nirgrahamUK:I disagree, Fascism is socialism with a different face, and modified rhetoric
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.
nirgrahamUK: It is a reaction against Liberalism, just as socialism is a reaction against Liberalism.
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.
Laughing Man: Dondoolee: I wouldn't call it socialist. It is a syncretic economic doctrine, a type of old-school "Third Way" thing. 'Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State' is certainly a socialistic motto. You brought up before the term 'left-Hegelians' well what this is right here is the conservative or rightist faction of Hegelianism which propounds that the full realization of societal advancement, morals and rights is realized through the state apparatus. The state essentially is a representation of the society. It's socialism of the right. Now the difference between this and what left-Hegelians like Marx was trying to do is pronounce that civil or collective interests are the same as private interests. Hegel liked to think there was constant conflict between the two but Communism according to Marx would be the realization that they aren't different. Fascism are destroying the private interests and retaining the collective interests, Marx is merely trying to converge them or at least announcing that they will inevitability converge. In either class, the collective interests retains itself as the highest aim so while they may go about it in a different fashion their end goals are still the same.
Dondoolee: I wouldn't call it socialist. It is a syncretic economic doctrine, a type of old-school "Third Way" thing.
I wouldn't call it socialist. It is a syncretic economic doctrine, a type of old-school "Third Way" thing.
'Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State' is certainly a socialistic motto. You brought up before the term 'left-Hegelians' well what this is right here is the conservative or rightist faction of Hegelianism which propounds that the full realization of societal advancement, morals and rights is realized through the state apparatus. The state essentially is a representation of the society. It's socialism of the right. Now the difference between this and what left-Hegelians like Marx was trying to do is pronounce that civil or collective interests are the same as private interests. Hegel liked to think there was constant conflict between the two but Communism according to Marx would be the realization that they aren't different. Fascism are destroying the private interests and retaining the collective interests, Marx is merely trying to converge them or at least announcing that they will inevitability converge. In either class, the collective interests retains itself as the highest aim so while they may go about it in a different fashion their end goals are still the same.
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?
Marko: Dondoolee: They are all liberal, in the classic sense when applied broadly and historicly. Socialism was considerd liberalism, the left-Hegelians were liberals, if you read for 1800's lit, for example, The Brothers Kazamov; Dostoevsky would call Prodhoun, Bakunin, and Kropotkin liberals. I think the roots of liberalism shows a lot of overlap of all ideas, just look at the liberal French revolution. I think the French Revolution is a good example for what you are trying to say. I think liberalism would even more often than its more theoretical postulates also refer to the generally shared personal preferences of the people deeming themselves liberals. So revolutionary France, with its authoritarian republicanism was to be be thought of as a radically liberal state as long as its authoritarianism was in the service of shaping society towards the preferences commonly held by liberals.
Dondoolee: They are all liberal, in the classic sense when applied broadly and historicly. Socialism was considerd liberalism, the left-Hegelians were liberals, if you read for 1800's lit, for example, The Brothers Kazamov; Dostoevsky would call Prodhoun, Bakunin, and Kropotkin liberals. I think the roots of liberalism shows a lot of overlap of all ideas, just look at the liberal French revolution.
They are all liberal, in the classic sense when applied broadly and historicly.
Socialism was considerd liberalism, the left-Hegelians were liberals, if you read for 1800's lit, for example, The Brothers Kazamov; Dostoevsky would call Prodhoun, Bakunin, and Kropotkin liberals. I think the roots of liberalism shows a lot of overlap of all ideas, just look at the liberal French revolution.
I think the French Revolution is a good example for what you are trying to say. I think liberalism would even more often than its more theoretical postulates also refer to the generally shared personal preferences of the people deeming themselves liberals. So revolutionary France, with its authoritarian republicanism was to be be thought of as a radically liberal state as long as its authoritarianism was in the service of shaping society towards the preferences commonly held by liberals.
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)
Dondoolee: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.
Only as a facade. It's not actual capitalism.
Dondoolee:On top of which there are aesthetic differences (which should be obvious): ex: fascism = state, socialism tends to have a more international outlook
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.
Dondoolee: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?
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.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
Dondoolee: Marko: Dondoolee: They are all liberal, in the classic sense when applied broadly and historicly. Socialism was considerd liberalism, the left-Hegelians were liberals, if you read for 1800's lit, for example, The Brothers Kazamov; Dostoevsky would call Prodhoun, Bakunin, and Kropotkin liberals. I think the roots of liberalism shows a lot of overlap of all ideas, just look at the liberal French revolution. I think the French Revolution is a good example for what you are trying to say. I think liberalism would even more often than its more theoretical postulates also refer to the generally shared personal preferences of the people deeming themselves liberals. So revolutionary France, with its authoritarian republicanism was to be be thought of as a radically liberal state as long as its authoritarianism was in the service of shaping society towards the preferences commonly held by liberals. 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)
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.