i was just windering if i could get a nice deffinition of what it is. i know that it does’t always look like hitler and all that. i have heard that it is when big buisness and government team up together. but i also heard that that is called corperatism. are they same? different?
so whats the deal?
thank you much.
I would call it an incomplete socialization of the country -a less than total tyranny.
Definitions vary but your understanding in general is correct. Corperatism would be a form of Fascism. Fascism is also just another form of Socialism. It’s confusing to no end, yes!
Fascism AKA State Capitalism, Corperatism, Imperialism, Authoritarian Capitalism, ect…
I always lumped corporatism in facism as being it’s primary economic system. The characteristics I contribute to facism would be
-crony capitalism(ie corporatism)
-extreme nationalism fuled by the state
-government promotes a certain culture
-overwhelming use of police force(or force in general)
-emphasis on interventionists foreign policy
-war economy
So was Nazi Germany fascism under these definitions?
Hitler was a National-Socialist with a focus on restoring German culture (hyperinflation), restoring German borders (Versaille) and getting everybody back to work (Arbeit macht frei), all while blaming the military industrial complex (Jews*).
Obviously it was a police state, but corporatism? More leftist collectivism, no?
Most Austrian historian’s I read regarded Germany in that time era as being a Socialist state. Though a heavy imperialistic government also tends to be named fascist as well.
We must also not forget that the differences between fascist state and a socialist one are degrees and details. Ultimately it all leads towards total socialism.
From an economic perspective, Fascism is full socialization of the means of production. It seemingly retains the system of private property but that is only in formality, on paper. There really is no real meaningful difference. Mises described it as the German pattern of Socialism, as opposed to the Russian or Marxist pattern.
See Mises’ Planned Chaos:
I myself go with corporatism + state-sponsored nationalism as a counterbalance to socialist rethoric.
Fascim? Never 'eard of it.
On the other hand, fascism is statism, pure and simple.
As with all other brands of statism, it shares the unquestioned assumption that the state is both valid and necessary.
[hint: ignore meaningless distinctions between “fascism,” and other brands of statism, including “libertarianism”- ultimately , they all boil down to the same fundamental assumption{s} .]
Regards, onebornfree [aged 8 for those enquiring minds that “need to know” ]
“We must also not forget that the differences between fascist state and a socialist one are degrees and details. Ultimately it all leads towards total socialism.”
Nail on the head.
The most accurate definition of fascism by Georgi Dimitrov (the Bulgarian hero of the Reichstag-tribunal) is ‘the openly terroristic dictatorship of the most reactionary, most chauvinistic and most imperialistic elements of Finance-Capital’.
Mises is completely wrong on that, since national-socialism really has nothing to do with socialism or the socialist movement at all, which is a historic truth as the nazi-party was not formed or joined by socialist, and moreover, the socialist and communist and trade unioninst were the first being oppressed and put in labour camps, already long before the jews were massively repressed, and as soon as after the Reichstag fire which lead to the victory of Hitler’s nazi-party.
People who don’t see this, don’t know history, and simply fall into the ruthless nazi-propaganda. Of course they (= the nazi’s) had to portray themselves as socialists, to win popular support, so the term ‘socialist’ was only used for propaganda means.
Rob you should know that in the taxomony of statism, many of us would classify fascism as a type of socialism. Also, where specifically is Mises wrong?
It’s kind of silly to argue about Mises’s knowledge of history. It wasn’t history to him…
We also are not referring to Socialism as a party, or group, or political movement, but to a theoretical framework/concept.
Fascism is a form of extreme right-wing ideology that celebrates the nation or the race as an organic community transcending all other loyalties. It emphasizes a myth of national or racial rebirth after a period of decline or destruction. To this end, fascism calls for a “spiritual revolution” against signs of moral decay such as individualism and materialism, and seeks to purge “alien” forces and groups that threaten the organic community. Fascism tends to celebrate masculinity, youth, mystical unity, and the regenerative power of violence. Often, but not always, it promotes racial superiority doctrines, ethnic persecution, imperialist expansion, and genocide. At the same time, fascists may embrace a form of internationalism based on either racial or ideological solidarity across national boundaries.
Fascism is hostile to Marxism, liberalism, and conservatism, yet it borrows concepts and practices from all three. Fascism rejects the principles of class struggle and workers’ internationalism as threats to national or racial unity, yet it often exploits real grievances against capitalists and landowners through ethnic scapegoating or radical-sounding conspiracy theories. Fascism rejects the liberal doctrines of individual autonomy and rights, political pluralism, and representative government, yet it advocates broad popular participation in politics and may use parliamentary channels in its drive to power. Its vision of a “new order” clashes with the conservative attachment to tradition-based institutions and hierarchies, yet fascism often romanticizes the past as inspiration for national rebirth.
The American Conservative Movement is transforming into a Fascist movement.
Those who rejected Obama’s legitimacy to serve as president on the basis of his background gave birth to the “Birther” movement that sought to challenge his citizenship.
When Obama announced health care reform as the first major initiative of his administration, the conservative movement activated a campaign of demonization — transformational politics — designed to turn Obama into the “Other,” making him seem as unfamiliar, and therefore as threatening, as possible.
On September 12, 2009, tens of thousands of far-right activists belonging to the Tea Party Patriots converged on Washington’s National Mall for a giant protest against the Obama health care plan. The date was significant. This time, Obama — not Osama — was the enemy.
Members of the Tea Party “Patriots” did not seem to care that their rhetoric was irrational, or that comparing Obama to Hitler and Stalin was contradictory and obviously hyperbolic. By purging government of the multicultural evil that had seized power through illicit means, they were convinced that a mythical golden American yesteryear would return.
The Tea Party’s primary concern was cultural purification — freedom from, not freedom to. Against the dark image of the president and his liberal allies, Tea Party activists defined themselves as the children of light.
November 2009, Palin endorsed Republican Doug Hoffman that led to an improbable Democratic victory, the first in that district in more than 100 years.
Palin recast herself as a libertarian concerned primarily with issues of “economic freedom.” She blasted out on her Facebook page claiming the Obama health care plan included a provision for “death panels” that would recommend euthanasia for severely ill patients.
In April 2009, a 22-year-old neo-Nazi wannabe named Richard Poplawsi mowed down a SWAT team of Pittsburgh cops, killing three. Poplawski’s best friend told reporters the young killer “grew angry recently over fears Obama would outlaw guns.
Beck opined that Obama “has exposed himself over and over and over again as a guy who has a deep-seated hatred for white people, or the white culture.”
Representative John Lewis, a hero of the civil rights movement, and Representative Barney Frank, the first openly gay member of Congress, passed through the crowd on their way inside the Capitol. “Nigger!” a demonstrator barked at Lewis. Another called Frank a “faggot,” eliciting laughter and cheers from nearby protesters.
At least 10 Democratic members of Congress reported receiving death threats. Images of nooses were faxed to the offices of Stupak and James Clyburn, an African-American congressman from South Carolina.
After the passage of the health care bill, the Tea Party floated between authoritarianism and anarchy. Crusading to restore a holy social order, they promoted disorder. Claiming to protect democracy, they smashed windows of elected representatives. Warning of death panels, they called in death threats.
Mistyknight, no offense but is there a point to your post? You seem to be presenting an argument(assertion?) to someone though for the life of me I cannot figure out who.
Yes, but I use my own concepts, or better stated, I use the theoretical framework by the most prominent theoretical analyst on that subject, namely Marx. It’s the best analysis of the capitalist system to date, so why should I use other frameworks?
If I may reflect on this Mises defintion of “statism”, which is then identical to socialism, I think that is just a very strange definition, as if the state suddenly and all out of nothing appeared because of the influence of socialism. Of course not! The nation state has existed already before.
If I state it correctly, in Mises viewpoint then all influence of the socialist movement, which in itself was a reaction to the miserable working and living conditions of the workers in the industrialized parts of the world, and all government interventions to protect labor rights, are “wrong”, which then clearly shows that Mises defends those miserable working and living conditions of workers during the early days of capitalism.
Mises then argues from the perspective of brutal ruthless exploitation, and no government law or rule to protect the worker against such conditions.
The usage of the term “socialist”, “socialism”, etc. are clearly and well definined and there is sufficient and significant backup for the claim that socialism is a well defined political system, and that using the term “socialist” or “socialism” by providing totally different meaning to those words as originally defined, is just a mean trick to delude people. It’s the same kind of rhetoric and word-play the nazi’s themselve used for their propaganda requirements.
If we allow for arbitray giving well defined terms different meaning, just in order to proof a point or defend one’s rhetoric, then for that matter any form of discussion is rather meaningless.
‘Yes, but I use my own concepts, or better stated, I use the theoretical framework by the most prominent theoretical analyst on that subject, namely Marx. It’s the best analysis of the capitalist system to date, so why should I use other frameworks?’
What makes you think that Marx had/has the best analysis of the ‘capitalist system’?
‘If I state it correctly, in Mises viewpoint then all influence of the socialist movement, which in itself was a reaction to the miserable working and living conditions of the workers in the industrialized parts of the world, and all government interventions to protect labor rights, are “wrong”, which then clearly shows that Mises defends those miserable working and living conditions of workers during the early days of capitalism.’
Actually socialism can be traced back all the way to ancient China and Greece. It has been a theme prevalent in both Western and Eastern cultures for a long while now.
A) What good are your own personal concepts if they are already on grounds for disagreement with us? IE your premise is in conflict with ours and we cannot go any further then that?
B) Because Marx’s definition of capitalism does not exist, has not ever existed, and by and large is mostly a fairy tale. (No offense)
It is not Mises’s definition of “statism”. But yes Statism is a substitute term for socialism. Though socialism represents a broader spectrum of concepts.
You confuse my point. Socialism did not just “spawn” into existence. As long as a coercive entity coercively redistributed services, and enforced the payment of those services amongst everyone then socialism has existed. Whether it was called nation state or whatever, whether it was before the invention of the word or not. Socialism is an abstract just like anarchy and markets.
How unfortunate for you that the evidence has proven otherwise.
You have not yet explained this exploitation. You’ve just asserted that it existed like a good Marxist. Care to substantiate your claims?
I would say likewise to you regarding Capitalism. Though in my defense our definitions here are compatable with those concepts which are most widely understood today.
You are on an Austrian economics forum. If the terms you bring to the table are in direct conflict with us then all your doing is presenting a semantics argument. Feel free to go elsewhere.
Rob, for future clarification can you provide the quotes your referring to when you assert that Mises said this or that? Thanks!