The differences between Socialism and Fascism

[KarlMarx1989]

As I explained to a pastor at the Presbytarian church that I visit, a socialist society is far different from a Fascist society. He argued that the two aren't very different at all. Besides the biggest differences, what other differences could I bring to the debate?

[ontheyslay]

A Socialist society is when the public owns the means of production (i.e. land, resources, etc.). In a fascist society, the state owns the resources and dictates what they are used for. A fascist society is usually highly centralized, and governed by an authoritarian dictator. Both are vastly different, it appears your pastor watches too much main stream media.

[KarlMarx1989]

That he does. The same goes for most of the members of that church.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

As I explained to a pastor at the Presbytarian church that I visit, a socialist society is far different from a Fascist society. He argued that the two aren't very different at all. Besides the biggest differences, what other differences could I bring to the debate?
The fundamental difference between socialism and fascism is that socialism advocates human equality and fascism advocates human inequality and hierarchy.


A Socialist society is when the public owns the means of production (i.e. land, resources, etc.).
Yes, but not only that. Socialism basically requires three things:

1. Public ownership of the means of production.
2. A commitment to get as close as possible to an equal distribution of wealth.
3. Democracy.

Fascism contains none of those.


In a fascist society, the state owns the resources and dictates what they are used for.
Actually, no. The state never owned the resources in any of the historical fascist countries, and no fascists ever proposed such a thing. Resources and economic activity still remain firmly in private hands under fascism.

Of course, a fascist state may regulate industry, but that's not exactly surprising or unusual. Every capitalist state regulates industry to some degree. There were less regulations and lower taxes in Nazi Germany than in America under Ronald Reagan.


A fascist society is usually highly centralized, and governed by an authoritarian dictator.
See, this is the cause of the popular misunderstanding of fascism. People just look at the fact that it's a dictatorship, and assume that fascism = dictatorship. This is wrong. Dictatorships of various kinds have always existed; in fact most human societies for the past 5000 years have been ruled by various kinds of authoritarian leader(s) with "dictatorial" powers. Dictatorship is not unusual. It is the most common kind of government in history.

So, unless you want to apply the term "fascism" to such wildly different governments as Ancient Egypt, the Roman Empire, Ming Dynasty China, 16th century England and 20th century Nazi Germany, you have to come up with a much more narrow definition than "fascism = dictatorship".

Historically, fascists have advocated a lot more than just a simple dictatorship. Fascism is an ideology defined by several characteristics:

1. Extreme ethnic nationalism. The adjective "ethnic" is important here. Fascists believe that the country belongs to those people who can trace their ancestry to some specific ethnic group, and everyone else should die, emigrate, or at least become second-class citizens. Fascists do not believe that you can BECOME a citizen. You were either BORN one, or you weren't.

2. The belief that some people are vastly superior to others, that the superior people should rule and dominate, and the inferior ones should obey and serve. The "superior" people tend to be white and male, and the "inferior" ones tend to be everyone else.

3. An obsessive belief that the nation is in decline due to foreign enemies, subversive, unpatriotic people at home, and a government too weak to stand up to them. The subversive elements at home are always called socialists or communists, even when they are not. Fascism is violently anti-socialist and anti-communist because these ideologies believe in equality and progress.

4. A desire to restore a lost golden age from the nation's past by replacing the current weak government with one composed of strong, determined, uncompromising people who will bring order to the land, crush internal dissent and destroy the foreign enemies.

5. A belief in Natural Order and opposition to any notion of social progress. Fascists dream of a glorious past. They see a certain state of affairs as the "natural" way of life that should be maintained forever, and any deviation from that way of life is the result of an evil conspiracy against the nation. There is no such thing as progress; there is only Tradition, Nation, and Family.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Or, to summarize the difference:

Socialism advocates human equality, progress, international solidarity, democracy, and looks forward to a brilliant future.

Fascism advocates rigid hierarchy, tradition, nationalism, dictatorship, and looks backward to a glorious past.

And, at the risk of offending some people's sensibilities, I will also express the difference in terms of popular culture: The socialist ideal is like the Federation in Star Trek, and the fascist ideal is like the Elves in Lord of the Rings.

[BobKKKindle$]

To start with, socialism is a mode of production, under which the means of production are subject to social ownership and control, and wage-labour has been abolished, but output is still distributed according to how much people work, instead of according to varying needs and abilities. It is a mode of production under which workers have become the ruling class, and represents a transitional stage, in between capitalism and the attainment of a classless society, i.e. communism. Fascism on the other hand is a political phenomenon that is specific to the capitalist mode of production and involves the bourgeoisie turning towards authoritarian measures and giving the pretense of democracy when faced with the threat of social revolution, in order to maintain their class rule. If you look at all the fascist movements that have gained power throughout history you find that they initially drew their support from small businessmen as well as other sections of the middle classes who were afraid of being forced to give up their traditional modes of existence and become part of the proletariat, but it was only once these movements gained the backing of the bourgeoisie, and finance capital in particular, that they were able to come to power and carry out their aims without suffering serious resistance.

[KarlMarx1989]

OK, can someone please explain exactly how the people don't own the means of production. I just got done talking with that same pastor and he explained it in the opposite way that it was explained here. Now, I'm confused; how does the government not own the means of production in a Socialist state?

[BobKKKindle$]

how does the government not own the means of production in a Socialist state? Nationalization (which is what you mean when you talk about government ownership) doesn't entail the abolition of capitalism because an economy can still be described as capitalist even if private property does not exist in legal terms, as long as the majority of the population finds itself in a position where it lacks control over the means of production and has no way to survive except by selling its its labour power. It's this dynamic of alienation and exploitation that defines capitalism, and, from the perspective of someone who's part of that working majority, it doesn't matter whether you're selling your labour power to the state or someone who owns a private corporation, the experience is fundamentally the same, because in each case the goods that you produce are not under your control, and neither is the workplace. It's actually a mistake to define socialism solely in terms of state ownership because most of the economies that exist today involve public sectors, comprising more than 20% of GDP, where the government takes the place of the private employer, and yet life for workers in these sectors is generally just as precarious as it is for people who work in the private sector of the economy. You can see this from the attacks that have taken place on public education and healthcare during the past decade or so, even in the world's wealthiest countries, and of course the high levels of exploitation that exist in countries where the majority of the economy is owned and controlled by the state, such as China.

Socialism is defined not by state ownership, but by democratic control of the means of production. If workers are being told by an elite what they should produce, if they have no way to come together and decide democratically on how the economy should be run and how scarce resources should be allocated, then that's not socialism. Now, democratic control may be established through nationalization, but whether nationalization is socialist depends on whether the working class is in control of the state, and that certainly isn't true under the status quo. The government that we live under is a government that seeks to protect the interests of only a small part of society - primarily those who are part of the government itself, and those who currently own the means of production, i.e. the capitalist class, who have the ability to maintain their control of the state because the people in government know that if they adopt a policy that the capitalists don't like (let's say they want to raise the minimum wage) then all the capitalists have to do to fight back is take advantage of their economic power, by refusing to support the government party financially when the next election comes up, or simply by cutting back on production and moving their capital out of that country, which invariably provokes an economic crisis, and will eventually force the government to acknowledge the interests of the wealthy, by going back on the policy that they originally want to implement. Of course, there's also the fact that the people who head the state are from the social backgrounds as the bosses, and they often have their own economic interests as well as being in positions of political authority,, and so even if it was in their power to look out for the interests of workers, they generally don't want to.

[KarlMarx1989]

The assumption, here, is that no socialist state has ever been run democratically. It is also something I have noticed, that all of the socialist states are / were republics, not democracies. Therefore the government would have control, right? Is it true that Venezuela (The Bolivarian Republic of) the state has control of the means of production? In the Democratic Republic of Korea, isn't that mostly a authoritarian or a totalitarian government which is socialist? The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics? Do you agree that there has never been a Socialist Democracy?

Should there be a Socialist Democracy, a Direct one, all of what you said would prove valid.

[Comrade Gwydion]

post

What you describe probably has the same effects, but it not what is at the core of Fascism. McKay, the book we used for modern history on university, explains Fascism and Nazism as followed:

1)Totalitarism: the persuit of a government to controll all layers of society thouroughly, the public sector and the personal sector.
(Stalin was totalitarian, but not fascist)

2) Fascism is a revolutionairy (desire for a) totalitarian state under a single leader, which focusses on traditional values like patriarchy and the ethnic nation but also tries to activate the masses to do 'great' things, usually a war of expansion but also majestic building projects etc. (This is why Franco isn't allways considered a fascist, but sometimes just an extremely violent and passionate conservative)

3) Nazism is a specific variant of fascism, where regular fascism often coinsides with racism (though not neccecary, this is why Mussoluni didn't persecute jews untill pressured by Hitler), in Nazism the complete focus is on war and racism.

Thus, one can see that Stalin was totalitarian, but not fascist or nazi. Franco might have started a fascist, but gradually moved on to be 'simply' a totalitarian ultra-conservative (after his victory, there have been no great wars for 'lebensraum' or the 'mare nostrum'). Mussolini was, in ideology, a fascist, but simply failed in this, because he couldn't manage to create a truly totalitarian state, simply because he and his gangs didn't have enough authority over the italian people. Hitler was totalitarian, fascist and nazi, but has nothing to do with socialsm, even though he calls himself 'national socialist'.

[BobKKKindle$]

The assumption, here, is that no socialist state has ever been run democratically.A state is only socialist if its rooted in workers democracy, so, to be honest, that's a strange thing to say. In my view, Soviet Russia during the period 1917-1927 represents the only example of the working class having taken power, under the leadership of the revolutionary party, as, for that brief period of time, the economy was managed democratically through the Soviets, which extended from individual enterprises to the entire country, the supreme legislative body being the All-Russia Congress of Soviets. All of the delegates who were elected to the Congress and other bodies could be subject to instant recall if the people who had elected them decided that they weren't representing their interests fairly, which stands in contrast to the system that we have in countries like the United States, where democracy is basically limited to making a mark on a piece of paper every four years or so. These delegates were also paid no more than the wage of the average skilled worker. This system eventually collapsed due to the failure of the revolution to spread abroad, which allowed power to pass into the hands of bureaucrats within the state and revolutionary party, who transformed themselves into a new ruling class, at which point Russia because a state-capitalist society.

None of the other countries you mentioned are/were socialist. I don't quite know what you're getting at with the distinction between democracy and a republic, because, as far as I know, if you say a country is a republic that simply means that it is governed according to laws, not arbitrary dictates, and there is no hereditary monarchy in place. For socialists, the key issue, when we analyze societies, is which class is the ruling class - i.e. which class exercises political and economic power. What countries like the United States and North Korea have in common is that they are both countries where a small minority is the ruling class, allowing it to accumulate material wealth through the exploitation of the working majority - in other words, they are both capitalist countries, even if they don't look the same on the surface, and don't describe themselves in the same way.

Maybe this article will give an effective explanation: How was the Russian Revolution defeated? (http://www.swp.org.uk/article_swp.php?article_id=535)

Also good: The Working Class at the centre (http://www.swp.org.uk/article_swp.php?article_id=1891)

[Ovi]

A Socialist society is when the public owns the means of production (i.e. land, resources, etc.). In a fascist society, the state owns the resources and dictates what they are used for. A fascist society is usually highly centralized, and governed by an authoritarian dictator. Both are vastly different, it appears your pastor watches too much main stream media.
Finally someone who agrees that Stalin was a fascist. :laugh:

[KarlMarx1989]

All of the delegates who were elected to the Congress and other bodies could be subject to instant recall if the people who had elected them decided that they weren't representing their interests fairly, which stands in contrast to the system that we have in countries like the United States, where democracy is basically limited to making a mark on a piece of paper every four years or so.
By definition, christian-America is an Imperial Republic. Is this the difference between a Democratic Republic and other Republics like christian-America's?

None of the other countries you mentioned are/were socialist.
So, does that mean that they're social Capitalist, like Venezuela? Are some of them Totalitarian Republics, like the Democratic Republic of Korea?

Finally someone who agrees that Stalin was a fascist.
I am pretty sure that it was made clear he was totalitarian, not fascist.

[Jonnydraft]

As I explained to a pastor at the Presbytarian church that I visit, a socialist society is far different from a Fascist society. He argued that the two aren't very different at all. Besides the biggest differences, what other differences could I bring to the debate?

Your pastor is an uneducated fool - not a fool because he is uneducated, but a fool because he sees fit to comment on topics that he is uneducated.

[Demogorgon]

The assumption, here, is that no socialist state has ever been run democratically. It is also something I have noticed, that all of the socialist states are / were republics, not democracies. Therefore the government would have control, right? Is it true that Venezuela (The Bolivarian Republic of) the state has control of the means of production? In the Democratic Republic of Korea, isn't that mostly a authoritarian or a totalitarian government which is socialist? The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics? Do you agree that there has never been a Socialist Democracy?

Should there be a Socialist Democracy, a Direct one, all of what you said would prove valid.
You are playing up the word "Republic" too much, it's meaning varies depending on culture. In this country for instance it simply means "not a monarchy".

However if we were to take the classical version of Republic that you refer to, then North Korea is not a Republic anyway because it does not have separation of powers and limited Government which is an important part of classical Republican theory.

To take Venezuela on the other hand it does have typical Republican features, the President can direct Executive Policy fairly independently of the Legislature and the Legislature can make law fairly independently of the President and the Courts can overrule both. There is also vertical separation of power with the States enjoying autonomy in certain areas. However there are also clear examples of direct democracy. It has initiative, referendum and recall and of course the Communal Councils.

Of course there is some debate as to whether Venezuela can be considered socialist or even heading in that direction. Many will argue that Chavez is simply acting in the tradition of Latin American populism, but at any rate you do see elements of Republican theory co-existing with direct democracy.

To go back to the difference between socialism and fascism though, you have been given a good basic definition in that socialism goes fundamentally for equality and fascism for inequality. Further to that you can see the more formal definition of socialism believing in class struggle (that is the exploited classes must overthrow their exploiters) while fascists seek to prevent it. In most fascist theory, that means there might be certain superficially leftist policies, principally social welfare, being employed for rightist ends, buying off the lower classes and preventing revolt and fascists normally say that lower classes also need to be represented in the (undemocratic and authoritarian) Government. This is because fascists see inequality as fundamentally good and for the benefit of everyone, not just those at the top. They believe everyone benefits when everybody knows their place and keeps to their station in societies hierarchy. That is the opposite of what socialists believe.

[KarlMarx1989]

OK. The biggest similarity that this pastor has between the two is that 'Socialist governments and Fascist governments own the means of production and workers don't get rights at all whereas Capitalist governments [like America's] the people own the means of production and get more rights as workers and citizens. I tried to explain to him how a government or how workers own the means of production, but he kept turning it around and making it opposite to what it is.

How do governments own the means of production?
How do workers own the means of production?

I need a more thorough way of explaining it to him.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

'Socialist governments and Fascist governments own the means of production...
Fascist governments do not own the means of production. They may own some of those means, occasionally, but so do capitalist governments. In terms of ownership of the means of production, fascist governments are identical to most present-day capitalist governments.


...and workers don't get rights at all...
Ridiculous. Socialists have been positively screaming for workers' rights for 150 years. The 8-hour working day, the free weekend, and the right to unionize were socialist proposals and they exist today only thanks to the struggle of socialists.


...whereas Capitalist governments [like America's] the people own the means of production and get more rights as workers and citizens.
"The people" own the means of production? Really? Which people? The top 5% richest people, for the most part.

In capitalism, a few people own all of the means of production. In socialism, all people own all of the means of production.


I tried to explain to him how a government or how workers own the means of production, but he kept turning it around and making it opposite to what it is.

How do governments own the means of production?
How do workers own the means of production?

I need a more thorough way of explaining it to him.
Hmmm, try to explain it like this:

Imagine if the entire economy was one big corporation, and the workers were the shareholders, with each worker holding an equal amount of shares. That's public ownership over the means of production. That's how the people own the means of production in socialism.

But there are a lot of workers. They can't just get together in a room to run the economy. Shareholders in capitalist corporations elect some people - some executives, such as the CEO - to run the company. Likewise, the workers in a socialist society elect some people - the government - to run the economy. So, yes, in socialism you have a government that is elected to run the economy. But the workers are the owners. The workers hold ultimate authority. The workers tell the government what to do, and they can kick the government out of power if they are not happy with its performance.

A government that is running the economy without being elected by the workers and without having to answer to the workers, is not a socialist government.

[mykittyhasaboner]

Fascist countries criminalized socialist/communist parties and organizations, usually imprisoning and/or executing the leaders.

The war between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union was the largest most destructive conflict in history.

I mean, enough said. It's not like he/she (are females allowed to be 'pastors'?) is going to actually going to take any theoretical/economic/political differences that socialist and fascist countries have (and there is plenty of differences) seriously. I wouldn't think so anyways; seeing as how pators would most likely have the most latent reactionary anti-class view of society.

If your pastor refuses to recognize simple logic the just tell him to fuck off and move on. There's no point in wasting your time.

[Agnapostate]

In terms of ideological differences, I've previously referred to Umberto Eco's conception of "Eternal Fascism," or Zanden's Pareto and Fascism Reconsidered (thanks, Reiver), to illustrate the differences.

Firstly, as Zanden puts it, "[O]bedience, discipline, faith and a religious belief in the cardinal tenets of the Fascist creed are put forth as the supreme values of a perfect Fascist. Individual thinking along creative lines is discouraged. What is wanted is not brains, daring ideas, or speculative faculties, but character pressed in the mold of Fascism." This is not consistent with the socialist principle of elimination of alienation as defined by Marx's The Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844. Such elimination necessitates revolutionary class consciousness, which obviously conflicts with "obedience, discipline, faith, etc." Revolutionary class consciousness is also rather inconsistent with the "cult of tradition" identified by Eco as an integral tenet of Eternal Fascism. "[T]here can be no advancement of learning. Truth already has been spelled out once and for all, and we can only keep interpreting its obscure message."

From an insistence on revolutionary class consciousness comes opposition to class itself on the part of the socialist. This is egregiously contradictory to the elitism that constitutes a core tenet of fascism. As Eco writes, "[e]litism is a typical aspect of any reactionary ideology, insofar as it is fundamentally aristocratic, and aristocratic and militaristic elitism cruelly implies contempt for the weak. Ur-Fascism can only advocate a popular elitism."

Fascism also has a necessarily anti-democratic nature. As Zanden notes, "the mass of men is created to be governed and not to govern; is created to be led and not to lead, and is created, finally, to be slaves and not masters: slaves of their animal instincts, their physiological needs, their emotions, and their passions." Similarly, Eco writes that "the Leader, knowing his power was not delegated to him democratically but was conquered by force, also knows that his force is based upon the weakness of the masses; they are so weak as to need and deserve a ruler." This strongly conflicts with the participatory elements of socialism, as it necessitates the collective ownership of the means of production. For instance, Noam Chomsky notes that libertarian socialism is "based on free voluntary participation of people who produce and create, live their lives freely within institutions they control and with limited hierarchical structures, possibly none at all." Other forms of socialism are necessarily democratic at the very least because of the participatory nature of collective management.

What's problematic, of course, is that your pastor probably looks to Stalinist Russia or some similarly authoritarian country as a "practical" example of "socialism in action," and would consider the above mere theoretical waffling that fails to consider the practical differences, and that both are based on the solidification of authoritarian hierarchies under an oppressive political regime. His error is of course accepting the self-description of those regimes as "socialist" (though I suspect that he wouldn't accept the CCP's description of the "People's Republic" of China or the Soviet definition of the German "Democratic" Republic that was under their control), rather than considering their actual conflicts with socialist theory, which necessitates the collective ownership and management of the means of production rather than the mere declaration of such.