QUORA: ‘Fascism was not opposed to private property or capitalism, so how can it be described as Marxist or socialist?’

 QUORA: ‘Fascism was not opposed to private property or capitalism, so how can it be described as Marxist or socialist?’

I posted this answer:

Fascism was and is most definitely opposed to private property and capitalism. 

Private property, to be truly private, must be a fundamental inalienable right; meaning, the right of the owner to acquire, use, and dispose of his property according to his own judgement, so long as his property isn’t used in a way that violates the rights of others. True, property under Fascism has a superficial veneer of private ownership. But property that is controlled by the state is not genuine private property, and under Fascism the state has ultimate control over all property. Property is “private” only on paper. “Private property” without the private freedom of use and disposal is a sham.

Under Capitalism, private property is truly guaranteed by constitutional right—as is economic freedom generally, including the right to free trade—along with rights to speech and press, religion/conscience, association, etc.. Under Fascism, all economic activity is controlled by the state. In fact, under Fascism, all life is centrally controlled by the state. 

Fascism cannot be “described as Marxist” in the sense that the means of production are owned by the state. But Fascism is most certainly socialist. Fascism is state control of the means of production. Capitalism is fundamentally individualist, while both Marxism and Fascism are virulently anti-individualist. Fascism and Marxism are united in their opposition to private property and Capitalism. Both are thoroughly collectivist. Both are repressive, authoritarian systems.

Capitalism is the embodiment of The Enlightenment principles of individualism, including the universal guarantee of individual rights, free markets, limited constitutional government, and equality of individual self-government. In THE DOCTRINE OF FASCISM, Benito Mussolini and Giovanni Gentile explicitly announce Fascism’s opposition to the Enlightenment principles that underpin Capitalism [my emphasis added]: 

Fascism’s anti-individualism:

Fascism is therefore opposed to all individualistic abstractions based on eighteenth century materialism [i.e., Enlightenment liberalism].

Fascism’s collectivism:

Anti-individualistic, the Fascist conception of life stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual only in so far as his interests coincide with those of the State, which stands for the conscience and the universal, will of man as a historic entity. [sic]

On fascism’s statism:

“No individuals or groups (political parties, cultural associations, economic unions, social classes) outside the State.

We are, in other words, a state which controls all forces acting in nature. We control political forces, we control moral forces, we control economic forces, therefore we are a full-blown Corporative state. [*]

On fascism’s socialism:

Fascism is therefore opposed to Socialism to which unity within the State (which amalgamates classes into a single economic and ethical reality) is unknown, and which sees in history nothing but the class struggle [i.e., Marxism]. Fascism is likewise opposed to trade unionism as a class weapon. But when brought within the orbit of the State, Fascism recognizes the real needs which gave rise to socialism and trade unionism, giving them due weight in the guild or corporative system in which divergent interests are coordinated and harmonized in the unity of the State.

Fascism thus opposes Marxian socialism (communism), not socialism as such. Fascism differs from Marxism in the sense that the means of production are controlled, rather than owned, by the state. And Fascism differs from Marxism in that Marxism is internationally oriented (Workers of the world unite) while fascism is oriented toward national socialism. But these are superficial differences. Fascism and Marxism have much in common. Fascism and Marxism are united in their opposition to private property and Capitalism. Fascism and Marxism are anti-individualist, collectivist, statist, socialist. In other words, Fascism, like Marxism, is everything that Capitalism is not. And wherever Fascism rears its ugly head, some manifestation of these elements are in place, whether in an entire country, like NAZI Germany, or in a political agenda of a mixed economy politician, such as Senator Elizabeth Warren’s proposed “Accountable capitalism Act.”  

The basic premise of the question is completely flawed. There is no fundamental difference between Fascism and Marxism. Fundamentally, Capitalism is equally opposed to both Fascism and Marxism, and vice-versa. Capitalism is individualist; that is, the primary unit of moral, political, and economic concern is the individual, which is why Capitalism is based on the universal exercise of individual rights under a government limited to protecting those rights. Both Marxism and Fascism are virulently anti-individualist. Both are thoroughly collectivist, which means a totalitarian state based on the principle that the primary unit of moral, political, and economic concern is the group, as embodied in the apparatus of state. Both are statist. They are opposed to each other only in the sense of two underworld crime families battling over control of the same turf. Both Fascism and Marxism are totalitarian criminal enterprises.

For more of my thoughts on this subject, see my answer to QUORA: ‘Is fascism a capitalist ideology?‘. Also see my answer to QUORA: ‘Do you believe in free market capitalism?’

* [Don’t be fooled by the term “corporate” in Mussilini’s fascist state. The fascist corporation is nothing like the private, free corporations under capitalism. For a proper understanding of the type of corporation that arose under capitalism, as opposed to the state corporation, see Robert Hessen’s In Defense of the Corporation.]

Related Reading:

The Capitalist Manifesto by Andrew Bernstein

Socialism vs. Welfare Statism: Why These Terms Matter

Don't Equate the Essence of Socialism to Capitalism

Criminal Socialism vs. a Free Society

Fascism: Back Door to Socialism that Obama and the Left Well Understand

We Need a Deeper Understanding of Socialism

A is A, and Socialism by any Other Name...

Individualism vs. Collectivism: Our Future, Our Choice—Craig Biddle for The Objective Standard

Elizabeth Warren’s ‘Accountable Capitalism Act’ Reprises Benito Mussolini

Why Marxism—Evil Laid Bare--C. Bradley Thompson for The Objective Standard

“Victims” of capitalism? By Jaana Woiceshyn: "Capitalism is the only victimless social system."

Is ‘Stakeholder Capitalism’ Newspeak for Economic Fascism? By Mark Hornshaw for FEE

For his scathing but inescapable insights [Ludwig von] Mises had the honor of being intellectual enemy number one of both the Nazis and the Soviets.

In what Mises called Russian style socialism, the owner of the widget factory would be shot or sent the gulag, to be replaced by a party apparatchik, often with no background in widget production at all. Not only would there be no way of knowing whether widgets were socially beneficial, but you wouldn’t get very good widgets anyway.

Under what Mises called German style socialism, the former owner of the widget factory would be left nominally in charge, but made into a party apparatchik, using as much coercive pressure as necessary to force him to serve the interests of the state. This ownership in name only, is why people sometimes confuse national socialism with capitalism rather than correctly identifying it as another path to socialism. Resources are de-facto nationalized by different means.