Differences between fascism and socialism/communism

[Melab]

I’ve read that fascism is right-wing. I’ve read that fascism is left-wing. Socialism/communism and fascism were the two totalitarian political ideologies of the twentieth century.

Fascism seems to me like an ideology that transcends the left-right spectrum. I’d say it’s a triangle, with capitalism, socialism/communism, and fascism occupying their own separate corners. I might even be inclined to call it state capitalism.

Are socialism/communism and fascism similar in ways other than simply having been shown to be totalitarian? Do they occupy essentially separate domains in the political landscape?

[njtt]

Fascism is no respect left-wing. The fundamental, distinctive value of the left, including socialists and communists, is equality. They believe that all people are of equal moral value and deserve to be treated equally.

The political right in general, and fascists most clearly and explicitly, are fundamentally committed to inequality as a value. They believe some people are inherently better (i.e., are of more moral worth) than others, for some reason or another (it may be race, or family, or ‘talent’ or whatever) and thereby deserve better than others.

The two world viws are fundamentally opposed, despite the fact that 20th century attempts to impose extreme versions of each on society led to the establishment of brutal, totalitarian regimes.

[The_Second_Stone]

Fascism is the operation of the state and all its resources for the benefit of the corporate elite. Socialism is the operation of the state for the benefit of all the people equally. Communism is the dictatorship of the working class.

[John_DiFool]

In theory. In practice, didn’t the Russians have their own elites (tho in the propaganda they didn’t call them that)?

[Martin_Hyde]

@njtt

Fascism is no respect left-wing. The fundamental, distinctive value of the left, including socialists and communists, is equality. They believe that all people are of equal moral value and deserve to be treated equally.

The political right in general, and fascists most clearly and explicitly, are fundamentally committed to inequality as a value. They believe some people are inherently better (i.e., are of more moral worth) than others, for some reason or another (it may be race, or family, or ‘talent’ or whatever) and thereby deserve better than others.

The two world viws are fundamentally opposed, despite the fact that 20th century attempts to impose extreme versions of each on society led to the establishment of brutal, totalitarian regimes.

Well, Fascism can have left-wing elements. The thing about Fascism vs Communism is, for all its ills, Communism is a “fully fleshed out philosophy” thought up by smart men (I don’t agree with them.) Communism is only theoretically about equality, and only one type of Communist thought. The core of Communist thought is that we should move to a classless society in which all the means of production are held in common. After that, you can have great variation.

Lenin argued that there must be a core leadership group or vanguard group to run things, as society could not perfectly transition to Communism overnight.

Fascism on the other hand is really just a poorly defined system of government and common term used by ultra-nationalists who seized power in a few countries. Its only common concept is that individuals should submit themselves to the State for the greater good of the nation. Fascist States could be relatively free market, or they could use the Nazi from of economics in which private ownership of the means of production persisted as well as private management, but its benefits were required to be directed in the best interests of the State. So for example Nazi Germany, many of the great industrialists continued to own their factories and run their factories and even earn the profit from their factories. But they were not free to manufacture what they wanted, or sell to whomever they wanted. They were required to direct their activities in line with the State’s larger goals. The industrialists who weren’t on board with that found themselves dispossessed and some ended up in prison.

On a political compass Fascism is frequently put “far to the right”, but that really doesn’t make sense. It is inherently extremely authoritarian instead of libertarian. But economically fascism is neither intrinsically far left (Communist) or far right (free market.) It can be either, most actual Communist countries however had very robust social welfare States often because the government wanted to exercise a lot of control over people and one of the best ways to do that is to have lots of government programs for people to be involved in. It also helps cement power if you give people things.

Both ideologies I guess are pretty flexible in what they mean in practice. But Communism I think has a strong philosophical core, has more variations that have actually been argued about and studied by scholars and etc. Fascism is really just a broad term applying to ultra-nationalist dictatorships, and the form of their governments varied enough that it’s hard to really afford them the status of any kind of unified or even fleshed out political theory.

[puddleglum]

The differences in fascism and socialism grew out of WW1. Prior to WW1 it was socialism doctrine that the enemy was the capitalists and the workers of another country were natural allies. During WW1 there was a huge surge in nationalism and many socialist were caught up in it. Mussolini was one of the most prominent socialists to be kicked out due to his support for the war.
Once the war was over many socialists contrasted the unity of the army life with the endless bickering of the socialist intellectuals. This led to the rise in support of fascism. Fascism was obsessed with action and unity over ideology and class conflict. They had right wing views in that they rejected internationalism and exalted nationalism. They had left wing views in that they sought to end economic competition and have the government rule everything in the name of the people.

[BrainGlutton]

One important difference is that socialism is all about economics. In fascist ideology, economics are a secondary concern – fascists think the will has the power to transcend or disregard blind economic forces. This freed fascist governments of having any ideological commitment to socialization of the means of production or any other particular economic policy; generally, they exercised just so much nationalization or oversight as seemed good to the leaders at the time.

See political economy of Nazi Germany:

Early in his political career, Adolf Hitler regarded economic issues as relatively unimportant. In 1922, Hitler proclaimed that “world history teaches us that no people has become great through its economy but that a person can very well perish thereby”, and later concluded that “the economy is something of secondary importance”.[3] Hitler and the Nazis held a very strong idealist conception of history, which held that human events are guided by small numbers of exceptional individuals following a higher ideal. They believed that all economic concerns, being purely material, were unworthy of their consideration. Hitler went as far as to blame all previous German governments since Bismarck of having “subjugated the nation to materialism” by relying more on peaceful economic development than on expansion through war.[4]

For these reasons, the Nazis never had a clearly defined economic programme. The original “Twenty-Five Point Programme” of the party, adopted in 1920, listed several economic demands (including “the abolition of all incomes unearned by work,” “the ruthless confiscation of all war profits,” “the nationalization of all businesses which have been formed into corporations,” “profit-sharing in large enterprises,” “extensive development of insurance for old-age,” and “land reform suitable to our national requirements”),[5] but the degree to which the Nazis supported this programme in later years has been questioned. Several attempts were made in the 1920s to change some of the program or replace it entirely. For instance, in 1924, Gottfried Feder proposed a new 39-point program that kept some of the old planks, replaced others and added many completely new ones.[6] Hitler refused to allow any discussion of the party programme after 1925, ostensibly on the grounds that no discussion was necessary because the programme was “inviolable” and did not need any changes. At the same time, however, Hitler never voiced public support for the programme and many historians argue that he was in fact privately opposed to it. Hitler did not mention any of the planks of the programme in his book, Mein Kampf, and only talked about it in passing as “the so-called programme of the movement”.[7]

Hitler’s views on economics, beyond his early belief that the economy was of secondary importance, are a matter of debate. On the one hand, he proclaimed in one of his speeches that “we are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system”,[8] but he was clear to point out that his interpretation of socialism “has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism,” saying that “Marxism is anti-property; true Socialism is not.”[9] At a later time, Hitler said: “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.”[7] In private, Hitler also said that “I absolutely insist on protecting private property… we must encourage private initiative”.[10] On yet another occasion he qualified that statement by saying that the government should have the power to regulate the use of private property for the good of the nation.[11] Hitler clearly believed that the lack of a precise economic programme was one of the Nazi Party’s strengths, saying: “The basic feature of our economic theory is that we have no theory at all.”[12] While not espousing a specific economic philosophy, Hitler employed anti-semitic themes to attack economic systems in other countries, associating ethnic Jews with both communism (“Jewish Bolsheviks”) and capitalism, both of which he opposed.[13][14] Hitler also believed that individuals within a nation battled with each other for survival, and that such ruthless competition was good for the health of the nation, because it promoted “superior individuals” to higher positions in society.[15]

[Malden_Capell]

I always had it described to me that politics is arranged in a horseshoe, with the middle being moderate democracy and the two ‘ends’ being communism and fascism. Both have plenty of differences but they are as strong as the differences between them and liberal democracy. The main determinant is what they consider the overriding issue - supremacy of their supposedly oppressed biological race, or of their supposedly oppressed economic class.

[BrainGlutton]

@John_DiFool

In theory. In practice, didn’t the Russians have their own elites (tho in the propaganda they didn’t call them that)?

The upper ranks of the Party were the elite. At least, unlike the old aristocracy, it was an elite anyone with enough brains and an organization-man mentality could work their way into. The Communist Party was not difficult to join, and then you worked your way up the ranks.

[BrainGlutton]

From the TVTropes UsefulNotes page on Political Ideologies:

At its core, fascism is an authoritarian nationalist ideology. Philosophically, it arises from a Continental Counter-Enlightenment philosophical context, influenced by such thinkers as J. G. Fichte, Hegel, and Martin Heidegger (the last being an actual member of the National Socialist German Worker’s Party) — its origins have some overlap with that of socialism, with Benito Mussolini (the proverbial father of fascism politically) being a former Marxist. Historically, its roots can be searched for in the ethos of storm trooper formations of late World War I; many ex-soldiers carried on this spirit of aggression and elitism as they went on to dabble in extreme politics, among them Mussolini himself. Whereas Marx replaced Hegel’s “Zeitgeist” (or “spirit of the age”) with the prevailing economic system, fascists replace the zeitgeist with the spirit of the nation. Fascism argues for an organic conception of a nation with the State seen as the embodiment of the national spirit: as such, fascist regimes feature strong central governments which are all-pervasive (totalitarian) in nature. Individuals are seen, fundamentally, as products of the nation (similar to how Marxian “methodological collectivism” views individuals as products of their economic class) — hence, fascism requires a strong identification with nationality and national identity on the part of the people, rejecting all individualism or identification with economic class. Fascism often claims to represent the entire nation, subservient to the State and unified behind the Leader, undivided e.g. by class struggles; in the eyes of a fascist, a popular autocrat is a better representation of the people’s interests and desires than an elected parliament, which is viewed contemptuously as a den of immorality and ineffectual bickering. Given this stance, fascism is inherently undemocratic and dictatorial.

<snip>

Things get more complicated when outlining fascist economics. Since fascism is used as an epithet and it is popularly believed that if Fascists did it, then it is bad, a long intellectual battle has been waged over how to characterize the economics of Fascism.

Typically, the term “corporatism” is used to describe fascist economics. It describes a situation wherein all the large privately-owned economic institutions (corporations, industry cartels and the like) are brought into collusion with the government and become part of the apparatus of the State’s economic planning. Additionally, private ownership and ability to do business become contingent on service to the State. Thus, while ownership of the means of production (the stuff used to produce other stuff) remains in private hands and continues to be operated with a for-profit objective, ultimate control is exercised by the State. Fascist governments also exercise further control over the economy via methods such as price fixing.

The fascist economic system is in keeping with the ideology’s totalitarian nature, where no other institution can be allowed to rival the State in power and influence. This quality also leads to a hostility towards labour unions and other organised worker groups, with such institutions typically being repressed and dissolved. Mussolini’s Italy did in fact see the creation of new trade unions following the dissolution of the old ones: these new unions were owned and operated by the State and hence did absolutely nothing.

This system invites comparisons with many forms of state socialism, as both ideologies involve a centrally-planned economy with the State in control of the means of production. Although ownership remains private in the fascist system, many classical-liberal critiques of fascism have argued that “ownership without control” is a senseless, inherently illogical notion, and that fascism is economically indistinguishable from state socialism and therefore is a variant of state socialism. Still, even a cursory look at the two ideologies will demonstrate the radical differences in ethos, even if comparisons in actual outcome are legitimate.

Marxist critiques of fascism, conversely, argue that fascism is a form of capitalism, in the sense of Marx’s initial definition of the term (see the “Marxism” subsection above). Despite being highly regimented and controlled by the State, fascist economies still have private ownership of industries by an upper-class who make profit from the labor of workers; as profit still exists, the economy is still exploitative and thus a form of capitalism. Fascism is on the whole strongly anti-Marxist and anti-socialist, and the two ideologies are usually rivals in attempts to take power during crises like economic depressions — Marxism thus considers fascism to be at best a power play coming out of the petit bourgeois, and at worst little more than a group of violent thugs controlled by the capitalist class brought in as enforcers to defend the old order (and whether or not it acknowledges this status is regarded as irrelevant, since in practice they still end up defending capitalism).

[BrainGlutton]

From socialist George Orwell – "The Lion and the Unicorn: Socialism and the English Genius (1941):

But what then is Fascism?

Fascism, at any rate the German version, is a form of capitalism that borrows from Socialism just such features as will make it efficient for war purposes. Internally, Germany has a good deal in common with a Socialist state. Ownership has never been abolished, there are still capitalists and workers, and–this is the important point, and the real reason why rich men all over the world tend to sympathise with Fascism–generally speaking the same people are capitalists and the same people workers as before the Nazi revolution. But at the same time the State, which is simply the Nazi Party, is in control of everything. It controls investment, raw materials, rates of interest, working hours, wages. The factory owner still owns his factory, but he is for practical purposes reduced to the status of a manager. Everyone is in effect a State employee, though the salaries vary very greatly. The mere EFFICIENCY of such a system, the elimination of waste and obstruction, is obvious. In seven years it has built up the most powerful war machine the world has ever seen.

But the idea underlying Fascism is irreconcilably different from that which underlies Socialism. Socialism aims, ultimately, at a world-state of free and equal human beings. It takes the equality of human rights for granted. Nazism assumes just the opposite. The driving force behind the Nazi movement is the belief in human INEQUALITY, the superiority of Germans to all other races, the right of Germany to rule the world. Outside the German Reich it does not recognise any obligations. Eminent Nazi professors have “proved” over and over again that only Nordic man is fully human, have even mooted the idea that non Nordic peoples (such as ourselves) can interbreed with gorillas! Therefore, while a species of war-Socialism exists within the German state, its attitude towards conquered nations is frankly that of an exploiter. The function of the Czechs, Poles, French, etc is simply to produce such goods as Germany may need, and get in return just as little as will keep them from open rebellion. If we are conquered, our job will probably be to manufacture weapons for Hitler’s forthcoming wars with Russia and America. The Nazis aim, in effect, at setting up a kind of caste system, with four main castes corresponding rather closely to those of the Hindu religion. At the top comes the Nazi party, second come the mass of the German people, third come the conquered European populations. Fourth and last are to come the coloured peoples, the “semi-apes” as Hitler calls them, who are to be reduced quite openly to slavery.

However horrible this system may seem to us, IT WORKS. It works because it is a planned system geared to a definite purpose, world conquest, and not allowing any private interest, either of capitalist or worker, to stand in its way. British capitalism does not work, because it is a competitive system in which private profit is and must be the main objective. It is a system in which all the forces are pulling in opposite directions and the interests of the individual are as often as not totally opposed to those of the State.

[Bozuit]

@Martin_Hyde

On a political compass Fascism is frequently put “far to the right”, but that really doesn’t make sense. It is inherently extremely authoritarian instead of libertarian.

The right wing isn’t traditionally libertarian, even if the ideas might get mixed up in modern American politics. To me, the difference between left wing and right wing isn’t how much they want to control - it’s what they want to control. The more extreme you get, the more the philosophy involves control.

[BrainGlutton]

The Pournelle chart uses two axes of political ideology – the horizontal axis maps how the state is regarded, with state-haters on the left end and state-worshippers on the right; the vertical axis maps how reason is regarded, with irrationalists or romantics on bottom and rationalists on the top. This allows Jerry Pournelle to distinguish communists from fascists, placing them in the upper-right and lower-right corners respectively. Both placed all power with the state, but their intellectual traditions and world-views were vastly different – communists were the heirs of Voltaire, fascists of Rousseau. See Romanticism vs. Enlightenment. He puts libertarians and Objectivists in the upper left quadrant, as rationalist state-haters, while classical anarchists go in the lower left quadrant as romantic state-haters. (N.B.: Rationalists are not necessarily rational.)

[QuickSilver]

Communism: All your base belong to State.
Fascism: All your base belong to us now. You vill be shotte.
Capitalism: All your base are subject to hostile takeover.
Libertarianism: Don’t tread on all my base.
Hippie Socialism: I smoking all your base. Peace, maaan.

[GIGObuster]

One big flaw in the assumption a few make that fascism was not “far to the right” is that those few never explain properly what happened to all the far right people during the rise of fascism, IMO only by magical thinking is that one could find good explanations on how the far right knew nothing or avoided being part of the Reich in Germany or Italy.

[Human_Action]

@GIGObuster

One big flaw in the assumption a few make that fascism was not “far to the right” is that those few never explain properly what happened to all the far right people during the rise of fascism, IMO only by magical thinking is that one could find good explanations on how the far right knew nothing or avoided being part of the Reich in Germany or Italy.

In Germany, two groups of far-right people, the Catholic Church and the junkers, avoided being part of the Reich. The Catholics opposed the Nazis and suffered persecution, the junkers were kept outside the Nazi power structure though otherwise unmolested. The right-wing military establishment was also quite skeptical of Hitler.

[Learjeff]

Ayn Rand’s distinction (which doesn’t seem to differentiate between socialism and communism – right, they’re the same thing!):

The difference between [socialism and fascism] is superficial and purely formal, but it is significant psychologically: it brings the authoritarian nature of a planned economy crudely into the open.

The main characteristic of socialism (and of communism) is public ownership of the means of production, and, therefore, the abolition of private property. The right to property is the right of use and disposal. Under fascism, men retain the semblance or pretense of private property, but the government holds total power over its use and disposal.

The dictionary definition of fascism is: “a governmental system with strong centralized power, permitting no opposition or criticism, controlling all affairs of the nation (industrial, commercial, etc.), emphasizing an aggressive nationalism . . .” [The American College Dictionary,
New York: Random House, 1957.]

Under fascism, citizens retain the responsibilities of owning property, without freedom to act and without any of the advantages of ownership. Under socialism, government officials acquire all the advantages of ownership, without any of the responsibilities, since they do not hold title to the property, but merely the right to use it—at least until the next purge. In either case, the government officials hold the economic, political and legal power of life or death over the citizens.

Needless to say, under either system, the inequalities of income and standard of living are greater than anything possible under a free economy—and a man’s position is determined, not by his productive ability and achievement, but by political pull and force.

Under both systems, sacrifice is invoked as a magic, omnipotent solution in any crisis—and “the public good” is the altar on which victims are immolated. But there are stylistic differences of emphasis. The socialist-communist axis keeps promising to achieve abundance, material comfort and security for its victims, in some indeterminate future. The fascist-Nazi axis scorns material comfort and security, and keeps extolling some undefined sort of spiritual duty, service and conquest. The socialist-communist axis offers its victims an alleged social ideal. The fascist-Nazi axis offers nothing but loose talk about some unspecified form of racial or national “greatness.” The socialist-communist axis proclaims some grandiose economic plan, which keeps receding year by year. The fascist-Nazi axis merely extols leadership—leadership without purpose, program or direction—and power for power’s sake.

For your grist grinding pleasure.

[Human_Action]

Ludwig von Mises’, comparing Nazi Germany to the Soviet Union:

The German and the Russian systems of socialism have in common the fact that the government has full control of the means of production. It decides what shall be produced and how. It allots to each individual a share of consumer’s goods for his consumption. These systems would not have to be called socialist if it were otherwise.

But there is a difference between the two systems—though it does not concern the essential features of socialism.

The Russian pattern of socialism is purely bureaucratic. All economic enterprises are departments of the government, like the administration of the army or the postal system. Every plant, shop, or farm stands in the same relation to the superior central organization as does a post office to the office of the postmaster general.

The German pattern differs from the Russian one in that it (seemingly and nominally) maintains private ownership of the means of production and keeps the appearance of ordinary prices, wages, and markets. There are, however, no longer entrepreneurs but only shop managers (Betriebsführer). These shop managers do the buying and selling, pay the workers, contract debts, and pay interest and amortization. There is no labor market; wages and salaries are fixed by the government. The government tells the shop managers what and how to produce, at what prices and from whom to buy, at what prices and to whom to sell. The government decrees to whom and under what terms the capitalists must entrust their funds and where and at what wages laborers must work. Market exchange is only a sham. All the prices, wages, and interest rates are fixed by the central authority. They are prices, wages, and interest rates in appearance only; in reality they are merely determinations of quantity relations in the government’s orders. The government, not the consumers, directs production. This is socialism in the outward guise of capitalism. Some labels of capitalistic market economy are retained but they mean something entirely different from what they mean in a genuine market economy.

The execution of the pattern in each country is not so rigid as not to allow for some concessions to the other pattern. There are, in Germany too, plants and shops directly managed by government clerks; there is especially the national railroad system; there are the government’s coal mines and the national telegraph and telephone lines. Most of these institutions are remnants of the nationalization carried out by the previous governments under the regime of German militarism. In Russia, on the other hand, there are some seemingly independent shops and farms left. But these exceptions do not alter the general characteristics of the two systems.

[eschereal]

@The_Second_Stone

Communism is the dictatorship of the working class.

Lenin used that term, but it seems kind of paradoxical, at least in the English language. We equate “dictatorship” with despotism, but “dictatorship of the working class” sounds a lot like a sort of preferential democracy, where the workers’ franchise would be weighted, by numbers, over the managerial/bourgeois class. Of course, in practice, “dictatorship” requires some sort of power structure, which ultimately leads to some form of autocracy or oligarchy.

In the end, “democracy” always fails, because some form of hierarchical structure develops that ends up subverting it (e.g., Athens, Rome, USA, France, etc, etc). The only way for democracy to not fail is to prevent it from expanding beyond a reasonably local scope. The glibertarian ethos (at least by Randian or Austrian design) does not offer mechanisms to throttle expansion, nor do most left-wing concepts.

Compromise is rather unappealing, but less so than any particular unilateral implementation. None of us are smart enough to solve the world’s (or nation’s, or county’s) problems on our own collaboration, argument and universal dissatisfaction are the only workable approaches. No viable system should provider durable support for winners and losers in the socio-political arena, because then the results end up being unacceptably arbitrary.

[GIGObuster]

@Human_Action

In Germany, two groups of far-right people, the Catholic Church and the junkers, avoided being part of the Reich. The Catholics opposed the Nazis and suffered persecution, the junkers were kept outside the Nazi power structure though otherwise unmolested. The right-wing military establishment was also quite skeptical of Hitler.

However, I do know that many Catholics and even priests and nuns did attend nazi rallies and used the nazi salute.

Nazi photos showing Christian influence

Priests giving the Hitler salute

Priests giving the Hitler salute at a Catholic youth rally in the Berlin-Neukölln stadium in August 1933.

The examples I have seen pushed around as examples of defiance were not the majority but they do deserve praise, unfortunately like in places like in El Salvador the bad elements were numerous enough for the evil powers to claim that they had their support. If all the Catholics had been like the Jesuits in Germany I would agree with what you are saying here.

http://www.firstthings.com/article/2007/10/002-catholics-against-hitler-24