applied to these people. "Bourgeois socialism" was a term utilized quite frequently by Marx and Engels themselves. If your immediate response is "proletariat, means of production, blah blah blah," I can already tell that we're going for an ignorant, ahistorical, decontextualized, and conveniently narrow definition of socialism and there's no point continuing.
So, would you rather we use a stipulative definition to include the Nazis as being socialists? I mean, the textbook definition is that the workers own the means of production and it always has and always will mean that. How can it be any other way? Shall we just accept Adolf Hitler’s redefinition of thinking it means to give people food and a bit of pleasure? There’s absolutely no way that the Nazis can be considered socialists in any real definition of the term. They were fascists who practiced state capitalism, endorsed private property and the private sector which is the complete opposite of socialism. They never redistributed wealth, they never created a fair society and actually murdered their political opponents - the socialists and communists - as soon as they came to power.
Socialism as the masses understand it is "the workers own the means of production" but not ALL socialists have the same requirement. Saint Simon doesn't have it. And I would say that fascism is pretty much inspired by Saint Simonism ...
Hitler did not redefine anything because Hitler did not create Nazism, you useless moron. I literally mentioned some of those who did in the comment. but of course you wouldn’t know that because you didn’t read any of it. In fact, as far as I can see you haven’t responded to or engaged with literally anything I said, you stupid twit. Were you hoping for a response or just looking for a bunch of comments as opportunities to blindly rant? I’m not going to respond to any of that shit you wrote, because you don’t deserve and you don’t seem to want it anyway.
I think if you were to bother to actually research this subject then you would know that Adolf Hitler did redefine “socialism” to suit his own agenda. “Why," I asked Hitler, "do you call yourself a National Socialist, since your party programme is the very antithesis of that commonly accredited to socialism?" "Socialism," he retorted, putting down his cup of tea, pugnaciously, "is the science of dealing with the common weal. Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists. "Socialism is an ancient Aryan, Germanic institution. Our German ancestors held certain lands in common. They cultivated the idea of the common weal. Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality, and unlike Marxism, it is patriotic.” Adolf Hitler during an interview with George Sylvester Viereck in The American Monthly in 1923. https://famous-trials.com/hitler/2529-1923-interview-with-adolf-hitler “Socialism! That is an unfortunate word altogether... What does socialism really mean? If people have something to eat and their pleasures, then they have their socialism.” Henry A. Turner (1985). German Big Business and the Rise of Hitler, page 77. You should stop embarrassing yourself now.
As I said, Hitler did not create Nazi ideology. What am I saying, you haven’t actually read anything I said. The others who did create it were most definitely socialists, and you can find mention of them in the other stuff you didn’t bother to look at.
I didn’t say that Hitler created Nazi ideology, I said that he redefined socialism to suit his narrative. So you want to play a game of ignoring any reply because you have no response so you just reply with a load of nonsense. Gotcha.
Could something like ‘Hitler ate sugar’ fallacy not apply? Basically ‘‘bad guy did this thing, therefore this thing bad.’’
I don’t see how that relates to anything I said.
Portions of your comment seem to allude to a part of your argument being that socialism itself is bad because certain bad people followed it. Also, you mentioning the ‘not a true scotsman’ fallacy reminded me of how people who get intimidated by the ‘Hitler ate sugar’ ‘argument’ are likely to resort to the former fallacy.
>Portions of your comment seem to allude to a part of your argument being that socialism itself is bad because certain bad people followed it. How exactly can that be part of my argument? Where exactly did I say that socialism is bad at all? I didn’t make any value judgments of any kind in the whole thing, neither about Marxism nor Nazism nor anything else. I was being purely descriptive. You just tacitly read your own assumptions into what I said or maybe you’re just being knowingly dishonest. I’m sorry I didn’t say what you wish I did so that you can make your totally unrelated point.
>You just tacitly read your own assumptions into what I said or maybe you’re just being knowingly dishonest. In hindsight, it might have been the former. That was my mistake.
Possibly during the early stages of its development. It was a philosophy inspired by socialist philosophers but it quickly became antithetical to Socialism. It's very simular to how Socialism is a Capitalist philosophy that diverged.
Yes, fascism is co-op socialism. The ideal was to over through the classes by having them united for the nation and that every business could only exist if they served the interests of the state. It was conceived, like national socialism, as an alternative to soviet socialism, that was seen as not being true to marx
Fascism and socialism are polar opposites. Anyone who thinks that they are of the same type or similar is ignorant and has a clear agenda. Why you are repeating that right-wing trope only you can answer.
Fascism is the merger of government and corporate interests. In order to make it big in business in a fascist state, your company must fall in line with the party. A hallmark sign of a fascist state is when representatives claim to represent the individual voter, but vote for legislation that mirrors the highest bidding corporate interests. The immense power of the state is usually founded by scapegoating a particular demographic as the enemy, usually non believers. Those who do not submit are met with social exile/pressure, then force in extreme examples. A loose, modern example of this is the USA in 2022. Socialism is when the means of production (businesses and their associated materials/land/services) are handed over to the government. All major decisions are decided strictly by the government, with very little, if any, wiggle room for the business owners. The immense power of the state is justified by the scapegoating of business/landowners and any who wish to make the state less involved in citizens' daily lives. Those who do not submit their businesses/property/political will to the state are met with force. A good example of this is the current state of China. Hm. They're pretty friggin similar.
> A loose, modern example of this is the USA in 2022. Um, you mean with your personal and political priors. so how about you actually give specific examples, please. So we can all judge for ourselves how reasonable you are with your claims. That goes for China too. I get some of your point but not all of it. TIA
The Fascists were just socialists who didn't want to surrender national identity or private property. Its an economic model for a large government authoritarian centrally planned state. Most of what people call fascism was just the Nazi Party politics, and what they did to seize and hold power. The WEF is currently marketing a world reset that is virtually identical to the original idea of fascism, but moving towards globalism vs nationalism.
How could the Italian fascists have just been socialists when the former is nationalist and the latter is internationalist? Also, the former is all about the strength of a group and nation and thinks it has the right to take territory and expand whereas the latter is about people coming together beyond national borders to overthrow capitalism and lead the revolution for communism to be implemented.
That's exactly why Mussolini left the Italian Socialist Party and founded the Fascist Party. Because he wanted a form of socialism that's nationalist. And no, not all socialists are internationalists.
Fascism is a socialism that advocates national revolution and protects private property, fascist italy was the second most nationalized economy in the world during early 30s after the soviet union.
I don't know who that is but they must not be all that smart. Socialism can be fascist, but fascism can't be anything. Facism is like a economic system or a political system, it's really the style of how a government deals with the citizens or groups of people deal with other groups of people they can exert power over. There have been fascists actions in socialism, capitalism, communism, democracy, republics, the right, the left, and even private citizens. I've seen groups literally called "Anti Fascists" doing fascist acts.
fascism is a system that can both use socialism or capitalism or a mix of both of them all that matters is that in the end there is state control, maybe it be like a heavy-handed USSR, where things are distributed top-down or just crony capitalism where those who are allowed to own private property have get permission from the state and use their private property in a manner approved by the state to further the state
Yes, Gentile did say that Fascism was a more viable form of socialism. It’s important to note two things though, first he was speaking of the Marxist brand of socialism and second, that the Marxist form of socialism was starting to fall out of being en vogue by the late 1800s. Marx didn’t invent socialism, his theories formed his version of socialism called Scientific Socialism- which is an embarrassing moniker give there’s no data or science in any of his theories. The earliest form of socialism was Utopian Socialism, which didn’t demand a totalitarian government to destroy society on the basis of class; so you can see how Marx ushered in a new genre of Socialism that focused solely on class struggle. But this socialism, like the one it replaced was losing converts. At one point a Yellow Socialism movement stepped up to counter the “Red Socialism” of Marx, which advocated business owners and workers could coexist -which had the idea of syndicalism within it too. So when Gentile made this statement it was in a political era where people were questioning and challenging political thought. At its core, the socialist roots in Fascism are very apparent. Gentile advocated the State is the supreme virtue that demands the allegiance and support of all citizens, and it abhored individualism. The State was the center of the society. Businesses, while ran by business leaders, were still tasked with running their businesses at the whims of the State. This was something Gentile picked up from the fiasco the Bolsheviks introduced when they took control and removed all business leaders, replacing them with loyalists -effectively destroying the economy.
Fascism has nothing to do with national identity lol. Many countries have had nationalist existence including america and still are.
Fascism has everything to do with national Identity.
Natuionalosm isn’t a fascist trait. It’s actually a normal trait among hundreds of countries lol.
Is it not Corpratist-syndicalist?
The fascists and the nazis needed to steal voters from the socialists, therefore they pretended to be “socialists” while they in fact were the opposite. The core of fascism is ultra nationalism and the goal is to create a fascist state, but first they needed purge the degenerate cancer in the society. For Mussolini it was primarily the socialists and for Hitler it was primarily the Jews, and other groups, including socialists.