Were the fascists / are they socialists?
From time to time a few goats appear who, in the midst of an otherwise serious discussion, come up with the bullshit that the fascists were somehow "socialists". Let's see why it's a solemn cowgirl.
To proceed in order, it is first necessary to agree on the concept of originality. In short, if the Vespa is what Piaggio makes, then its imitation made in Bangladesh is not the real Vespa. And if the Prosecco is the one originally born in Valdobbiadene, then the Prosek is not.
Having established that we agree on the concept of the originality of something, then socialism is that thing that Marx and Engels have defined, or at least begun to define.
There are no others. Or rather, there are, just as there is a Vespa made in Bangladesh by a former tandoori cook.
Obviously Marx and Engels arrive too early to have opinions on fascism itself, but we quickly notice in their work that they have opinions that prevent any compatibility with fascism and Nazism.
First I should point out that those who speak of fascism as socialist in describing fascism and Nazism have the Salazar regime in mind. (who despised both Mussolini and Hitler, by the way).
But even assuming this, not even Salazar can call himself a socialist, nor has he ever tried to define himself as such, being a nationalist Catholic.
But let's move on. Let us also suppose that modern fascists stop talking about Hitler and Mussolini by describing Salazar.
What do Marx and Engels write about it?
Well, first of all, if we are referring to the political side of socialism, their theory has at least THREE things that exclude fascists from the socialist list.
First of all, in socialism the private ownership of the means of production is considered a crime to be erased in the blood.
So, you can jump through hoops you want, but socialism opposes the idea of private property when it comes to means of production. For the socialist, the industrialist must be expropriated from the ownership of the means of production, which go to the state.
And again with regard to somersaults, you will have to agree that neither Hitler nor Mussolini have ever been so active in this direction. Indeed, if there is anyone whose private property was protected during their regimes, it was precisely those who owned means of production, such as industries.
It would be enough to bring the issue of private property into the field to exclude Mussolini and Hitler (and the fascists in general) from the ranks of socialists. I could close the question here.
But that's not the only thing worth noting.
The second thing that is fundamental in socialist thought is the CLASS STRUGGLE. The idea, that is, that the oppressed classes had to fight, even by force, or with strikes, or with revolts, to make a violent revolution and implement the dictatorship of the proletariat, and expropriate the rich of their private property .
We are not here at all: if there is one thing that the fascists and the Nazis did it was to SUPPRESS the strikes, revolts and occupations of the socialists. for this reason, we can say that fascisms are THE CONTRARY of socialisms.
It is historical fact that the German Spartacist revolts were repressed by the SA and the Frei Korps, just as it was the fascist squads who repressed those in Parma.
Nor does the story according to which Mussolini "was a socialist before" hold up: in reality Mussolini did not actively participate in any strike, occupation or revolt. He just talked. As a socialist, he would rather have said he was a liar, but we must remember that he did not even participate in the march on Rome, which would deserve a different adjective: coward.
In any case, we cannot take away from socialism neither the struggle against private property, nor the class struggle. These are two founding pillars without which socialism cannot exist.
If you believe in private property and / or that there is no need for a class struggle, you CANNOT be called a "socialist". Point.
There is no way, because socialism is developed as a "theory", and if you remove the foundation, the theory no longer stands.
And so we are at the point: a government that, like the fascists, protects the private property of the rich and stifles the class struggle, by definition is the enemy of socialism. Point.
The third point is the aversion to capitalism as a system, in all its expressions. This is a pillar of Marxism.
But no fascist has ever fought capitalism, in any way. They got rid of some capitalis that were against them, but nothing more. Indeed, both Mussolini and Hitler worked hard to ensure that capitalism remained in force , and the holders of cash could become business owners: just think of the privatizations of Mussolini and Hitler.
Here, if you do not want to take away the surplus value accumulated by the capitalists in their hands (and often kill the capitalists themselves) you are not "socialists". And you can't be in the meaning that the original authors had.
I know that now there will be the usual ignorant objections: let's go and throw it back in the goats' throats.
- "But Mussolini did a lot for welfare".
Too bad that the socialism of Marx and Engels, that is the only foundation that exists, NEVER asked for any "welfare". And to say it all, both Marx and Engels thought rather badly.
Welfare by definition is a system parallel to capitalism which collects money through taxes and then gives it to the lower classes. But Marx and Engels, those who have the copyright of the word "socialist", did not look favorably upon it. In the USSR there was no "welfare", the state simply owned everything. He did not use the taxes of the rich to give money to the poor, he simply owned all the money and all the wealth.
Neither Marx nor Engels NEVER proposed welfare as a solution, indeed they despised it as alms, so the mere fact of wanting welfare DOES NOT make you socialists. On the contrary.
2. "But Mussolini and Hitler did a lot for the poor".
Except that that was Salazar, a government agency that does something for the poor is NOT "socialist". The dictionary could perhaps define it as "social", but it has little to do with socialism. In the socialism of those who invented it, the poor do not receive money from the government, the poor ARE the government. They don't "get", they just "own" that money.
And as you can see, neither Hitler nor Mussolini ever did anything like this.
3. But there is also social democracy.
But social democracy for Marx and Engels was something that was as good as prostate cancer. That there are ordoliberal governments and that the appropriate parties call themselves "socialists" is one thing, that they are is a different thing. Defining Schroeder a "socialist" works as much as saying that a wasp is basically a "light train". Ok, if you want to believe it, do it, but a lot of people will laugh.
same thing for the objection:
3. so much so that Hitler's party called itself a "socialist".
I call myself gifted and porn star, but nobody believes it. And even when I called myself “Moana Pozzi's secret boyfriend” it didn't work out that much. He snubbed me.
This must have something to do with the fact that it is not enough to define oneself in some way to be . Berlusconi called himself "Worker" and his were "elegant dinners", but in fact, defining himself in some way does not change reality. And fucking minors is not elegant.
Thus, the mere fact that Hitler called himself a socialist matters little. After all, he called himself an artist, but he only painted fucking pictures: he is better off in Pisa than those who sell landscapes made with watercolor.
4. Mussolini and Hitler militated in socialist formations.
It is not clear which socialist formation Hitler has ever militated in, and honestly, the term "military" does not even suit Mussolini: in those days being a socialist meant participating in riots, riots and riots , and it does not appear that Mussolini ever did done. For a while Mussolini wrote and spoke as if he were a socialist, except for the fact that for what he said and wrote … the socialists expelled him.
But the fact remains that in that period the socialists did other things, namely strikes, riots and riots, and being debating for a socialist newspaper is worth, in this regard, as much as calculating the square root of Valentina Nappi: it only serves to masturbate, and not it's not even the best method.
5. But Mussolini and Hitler did not come from bourgeois families.
Not even Charlemagne came from a middle-class family, but that doesn't make him a socialist. And the same can be said for other leaders of humble origins, such as Margaret Thatcher, who is difficult to define as "socialist".
Just because you don't come from a middle-class family doesn't make you a "socialist". To say it all, Marx was the son of a wealthy lawyer and Engels was the son of a wealthy industrialist. And they were socialists. That's right.
6. But this is your storyline. In my alternate storyline it's different.
Historically, all the alternative fascist storylines all end in the same place. The point where Dresden is burning, Berlin is in ruins, and a horde of Slavs are raping millions of women, while on the other side the French, Gurkas and Americans do about the same in the west, including Italy.
If you want to have your alternative storyline go ahead, but even in this Marx and Engels are not with you, since when he writes about historicity Marx is quite clear in distinguishing ideology (the jerking you do on your comfortable sofa after having eaten in abundance) from material history (the couch itself and the food you ate, but without the saws you do) .
So I'm sorry, but you'll have to get over it: socialism and fascism NOT ONLY have NOTHING in common, but they are adverse on at least THREE topics (class struggle, private property, anti-capitalism) that do not allow them to be compared, and there cannot be "Socialism" without these three things.
Only if you are an American goat can you believe it, but remember that right now the goats themselves are denying that the Roman Empire ever existed, attributing it to a conspiracy of the patriarchy.
And if you say that fascism was "socialist", you are not very different.