Good point. Remember, Mussolini was a syndicalist before he founded the black shirts. Instead of differentiating the true men from the un-men along class lines, it was modified to be an ethnic distinction. The Raza, or the Volk, versus all those percieved as threats (Socialists, soft parlimentarians, the church {not in Franco’s case}, other ethnic groups, etc.) against the “true race”. Within the “chosen people”, fascist movements were intensely collectivist (Hitler’s SS nordic breeding programs, for example). They were called National Socialists, after all. The class struggle was simply replaced with the race struggle.
As the politicians were diluting the purity of the people, and softening once great (semi-mythical) empires of the chosen people. I would say fascism also was a direct reaction to socialism as well, since they (socialists) wanted to eliminate national and ethnic distinctions.
But it still sythesizes’ some form of capitalism. In fact, I think corporatism is the backbone of the fascist model. Check out “the Spanish Miracle” under Franco, in which he Spain went from an extreme protectionist economy (still a form of corporatism) to more liberalized laws.
On top of which there are aesthetic differences (which should be obvious): ex: fascism = state, socialism tends to have a more international outlook
Good point on the right Hegelians: Assuming this is true, that the roots of fascism start w/ the right Hegelians, it address’ my main question about it. Was Hegel a liberal? I think he was ( his theory of history seems to indicate it) . So if Hegel was a liberal, does that mean that fascism is a product of liberal thought. If I were to draw a tree w/ branches of liberalism, would fascism be on it?
Correct, and capitalism was not the foundation which brought the revolution together. And if you look at Thomas Paine, who was by all measures a liberal, had some oddball views economicaly and otherwise (especially with the French revolution)
Communist socialism tends to have that but actually Marx talks a great deal about how communism is a German ideal or a product of German philosophy.
No I don’t think he was because his practices and theories were more in tune with the right Hegelians. He aggrandized the state as being the realization of societal interests and everything that the state did was apart of the flow of history regarding will. The state was the ultimate exerciser of the catalyst of history [ will ]. He was just a standard intellectual apologist for the state and he is notable because of his confused and chaotic writing style.
I would also add that this confusion must had been a great contributing factor for liberalism’s downfall. Because if you are going to be a liberal, not because you assert there should be a limit to politics, but because you desire your preferences (for anti-clericalism, for civic nationalism or for cosmopolitanism and for egalitarianism) empowered by the state then you might as well turn to the real thing and become a socialist instead.
This is why I would also be careful not to take the characterisation of socialism and fascism as one and the same too far. They are the same in the sense that they agree (with the ostensibly liberal Jacobin radicals) that the state is a legitimate way for shaping of society and achieving your goals. But the goals which they intend to achieve with the use of the state could hardly be more different - because their personal preferences could not be more at odds.
This is why at the end of the day every socialist hates the fascists more than he does the doctrinal liberals and every fascists hates the socialists more than he does the doctrinal liberals. While liberals would make it impossible for them to impose their vision on society, they would at least not impose a counter-vision on it.
Even economic socialism which is seemingly shared by the socialists and the fascists is fundamentally different in its purpose for each, because for one it is a project of egalitarianism and for the other a project of hierarchism.