Is there a difference between Socialism, Marxism and Fascism?

[off2bed]

You love to ask what things would prove, don't you?

Why is that?

I'm just asking for an example, to see what it is we're talking about. A socialist, fascist, Marxist leader or person, if such could exist, put a face on the term. It's ok if you don't want to or can't.

Discussing whether a person is a Marxist, Socialist, or Fascist (or all three) is, to me, like discussing whether a person is a pickpocket, a mugger, or the ringleader (or all three).

 

[KingOrfeo]

I'm too busy today following the coup d'etat in Honduras today, where they kicked out a Communist president.

Whatever else might be said about Zelaya, he is not a Communist.

 

[KingOrfeo]

It leads to looting.

Redistributive taxation is not looting.

As you know.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Fascism is corporativism. i.e. a condition of capitalism where the state functions for the benefit of corporations. Like today's USA.

Corporatism actually means something very different from that.

In Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany, business corporations were drafted into the service of the state, not the other way around. German capitalists backed Hitler's rise to power on the assumption that he would get rid of the Communists and Social Democrats and labor unions, and then they could control him or get rid of him. They were right about the first part but sadly disappointed about the second. OTOH, the rank-and-file Nazis (Brownshirts, mostly) who expected that their revolution would lead to a workers' state (see Strasserism) were likewise disappointed (see the Night of Long Knives). As part of the Nazi program of Gleischaltung ("coordination"), all trade unions were dissolved or merged into a single state-controlled German Labour Front, which in practice provided the workers with good job security but little improvement in wages and absolutely no independent voice. Much like under Soviet Communism, except that the capitalists (if they were not Jews) were allowed to keep what they had so long as they did as the state ordered them. As under Communism, the real ruling class was the Party leadership and nobody else.

 

[ChinaBandit]

There are differences in theory the problem is practice

There are absolute differences.

Let's start with the obvious. In the study of Economics Marxism is the only one recoginized as a theory. Socialism? No. It is not an economic theory but rather a term applied to the de-privitization of means of production and/or services. No one has ever associated viable economics, theory or application, with Facists either. Nazism, and other, are extreme political and social movements of no economic bearing.

In practice (life) all three have been associated with totalitarian and/or authoritarian regimes. That is the only commonality. It is a significant one though.

 

[KingOrfeo]

In the study of Economics Marxism is the only one recoginized as a theory.

Marx was a fairly good economist, but a piss-poor philosopher. Very weak on (if not oblivious to) first principles.

 

[ChinaBandit]

I can't disagree

Marx was a fairly good economist, but a piss-poor philosopher.

My wife (who is a PHD Economist for HSBC ) isn't sure he was such a good economist either.

 

[KingOrfeo]

My wife (who is a PHD Economist for HSBC ) isn't sure he was such a good economist either.

That's why I said "fairly good." No one can deny he put in the effort. (In Tsarist Russia, Das Kapital was not censored, because the censors considered it too dull to be dangerous.)

 

[ChinaBandit]

Agreed

That's why I said "fairly good." No one can deny he put in the effort. (In Tsarist Russia, Das Kapital was not censored, because the censors considered it too dull to be dangerous.)

Marx was nothing if not prolific. Aside from the seminal Capital and History of Political Economy he wrote heaps of newpaper articles about 19th Century American life. I never knew that until my wife told me. I've since read a few and you would be hard pressed to distinguish the style or turn of phrase from that of Twain. It's weird.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Marx was nothing if not prolific. Aside from the seminal Capital and History of Political Economy he wrote heaps of newpaper articles about 19th Century American life. I never knew that until my wife told me. I've since read a few and you would be hard pressed to distinguish the style or turn of phrase from that of Twain. It's weird.

Indeed it is. (Twain being neither a philosopher nor an economist of any kind.)

 

[ChinaBandit]

Indeed it is. (Twain being neither a philosopher nor an economist of any kind.)

You don't find any philosophy (at all) in Twain's work? I do...

 

[John Doe]

Fascism, of course, is not tied to a particular ideology. You can be a fascist about any particular -ism that you like.

No, that's wrong. Fascism has a very specific political definition. Just because people use the word "fascist" to describe someone who is inordinately strict about something does not change that.

 

[John Doe]

I like corn dogs.

Is there a difference between the three? Yes. Can one person be all three at once? Yes. (Marx was a Marxist and a Socialist.)

Also wrong. This is pretty simple. Socialism and Marxism are leftist while Fascism is right wing. One can't be both left wing and right wing in general unless one just doesn't believe in anything, in which case what one states as one's political ideology is meaningless anyway.

 

[John Doe]

Not so fast! European fascism (Mussolini and Hitler) certainly had socialist roots.

Only in that Fascism includes state ownership of the means of production as does Socialism, but the similarity ends there.

Hitler was not a fascist. He was a dictator, but he wasn't a fascist.

Hitler wasn't a Fascist? You're kidding, right? He was just about the fasciest Fascist who ever fasceized.

 

[underguy1]

My wife (who is a PHD Economist for HSBC ) isn't sure he was such a good economist either.

Irony. Neoliberal mainstream economists have such an envious recent record after all. Friedman, Greenspan et al are heroes of the neoliberal idiots. The guys that wrecked the global economy. That should tell you something about modern economists' "logic".

General theory was garbage when I did my degree and it's been completely perverted since.

I have nothing but contempt for the "profession".

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

There is a difference but a person can be all three.

Socialism is where capital and the means of production are owned by the community.

Marxism is where laborers overthrow the government and institute a communist govt.

Fascism is a nationalistic totalitarian regime that rigidly controls industry.

It wasn't asked by the OP, but it's worth noting (to AJ) that none of these describe Obama.

A_J replies:

You can have a Morgan.
You can have an Arabian.
You can have a Palomino.
You can have a Quarter-horse.
You can have a Thoroughbred.
You can have a bow-legged ill-tempered Shetland Pony who kicks at you and eats the doghouse...

You still have a horse.

What all these things have in common is a subset of the citizens believing they are smarter than liberty, objective law, and the marketplace in ordering some, or all, aspects of everyone else's life in order to make life better for everyone.

They never do, but they sure leave a lot of horse shit wherever their cart passes...

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

You people are so busy identifying trees that you get lost in the Forest...

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

There's your white oak, your red oak, your post oak...,

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

They all produce ACORNs...

 

[unregistered]

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Too bad his son got blinded by the light of the new Sun-King...




The ill-tempered Shetland Pony.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Now Osama, he has only two horses in his parable stable and right now he sees the Shetland Pony as weak...

 

[unregistered]

 

[Ishmael]

Communism, socialism, and facism ALL share the same root philosophy. They differ only in the degree and detail of the implementation of their agendas.

So as the the question, "Is there a difference?" Of course there is. If there weren't we wouldn't have three different nomenclatures for them. But one can easily morph into another of it's 'sister' forms rather easily.

The root philosophy of all three can be traced back to Wilhelm Gregor Hegel whose philosophical line went............."The state is the highest manifestation of God on earth." As such the state acts as the temporal hand of God and is superior to the people (masses) in all respects. The Communists merely did away with God altogether and replaced Him with the state. The Socialist believe that God gets in the way of an orderly society, a society in which they dictate the order. The Facists merely believe that they are acting in direct accordance with some heavenly plan. All three believe that the intent is more important than the results.

All three of the mentioned philosophies are in direct conflict with the notions held by the founders of the US who traced their philosophical roots back to John Locke. Locke held that the highest manifestaion of God on earth is the individual and that a proper society is ruled by the individual(s) acting in their own best interest in concert with other like minded individuals. As such all power resides with the people who loan that power to the government and can withhold that power as well.

The two philosophies are in direct conflict with one another and no 'bipartisan' compromise is possible regarding the respective relationship between the individual and the state. It is the difference between liberty and being ruled over.

Ishmael

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Thanks bro...

Well said.

Signed,

Walnut