Fascism as Reactionary Socialism?

[Jacob Cliff]

I've seen various definitions of socialism, and one which I believe was stated in the Marxistpedia stated that, originally (as in, during the time of the Manifesto), socialism referred to, broadly speaking, any movement wanting to overthrow bourgeois society.

One which was mentioned was reactionary socialism – and the description given matches, more or less, with the fascist movement of the 20th century (i.e., petty bourgeois and lumpenproletarian stratas wanting to "roll back the wheel of time"). Is this accurate, to classify National Socialism/Fascism as being reactionary socialism? Or would you say there is a qualitative difference?

[Aslan]

That is an oxymoron. Socialism in a Marxist sense is control over the means of production. While a reactionary wants to roll back the wheel of time (ie restore capitalist control over the means of production). Fascism was a middle class reaction to the lower class wanting to take over the means of production. Which resulted in fascism using the lower class' frustration with capitalism and in turn have a racist and statist idea to restore capitalism. The state during Fascism was strong but was under the control of the bourgeoisie. Therefore the state was pro-capitalist. Also add a huge amount of nationalism in the mix to make the state more popular.

Strasserism and Nazism use antisemitism and Jewish/communist conspiracies as another way to control the revolutionary potential of the people. They are in turn very similar to Fascism. And work very similar just more use of race and other vile ideas.

[Jacob Cliff]

That is an oxymoron. Socialism in a Marxist sense is control over the means of production. While a reactionary wants to roll back the wheel of time (ie restore capitalist control over the means of production). Fascism was a middle class reaction to the lower class wanting to take over the means of production. Which resulted in fascism using the lower class' frustration with capitalism and in turn have a racist and statist idea to restore capitalism. The state during Fascism was strong but was under the control of the bourgeoisie. Therefore the state was pro-capitalist.
And I'm not talking about Marxian socialism, I'm talking about the reactionary socialism as mentioned in the Manifesto. Of course it wouldn't qualify as being scientific socialism.

Marx specifically mentions a reactionary socialism that wants to "roll back the wheel of time;" I'm wondering if this took the form of 20th century fascism.

[Sibotic]

In a word, it finds it in a crisis which will end only by its elimination, by a return of modern societies to the “archaic” type of common property, a form in which – as is said by an American author in no way suspect of revolutionary tendencies, supported in his labors by the Washington government – ”the new system” toward which modern society tends “will be a revival in a superior form of an archaic social type.” Hence we must not let ourselves be frightened too much by the word “archaic.”

[...]

[I]n a word, in a crisis which will end by its elimination, by a return of modern societies to a superior form of an “archaic” type of collective property and collective production [which obviously led to feudalism and then capitalism, hence when it say 'superior' it is very significant].

[...]

This primitive type of collective or cooperative production was, of course, the result of the weakness of the isolated individual and not of the socialization of the means of production.



When I first saw that every effort of that kind was destined to be wrecked and that elements hostile to Germany again would win the upper hand, and as I further saw that this State had long since lost its inner vitality - indeed, that it already was broken to pieces - I again carried through the old German Reich. And I joined together again what had to be united because of history and geographical positions, and according to all rules of reason.

If they were socialist in the sense you mean then they weren't reactionary. Either they were or they weren't.

In any case 'reactionary' generally referred to people who wished in some capacity to maintain the social order which was clearly fading away, and going to do so, and this required an ahistorical foundation for them to be fabricated falsely in order to do so. An actual, consistent insistence on the past making incursions into the present would be a slightly misleading characterisation of this - which aspects of the past do you get when you turn it in opposition to capitalism (which was the highest form of 'class' society), once this is established, other than mostly socialistic ones ultimately. While modernists had suggested that Shakespeare was superior to their plays, or other pieces of art, they generally did this in the name of modernism, which is not the same thing. (It also implies that they never seriously considered the social conditions which gave rise to Shakespeare, which of course they would not advocate.)

[Aslan]

Marx specifically mentions a reactionary socialism that wants to "roll back the wheel of time;" I'm wondering if this took the form of 20th century fascism.

Ah that makes sense. Then yes, Fascism has socialistic policies just like a capitalist state like the United states. All of those nations are mixed economies, even including the Soviet Union. Nazi Germany for example held many companies themselves. the most famous being Volkswagen which was personally approved by Adolf Hitler himself.

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

When I think of 'right-wing' socialism I usually picture someone like Juan Peron.

[#FF0000]

"Reactionary socialism" is more of an anachronism in the 21st century than anything. These days, socialism either means something akin to European Social Democracy, or Marxist socialism.

That said, Fascism does have roots in anti-Marxian, conservative, "yellow" socialism.

[Sibotic]

If anything, at least this thread provided the following amusement relative to previous discussions on fascism, perhaps best reported by the Daily Mail, who are known for their knowledge concerning 'reactionaries' (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3359226/Trump-course-won-t-host-Open-views-Muslims.html):



Now Trump is too reactionary for the blazers who run golf: [...] because of his views on Muslims

12:08, 14 December 2015

One member, close to the R&A's championship committee, told the Independent on Sunday about recent discussions on Mr Trump's comments: 'One word was thrown around: Enough.'

Another said: 'Those who forecast worse would come, including warnings from our American cousins, have been proved correct.'

Trump is at least too reactionary for the R&A ('Royal and Ancient') of St. Andrews, so the only question left is whether or not Trump counts as a fascist. Clearly, he is also considered a reactionary by the Daily Mail, who fail to elaborate on this. A choice phrase in the discussion of fascism.

Other than that, socialism isn't a question of particular policies, it's a novel mode of production differentiated entirely from capitalism. To put this another way, if production in a country is carried on in a capitalist manner, for it to be 'slightly socialistic' would effectively dissolve that a priori and lead, in such a case, to socialism, as it happens. A reformed capitalism was not therefore either more or less 'socialist,' as such, and socialism is not in any way capitalism. (And wouldn't 'socialism' have lacked any fundamental principles, if it could simply be merged with capitalism? And thus been unable to formulate a revolution, or discuss one? In any case this is of course a moot issue, as it is now an insignificant view in most capacities.)

[Thirsty Crow]

One which was mentioned was reactionary socialism – and the description given matches, more or less, with the fascist movement of the 20th century (i.e., petty bourgeois and lumpenproletarian stratas wanting to "roll back the wheel of time"). Is this accurate, to classify National Socialism/Fascism as being reactionary socialism? Or would you say there is a qualitative difference?
Definitely not. For all the ideological riches of one kind of mythological nationalism or another (this is where some vague notion of "socialism" is more pertinent, in that there was significant - rhetorical - opposition to bourgeois individualism and the dissolution of traditions and communities connected to capitalism), both historical tendencies we're talking about were as committed to, and dependent upon, technical-economic modernization, itself capital based through and through.

In that aspect of broader social relations and ideology, socialism and fascism also have very few points of intersection.

EDIT: "both tendencies" = (Italian) fascism and nazism.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

kind of, but not really. When they are talking about socialism, they mean it in a very different way than we do. We mean providing the methods to end class society. They mean preserving class society through state power. It is a collective based on a clearly defined heirarchy and rooted in class collaboration.

If you notice, you say they want to end "bourgeois society", however their definition of "bourgeois society" does not include the values of the reactionary bourgeoisie, particularly the petit bourgeoisie.

[Guardia Rossa]

I guess there is great confusion on the meaning of "Socialism", particularly between the old "Socialism", the Marxist "Socialism" and the Social-Democrat/Social-Liberal "Socialism".

Marx uses "Socialism" as it was used back then, as equal to "Against Capitalism [Or, Liberalism]"*

That's why he talks about "Feudal Socialism" and "Petit-Bourgeois Socialism", which are reactionary attacks to capitalism, in favor of a return to the feudal and/or pre-industrial capitalism modes of production.

That's also why that when the communists gained strength, Liebknecht said that "[T]here is no more difference between Socialism and Communism"**, because there was no other strong critic of liberal capitalism, that not communism.

This meaning is quite different from "Socialism" as the Marxist/Marxian communist society and mode of production, or from the social-democrat/social-liberal "Socialism" as Welfare and the State owning enterprises.

Or that is what I understand as "Socialism", feel free to correct me.

* - Socialism is possibly a term first used by the bourgeoisie to attack it's opposition, and then taken as theirs by the opposition? That is quite common in history and the confusion points towards this.
** - I do not know where I read this, but I kept it in my mind since then. I do remember I was reading Critique of the Gotha Program, but I'm not sure whether the quote is there, or whether I got curious and read the Program itself or some random Liebknetch stuff.

EDIT2: So, theoretically, Fascism IS Reactionary Socialism (Although neither Feudal and neither Petit-Bourgeois) because it is an opposition to Liberalism, but it is neither left-wing nor revolutionary.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I don't think the older use of the term "socialism" can really be simplified to "any movement wanting to overthrow bourgeois society"; for one thing obviously no one ever called De Maistre or Donoso Cortez socialists. It did include tendencies that we would classify as bourgeois or feudal today, that is true. But it's also a very old use that is irrelevant today - I don't really know why so many people on RevLeft are obsessed with it.

That said, it's obvious that many historic currents that considered themselves to be "socialist" were associated with the reaction and, yes, fascism - from "Prussian socialism" to "neo-socialism" and beyond. So if you broaden the term "socialist" so that it is used to refer to every group that calls itself "socialist", then yes, some kinds of fascism could be described as "reactionary socialism". Others could not (e.g. Italian fascism, anti-socialist in its propaganda from the start to the Congress of Verona). And other kinds of "reactionary socialism" were obviously not fascist (i.e. Kathedersozialismus). Besides, by broadening the term "socialism" in this manner it looses all meaning.

[Guardia Rossa]

I don't really know why so many people on RevLeft are obsessed with it.

There is a book with Marx calling reactionaries socialists.


Besides, by broadening the term "socialism" in this manner it looses all meaning.

Terrorism, socialism, fascism, etc... are empty categories they (Centrists and Liberals) use only to attack people, commonly using two or the three of them together.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

There is a book with Marx calling reactionaries socialists.

There is another book by Marx where he calls religious authoritarians "communists". Both in accordance with the prevailing use at the time of writing - as Engels remarked later. But that historical use does not correspond to the way we use the terms in question today. So it's odd to insist on a few paragraphs of Marx against decades of linguistic drift.


Terrorism, socialism, fascism, etc... are empty categories they (Centrists and Liberals) use only to attack people, commonly using two or the three of them together.

That's the thing, though, they can be used as empty categories, but they're not so inherently. There is a very clear way in which we use the term "socialist", and it doesn't cover fascists or other reactionaries.

[Rafiq]

By the standards of the 19th century, the world post-WWII is Socialist as a whole. Our societies are "socialist" by their standards. Socialism did not necessarily always insinuate a critique of private property.

In today's context, Socialism and Communism are the same thing.

[RedMaterialist]

Is this accurate, to classify National Socialism/Fascism as being reactionary socialism? Or would you say there is a qualitative difference?

Marx and Engels, in the Communist Manifesto, described three different versions of Reactionary Socialism: Feudal Socialism, Petty-Bourgeois Socialism, and "True" or German Socialism.

In 1848 they declared that Feudal Socialism had ended with the aristocracy and Petty-Bourgeois Socialism had ended in a "fit of the blues."

In a note added in 1890 Engels said "True" or German Socialism had been swept away in the revolution of 1848. It must be one of the great ironies of history that Engels could not have foreseen that less than 40 yrs later Hitler would introduce the world to "True" German Socialism.

There are two aspects of True Socialism that fit perfectly with Nazism. Fascism was an attempt to merge the state with the idea of the corporation. This "merger," as it were, was to kill two birds with one stone (as Marx and Engels described it in the CM) : to destroy the dominance of international capital and to destroy any power the working class might develop. Both of these goals was to ensure the victory of the German middle class. Hitler did his best to destroy international finance by killing as many Jews as possible and to destroy Bolshevism by killing 20 million Russians.

There were also the racial, nationalist characteristics: True Socialism proclaimed Germany to be the model nation and the German to be the model man. True Socialism was the "higher" form of socialism, but it went to the extreme lengths of opposing communism.

The parallels between the reactionary socialism of "True" or German Socialism of the CM and the fascism and National Socialism of Hitler seem to me too obvious to ignore.

(For what it's worth this is a theory I have written about before on this site.)

[Emmett Till]

Marx and Engels, in the Communist Manifesto, described three different versions of Reactionary Socialism: Feudal Socialism, Petty-Bourgeois Socialism, and "True" or German Socialism.

In 1848 they declared that Feudal Socialism had ended with the aristocracy and Petty-Bourgeois Socialism had ended in a "fit of the blues."

In a note added in 1890 Engels said "True" or German Socialism had been swept away in the revolution of 1848. It must be one of the great ironies of history that Engels could not have foreseen that less than 40 yrs later Hitler would introduce the world to "True" German Socialism.

There are two aspects of True Socialism that fit perfectly with Nazism. Fascism was an attempt to merge the state with the idea of the corporation. This "merger," as it were, was to kill two birds with one stone (as Marx and Engels described it in the CM) : to destroy the dominance of international capital and to destroy any power the working class might develop. Both of these goals was to ensure the victory of the German middle class. Hitler did his best to destroy international finance by killing as many Jews as possible and to destroy Bolshevism by killing 20 million Russians.

There were also the racial, nationalist characteristics: True Socialism proclaimed Germany to be the model nation and the German to be the model man. True Socialism was the "higher" form of socialism, but it went to the extreme lengths of opposing communism.

The parallels between the reactionary socialism of "True" or German Socialism of the CM and the fascism and National Socialism of Hitler seem to me too obvious to ignore.

(For what it's worth this is a theory I have written about before on this site.)

Quite incorrect. Although the Nazis were supported by much of the deluded nationalist German petty bourgeoisie, it was in no sense a movement in their interests. The big industrialist and financiers in Germany were "Aryan" not Jewish, despite Nazi mythology to the contrary. Most of them supported Hitler in 1933, and socially they were the greatest beneficiaries of the Nazi regime.

Reactionary socialism was advocacy of precapitalist ways as superior to capitalism. We have plenty of those these days, not a few trying to pop up on Revleft, despite the ban on "primitivism." Notably the "deep ecologists."

The best modern equivalent of the "True Socialists" Marx talks about was the Occupy movement. They weren't German nationalists at all, but rather treacly liberal humanists with socialist overtones like Feuerbach.

So what then is fascism and Nazism, ideologically? It's the exact opposite of socialism in ideology as much as in real life.

Socialists see the motive force of history as class struggle, and want to see the working class triumph over capitalism. Fascists see the motive force of history as national struggle, and want to see their particular nation victorious over all others. The more "moderate" fascists just want to enslave all other nations, "radical" fascists, like Hitler, want to exterminate them all.

[RedMaterialist]

Quite incorrect. Although the Nazis were supported by much of the deluded nationalist German petty bourgeoisie, it was in no sense a movement in their interests. The big industrialist and financiers in Germany were "Aryan" not Jewish, despite Nazi mythology to the contrary. Most of them supported Hitler in 1933, and socially they were the greatest beneficiaries of the Nazi regime.

There are several studies showing that major German industries were mostly nationalized during the later stages of the great Depression and were forced to put Germany on a war footing. It was hugely successful.The petty-bourgeois were happy and the racists were convinced they had a true German champion for the pure aryans.



The best modern equivalent of the "True Socialists" Marx talks about was the Occupy movement. They weren't German nationalists at all, but rather treacly liberal humanists with socialist overtones like Feuerbach.


The Occupy movement was not reactionary but rather a faint-hearted attempt to expand the welfare state by appealing to the capitalist state. They might be better characterized as democratic socialists.



So what then is fascism and Nazism, ideologically? It's the exact opposite of socialism in ideology as much as in real life.


Quite true, it is the exact opposite of socialism, however, its own ideology is reactionary socialism: i.e., take control of the means of production, destroy the working class, put the petty-philistine in charge and then destroy world bolshevism. All highly reactionary, and the very opposite of real socialism.


Fascists see the motive force of history as national struggle, and want to see their particular nation victorious over all others. The more "moderate" fascists just want to enslave all other nations, "radical" fascists, like Hitler, want to exterminate them all.


And they intend to use "socialist" means to achieve all this. Socialist control of production. But they are reactionary when they want to place the petty bourgeois in political power over the working class. And then, of course the most reactionary act of all: the destruction of the Soviet Socialist State and make Russia part of the German Reich.

Reactionary Socialism. The closest example in the US is the Tea Party Movement. They see big banks and corporations as the "Crony Capitalists" and liberals, unionists, progressives, etc. as bolsheviks all deserving of being imprisoned. The movement is a farce, but who knows if it can become "True" American Socialism.

It is probably idle to talk about American National Socialism, but I think Marx and Engel's analysis of Reactionary Socialism in 1848 shows that a dialectical, critical view of history can predict history in a scientific sense.

[Antiochus]

I urge people not to take Red Materialist seriously. He claims Israel and China are socialist strongholds. Yeah, this is the state of things.

[Sibotic]

If the Nazis were basically socialist and Israelis were socialists, it would seem that the Zionists were at cross purposes. It's unlikely that centralisation under a system which was basically capitalistic would have helped the 'petit-bourgeois,' in any case, quite apart from the fact that they weren't really that separate from the rest of the capitalist class, who did after all compete. How much did the US have invested in the success of a socialist state, other than creating it, by this characterisation? That would have been an uneasy harmony, especially if it were one of reliance, where Israel would have been straightforwardly capitalist anyway. Whatever similarities there were might just give the sense that they had just wandered into a re-enactment of WWII, which was indeed a certain resemblance to 20th Century Israel. That would have been a fairly bleak outlook for the location, and territory, however.

[Emmett Till]

I urge people not to take Red Materialist seriously. He claims Israel and China are socialist strongholds. Yeah, this is the state of things.

Indeed it's hard to take somebody seriously who actually thinks Hitler expropriated the capitalists! Israel as a socialist stronghold is almost more plausible. (As for China, well, let's not go there on this thread.)

I once saw a bagel shop in California named the "Krupp Bagel Works," with a nice billboard with Krupp cannons shooting out bagels. Maybe it was a "reactionary socialist" Zionist hippie coop?

[Emmett Till]

If the Nazis were basically socialist and Israelis were socialists, it would seem that the Zionists were at cross purposes....

ROFL!

Thanks, Sibotic, you just made my day.

[RedMaterialist]

Indeed it's hard to take somebody seriously who actually thinks Hitler expropriated the capitalists! Israel as a socialist stronghold is almost more plausible. (As for China, well, let's not go there on this thread.)

I once saw a bagel shop in California named the "Krupp Bagel Works," with a nice billboard with Krupp cannons shooting out bagels. Maybe it was a "reactionary socialist" Zionist hippie coop?

Hitler was a fascist, which means he wanted to destroy the political and economic dominance of both international capitalism and the working class. It was a phenomenon which Marx foreshadowed in the CM:


While this “True” Socialism thus served the government as a weapon for fighting the German bourgeoisie, it, at the same time, directly represented a reactionary interest, the interest of German Philistines. In Germany, the petty-bourgeois class, a relic of the sixteenth century, and since then constantly cropping up again under the various forms, is the real social basis of the existing state of things.

To preserve this class is to preserve the existing state of things in Germany. The industrial and political supremacy of the bourgeoisie threatens it with certain destruction — on the one hand, from the concentration of capital; on the other, from the rise of a revolutionary proletariat. “True” Socialism appeared to kill these two birds with one stone. It spread like an epidemic.



Both Mussolini and Hitler were quite clear that they wanted to replace big capital with state controlled "True" Socialism. As Marx noted, there was nothing "true" about this "socialism." It was reactionary socialism, later renamed fascism.

The Israeli state owns something like 95% of the land in Israel. Almost all industry is owned by the state. Education, health care, retirement, etc. are free. Except for the Palestinians Israel is a democratic socialist state. As far as the Krupp Bagel Cannon the question is what are the cannons aimed at? In Israel the cannons are aimed at Gaza and they aren't shooting bagels.

It seems that a national socialist state can be a social democracy, but that it can very likely develop racist features, especially if there is a religious base (i.e. Zionism is a form of racism.)

I said that China was a Leninist type system: the state owns the "commanding heights" of the economy.

[Guardia Rossa]

I said that China was a Leninist type system: the state owns the "commanding heights" of the economy.

The known fact that China's private enterprises are growing in number compared to the state enterprises (And more exports are made by chinese-owned private enterprises than by chinese-owned state enterprises) sure proves your point.

It's like a permanent and growing NEP.

[RedMaterialist]

It's like a permanent and growing NEP.

Exactly. That was Lenin's plan until Stalin undid it.