Someone earlier on this forum had said, “As Mises said, fascism was meant to save the western civilization from socialist barbarism but it failed ultimately.” Can anyone explain what this means? I know that Hitler hated communism, but since he was a socialist… I don’t know. I’m very confused. Any help would be appreciated.
National Socialism differed from Communism in that the former was only for a certain people and not international in scope. The goal of the Communists was for the working class all over the world to unite and overthrow their capitalist oppressors, thus creating a class-less society. National Socialism was to create “socialism in one country”. Ironically, Stalin latter adopted the “socialism in one country” idea, once he gained power and so eliminated the main different between Communists and National Socialists in practice. According to National Socialism, it isn’t the international working class that has a common interest to end capitalism, but Germans of all social classes that have a common interest. Hitler had already witnessed the failure of Russia’s agricultural nationalization, and so simply avoided that particular part of socialism for Germany. In the end, he thought it more expediant to let people own their property in title, since he could still control their use of it by command.
The relationship between National Socialism and Fascism is a different matter, but I answered the former question since you brought up Hitler. A good place to start is here and here.
Would you mind expanding a little on fascism vs. national socialism? I understand that fascism is basically private companies running the business sector, yet they’re controlled by the government. I think. That might be completely wrong, actually. But thanks for the national socialism vs. communism part though. That helped a lot.
You also have to look beyond the economics and politics, and at the goals they were trying to achieve. The fascist were also trying to bring about a cultural change to what they thought would be a better, superior people (or race), and would filter out all the unwanted (in Germany’s case, the Jews). Italy and Germany both were trying to bring about a more culturally conservative Europe. Train the youth to be superior, stronger, smarter, and more obedient, and as they grow old process repeats, and the weak will die out.
In reference to the socialist barbarism one could make a reference to what they might have seen as a cultural change that socialism and it’s policies might have brought and the effect it would have on it’s people. Maybe that if socialism took hold the people would lose their cultural identity and revolt against it’s government and their nation. Their minds would have been tainted with socialist philosophy. You could surely say that fascism failed to suppress socialism in Europe.
The post was made by a poster called Market Fundamentalist.
Market Fundamentalist is a prankster from leftist forums who comes here to make fun of the liberals here by pretending to be his version of a parody of a liberal.
It’s called trolling. Let us all work towards not getting trolled on the internet.
I never got that trolling part, he’s only hurting himself I guess.
Socialism is a broad family of statist philosophies based on collective ideals. Socialism does not stem from communism but the reverse. So the quote doesn’t make sense.
‘Someone earlier on this forum had said, “As Mises said, fascism was meant to save the western civilization from socialist barbarism but it failed ultimately.” Can anyone explain what this means? I know that Hitler hated communism, but since he was a socialist… I don’t know. I’m very confused. Any help would be appreciated.’
Well whether or not you are just trolling, I don’t really care. Fascism in Europe, and later in the Americas, was seen as a third option compared to the Boshevism of Russia and the highly competitive industrial era. In terms of economics it comes down to the belief that unregulated capitalism produces inefficiency and reproductions which hamper the overall progress of a market. Competition breeds competiting firms which produce nearly similar products at nearly similar prices but sell them under different titles. Take for example peanut butter. Today we have Jif, Peter Pan, Smuckers, Wonder, Hersheys, etc. Fascism would see this as a waste because all these other companies could be diverting their productivity in other matters. They would seek to setup a corporation that monopolizes the peanut butter market or at least have a cartel in order to ensure that peanut butter needs are being meet without excess production. The Europeans didn’t want Bolshevism because socialist economies that remove the pricing system and the institution of private property naturally collapse. So on the one hand you have unregulated capitalism which produces too many things that can be deemed unnecessary and you have Bolshevik socialism which produces nothing of meaning. This presents fascism as a third option in which private property would still be allowed but overt regulation of the market would guide the country to efficient production.
Mises in the year 1927 in the book Liberalism, before he changed his views in retrospect in the 1940s:
What Mises says here is that the Third International was using violent tactics on the streets. A group of anti-communist youth adopted the same violent tactics to fight back the same youth. Some of the early Bolsheviks wanted their way of life either with elections or with violence, but one way or another, they must succeed and others must lose.
Mises condemned the violent tactics of the Italian fascists, but initially believed they were misguided youth only trying to prevent the destruction of an older way of life and doing it through a makeshift process.
He was wrong, and he would admit it in Omnipotent Government.
Fascism, in theory, is a corporatavist or guild ‘socialist’ theory. It is like government cartels meet trade unions. It is often nominally supposed to be independent from the central state, ‘self-regulation of industry by labor and capital’ rather than interventionism.
In practice, it is interventionism of the liberal-Progressive sort. The Corporatives never did anything under Mussolini.
As I never tire of repeating, National Socialism is not fascism and has nothing to do with it except a generally nationalist bent. It has nothing in common in theory or practice; in theory it has no economic logic but is closer to a kind of Bolshevism than anything else, in practice it is piles and piles of interventions and state seizures and trade controls amounting to something almost like Bolshevism.
As far as NS and Fascism’s supposed ‘third position’ status, this is of course ridiculous. As Mises has shown you can have a market economy or socialism, there is no ‘middle-of-the-road’ policy. A hampered market economy is still a market economy, the price mechanism still functions and allocates capital.
‘As I never tire of repeating, National Socialism is not fascism and has nothing to do with it except a generally nationalist bent. It has nothing in common in theory or practice; in theory it has no economic logic but is closer to a kind of Bolshevism than anything else, in practice it is piles and piles of interventions and state seizures and trade controls amounting to something almost like Bolshevism.’
What are the differences between National Socialism (Nazism) and Fascism, apart from the race component?
‘As far as NS and Fascism’s supposed ‘third position’ status, this is of course ridiculous. As Mises has shown you can have a market economy or socialism, there is no ‘middle-of-the-road’ policy. A hampered market economy is still a market economy, the price mechanism still functions and allocates capital.’
No he said that middle-of-the-road policy LEADS to socialism, not that it cannot exist and since fascism is a socialist endeavour, I fail to see the point of your argument. Also a hampered market economy will only become more hampered.You seemed to have defeated your own argument because a market that is constantly being intervened into cannot be said to be ‘fuctional’ if we define fuctional as being the the unrestricted voluntary exchanges.
Simple, NS is not Fascism. Fascism is a corporatavist, nationalist model with a combination of traditional norms and futurist progressivism; National Socialism is a radical anti-capitalist and anti-communist doctrine which basically represents the nationalist version of Marxian Communism. It’s economic model in theory and practice are totally different. Calling everything ‘fascism’ is a silly leftist habit devoid of historical sense; and in practical economic models Fascism copied American Progressivism and not the other way around, making Flynn’s use of the word anachronistic if propagandistically pointed. He could say that Roosevelt practiced a kind of Fascism, but it would be more accurate to say that Mussolini practiced a watered-down form of Wilsonian economics.
A hampered market economy is still a market economy. Mises explcitly states that there is no alternative between socialism and a market economy, interventionism is not an alternative it is a market economy; or, if total regulation ensues, it is socialist. That is the point, there is no such thing as a ‘third way’; interventions do not make a market economy into something else any more than robbery of a bank turns it into some alternative to central banking and free banking. Interventions are simply disruptions of the market economy, the allocation of resources still continues according to the price system which adjusts for the new conditions caused by the intervention as they adjust to any other change in the data. Putting a tariff on imports is identical to any other increase in price from the point of view of importers, except that the money goes ot the state or some other agency.
‘Simple, NS is not Fascism. Fascism is a corporatavist, nationalist model with a combination of traditional norms and futurist progressivism; National Socialism is a radical anti-capitalist and anti-communist doctrine which basically represents the nationalist version of Marxian Communism. It’s economic model in theory and practice are totally different. Calling everything ‘fascism’ is a silly leftist habit devoid of historical sense; and in practical economic models Fascism copied American Progressivism and not the other way around, making Flynn’s use of the word anachronistic if propagandistically pointed. He could say that Roosevelt practiced a kind of Fascism, but it would be more accurate to say that Mussolini practiced a watered-down form of Wilsonian economics.’
Well fascism too is anti-capitalist hence the corporatism. How do you see Nazism as practicing Marxist Communism? Also American progressivism is a product of the Populist movement which is a product of German Socialism under the Bismark regime. See at the turn of the 19th century, American intellectuals were going to Germany to participate in PhD programs at the University of Berlin, they brought back with them the ideas of German socialism which they tried to apply to American politics in the name of the Populist party. Also during this time, German immigrants were immigrating to the United States with these ideas of government.
‘A hampered market economy is still a market economy. Mises explcitly states that there is no alternative between socialism and a market economy, interventionism is not an alternative it is a market economy; or, if total regulation ensues, it is socialist.’
Well rewriting what you said doesn’t detract from my argument. Is there a difference between fascist markets and communism “markets”? If so, what are they?
@ Ricky
In socialism the allocating of capital is done via a central authority. Yet if in interventionism a central authority puts a tariff on a good, it diverts/redirects/reallocates some capital to a place the central authority deems right. So it’s partly central planning. Why can I not define it as a mix between market and command economy?
I understand Mises this way that he merely is saying that it is impossible to design a smoothly running interventionism. Either it is forced to go step by step to socialism to correct all the unintended consequences*1 or it will have to let the market work again to sort out those shortcomings. It is possible that you stay on interventionism, but let the market work out the troubles but then you have to hope that the people won’t rise up..
Of course this way one could say that (nearly) all time of human history was in a way interventionist, since there always was at least some market, and some sort of central authority interventions.
Maybe it just depends on viewer’s perspective.
*1 of course, every step further to socialism has another set of unintended consequences…
The only time I can see our current quasi-socialist system becoming fascist is when we see the private influence over the state and how we have quasi-free markets within our current system. Where although some industries could be considered socialists other appear to be more free. Take the healthcare industry in the uk, we have the NHS which is about as socialist as you can get. Then we have private healthcare market as well, which is overpriced due to the socialist distortion in the market. Then we have the quasi-privatisation of the rail way, where pricing is centralised and fixed. Certain regions have different for profit companies and there is never two train companies offering the same services with different prices. These private organisations work with the state and that could be considered fascist. Look at the amount of lobbying that we see in the USA, some people even say that the financial services industry runs Washington from behind the scenes. The influence of the private industries on the state is widely accepted and that is why i say that it could end up in a fascist state. Sure some industries would still be completely socialist. But I might just have the wrong definitions or not understand the terminology correctly. But i do agree that people use the word fascist to label any sort of group they disagree with.
Well fascism too is anti-capitalist hence the corporatism.
It’s anti-liberal, it’s not anti-private capital. As I said it is, in theory, a private-governance of labor and industry by representative bodies; working with the state but not by the state.
How do you see Nazism as practicing Marxist Communism?
Hitler himself, and the main stream of National Socialism, is basically Marxian Communism which rejected the intellectuals and internationalism due to the events of WW1, though its roots go back further. Ernst Niekisch and most of the major ideologues (including Goebbels) were basically Red Collectivists in their views; some were more syndicalist (Gregor Strasser) but they were quickly eliminated. Hitler was not really interested in economics, but his economic views were basically Bolshevist in origin.
In practice they had no central idea or guiding plan, they just practiced a slapdash of interventionist measures that built upon each other; however, unlike the Fascists, they rejected the liberal-interventionist schemes and tried for more direct regulation and partnership with specific businesses. Hitler’s views on government and economy can be described as a kind of social darwinism, wherein whoever took initiative and ‘got things done’ was awarded with his favor. Stalin was similar, though obviously there was no formal private property in the means of production.
lso American progressivism is a product of the Populist movement which is a product of German Socialism under the Bismark regime.
That’s a myth, American Progressivism is home grown from Progressive Christianity, Social Gospel and the Pietist movements that have been with us since the colonial era; many of the ideas arise out of a mix of populism and Hamiltonian practices which were also the driving ideology of Lincoln and most Northern mercantalists. Paul Gottfried has also pointed this out, that Progressivism and Liberalism is not some invasion from Europe but is an American phenomena; in fact the dominance of Progressivism in Europe can partly be traced to the American hegemony there in the 20th century.
While there were influences from Europe I would say that the influence on Europe was far stronger, nationalist-egalitarian ideas spread themselves from here to the Continent and found their expression on Napoleon who beat them into the hearts and political systems of every country on the Continent.
Is there a difference between fascist markets and communism “markets”? If so, what are they?
Fascism has a market economy, communism does not - or, at least, far less of one. Mussolini was less interventionist than the democratic government that preceeded him. His talk of the ‘total state’ was nothing but talk.
You say that European Progressivism was inspired by the US, not the other way around? I always thought the American Progressive era was a movement of copying Prussian ideas to the US, e.g. state schooling and welfare statism.
You say that European Progressivism was inspired by the US, not the other way around? I always thought the American Progressive era was a movement of copying Prussian ideas to the US, e.g. state schooling and welfare statism.
No, it was a native growth, more influenced by Fabians than the Continent. While there wasn’t zero influence, America has always been very Anglophonic in its philosophic sources, and the influence from Germany and France quite limited; Progressive Christianity, Pietism, Social Gospel, radical republicanism and Hamiltonian public-interest cartelization, which everyone from Rothbard to Thadeus Russell identify as the primary roots of the Progressive movement in all its multifarious forms, are uniquely American in almost every case. We are a country built by theocrats, moral busy-bodies and egalitarian liberals who left persecution to set up little tyrannies of their own. it has always been the prime cultural impetus of the Yankee to believe that the other world should be forced to be Yankee.
The whole ‘foreign invasion’ thing is basically a myth made up by Rah Rah America conservatives who can’t believe that this crazy BS originates in the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave.
On the other hand we have never had much of the Brotherhood heresies such as were seen in Bauvaria or Hessen, thus the sparse appeal of
Communism and it’s massive appeal in Germany.
As I’ve said elsewhere, modern European leftism is all Christian heresies and dissenters.
“It’s anti-liberal, it’s not anti-private capital. As I said it is, in theory, a private-governance of labor and industry by representative bodies; working with the state but not by the state.”
Well how does this differ from Nazism? And what do you mean with the state but not by it?
“Hitler himself, and the main stream of National Socialism, is basically Marxian Communism which rejected the intellectuals and internationalism due to the events of WW1, though its roots go back further. Ernst Niekisch and most of the major ideologues (including Goebbels) were basically Red Collectivists in their views; some were more syndicalist (Gregor Strasser) but they were quickly eliminated. Hitler was not really interested in economics, but his economic views were basically Bolshevist in origin.”
Ok, where is your proof of this? So far as I can tell HItler did not believe in alienation nor have I heard him talk about the labor theory of value or surplus value.
“In practice they had no central idea or guiding plan, they just practiced a slapdash of interventionist measures that built upon each other; however, unlike the Fascists, they rejected the liberal-interventionist schemes and tried for more direct regulation and partnership with specific businesses. Hitler’s views on government and economy can be described as a kind of social darwinism, wherein whoever took initiative and ‘got things done’ was awarded with his favor. Stalin was similar, though obviously there was no formal private property in the means of production.”
What exactly is “liberal-interventionist?” I don’t see how it follows that if Germany were supposedly more involved in the marketplace then they are not fascist or that they are Marxist.
“That’s a myth, American Progressivism is home grown from Progressive Christianity, Social Gospel and the Pietist movements that have been with us since the colonial era; many of the ideas arise out of a mix of populism and Hamiltonian practices which were also the driving ideology of Lincoln and most Northern mercantalists. Paul Gottfried has also pointed this out, that Progressivism and Liberalism is not some invasion from Europe but is an American phenomena; in fact the dominance of Progressivism in Europe can partly be traced to the American hegemony there in the 20th century.”
Actually it is not a myth.
“The Progressive Movement was the chief political manifestation of this early phase of corporate statism. Concurrently with Progressive reform, Americans began viewing themselves as members of producers’ blocs, not as consumers, and, by 1918, syndicalism (or corporatism) of a sort had become the dominant outlook. The National Civic Federation, a corporate liberal policy group, played in this intellectual transformation. The NCF stressed cooperation with non-socialist trade unions, favored welfare legislation, and opposed business “anarchists” who took competition seriously. German-trained Ph.D.s who admired Bismarckian “monarchical socialism” likewise contributed to the triumph of corporate–liberal ideology a central role in this intellectual transformation.” from Joseph Stormbergs’ “THE ROLE OF STATE MONOPOLY CAPITALISM IN THE AMERICAN EMPIRE”
I’m actually getting that book by William Domhoff called Higher Circles so once I get it and read it I will be able to expand upon this point.
“While there were influences from Europe I would say that the influence on Europe was far stronger, nationalist-egalitarian ideas spread themselves from here to the Continent and found their expression on Napoleon who beat them into the hearts and political systems of every country on the Continent.”
So you are saying that Napoleon solidified Progressivism or European socialism?