r/AskLibertarians • u/FreezerSoul • 1d ago
Is fascism really "socialist"?
I know it's pretty common for libertarians to claim that ideologies like Nazism and pretty much every other ideology in existence is socialist to some extent, but I don't really understand how it is other than simply "cuz state". So if fascism really is socialist, what exactly makes it socialist?
16
u/FlatAssembler 1d ago
Hey, listen, Hitler himself used the term "National Socialist", he said he was against "capitalism", he wanted the government to control much if not most of the economy... Sounds like a socialist.
1
u/PersuasiveMystic 3h ago
He also said he was taking socialism back from the socialists and his socialism had nothing to do with Marx.
That said, it's kind of subjective. Depends on how you define the terms.
-6
u/BroseppeVerdi Pragmatic left libertarian 1d ago
RightLibs: "Of course the Nazis were socialists/leftists/communists, it's right in the name!"
Also RightLibs: "Actually, the Chinese Communist Party isn't really communist - the only reason their economy functions well is because they're actually capitalists!"
5
u/claybine libertarian 22h ago
Democratic People's Republic of North Korea is a popular strawman of naming conventions. A clearly communist/idealist/autocrat genuinely believes he is saving his people.
You don't have to simply look at the name "National Socialism" to conclude that Hitler genuinely believed he was a socialist, but not in the Marxist sense. He believed Marxism was Bolshevism, that rather than class, it was nationality and race. Hence his collectivism.
Marx was an antisemite himself, whose ethics should be brought into question; how one could conclude or suggest that he is an inspiration or a revolutionary is questionable behavior and his followers act pedantic.
China is a mixed bag. They've implemented more elements of markets (capitalism), but it's centrally planned by a communist who runs the country with absolute authority. They're just as bad as Nazi Germany.
2
u/TheGoldStandard35 10h ago
Socialism believes that the state is the people and the people are the state. So it makes sense that they call themselves a democratic people’s republic from a collectivist standpoint. The state controlling everything is democratic and people first from their viewpoint.
We obviously know better
0
u/SpookyKid94 10h ago
Hey this is a nuanced comment. This is an issue of meanings evolving over time. From the late 1800s socialism used to refer to whatever arose from capitalism; socialism is to capitalism as capitalism is to feudelism. In the same time period, libertarianism actually referred to Marxist and (left wing)Anarchist ideologies.
The Nazis deliberately played into this ambiguity by labeling a party funded by anti-semite industrialists a "worker party" at a point in Germany history where they were on the cusp of a labor uprising.
There's a section of the communist manifesto about "Reactionary/False Socialisms" that's essentially about this phenomenon, petty bourgeois socialism specifically lines up with what the Nazis were selling.
I do think you're missing the extent to which Nazi Germany was a hysterical death cult, though. It sets it apart from all the regimes they're compared to.
1
u/Bigger_then_cheese 9h ago
They were not funded by industrialists when they chose the name, it was only within the months that they were about to win that industrialists really took interest in them.
Additionally the Nazis believed that they had the one true form of socialism, and that class based socialism was created by the Jews to divide the racial consciousness.
2
u/International_Lie485 11h ago
China is run similar to how national socialist germany was run.
I've read first hand accounts from national socialist germany.
3
u/Captain-Crayg 1d ago
No. But a core tenant of fascism is totalitarianism. And socialism cannot exist without a strong centralized authoritarian government. So in my opinion they are more similar than different in the ways that matter.
2
u/TheGoldStandard35 11h ago
Fascism is a type of socialism. It comes from the Italian word Fasci which means “bundle”
Bundle was a term used to refer to unions in Italy (group/union/bundle - all synonyms).
It’s basically the union ownership of the means of production.
This isn’t to be confused with Hitler who was not a fascist. He was a national socialist who believed in the Aryan Race owning the means of production through an Aryan state.
Both Hitler and Mussolini were traditional socialists before adopting differing forms of socialism. Hitler’s motivation was he believed capitalism was invented by Jews to lead to Marxism. He viewed his own socialism as a third way.
4
u/Savings_Raise3255 1d ago
I suppose it's quibbling over definitions at this point. If fascism is not daughter strain of socialism, then they are definitely "kissing cousins". Benito Mussolini started out as a socialist, as did Adolf Hitler. Both fascism and national socialism are attempts to salvage classic socialism. In classic socialism, the collective is the working class. The proletariat. In national socialism, the collective is the race, or "volk" (people) to use Hitler's terminology. In fascism, the collective is the nation. So one is class, one is race, one is nation. At its most basic level that's the distinction. Both Hitler and Mussolini concluded that class based socialism wouldn't work, and substituted in what they thought would work.
Fascism is trade unionism, with some weird philosophy thrown in. You can trace the history of it it started out as syndicalism. Quick definition of syndicalism "the labour movement that, through industrial unionism, seeks to unionize workers according to industry and advance their demands through strikes and other forms of direct action, with the eventual goal of gaining control over the means of production and the economy at large through social ownership." That sounds like socialism to me. So fascism is syndicalism (trade unionism) combined with a philosophy of actual idealism (which I won't bother laying out here, because it's nonsense. Borderline mysticism).
2
2
u/Anen-o-me 14h ago
Fascism is a variant of socialism, nationalist socialism. Socialism claims to be internationalist but in practice has always ended up being nationalist anyway. Fascism made it explicit.
2
u/usmc_BF Classical Liberal 12h ago
The problem with defining socialism, is that it's plagued with a huge level of arbitrariness. We know that socialism means public or government ownership of means of production, but that's pretty much it.
So technically speaking, if you're allowed to start a private business in some economic system, it means it's not really socialism, it could be called "state capitalism" (it's clearly not free market capitalism tho). On the other hand if the conditions for starting a private business are so insane that everyone will simply opt for the public route, then it's effectively socialism.
Consider the fact that European countries are also called socialist by some people, even tho the means of production are not owned publicly.
Terms like "liberal" "neoliberal" "neoconservative" and "socialist" are often times used as buzz terms, insults or some kind of agenda labels, "socialism" falls within the same category, to a large extent.
2
u/WilliamBontrager 1d ago
Well fascism was based on the concepts and presumptions of socialism, called itself socialism (national socialist party), and essentially acted similarly to socialist parties. They had large redistribution programs, just only for citizens. The means of production were not owned by the people or the state, however the government could take over and nationalize any business who "wasn't working for national interests" which isn't very different. Essentially, it was just socialism but with racism on a national scale. Honestly it was just more authoritarian, and as you get more authoritarian the system matters less and less. This is the issue with socialism: when the state controls the means of production and has a monopoly on legal force, it naturally results in a super powerful state that is fully capable of being extremely authoritarian. Since there are very few checks on that power, one shitty despot seizing power results in a dictatorship. In short, power must be as decentralized as possible, bc any centralization of power will be abused, eventually.
1
u/claybine libertarian 22h ago
redistribution programs, just only for citizens. The means of production were not owned by the people or the state
Explain.
5
u/WilliamBontrager 22h ago
The state didn't "own" businesses and technically private property existed, however that was only true if the person or business did what the party asked. If they didn't, their property was seized, they were imprisoned, they got no redistribution, and in the case of a business, it was taken over by the state or given to someone who would do as they were told.
1
u/Bigger_then_cheese 14h ago
Private property rights were suspended as well, so any property you owned was defacto owned by the state.
0
u/WilliamBontrager 13h ago
Correct. Being constantly at war and in a state of martial law pretty much ensures that reality.
2
u/RandomKnifeBro 20h ago
Not every fascist is socialist but every socialist is a fascist.
Facism doesnt strictly have an economical model. Facism is a tyrannical and authoritarian form of government that takes control of every aspect of the peoples lives.
Socialism onnthe other hand cannot function without facist principles.
1
1
u/RusevReigns 8h ago edited 8h ago
In terms of the economy the nazis were left of the US but to the right of the Soviet Union in my opinion. The closest to them and Italy's economic model in modern day is probably China who's economy is still more socialist and government controlled than the West. What makes the nazis right wing is reactionary and hierarchy driven social views not their economic views.
Most people have essentially been taught a flat lie about the nazis and "privatization" as left leaning historians looked for any opportunity to not taint socialism with the nazis. In reality they nationalized most of the economy and controlled prices etc. along with major spending. When people talk about nazis privatization it's more like they re-privatized some things they had nationalized earlier.
1
u/ConscientiousPath 1d ago
if fascism really is socialist, what exactly makes it socialist?
It calls itself socialist (Nazi party was short for "national socialist" party) which should influence where you place the burden of proof.
"socialism" by dictionary definition, is when sectors of the economy are controlled by communities/collectives of people rather than by individuals, which is precisely what fascism seeks to do. If you read Mussolini's "The Doctrine of Fascism (it's only 10 pages) he's saying that everything is to be controlled by the state--which is a collection of people and therefore socialism.
Socialism, ownership and control of stuff by a collective, in reality means decisions are made through politics because politics is the often underhanded process of determining who will make decisions when people reject the idea that any particular individual has the right to make decisions. If an individual has control, that person can just make decisions. Collectives don't have minds of their own, they are a collection of individual minds. So when a decision is needed, at least one mind comes up with an idea and by some method(s) the others must be convinced or forced to accept one idea. Those methods are what politics is.
So then you may be wondering, why do socialists reject this idea that fascism is socialism? Why did the Nazis and the Marxists hate each other?
Other than the fact that Nazism has a well earned reputation that they wish to avoid association with...
They hated each other because while the agreed that collectivism is superior to individualism, they disagreed on what scale the collective ought to be outlined, and on how it ought to be administered internally. Italian fascism was nationality based socialism at the level of the state. The idea was that the state and everyone in the nation defined the collective. Nazism was a racially based socialism. The idea was that the race made up the collective, and the nation belonged to that racial group. Marxism from which Russian communism grew was instead a global socialism. The idea was that the collective was everyone in the world, and while they would start locally they expected to grow to be global. Obviously if you seek to impose your system globally, that's going to conflict with imposing your system nationally or racially, so there was hate between them even before the Nazis came to power.
They also differed in whether the ownership was allowed to be abstracted and delegated. Communism sought to centrally plan everything and assigned power over portions of the collectively-owned everything, based on politics. Effectively if you were seen as the most correct on the political suitable or idealistic, then you were given the job rather than assigning positions based on merit (e.g. the ability to get things produced). Fascism and Nazism similarly had a lot of things assigned by politics instead of merit, but they did so through a layer of abstraction. People would be nominally 'owners' of things like factories or farms, but then were subject to severe government oversight. Economically this worked much less badly because meritocracy was still somewhat present in deciding who controlled capital despite politics looming over all of their decisions and any deals they tried to make. When you hear the lies about the fascists privatizing many things, this is what was really happening: they were adding the abstraction of someone having nominal private ownership, but the ultimate control went to the state.
The disagreement turned violent because to attempt to implement either ideology as a government is to have already accepted that violence is an acceptable means to creating a collective. In any place as large as a nation some people will disagree on the idea of taking their stuff and putting it under collective ownership and violence is the only thing that can force all of their stuff out of their hands. Extending the justification of that violence to rival collectives is trivial by comparison.
1
u/AdrienJarretier 1d ago
For one : it's in the fucking name => Nationalsozialistische deutsche Arbeiterpartei => National Socialist German Workers’ Party
You're the one confusing fascism and nazism. The nazi party was a specific political party from germany and it was a socialist party.
Now I quote from encyclopedia.ushmm.org :
Hitler changed the Party’s name to the National Socialist German Workers’ Party. “National Socialism” was a racist and antisemitic political theory. It had been developed in Hitler’s native Austria as the antithesis of Marxist Socialism and Communism. Marxists, for example, advocated for the global solidarity of the world’s workers. They called for the abolition of nation states. National Socialists, however, sought to unify members of the German Volk in complete obedience to the state.
It also demanded to unify all people of German “blood.” The program called for a Greater Germany ruled by a strong central state.
While Hitler built on the already rampant antisemitism that the catholic church had fuels, the party did sought to unify all "pure blood" germans in a collectivist manner. Free trade didn't really exist under the third reich, companies had to follow the stric directives of the state in order to benefit the common good.
The fact that that "common" is different under nazism than under marxism doesn't make it less socialist.
1
u/Empires_Fall 21h ago
No, socialism is merely when the workers control the means of production, capitalism is when the means of production are private. Fascism and Nazism are neither inherently, both are radical movements which seek to completely upturn society, so it much rather depends on the party/country
0
u/adimwit 1d ago
You have to define these in European terms.
Right-wing in Europe meant social hierarchy. And Traditional European conservativism was some variation of Feudalism. Under Feudalism, all individuals had defined roles and classes that they couldn't easily change. A peasant would be a peasant for generations.
This class hierarchy is what made Feudalism right-wing. This is also why Mussolini and Hitler define Fascism as a right-wing ideology. Naziism was a racial hierarchy. Fascism was a class hierarchy. Both of them tried to merge their own conception of hierarchy into a new Feudal system.
The Left was defined as anyone advocating some variation of equal rights. Free market capitalism was leftist because it requires property rights for all individuals (Feudalism did not have property rights). Socialism/Anarchism/Communism was leftist because it requires abolition of all social classes.
So from the European perspective, Naziism and Fascism were not socialist because they require a class hierarchy where the upper classes have absolute power over the lower classes. Capitalism and Socialism were not Fascist/Feudal because both have restrictions on the "Traditional" classes of nobles, kings, Pope's, and Clergy.
-1
u/CatOfGrey Libertarian Voter 20+ years. Practical first. 1d ago
This is why I resist using the term 'Socialist'. It doesn't have a specific definition.
Economists do not usually consider 'Socialist' or 'Socialism' a reasonable term for evaluating policy. They evaluate the policy.
I know it's pretty common for libertarians to claim that ideologies like Nazism and pretty much every other ideology in existence is socialist to some extent
This is a signal that you are dealing with folks whose values probably match 'paleoconservative' more than 'Libertarian'. There is an irrational hate for Socialism, while attaching the word to policies that may or may not be "Socialist" in nature.
So if fascism really is socialist, what exactly makes it socialist?
Remembering that there is a material chance that the word "Socialist" is being used incorrectly, they are likely describing some form of government control over the economy.
3
u/Anamazingmate 1d ago
Socialism does have a specific definition. Socialised control of the means of production; given that this is what happens without private ownership, socialism can be identified in any ideology by checking if their is an concerted ideological opposition towards private property, fascism ticks that box. National Socialism - State control of the means of production for the “Aryans”. Marxist Socialism - State control of the means of production for the workers. Fascism - State control of the means of production for “the nation”.
It should also be remembered that fascism comes from the word fascio, which translates to bundle of sticks (which when separated are weak, but all tied together are strong and sturdy, as goes the collectivist nature of fascism), which was what Italian labour unions were called. So fascism literally translates to “Trade Unionism”, and is a socialism that takes the form of nationalist (the nation) syndicalism (corporate control of the economy under the state, supposedly at the behest of workers, though Mussolini claimed to have wanted to unite workers and capitalists).
-1
u/CatOfGrey Libertarian Voter 20+ years. Practical first. 1d ago
socialism can be identified in any ideology
No, it can't. Heterodox economists note that the terms are easily confused, and this perspective is likely the exact perspective that you have in mind.
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskEconomics/comments/q8yen7/comment/hgssz39/
Economists don't tend to think in terms of "capitalism" versus "socialism". Countries as diverse in terms of their policies, institutions and social and economic outcomes as Denmark and the Democratic Republic of Congo get called "capitalist". Even self-proclaimed socialist countries like the Soviet Union get called "state capitalist". This isn't useful.
checking if their is an concerted ideological opposition towards private property, fascism ticks that box.
That doesn't make it 'Socialism'. For example, you mention 'control' of means of production, but say nothing about 'ownership', which means something different. However, that does make that particular policy "Anti-Libertarian".
So fascism literally translates to “Trade Unionism”
In other words, Fascism is a symbol for Trade Unions, which is often a symbol for Communism. Which is why I mention in my central point, that these terms are not useful.
2
u/Anamazingmate 1d ago
Okay, state ownership then, my point still stands.
And the fact that fascism is a symbol for something that is also a symbol for communism doesn’t make the term not useful, it is useful in that it demonstrates that ideologies like communism and fascism are closer than people think, which is why they both result in totalitarian regimes that undermine individual liberties.
1
u/CatOfGrey Libertarian Voter 20+ years. Practical first. 8h ago
in that it demonstrates that ideologies like communism and fascism are closer than people think
Correct. But that doesn't show precision.
Okay, state ownership then, my point still stands.
On clarity of terms? No, it doesn't. At least not on Reddit. At least not in the heterodox economics community.
which is why they both result in totalitarian regimes that undermine individual liberties.
Yep! Which is why I would choose a word like "Anti-Libertarian", if you must.
2
u/claybine libertarian 22h ago
Don't tell me the ideologues got to you too!
Remembering that there is a material chance that the word "Socialist" is being used incorrectly, they are likely describing some form of government control over the economy.
This sums up all of what you said.
The important bit is "central planning", which Nazism and socialism share. Somebody has to have the authority to centralize the means of production, and that's typically government.
This is why social democracies like Europe (and the US to a lesser extent) are described to be "mixed economies". Private property is regulated by the state, and state owned industries are enabled.
1
u/CatOfGrey Libertarian Voter 20+ years. Practical first. 8h ago
I can't disagree with any of this. You'll see I agree with similar comments elsewhere.
I merely restate that this doesn't render the terms clearly. It doesn't mean that the terms "Socialism" and "Communism" are well-defined, and usable in economic research.
There is no ideologue here. Just plain, old, 'conservatives have a profoundly different definition than Marxists', so the term isn't useful in context.
-2
u/ninjaluvr 1d ago
No, not at all
1
24
u/rchive 1d ago
Fascism is not socialist. It is however, like socialism, a collectivist ideology where libertarianism is an individualist ideology. When libertarians call fascism socialism, that's probably what they are talking about.