source: Wikimedia Commons
However vaguely described, we can attribute a number of general truths and fundamental assumptions to these ideologies; socialism gives more weight to the collective, society as a whole, than to the individual. The opposite is rightly assumed for capitalism. But what we see in the real world is a large number of combinations of both, mixed in with various levels of authoritarianism and / or democratic principles, more or less nationalism or internationalism and so on; it's easy to forget in today's polarized world that black and white don't exist, that every male has a larger or smaller female aspect, and vice-versa.
However, even if everything is in shades of grey, there can be no mistaking on which side of the political spectrum "fascism" is situated. A little while ago I wrote Were Nazis Socialists? as a reaction to the many right-wing pundits and bloggers that have misrepresented the Nazis as being socialists. I've often told of the concern I have that this stubborn meme, among others, will render a large chunk of the western population incapable of recognizing fascism as it encroaches. I mean, Hitler's hatred toward the Bolsheviks was overshadowed only by his hatred for Jews and various other "unproductives." Heck, the "cultural Marxism" meme that's thrown around by the extreme right in accusation of the left's political correctness and social justice warriors originates with the Nazis, and was called "Cultural Bolshevism" back then:
Cultural Bolshevism (German: Kulturbolschewismus), sometimes referred to specifically as "art Bolshevism" or "music Bolshevism",[1] was a term widely used by Nazi German-sponsored critics to denounce modernist movements in the arts, particularly when seeking to discredit more nihilistic forms of expression. This first became an issue during the 1920s in Weimar Germany. German artists such as Max Ernst and Max Beckmann were denounced by Adolf Hitler, the Nazi Party and other right-wing nationalists as "cultural Bolsheviks".
source: Wikipedia
There can be no misunderstanding here: the Nazis were ANYTHING BUT socialist. The socialists were their mortal enemies, something you won't find strange if you consider that Bolshevism was, in Hitler's eyes, a Jewish conspiracy. But still, some people are brainwashed to such a degree, that even after hearing this, they still maintain that: "Well, Hitler DID lure the Germans to his party with a socialist program," after which follows some story about nationalizing factories and "the autobahn", when, again, the opposite is true:
The German economy, like those of many other western nations, suffered the effects of the Great Depression with unemployment soaring around the Wall Street Crash of 1929. When Adolf Hitler became Chancellor of Germany in 1933, he introduced policies aimed at improving the economy. The changes included privatization of state industries, autarky, and tariffs on imports. Although weekly earnings increased by 19% in real terms in the period between 1932-38, average working hours had also risen to approximately 60 per week by 1939. Furthermore, reduced foreign trade meant rationing in consumer goods like poultry, fruit, and clothing for many Germans.
source: Wikipedia
Privatization and protectionism is what characterized the Nazi economy more than anything else. Does this look familiar? "[fill in your country here] first!" Does this ring a bell yet? But the defenders of the whole "Nazis were socialists" trope have more to say: "But Hitler and Mussolini both ran large welfare-states!" Sigh... This is getting (and has been for decades now) tiresome; after only a minimal effort to check these irrational claims it appears that the exact opposite is true. Hitler all but dismantled what social safety net there was amidst the depression and the war reparations Germany had to pay after The Great War; the working hours and rationing mentioned in the previous quote were not the result of a generous social safety net payed for by the government...
Each and every argument brought forward to conflate socialism with fascism betrays the incapability to recognize them both for what they are. Therefore I'll try and explain their fundamental differences in another way that should be even more obvious; historically, fascism has always been a reactionary movement in opposition of the political left. This is another reason why fascism always seamlessly blends with the culture in which it arises, which in turn makes it even harder to recognize when you're part of that culture. That's why fascism always evolves around a "strong leader" who's authoritarianism is applauded, because he (it's always a "he" I'm afraid) uses his power to protect those who love their country against external threats imposed on them by the progressive politics from the internationalists who seek to destroy their cultural heritage.
I've always understood fascism as such, as a violent reaction to leftist, progressive politics. But especially for you, dear reader, I've looked it up, just to make sure, and found this article on the "intellectual origins" of fascism in the Encyclopaedia Britannica:
Many fascist ideas derived from the reactionary backlash to the progressive revolutions of 1789, 1830, 1848, and 1871 and to the secular liberalism and social radicalism that accompanied these upheavals. De Maistre condemned the 18th-century Enlightenment for having subverted the dominance of traditional religion and traditional elites and paid homage to the public executioner as the protector of a divinely sanctioned social hierarchy. Taine lamented the rise to power of the masses, whom he suggested were at a lower stage of biological evolution than aristocrats. Le Bon wrote a primer on how to divert the barbarism of the masses from revolution to reaction. Barrès fused ethnic rootedness with authoritarian nationalism and contended that too much civilization led to decadence and that hatred and violence were energizing remedies.
source: Encyclopaedia Britannica
In the section titled "Common characteristics of fascist movements" we find the following chapters: "Opposition to Marxism," "Opposition to parliamentary democracy," "Opposition to political and cultural liberalism," "Totalitarian ambitions," "Conservative economic programs," and "Corporatism." Does that come across as a leftist or progressive agenda? There are more: "Alleged equality of social status," "Imperialism," "Military values," "Extreme nationalism," "Scapegoating," "Populism," and "Sexism and misogyny." Literally every possible characteristic of fascism is anti-left. Or anti-windmills; there is no such thing as cultural Marxism, it was already a phantom when the Nazis first thought it up. There is however that ominous mix of (extreme) nationalism, scapegoating, populism, sexism and misogyny going on in modern right-wing discourse. There's a world-wide backlash against globalization, understandably so, but for all the wrong reasons; leftist politics was NOT the author of the type of globalization that's been imposed on us, but, again, the exact opposite. What we're witnessing here, as far as I'm able to understand from my little room in the attic, is a backlash against the neoliberal world economic experiment, born from the political backlash against FDR's leftist "New Deal" that started a worldwide process of the economical disenfranchisement of the middle-class. In the west that is.
Okay, that's it for today; excuse the long rant, dear reader. It's just that I'm sure that only a video isn't enough to convince anyone who's bought in to the idea that modern day fascism isn't a problem, that political leaders like Trump and Boris Johnson are but harmless clowns who's 15 minutes of fame will soon pass, or even that they're doing any good at all and want them to stay. These men aren't full-on Nazis, and they never will be, because fascism always takes on the form of the culture it rises in. Like Cody in the below video explains, if fascism is allowed to develop further in America, it'll be fascism with an American face. These men aren't Hitler, but I see in them, in their rise to power and in their rhetoric as well as in the circumstances under which they gained such popularity, enough similarities with what happened before to be worried about which direction we'll take as modern societies in the near future. And this is on top of the myriad of unique challenges we'll face in our time and that of our children, like how will we deal with A.I., deepfakes, climate change, the crypto world economy..? We live in exciting times, we're just now discovering how miraculous our existence really is, scientific and technological developments allow us to imagine a tomorrow without scarcity, a tomorrow in which every individual is allowed and enabled to develop their own talents and interests, aided by the best and most durable technology we've ever had... It would be such a shame to squander it all, or to set us back decades or even centuries because we repeat the same mistakes, but now with a much bigger capability for destruction... Please enjoy the video; I promise it is a lot less depressing than reading this post:
Thanks so much for visiting my blog and reading my posts dear reader, I appreciate that a lot :-) If you like my content, please consider leaving a comment, upvote or resteem. I'll be back here tomorrow and sincerely hope you'll join me. Until then, keep steeming!
| Latest article >>>>>>>>>>> | (Soy) Boys Don't Cry |
|---|---|
| The End Is Nye!! | Why Is Patriotism? |
| I Hate Puppets! | Good Intentions... |
| Reclaiming The Fourth Estate | Inconvenient Fact-Check |
Thanks for stopping by and reading. If you really liked this content, if you disagree (or if you do agree), please leave a comment. Of course, upvotes, follows, resteems are all greatly appreciated, but nothing brings me and you more growth than sharing our ideas. It's what Steemit is made for!
@helpie , please drop a comment on THIS POST or contact @paintingangels on discord at paintingangels(serena)#3668.@helpie is a WITNESS now! So please help @helpie help you by voting for us here!