Neither “state capitalism” nor “fascist capitalism.” Both are logically invalid terms because Capitalism by definition means the absence of government interference into—or control of—the economy (i.e. the separation of economics and state). Trump’s policies are, in fact, straight-up socialism of the fascist, as opposed to the Communist, variety.
Related Reading:
QUORA: ‘What three points do communists and fascists disagree on?’
I posted this answer:
Communism is international socialism: It seeks a worldwide homogenous system. Fascism is national socialism: It seeks to tailor its system to the customs and traditions of individual nations.
Communism allows no private property or private enterprise. Fascism allows a superficial veneer of both. But it is only a veneer of privatization, as all economic forces, as Mussolini put it, must be “coordinated and harmonized in the unity of the State.”
Communism is by definition strictly egalitarian—”from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” Fascism is less so, or not at all so.
These differences are superficial, though. What’s more important, because more fundamental, is what they have in common. There are 4 fundamental commonalities:
Statism (central control of all aspects of society)
Collectivism (the supremacy of some group, be it the race, the proletariat, society as a whole, et al, in whose name the state operates)
Mysticism (the quasi-religious belief in a higher group or national consciousness in whose will the state is the embodiment.)
A common enemy — Enlightenment liberalism and its consequences; individualism, constitutionally limited individual rights-protecting government, and Capitalism.
So, in practice, communism and fascism have meaningful differences.
But fundamentally, on the philosophical level—which is the level that counts most—communism and fascism can be thought of as fraternal twins. Never mind that, in today’s scrambled jargon, communism is considered “far Left” and fascism “far Right.” In truth, the only social system that is the antipode of both is Capitalism.
Related answers:
Why do people find communism so terrifying as an idea?
Why do fascism and communism often go hand in hand when they are philosophically polar opposites?
Is it possible to be both a Communist and a Fascist?
Related Reading:
QUORA *: ‘Why do people find communism so terrifying as an idea?’
Individualism vs. Collectivism: Our Future, Our Choice—Craig Biddle
What is Capitalism?—Ayn Rand
Nazism, Communism, Atheism, and the Enlightenment
QUORA: ‘Is fascism a form of capitalism?’
We Need a Deeper Understanding of Socialism
A is A, and Socialism by any Other Name...
QUORA: ‘Is it possible to be both a Communist and a Fascist?’
I posted this answer:
Superficially, no. Essentially, yes. The difference between Communism and Fascism are as follows. Communism is international, focussing on a united socialist world. Fascism, or national socialism, rejects that approach, instead focussing on socialism tailored to specific national attributes. Communism seeks state ownership of business and private enterprise (the means of production). Fascism seeks effective ownership through widespread centralized control of the economy, leaving a veneer of private ownership. Communism is strictly Egalitarian economically, demanding strict equality. Fascism redistributes plenty of wealth, but allows some measure of differentiation in wealth and income.
While Communism and Fascism differ in means, and feign to be mortal enemies, they share a common goal, along with every variation of socialism--wholesale, totalitarian socialization of society, and a hatred of their common enemy, individualism, the heart of Capitalism. Communism’s disdain for individualism, or individual autonomy, is undisputed. But just read Hitler’s Mein Kampf or Mussolini’s Doctrine of Fascism, and you will easily notice the same disdain for individualism and Capitalism. All share a collective moral vision, whereby all individuals, and their associations, whether corporations, unions, professional or trade societies, etc., exist for and within the orbit of the state. Don’t forget Molotov-Ribbentrop, the Nazi-Soviet pact that launched World War II.
Socialists love to redefine socialism, each faction claiming that their brand will work where all the others failed—somehow. Which brings us to today’s Democratic Socialists. I view these socialists as sympathetic to communism, but without wholesale nationalization of industry. Essentially, Democratic Socialism seeks Communism’s goal of “worker” control of industry through “legal”--i.e., state coercive--means. They are, in effect, practical Communists. They want to reach communistic goals through fascist means. It would not be inaccurate to describe Democratic Socialism as Red Fascism.
Is it possible to be both a Communist and a Fascist? Given that communism and fascism are, fundamentally, ideological fraternal twins, the answer is absolutely. As proof, I give you the Democratic Socialists.
Related answers from me:
Can a fascist be a capitalist?
Why do fascism and communism often go hand in hand when they are philosophically polar opposites?
Is fascism a form of capitalism?’
Can a communist society include capitalists?
Related Reading:
Criminal Socialism vs. a Free Society
Socialism's Totalitarian Nature Cannot Be Obscured by 'Democratic Socialism'
Sanders' Brand of Socialism is Old Fashioned Fascism
A is A, and Socialism by any Other Name...
We Need a Deeper Understanding of Socialism
QUORA: ‘Were the Confederate States fascist?’
I posted this answer:
Well, they were socialist, but more akin to communism than fascism (if by fascism you mean the system defined by Benito Mussolini and the philosopher Giovanni Gentile in 1932).
As the Abolitionist movement gained strength in the decades leading up to the Civil War, Southern intellectuals mounted a spirited moral and economic defense of slavery. They defended plantation slavery on grounds that anticipated Karl Marx. Leading Antebellum intellectual George Fitzhugh, for example, published a widely read book titled Sociology For The South: Or The Failure Of A Free Society (1854). In this book, Fitzhugh defended plantation slavery as “the beau ideal of communism,” while condemning the free labor of the North as victims of greedy capitalists. The slaves, he argued, were well taken care of from cradle to grave, and always had employment when they could work. When they couldn’t work, Fitzhugh explained, they were well supported by their masters. “The children and the aged and infirm, work not at all, and yet have all the comforts and necessaries of life provided for them. They enjoy liberty, because they are opposed neither by care nor labor.”
The free labor of the North, Fitzhugh held, were not really free because they were at the mercy of exploitative capitalists, to whom they had to sell their labor for money, and could be fired at will, leaving they and their families on their own with no support. James Henry Hammond, South Carolina governor, argued that black slaves were better off than Northern free laborers, whom he argued were essentially wage slaves. This is essentially the argument that Marx would advance in support of his brand of Communism.
As historian C. Bradley Thompson has observed, Southern intellectuals, drawing on German philosophy, were the first in America to reject the Declaration of Independence and free market capitalism. They were essentially Marxists before Marx.*
Of course, most whites and some blacks were relatively free, so the Confederate states defy broad labels like socialist, Communist, or Fascist. If one were to label the South, Slavocracy would best “fit the bill.”
* [Thompson is the author of America's Revolutionary Mind: A Moral History of the American Revolution and the Declaration That Defined It]
Related Reading:
Brad Thompson on “the unidentified, unacknowledged union of proslavery and progressive thought.”
Sociology for the South: Or the Failure of Free Society by George Fitzhugh
A letter published in the New Jersey Star-Ledger on 9/21/20 under the heading Millionaires Tax, Rebate have Kennedy-like Vibe makes explicit the horrid consequences of the war on economic inequality. In support of NJ Governor Phil Murphy’s proposed “millionaires tax”, which increases by 2% the income tax rate on incomes over $1 million, to fund $500 handouts to lower/middle class families defined as “households in the state with income below $150,000 and at least one child,” Robert R. Salman wrote:
In keeping with . . . [what] John F. Kennedy said in his 1961 inaugural address] . . ., "If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich," Gov. Phil Murphy and Democrat legislative leaders have agreed to provide New Jersey with a true millionaires tax.
This new tax will also attack the scourge of income inequality by providing relief to certain middle- and lower- income families.
Taking one person’s money at gunpoint, even if giving the loot to another, is theft. Income inequality is a natural and just consequence of an economically and politically free society. In a civil society, theft, not personal achievement, is the scourge. Salman inverts this principle of civil society, claiming that personal achievement is the scourge, and theft is virtuous. Salman’s moral perversity is stunning.
But this is economic egalitarianism. Cut through all of the posturing against income inequality, and you find that no argument has ever been advanced to explain why it is wrong or unjust or unfair or harmful for people to achieve at different levels.
Salman clearly demonstrates that “fixing” the non-problem of income inequality begins with redistributive theft, and in the end no one’s income is safe from it. Today it’s an assault on incomes over $1 million. No amount of rationalization, like “it only affects a tiny minority who can easily afford the extra tax,” can change the fact that there is nothing to prevent the $1 million threshold from being ratcheted down. The principle involved, like all principles, is open-ended. Under the principle that income inequality is a “scourge,” everyone has an automatic claim on anyone with higher income, and can legitimately use the government’s legal, i.e., gun-backed, apparatus to seize the more affluents’ wealth in the name of income equality. The flip side is that no one is safe as long as there are others who make less, and who in turn can claim a portion of his wealth via armed government agents as “hired guns.”
It starts with the “top 0.1%.” But there is nothing to prevent the 0.1% from morphing into the 1%, then the 10%, then the 25%, and so on and so on. There is no logical limit to the downward pull, a downward pull that ultimately must, by definition, end in universal poverty, as every communist state has demonstrated. And as communist states like Soviet Russia, Red China, Pol Pot’s Cambodia, and Castro’s Cuba amply demonstrate, what begins with theft often ends with murder.
How this redistributive tax will “save the few who are rich,” or any of us who achieve more than the next guy, defies logic. There is no moral or economic justification for any government program to coercively “remedy” income inequality, because there is nothing inherently wrong with income inequality--not when free markets and free trade are the source of the inequality. Greed and/or envy—cutting down the more successful because they are successful—is the real motive of anyone who ever preached against “the scourge of income inequality.”
Related Reading:
Free Market Champions Must Defend Economic Inequality
The Justice of Income Inequality Under Capitalism by Ari Armstrong for The Objective Standard
The Left’s Egalitarian Trap (and Why Republicans Must Not Step In)
The Justice of Income Inequality Under Capitalism Ari Armstrong for The Objective Standard
Laughing Joe’s Egalitarian Aim Ari Armstrong for The Objective Standard
Equal Is Unfair: America's Misguided Fight Against Income Inequality—by Don Watkins and Yaron Brook
