Were Fascists Socialists?

GO TO ADMIN PANEL > ADD-ONS AND INSTALL VERTIFORO SIDEBAR TO SEE FORUMS AND SIDEBAR

CJTreader

Moderator
Staff member
Premium Member
#1
For decades, the debate on whether Fascists, particularly the original figureheads such as Mussolini, Hitler, and even Franco, were Socialists has raged on. What are your thoughts?
 

CJTreader

Moderator
Staff member
Premium Member
#6
Save me from the big scary socialists that want to give me free healthcare and turn the country into a fascist state
Two things:
A: If someone says Fascists are socialist, that doesn't mean they're saying all socialists are fascists. Communists are undeniably socialists, but I also wouldn't call all socialists communists. That would be like claiming all fingers are thumbs.
B: Redistributionism (e.g. single-payer healthcare, generous unemployment benefits, tuition-free university, etc) isn't socialism (e.g. top-down command economy, lackluster private property rights, etc). At the very least, the supposed socialism of redistributionist systems is under deep dispute.
 

guul66

Funk Police, Anti-Edgy department
#7
Two things:
A: If someone says Fascists are socialist, that doesn't mean they're saying all socialists are fascists. Communists are undeniably socialists, but I also wouldn't call all socialists communists. That would be like claiming all fingers are thumbs.
B: Redistributionism (e.g. single-payer healthcare, generous unemployment benefits, tuition-free university, etc) isn't socialism (e.g. top-down command economy, lackluster private property rights, etc). At the very least, the supposed socialism of redistributionist systems is under deep dispute.
lol nerd
 

Obama

Known Poster
#8
Two things:
A: If someone says Fascists are socialist, that doesn't mean they're saying all socialists are fascists. Communists are undeniably socialists, but I also wouldn't call all socialists communists. That would be like claiming all fingers are thumbs.
B: Redistributionism (e.g. single-payer healthcare, generous unemployment benefits, tuition-free university, etc) isn't socialism (e.g. top-down command economy, lackluster private property rights, etc). At the very least, the supposed socialism of redistributionist systems is under deep dispute.
I was just shit posting
 

Obama

Known Poster
#10
I knew you weren't totally serious, but it's just hard to tell when you're messing around and when you're legitimately mocking a position. Noted though.
Sorta half and half I am always reminded by people of the socialism in nation socialism and the fear it Nazis spread for socialism. I think the Nazis were about as socialists as North Korea is democratic. If Hitler was socialist why would the big business support him?
 

CJTreader

Moderator
Staff member
Premium Member
#11
Sorta half and half I am always reminded by people of the socialism in nation socialism and the fear it Nazis spread for socialism. I think the Nazis were about as socialists as North Korea is democratic. If Hitler was socialist why would the big business support him?
Well, there are several reasons, but the prime one is that he lied. The political view of democracy in Germany was deteriorating, so it pretty much came down to the communists, the authoritarian conservatives, and the Nazis. Hitler toned down his rhetoric and managed to convince the industrialists and aristocrats that he was most viable option who would likely protect their interests. Now, he didn't just kill all the wealthy people and keep their possessions for the state like the communists might have, but he held the businesses in the firm grip of the state for them to do exactly his bidding. Whether this makes them socialists per se is very much debatable, but it's not like they governed as ardent free market capitalists.
 
Last edited:

guul66

Funk Police, Anti-Edgy department
#12
Well, there are several reasons, but the prime one is that he lied. The political view of democracy in Germany was deteriorating, so it pretty much came down to the communists, the authoritarian conservatives, and the Nazis. Hitler toned down his rhetoric and managed to convince the industrialists and aristocrats that he was most viable option who would likely protect their interests. Now, he didn't just kill all the wealthy people and keep their possessions for the state like the communists might have, but he held the businesses in the firm grip of the state for them to do exactly his bidding. Whether this makes them socialists per se is very much debatable, but it's not like they governed as ardent free market capitalists.
but that's not socialist, that's just heavy state control.
 

CJTreader

Moderator
Staff member
Premium Member
#13
but that's not socialist, that's just heavy state control.
That's basically one side of the argument, but the other side of the argument is that businesses were more like proxies of the state. It wasn't just that they had to play by specific rules like in capitalist countries. The state controlled virtually every aspect of their business, so, the argument goes, the state controlled virtually every aspect of the economy and therefore employed a socialist command economy
 

guul66

Funk Police, Anti-Edgy department
#14
That's basically one side of the argument, but the other side of the argument is that businesses were more like proxies of the state. It wasn't just that they had to play by specific rules like in capitalist countries. The state controlled virtually every aspect of their business, so, the argument goes, the state controlled virtually every aspect of the economy and therefore employed a socialist command economy
that's just a planned economy that's not socialist.
 

Obama

Known Poster
#16
A planned economy is practically synonymous to socialism. How would you define socialism?
Socialism is workers owning the means of production. Just because the state runs the business doesn't make it socialism. I would say it becomes socialism if the companies started paying all the profit to the state and the buisiness owners were removed and the company was owned by the state.
 
Last edited:

CJTreader

Moderator
Staff member
Premium Member
#17
Socialism is workers owning the means of production. Just because the state runs the business doesn't make it socialism. I would say it becomes socialism if the companies started paying all the profit to the state and the buisiness owners were removed and the company was owned by the state.
The workers actually owning the means seems a fairy tale to me. Communists countries just had a command economy with the workers subject to the whim of the state even moreso than they were to the will of the business owners. The fascist model isn't what we'd traditionally consider socialism, but it's hard to dismiss their similarities. In practice, communist and fascist economics were basically the same except the fascists kept the corporate structure to execute their will and allowed them a set amount of profit in exchange while the communists replaced it with vast system of planning committees. They're definitely not the same, but to me, they clearly seem to be along the same lines.
 

Meetch

Known Poster
Rad Member
#18
Fascists are part of a lot of political groups. Most of them just happen to be right leaning :DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
 

Chatroom

Top