Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Fascism Versus Socialism
May 13, 2009 | Welcome2thejungle

Posted on 05/13/2009 12:17:08 PM PDT by Welcome2thejungle

One term that is quite freely bandied about in political discussion without evidently much thought is fascism. While fascism is related to socialism, they should be thought of as cousins, not twins. Both ideologies originated in Europe and both ideologies advocate an all-powerful centralized government. But there are significant differences.

Socialists generally speaking are internationalists who work with eachother across the globe. Fascists are ardent nationalists.

Socialists favor government ownership of the means of production, whereas fascists have no problem with private ownership so long as corporations are compliant with government objectives.

Socialists are ardent secularists and generally disdain organized religion. Fascists often seek and receive the support of the Church and encourage religious participation.

Socialists love social engineering, collective farms and kibbutzes. Fascists are generally socially conservative, support the military, law and order, and traditional family structures.

The archetype fascist, IMHO, was Spain's General Francisco Franco. He was socially conservative, supported the private sector, the military, and the Church.

Is BHO a fascist? In a word, no. He does favor government ownership of the means of production. How many shares of AIG, Citigroup, GM, Chrysler, etc. does the federal government now own? He clearly wants to take over what's left of our private health care system and other industries as well including the automative and energy industries. He hates America and cannot be considered a nationalist in way shape or form and has nothing but contempt for the traditional Church. He also detests the military and is weak on law and order issues as well. He can in no way be described as a social conservative. BHO is clearly a socialist, not a fascist.

While I am not an advocate of fascism, from a conservative point of view it is far more benign than socialism. The late Ambassador, Dr.Jeane Kirkpatrick, found this to be true as well.

Given the choice between Franco and BHO, for me, I would pick General Franco any day over the week over the Marxist radical currently occupying 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.


TOPICS: Politics
KEYWORDS: vanity

1 posted on 05/13/2009 12:17:08 PM PDT by Welcome2thejungle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Welcome2thejungle

I disagree with the comment that obama is not a nationalist. I think that he is; the nation is just not America.

Obama is a black nationalist, IMO.


2 posted on 05/13/2009 12:21:55 PM PDT by chesley ("Hate" -- You wouldn't understand; it's a leftist thing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Welcome2thejungle

Fascism predates Franco.


3 posted on 05/13/2009 12:22:11 PM PDT by Army Air Corps (Four fried chickens and a coke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Welcome2thejungle

ping


4 posted on 05/13/2009 12:22:34 PM PDT by unkus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Welcome2thejungle
Uhm,
Fascism and Socialism are a bit closer than cousins.
Think of them more as different shades of the same thing.
While Fascism did not completely coopt private industry it instead fed on it. It is, and was called, vampire capitalism. Fascism is strictly a variation, not a separate entity.
As for pure Socialism it came in both national (NAZI) and international forms (Soviet). Both subverted the individual in favor of the state.
American socialism, or fascism, is unique in that the socialists hate their country. They are both internaitonalists and willing to have a mix of vampire capitalism and government means of production. In this it is a new form. They hate and want to change America because it is free and is based on the individual consent of the governed.
5 posted on 05/13/2009 12:25:54 PM PDT by IrishCatholic (No local Communist or Socialist Party Chapter? Join the Democrats, it's the same thing!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Welcome2thejungle
Socialists would nationalize the banks and car companies. Obama has not done that -- instead, he has worked out deals whereby the corporations remain private, partly run by labor unions, and are heavily beholden to government controllers. The government does not own, but it does control. This is fascism.

It is quite false to portray fascists as "traditional", "religious", or "socially conservative". Fascism is a left-wing phenomenon.

I do think you are correct about the national/international divide. Stalin was an International Socialist, and Hitler, Mussolini, and Franco were National Socialists.

6 posted on 05/13/2009 12:26:11 PM PDT by ClearCase_guy (American Revolution II -- overdue)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chesley

Another mistake: Equating Right-Wing Authorianism (Militarism/Nationalism) with Fascism.

Franco was not really Fascist. Pinochet wasn’t Fascist. Pilsudski wasn’t Fascist. A whole lot of right-wing authoritarians are labelled “fascist” without much thought.


7 posted on 05/13/2009 12:26:37 PM PDT by SolidWood (Palin: "We do not want to become slaves of Washington.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Welcome2thejungle
Franco, Fascism and the Falange – Not One and the Same Thing

Franco was a Nationalist Authoritarian... not a Fascist.

8 posted on 05/13/2009 12:29:10 PM PDT by SolidWood (Palin: "We do not want to become slaves of Washington.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Welcome2thejungle

Fascism is a variety of socialism where there is ostensibly private ownership of business, but the state has total control over it.


9 posted on 05/13/2009 12:36:59 PM PDT by SandWMan (Even if you can't legislate morality, you can legislate morally.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Welcome2thejungle
The thing that seems to separate Obama from the majority of the totalitarians of the last 100 years is, for the most part, they were supporters of their own countries. Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Franco, even Mao put the interests of their own countries above other countries.
10 posted on 05/13/2009 12:42:20 PM PDT by jimbobfoster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Welcome2thejungle
A distinction without a difference.

Leaving someone a piece of paper that says they 'own' a business, but they can't decide what to produce, or how much to charge for it, or how much to pay the workers, or which workers to hire and fire, or . . . anything else about the business is not a real difference with a system that where the government has the 'title' to the business.

They are both socialist systems. The key issue is whether rights and responsibilities are individual or collective. In both fascism and socialism all rights belong "to the people" . . . which is to say, no rights belong to anyone but the people collectively - that is, the government.

There was a distinction between 'national' socialism and 'international' socialism, but when Lenin declared that the homeland of socialism (that is, Russia) must be protected, that became another distinction without a real difference.
11 posted on 05/13/2009 12:42:49 PM PDT by Phlyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Welcome2thejungle
What does it matter what he is call? He is an upsering traitorist narcissistic Chicagoland thug......


12 posted on 05/13/2009 12:49:09 PM PDT by Kartographer (".. we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Welcome2thejungle

I disagree that fascists encourage participation in the Church (at least, the Christian church) or that they favor the traditional family structure. Hitler’s Germany was rigidly secular (although they did sort of allow the Church to function, as long as it kept a low profile). Also, it discouraged the traditional family structure by training children to view the State as their “parent” and the proper recipient of love and honor. Children were encouraged to turn in parents who resisted the State.


13 posted on 05/13/2009 12:50:28 PM PDT by MissNomer (Proud member of FR's "Final 300")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kartographer

Socialism+Facism+USA=Progressivism


14 posted on 05/13/2009 12:55:04 PM PDT by FlashBack ('0'bama: "Katrina on a Global Level")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Welcome2thejungle

It is a very interesting issue, indeed.

I disagree. General Franco wasn’t a Fascist, he was simply an authoritarian ruler. His model of rule was simply military: Spain constitued a big military camp.

When a tactic did not work, he simply changed it, as a flexible and intelligent fighter. He abandoned his economical autarchic system in 1959, and tried a more classic liberal one which made Spain the second most growing economy among the developed countries during the 1960’s, just after Japan.

He supported the Spanish Second Republic, he suffocated a rebellion of the Asturian miners in 1934 against it. Only when it was clear that the 1936 left wing government was taking the steps towards a Socialist revolution, he acted.

He used a Fascist party, Falange, as political wing to fill his regime, but he did not create Falange. He used in the same manner the Catholic church: in the Spanish territories in Northern Africa there was full freedom of religion for Muslims, Jews and Christians.

General Franco, economically, was a true Socialist. He defended the average Spaniard against big banks and companies. Under his rule, an average Spaniard could afford two homes: one in the city and one in the beach (today: none). He limited the profits of the traditional Spanish oligarchies and transfered that money to the people. This is the reason, IMHO, of the bad press against him: big fishes (who own the media) do not forgive him that.

Fascism was a kind of collectivist movement developed by oligarchies as a response to Socialism. It was born in Italy, where the big fishes such as Pirelli and Agnelli (FIAT) among other characters such as former aristocrats, propelled Mussolini into power and in some cases, such as Pirelli, were his ministers.

Socialism was truly a popular movement that allowed the establishment of a dictatorship in order to carry out a plan of consecution or redistribution of wealth. Both Lenin and Hitler were Socialist, however, Lenin ruled a simple economy, therefore he did it directly (with terrible results). Hitler could not affor that: Germany’s productive tissue was very complicated. He did in fact own the means of production, when Hitler wanted a popular car, a Volkswagen; engineer Ferdinand Porsche designed it and it began to be produced in a state plant at Wolfsburg, but Hitler preferred to leave the management of the business to the previous owners.

The property of the means of production means nothing in a dictatorship: in the end you have to do what the ruler wants.

I don’t think Obama is a Socialist, at least a true Socialist. IMHO, his links with oligarchies, such as the renewable energies ones and involvement in supporting some big companies make him fall in the other side of your classification.

Sarah Palin, confronting big oil companies in Alaska, IMHO is in the opposite side of Fascism and Socialism: she is a true freedom fighter, a person that will defend the weak before the almighty.

However, such people are rare this days.


15 posted on 05/13/2009 12:55:32 PM PDT by J Aguilar (Veritas vos liberabit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Phlyer

I think that you are mis-stating a factor of fascism. In fascism the “people” don’t own anything. It is privately owned and state controlled. It is a kind of symbiotic relationship between the state and elite group of citizens and industries. The people are just serfs. This is where Obamism differs from fascism, under Obamism there is no private ownership or even stockholders or creditors of regulated industries.

Obama’s fascism is really a new form of feudal system. The government are the nobles and the academics take the place of the state run church. The industrialists are like the overseers who manage the private interests at the direction of the elites and union serfs.


16 posted on 05/13/2009 12:56:08 PM PDT by Eva (union motto - Aim for mediocrity, it's only fair.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Welcome2thejungle

We are experiencing economic Fascism, and it is fair to call 0 and our Democrat Congress Fascist. You can go loopy trying to figure out whether of not we fit the Fascist or the Communist mold. The only thing certain is that we are entering new territory. The real confusion in using the terminology of Fascism and Socialism in trying to define our tyrannical oligarchy, comes from the American concept of conservatism and liberalism, right and left. Because American Socialism can be associated with international Communism, the left has always tried to hang the Fascist label around the neck of conservatives, even though American conservatism has nothing to do with Fascism. Fascism is Socialism, which is why 0 and the Socialist Democrats have no reservations in using Fascism to move their agenda, which will eventually give way to international Communism. Our Capitalist system is being usurped by Fascist economics. Call it a step in the Socialist revolution. A case can also be made that the destruction of our culture, liberties and individualism is nothing more than an assault of PC Fascism. Our leftist leaders are as Nazi-like as they come, without firing up the concentration camps, and we will see reeducation camps before they are done. Can we accuse 0 of being Hitleresque while calling him a Marxist? Of course we can, and we are correct in doing so.


17 posted on 05/13/2009 1:00:46 PM PDT by pallis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy
It is quite false to portray fascists as "traditional", "religious", or "socially conservative". Fascism is a left-wing phenomenon.

Concur. Fascist governments took control of education and encouraged children to give up tradition, and to go against their parents. A new way was on the horizon. The church was coerced to promote the State over God. In fact, the State eventually replaced God in the Fascist states.

18 posted on 05/13/2009 1:01:55 PM PDT by IYAS9YAS (Obama - what you get when you mix Affirmative Action with the Peter Principle.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Eva
In fascism the “people” don’t own anything. It is privately owned and state controlled.

Again, a distinction without a difference. One way to explain this is: In Fascism, pieces of paper that are called 'titles' mean nothing. The 'owners' own that piece of meaningless paper, but nothing of real value. The state owns - by virtue of absolute control over - the real value of business.

If I sent you a piece of paper that said you 'own' General Motors, that wouldn't make it so. Neither did the pieces of paper that Fascists allow people to hold.

And so, either the word 'own' becomes tied to a worthless piece of paper - in which case you are right, and property is privately 'owned' and state controlled, but ownership means nothing. Or the word 'own' is tied to having rights over the property, in which case the state 'owns' the property because those holding the worthless pieces of paper have no rights.

The one virtue of a nominally socialist system is that at least they don't pretend that there are any 'rights' associated with private property. But since the fascists only pretend that there are private property rights it is - again - a distinction without a real difference.
19 posted on 05/13/2009 1:12:17 PM PDT by Phlyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Welcome2thejungle

I Really think there needs to be a new term for what Obama is doing. We could call it Obamaism.

Where Socialism is the means of achieving Communism, you could see Obamaism as a means of achieving Socialism.

Where Facsism is socially “right-wing” and supports private ownership that is strictly controlled by the govt, you could see Obamaism as “left-wing” Fascism that uses govt regulations to make privately owned owned business die and creates the opportunity to nationalize everything. then voila, Socialism.

Also, i could see Obamaism as militarily inclined, when BO finally has his private army up and ready to “keep the people safe”, if you know what i mean. ;)


20 posted on 05/13/2009 1:20:29 PM PDT by cajun sonn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Welcome2thejungle
It can be hard to go from actual, historically-existing forms of government to ideal models.

Socialists generally speaking are internationalists who work with each other across the globe. Fascists are ardent nationalists.

I guess so. But you have to take into account that fascism and socialism have some of the same roots. That doesn't meant that they're the same thing or that they don't have connections to other philosophies.

Theory and practice also differ. Stalin was an "internationalist" in theory, but in practice, he certainly wasn't indifferent between various countries: he favored the big one that he controlled.

Whether Hitler really was a nationalist is also something people argue over. He certainly looked like one at the beginning of his rule. But by the end, he was aiming at something far bigger than Germany.

Socialists favor government ownership of the means of production, whereas fascists have no problem with private ownership so long as corporations are compliant with government objectives.

Fascists weren't opposed to starting up state-owned enterprises. And they certainly did expropriate some enterprises -- Jewish or foreign ones, certainly.

Social Democrats don't appear to have any problem with private ownership "so long as corporations are compliant with government objectives." Look at Sweden.

If Obama or other politicians today are socialists, that doesn't mean that they won't tolerate private or corporate property, just that they want control of aspects of its operation and profits.

Socialists are ardent secularists and generally disdain organized religion. Fascists often seek and receive the support of the Church and encourage religious participation.

Up to a point. But there are religious socialists. And fascists' relations with established churches may be more a matter of practicality, rather than of theory. Mussolini and Hitler weren't exactly other worldly or Christian in their thinking.

Socialists love social engineering, collective farms and kibbutzes. Fascists are generally socially conservative, support the military, law and order, and traditional family structures.

Others have brought up the objection to this quite well. Not every military dictator was a fascist. And Franco, though not a fascist, was a centralist. Basques and Catalans wouldn't call him respectful of their traditional institutions.

I'm not saying that you're wrong. Just that any generalization is going to have exceptions. For one thing, you have to compare one form of totalitarianism with another. Comparing a totalitarian group with one which contains totalitarians and non-totalitarians will give questionable results.

I'd certainly prefer to have lived under a typical Latin American or European dictatorship than under Stalin or Lenin. Throw Hitler into the picture, and things get complicated. He was as bad as Stalin, if not worse.

A country like today's Sweden, though "socialist," probably is better than either fascist or a communist states were. Whatever its vices, there is still a measure of personal freedom there that fascist or communist states didn't allow.

21 posted on 05/13/2009 1:43:25 PM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Phlyer

That is true under the Obama fascism, but it wasn’t exactly true under the original fascism. The old fascism was based on favoritism that killed competition and controlled prices. It wasn’t based on benefit to the people. It was based on benefit to the state. The state and people are not the same entity in a fascist regime. That’s the difference.

Under Obamism the unions and the state are the same entity. Obama is determined to “return the wealth” to the workers from whom, he “feels” it was stolen. Plainly Obama wants a redistribution of wealth, transfering the ownership to the unions, but controlled by the government. That’s why it’s neither true socialism nor true fascism. Obama seems to think that the real entrepreneurs will work for next to nothing to the benefit of the unions. Obama can’t even find people to work for his administration, how does he think he’s going to find people to run “private” industry for the government and unions?


22 posted on 05/13/2009 1:54:44 PM PDT by Eva (union motto - Aim for mediocrity, it's only fair.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Eva
The state and people are not the same entity in a fascist regime. That’s the difference.

It appears that the main difference between your point of view and mine is theory versus practice. In theory, there is a difference between in the system labeled socialism and the system labeled fascism. In practice, the difference disappears

For example, in theory, "the people" own everything equally in socialism, but in practice in all the places it's been implemented, the annointed government bureaucrats end up with a lot more than the ordinary people (including, for Mao Zedong, young virgins for him to infect with syphillis). In effect, the socialist system rulers and their cronies (the 'nomenclatura' of Stalin's time) end up with essentially the same sort of special privileges and control as their fascist equivalents. And in particular, they make decisions based on benefit to the state (which is to say - benefit to themselves), not benefit to the people generally.

In the same way, in theory socialism has an international flavor, while fascism was nationalistic. However, in practice, Hitlerism was not so much nationalistic as racist - regardless of whether the 'racially pure' lived in Germany or the Sudetenland, or Czechoslovakia. And in practice, there was never a member of the ruling Politburo in the USSR who was not of the 'great Russian' race.

There is a similar distinction without a difference between socialism and communism. In theory, after a socialist government ensures that each has been given according to his need, and assigns each to provide according to his abilities, "the state will wither away." In practice, once the rulers of a socialist state gain power, they never give it up. They may call themselves 'communist' but they are in fact 'socialist.'

In theory, each system is distinct. In practice, the distinctions never turn out to make any difference.

The only real distinction that matters is whether rights and authority are individual or collective. In socialism, fascism, and communism, there are no individual rights for ordinary citizens (though the rulers and their cronies always seem to do pretty well). The rulers may hide their dictatorship behind various facades, but the facade only disguises - it doesn't change the basic nature of the system.
23 posted on 05/13/2009 2:26:47 PM PDT by Phlyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Phlyer

I haven’t been explaining this very well. What I am trying to say is that in true fascism, the people own NOTHING, not even in name only. In socialism, the people nominally own everything. In Obamism the people, nominally own or have the right to own everything, but Obama still expects the the private entrepreneur to contribute at the same rate, but under heavy regulation. Obamism is like something directly from Atlas Shrugged. I expect Obama to enact a anti-dog eats dog rule at any time.


24 posted on 05/13/2009 5:40:59 PM PDT by Eva (union motto - Aim for mediocrity, it's only fair.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Eva
Well, I won't disagree because you're talking about 'true' fascism or whatever - which I would characterize as the 'theory.' And I'm talking about economic approaches that 'in practice' are not really enough different from each other to matter.

And Obamism is the same as any of those. His choice would be to take this nation into socialism (whether called fascist, communist, socialist, or 'progressive' doesn't matter to me).
25 posted on 05/13/2009 6:33:54 PM PDT by Phlyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Phlyer

I think that the difference is between European ideology and US style ideology. A European poster, last week, said that the difference is that the European model lacks the antipathy of the union worker for the owner/management. They aren’t trying to make any retribution for past perceived injustices, as is present in the US model and Obamism. Obama thinks of his economic ideology as a type of restorative justice.


26 posted on 05/13/2009 6:43:04 PM PDT by Eva (union motto - Aim for mediocrity, it's only fair.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Eva
Obama thinks of his economic ideology as a type of restorative justice.

Now you're talking motivation, and you may be right. But I'll stay with my position that: Regardless of motivation, the end result is the same - totalitarian socialism.

You can either assume they are too stupid and naive to see that their approaches always end up providing them with more power - so their motivations may indeed be something other than acquiring power - or you can be cynical and assume that regardless of what they claim their motivation to be, they are just pursuing power.

From my perspective, as a lowly peon in the mass of 'mere' citizens, it doesn't really make any difference. They are taking away my rights and authority and concentrating it in the hands of 'the state' - which is their own hands.

An interesting thread was posted today. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2250737/posts
27 posted on 05/14/2009 7:38:26 AM PDT by Phlyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson