Communism Vs Fascism

[Virote_Considon]

Corporatism wasn't really properly adopted in Italy, though (Mussolini himself said that his biggest failure had been not implementing Corporatism), and the Nazis abandoned the idea of Corporatism before they even came to power, IIRC.

 

[Alassius]

That is because corporatism, in the Fascist form, was a variety of capitalism. "Capitalism" has no necessary connotations of laissez faire- if it did, then the British did not adopt "capitalism" until Thatcher's era.
Some forms of Fascism and Nazism, granted, advocated a more syndicalistic economy, but they never achieved the power or influence of their less revolutionary rivals- and in Germany were violently purged from the party- because they were unable to achieve the ear of Big Business, while being simultaneously unable to win working class support away from the Communists, Socialists and (in Spain) Anarchists.

Keep in mind that Marx was the one who popularised the term "capitalism", which unfortunately meant that he got to define what it is. He didn't bother to differentiate between state capitalism, and the more laissez faire, competitive market capitalism (mostly because he thought the state is just a tool owned by the capitalists). But those two are fundamentally different, as well as producing different practical results. Saying corporatism was a variety of capitalism has about as much value as saying Stalinism was a variety of socialism, which I'm sure you will object.

 

[Patroklos]

Agreed. Furthermore, people seem not to understand that fascism is corporatist, not capitalis

Fascism is not corporatist in any organic way. German fascism did not utilize corporatism until the end for instance. Given the pressures that system was under at that stage, I don't think we can attribute that to the normal function of the system.

Corporatism was linked to fascism based on Italy's use of it, but there is nothing about fascism that dictates corporatism be used. Germany proved this in the 1930's.

 

[Traitorfish]

Keep in mind that Marx was the one who popularised the term "capitalism", which unfortunately meant that he got to define what it is. He didn't bother to differentiate between state capitalism, and the more laissez faire, competitive market capitalism (mostly because he thought the state is just a tool owned by the capitalists). But those two are fundamentally different, as well as producing different practical results. Saying corporatism was a variety of capitalism has about as much value as saying Stalinism was a variety of socialism, which I'm sure you will object.

I would dispute that they are "fundamentally" different; in both laissez fair and state capitalism, the means of production are privately owned and managed for private gain, everything else building upon this. That varying levels of state intervention exist do not change this, any more than it did in Marx's time, when the imperial states were every bit as interventionist as the Third Reich.

 

[Virote_Considon]

Fascism is not corporatist in any organic way. German fascism did not utilize corporatism until the end for instance. Given the pressures that system was under at that stage, I don't think we can attribute that to the normal function of the system.

Corporatism was linked to fascism based on Italy's use of it, but there is nothing about fascism that dictates corporatism be used. Germany proved this in the 1930's.

There's a few things which are of issue here.

The first is whether Nazi Germany can be used as an example of a "typical" fascist state, which it can't. I wouldn't go so far as to say its not fascist, but it certainly isn't typical of Fascism. For a start, from what I can gather, they inherently held the view that there was a definite divide between the people and the state - with the state being subservient to the "race", which is in direct contrast to the central fascist concept that the nation and the state are inseparable.

A comparison which I think would be reasonable to make is imagine them as being Socialism and Anarchism - at one point in time, they were essentially the same movement, but a time came when they diverged (I would perhaps suggest following the Munich Putsch?), much like at one point in time, Socialism and Anarchism were essentially the same movement, though they ultimately diverged as a result of (correct me if I'm wrong) the Paris Commune, and thus two different ideologies emerged.

The next issue is that Nazi Germany never adopted Corporatism. Ever. In their early days, prior to gaining any power, the Nazi Party adopted the policy of Corporatism, but this was quickly discarded when they felt that it did not fit in with their racially-oriented system, again, still before they had acquired any power. So it comes back to that they cannot really be considered "typically" Fascist - typical branches of Fascism would certainly fit around Corporatism ideologically. Though they could also substitute for other Third Way economic systems, such as Distributism, perhaps. In that sense, I'd suggest that Fascism is inherently Third Way, hostile to mainstream Capitalism and Marxism, and that Corporatism is generally the most "dominant" of the third way economic systems, so to speak.

 

[aelf]

Keep in mind that Marx was the one who popularised the term "capitalism", which unfortunately meant that he got to define what it is. He didn't bother to differentiate between state capitalism, and the more laissez faire, competitive market capitalism (mostly because he thought the state is just a tool owned by the capitalists). But those two are fundamentally different, as well as producing different practical results. Saying corporatism was a variety of capitalism has about as much value as saying Stalinism was a variety of socialism, which I'm sure you will object.

I don't know what you mean by "fundamentally different", but, sure, they are significantly different.

Now, that said, the Marxist critique of capitalism applies to both.

 

[Rashiminos]

Indeed.

Have you noticed how every time someone brings up this fundamental point, it gets ignored?

BTW, I should add that, even though they force it, it still doesn't happen. It just becomes a dictatorship. Communism is impossible.

Nah, just implausible given the preferred worldviews, particularly (ir)rational self-interest.

 

[Angst]

Communism in its very essence wants to safeguard the power of the working class. (Going by the original definition, anyways.) It sees freedom as only present in its ideal.

Fascism is organic, does not value free will at all, rather its ideal values a powerful society and a strong state.

None of them are 'evil', but I think communism is 'better' because its intensions are to ensure the well-being of the supressed. Fascism thinks supression is a good thing.

 

[Millman]

No matter what you are there's always espionage everywhere. Although it's really illegal it can't help happen. It sorta keeps everyone honest.

Go....Espionage.