Fascism and Nazism as different?

[Jacob Cliff]

I'm not here to discuss whether or not Nazism is socialist, it certainly wasn't. But I have see a very great many people on the right who I've spoken to strictly identify themselves as Nazis, but not fascists. They claim each of these were forms of nationalism, with fascism being Italy's more imperialist, non-racist version while hitler's nazism being entirely race oriented and, according to them (obviously lebensrum disproves this), non-imperialist (and also advocating a mixed economy).

Is there really a difference, or are they both different right wing philosophies? Furthermore, I've seen a lot of people say libertarianism here is the American version of fascism - how does this make sense? Libertarianism, even if stupid, is very anti authoritarian and is certainly far from fascism.

Unless Marxists have a different definition of fascism than the fascists have?

[Blake's Baby]

Technically Fascism is an Italian nationalist ideology (there has been a lot of work debunking the notion that Fascism wasn't horribly racist - not all Fascists were Anti-Semitic though) based on myths of national strength and greatness. It was both 'corporatist' and 'totalitarian'.

Nazism (ie National Socialism) was a German nationalist ideology that explicitly related to racist ideologies and based on myths of national strength and greatness. It was economically 'Keynesian' to some extent, but I'd argue the difference between this and Fascist 'corporatism' was irrelevant.

As for US 'Libertarianism'... how you can possibly think it is 'anti-authoritarian' is beyond me. It is for the blatant rule of capital.

[ComradeAllende]

Is there really a difference, or are they both different right wing philosophies?

Italian fascism and Nazism are closely related, although the latter was far more focused on "racial purification" than the former (mainly because of the historical and scientific "basis" revolving the superiority of the Nordic races). But I would argue that both were intrinsically imperialist; the only difference being that Italy was going on the old pre-Great War route of colonizing Africa while Germany was trying to expand its Lebensraum eastward and absorbing "traditionally German" lands in the process (Austria, Sudetenland, Danzig, etc). Both are imperialistic, despite their different goals.

Furthermore, I've seen a lot of people say libertarianism here is the American version of fascism - how does this make sense? Libertarianism, even if stupid, is very anti authoritarian and is certainly far from fascism.

If one defines "fascism" as a counterrevolutionary tendency acting against working class institutions/politics, then technically libertarianism would count as "fascism". But if you define "fascism" as a totalitarian movement that advocates the abolition of parliamentary democracy and the imposition of aggressive imperialist policies, then libertarianism goes out the window. Libertarians (by which I mean anarcho-capitalists and their minarchist colleagues) tend to claim allegiance to classical liberalism (as opposed to the fascists and their illiberalism) and focus their social critiques on the State. Historically that involves the glorification of capitalism (Ayn Rand being the gateway drug) and the demonization of working-class organizations and institutions, although recently some libertarians are taking the "populist" root and trying to appeal to the electorate via condemning "crony capitalism" and distinguishing (to some degree) between "capitalism" and "free markets".

Unless Marxists have a different definition of fascism than the fascists have?

I recall Mussolini once saying that fascism was "Marx turned upon his head"; then again fascists tend to define their movement in racial renewal terms (idealism), whereas Marxists (usually) analyze fascism via materialistic categories. I think some American fascists call themselves the "defenders" of the white working class, which is interesting given fascism's popularity usually resides with the lower-middle class (shopowners, small businessmen, peasants, etc.)

[Comrade #138672]

Unless Marxists have a different definition of fascism than the fascists have?

In a way, yes. Trotsky had his own definition of fascism, for example. He analyzed it as a historical movement beyond what individual fascists preferred to call themselves. In this way, Italian Fascism and Nazism were specific brands of the fascist movement Trotsky was talking about.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Fascism originated with Mussolini in Italy when he moved towards a corporatist conception of the state, i.e. one where the state works together with business and the working class to lead to a strong, prosperous nation.

There is evidence that Hitler individually was influenced by Mussolini's ideas, but Nazism itself probably has its roots more in Germany Nationalism that was a hangover from the 19th Century, Bismarckian 'Greater Germany' ideal, and the anti-semitism that seemed to bubble along just below the surface of Germany society through the 19th and early 20gh Centuries. The closest link between the two is probably that Hitler modelled his early ideas on Mussolini's - the Munich Putsch was directly influenced by Mussolini's March on Rome. After that failed, although there was clearly some ideological crossover in the idea of the strong state and the all-powerful leader - 'il Duce' in Italy and 'Fuhrer' in Germany - it seems as though Hitler steered the Nazis towards a strategy of combining street violence and vitriolic propaganda with a subtle 'march through the institutions' where he presented an acceptable face to key institutional figures and parties, thereby allowing him to seize power in 1932/3.

[rufus magister]

Fascism is the generic term, NSDAP was a particular variant. Mussolini, the former ultra-left, was the first to gain power.

Fascism is anti-labor-movement, nationalist (which can easily shade towards racialism), approves of traditional social roles and values but promotes modern technology. It uses elements of leftist symbolism and technique (e.g. mass rallies) to advance a rightist agenda. It is essentially a form of rightist populism.

NSDAP ideology owed little to Mussolini, though I think you're right about the example of the March on Rome. Violence was thereafter vs. the left, while supportive of the state.

Hope that helps.

[rufus magister]

Sorry if this is duplicative, I'm new here.