Why are socialism and communism equated with one-another in the US?

[Karalysia]

Yes I'm totally going to listen to the anarcho-capitalist while he talks about the similarities between fascism and communism

 

[aelf]

Because both use the same means: government ownership and that is what determines the day to day life implications. Though the vague dream utopia of course differs(commune with endless material hapiness vs ethnical moral dreamland)

Does public = government? And you are aware that actual communism is exceedingly anti-statist, right?

If you want to make the claim that something is 'the practice', you'd better know how it relates to the theory. Just because something has manifested as something else altogether doesn't make the latter the practice of the former, especially if one bears little relation to the other except in a merely cosmetic way.

 

[Agent327]

Such a definition of "fascism" seems closer to the common concept of "the Dark Ages" than what fascism (a rather complex term) meant in history. (But then, some people seem to cling to a definition of "communism" that is entirely utopian...)

Yes I'm totally going to listen to the anarcho-capitalist while he talks about the similarities between fascism and communism

You may laugh about it, but serious historians have written books about the subject.

 

[aelf]

(But then, some people seem to cling to a definition of "communism" that is entirely utopian...)

What do you mean by utopian? Do you mean that it has a utopia as its telos?

I'm not sure that some Marxists, such as those in the Critical school, make a definite promise about that, if you wish to lump Communists and Marxists together (which I'm fine with, as long as the former is not strictly understood as anyone or everyone who has ever called themselves such). Marxism is perhaps as utopian as capitalism, with the latter's promise of 'wealth and prosperity', probably less. A view that treats Marxism as foremost a critique does not have to be utopian, and it's probably not.

 

[Agent327]

No, I have no problem with utopians. I do have a problem with strictly conceiving communism as an utopian ideology, ignoring all failed attempts to establish communism on Earth "because they were not communist" at all. Similarly I could argue that fascist regimes weren't fascist at all, because they looked nothing like their propaganda. Or separating the Christian view of the world from how Christianity turned out historically. (Capitalism, BTW, isn't a philosophy, nor is, strictly speaking, communism IMHO - nor did Marx intend it to be. But that, perhaps, is rather a matter for another thread, of a more philosophical nature.)

 

[aelf]

No, I have no problem with utopians. I do have a problem with strictly conceiving communism as an utopian ideology, ignoring all failed attempts to establish communism on Earth "because they were not communist" at all.

And you'd be wrong to say that these attempts were ignored. They aren't, but neither are they the necessary products of Marxian thought (the fact that these attempts were very varied already speaks volumes). You might be surprised, but Marxists learn from the mistakes that were made, and even at the height of the Soviet political machinery many were bitterly opposed to the Soviets.

The other thing is there is a very strong definitional argument for the fact that such systems were not Communist. How can such expressly statist approaches be Communist when they there is no state under Communism? I believe plenty of people involved those regimes also recognised that they were not (yet) Communist.

Similarly I could argue that fascist regimes weren't fascist at all, because they looked nothing like their propaganda. Or separating the Christian view of the world from how Christianity turned out historically. (Capitalism, BTW, isn't a philosophy, nor is, strictly speaking, communism IMHO - nor did Marx intend it to be. But that, perhaps, is rather a matter for another thread, of a more philosophical nature.)

It all depends on what can be said about Fascism as an ideology, but I suspect that there's not quite so much. The best Fascist ideologue I can think of is Carl Schmitt, and I'm not sure if what he wrote bears enough similarity to what Fascism manifested itself as, so perhaps in that sense there's some truth in what you say. But theorists like him have nowhere near the central importance that theorists have in Marxism. Instead, I believe Fascism sprung forth chiefly from the ideas of irredentists and nationalists such as Gabrielle d'Annunzio, which makes it much more dependent on the contextual practices that defined it.

As for Christianity, surely you'd agree that practices like the Inquisition cannot be equated to Christianity, so I'd say that that's a pretty good example.

On whether capitalism is an ideology, maybe it doesn't have one distinct ideology, but you can't deny that it's inherently ideological, especially since it is dependent on certain presumptions and theories on social relations and human needs. The economic base of capitalism just wouldn't stand without the ideological or political superstructure that sustains and reproduces it.

 

[dirtyparrot]

Getting back to the OP's question, I suspect that people, for mainly political, have transformed both terms to be fairly amorphous. So, there's no particular definition attached to the words "socialism" or "communism," but rather connotations (negative ones of course). Hence, using the word has been the argument, nevermind whether it's a valid use of the word in the context that it's being used.

 

[Traitorfish]

Because in practice, they are the same thing.Both cater to the most common denominator, the poorly-educated working class, and use the same means to achieve their ends(state capitalism). Just ideological fuzzy talk is the difference, with a nationalistic utopia on one side, and a materialist utopia on the other.

Worth noting that both the Stalinist and Maoist blocs, as well as those few that diverged from either such as Yugoslavia and North Korea, were essentially populist-ultranationalist in nature, rather than socialist. While they may have drawn on Marxist theory, in practice they diverged rather heavily. Marxists consider them to be "devolved" and "deformed workers' states" for a reason.

No, I have no problem with utopians. I do have a problem with strictly conceiving communism as an utopian ideology, ignoring all failed attempts to establish communism on Earth "because they were not communist" at all. Similarly I could argue that fascist regimes weren't fascist at all, because they looked nothing like their propaganda. Or separating the Christian view of the world from how Christianity turned out historically. (Capitalism, BTW, isn't a philosophy, nor is, strictly speaking, communism IMHO - nor did Marx intend it to be. But that, perhaps, is rather a matter for another thread, of a more philosophical nature.)

Well given that they universally were not, that would be a fairly reasonable position to assume. Hitler had Strasser shot for a reason, after all.

 

[Plotinus]

I think a pertinent difference between fascist regimes and communist ones is that even though the reality of fascist regimes differed from their propaganda, the regime itself was certainly run on fascist lines. What I mean is that no-one could accuse Mussolini or Hitler of only claiming to be a fascist, but really being something else. The crimes and injustices their regimes perpetuated were a result of their fascism. Whereas there is a good case, as people have pointed out, for saying that communist dictators such as Stalin were not proper communists at all. The disparity in their case is not between the hoped-for utopia and the actual dystopia - it is between the practices of communism and the practices actually put into place. So those who take this position hold that these regimes were not communist not because they were failed attempts to put communism into practice, but because they weren't even attempts at communism in the first place, even though they might have claimed to be.

 

[NubianMercenary]

People who do not understand the difference between Fascism, Communism, Socialism and Anarchism pretty much deserve a BIG FAT: "Epic Fail" tattooed on their fore head..

Here's how I was taught, in layman terms what each was.

1.) Marxism: The concepts and theories of Karl Marx; a scientific-historic collective term which is used to describe the ideas of Marx.

2.) Socialism: The encompassing theories which revolve primarily around the "Socialist State" theory, which is the forefather (pre-requirement) of the "Communist State Utopian" theory.

3.) Communism: The final realisation of Marxism.

4.) Fascism: Differs from Communism substantially, as Fascism uses Racism and indifference aimed at a minority within its Countrys Society {i.e - WW II Fascist Germany/Jews} in order to fuel a war time economy. One leader. One party. Marx was against Racism, Imperialism etc... Fascism without Racism and Imperialism - is just Hitler without his moustache.

5.) Anarchism: Originally, Anarchism was birthed from Philosophies which stemmed from the age of Romanticism. Its goal, is to revert Society into a state which is not governed or "controlled" by any form of Central Governing. In essence, Anarchism seeks to obtain complete-social freedom. However, it only ends in a return to Barbarism mainly due to the fact that Anarchists do not see the need or importance for Law.

 

[Traitorfish]

I think a pertinent difference between fascist regimes and communist ones is that even though the reality of fascist regimes differed from their propaganda, the regime itself was certainly run on fascist lines. What I mean is that no-one could accuse Mussolini or Hitler of only claiming to be a fascist, but really being something else. The crimes and injustices their regimes perpetuated were a result of their fascism. Whereas there is a good case, as people have pointed out, for saying that communist dictators such as Stalin were not proper communists at all. The disparity in their case is not between the hoped-for utopia and the actual dystopia - it is between the practices of communism and the practices actually put into place. So those who take this position hold that these regimes were not communist not because they were failed attempts to put communism into practice, but because they weren't even attempts at communism in the first place, even though they might have claimed to be.

Well, I suppose it's accurate to say that the regimes were not a fully realised form of fascism, rather than they were not fascist at all. Fascism is, at heart, an anti-capitalist ideology, sometimes incorporating elements of socialist thought, but neither Mussolini or Hitler carried out the social revolution which they had initially promised, instead remaining, for as long as they lasted, in a phase of authoritarian capitalism. Perhaps they would have carried out these later revolutionary changes after they had eliminated their perceived foes, perhaps not; the opportunity for them to do so, thank god, never came about.
Which, I suppose, is where it differs from the Marxist regimes of the 20th century; they were typically "degenerate" or "deformed" socialist states, having chosen a different path, rather than simply having failed to progress the full length of the socialist one. They are more easily comparable to para-fascist regimes such as Franco's Spain, which consciously abandoned, or even avoided fascist ideology altogether.

4.) Fascism: Differs from Communism substantially, as Fascism uses Racism and indifference aimed at a minority within its Countrys Society {i.e - WW II Fascist Germany/Jews} in order to fuel a war time economy. One leader. One party. Marx was against Racism, Imperialism etc... Fascism without Racism and Imperialism - is just Hitler without his moustache.

Overly simplistic, and certainly not universally correct; the extreme racialist program of the Nazis was something of a quirk, one not inherently shared (although diplomatically adopted) by Mussolini's Fascists, who generally possessed a more "traditionally" racist viewpoint, while it is explicitly contrary to the ideology of such groups as the Brazilian Integralists.
What defines fascism is a transcendent, revolutionary form of nationalism; this may take both ethnic and civic forms, neither of which are inherently racist. It's certainly a tendency, certainly, but that is an expression of it's core, but a not defining aspect.

 

[ParkCungHee]

What I mean is that no-one could accuse Mussolini or Hitler of only claiming to be a fascist, but really being something else

Plenty of people have done just that actually.

 

[Traitorfish]

Plenty of people have done just that actually.

True. Just look at the co-option of the Spanish Falange into Franco's distinctly ultraconservative regime.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Or Balbo's and Strasser's private/public regard of Hitler and Mussolini as rank opportunists.

 

[aelf]

Or Balbo's and Strasser's private/public regard of Hitler and Mussolini as rank opportunists.

That is quite compatible with Schmitt's view, though.

Still, I struggle to think of an extensive Fascist theoretical body.

 

[ParkCungHee]

That is quite compatible with Schmitt's view, though.

Still, I struggle to think of an extensive Fascist theoretical body.

Gentile tends to be the obvious go to guy on that matter. Pretty heavy theoretical background to Fascism, based on Hegelian notions of freedom and self. For economics that was more Ugo Spirito's bag. Sorrel also provided loads of framework, even though he never claimed to be a Fascist, he never claimed not to be a Fascist either. Also, while he's pretty unorthodox, Lawrence Dennis made a pretty damning critique of the economics of capitalism, which at least was read by the theorists and probably influenced Fascism across the pond.
While alot has been made by Fascism's lack of theoretical infrastructure, all in all when you consider the history of the movement, the breadth and depth of it's theoretical underpinnings is quite impressive. Considering that the movement began in 1919, and theoretical development essentially shut down in either 1940 or 1945 (depending on how much you want to count the sudden outpouring in 1943) so you're looking at a history of 21 to 25 years, start to finish, while Marxism had been around for nearly seventy years before it formed a government.

 

[aelf]

Gentile tends to be the obvious go to guy on that matter. Pretty heavy theoretical background to Fascism, based on Hegelian notions of freedom and self. For economics that was more Ugo Spirito's bag. Sorrel also provided loads of framework, even though he never claimed to be a Fascist, he never claimed not to be a Fascist either. Also, while he's pretty unorthodox, Lawrence Dennis made a pretty damning critique of the economics of capitalism, which at least was read by the theorists and probably influenced Fascism across the pond.
While alot has been made by Fascism's lack of theoretical infrastructure, all in all when you consider the history of the movement, the breadth and depth of it's theoretical underpinnings is quite impressive. Considering that the movement began in 1919, and theoretical development essentially shut down in either 1940 or 1945 (depending on how much you want to count the sudden outpouring in 1943) so you're looking at a history of 21 to 25 years, start to finish, while Marxism had been around for nearly seventy years before it formed a government.

I see. I guess I'm just not informed enough about the theoretical underpinnings of Fascism.

Maybe one could say that it was hijacked more quickly and in a much more complete way than Marxism was, which resulted in a relative dearth of theoretical development and continuation?

 

[Dachs]

Fascist ideology was rather amorphous to begin with even in the initial manifestos of 1919 and thus rather easy to hijack, but it's unclear precisely what was being hijacked in the first place.

 

[ParkCungHee]

I wouldn't quite say hijacked. They were in the awkward position of having come into power almost immediately after being formed. I imagine if we could go back in time a century, the Marxists wouldn't be too proud of their volumous accomplishments in theory. They had done so in part because they could accomplish little else. Fascism had to rush to articulate ideas that they held at least implicitly, now that it was there job to actually articulate it. At the same time, this meant that Fascism homogenized to a much greater degree then Marxism (which is why Marxism is quite tricky to define). In the very early days (and very late days), there were actually Democratizing trends in Fascism not to mention Anarchist and Syndicalist ones, and it's very hard to say what would have happened to them had it had time to work out these debates, had Fascism not been immediately posed with the question of ruling.

 

[Karalysia]

Might have ended up with something like the Baath Party. When it was founded in Syria, some of the important principles were stated by Michele Aflaq to be secularism, socialism, Pan-Arabisim, anti-imperialisim among others. The Baath Party generally failed to live up to its founding principles in both Syria and Iraq.