Socialism is Fascism
by
Matt Giwer (c) 1995 <3/10>
revised <3/26>

      I know the assertion in the title upsets liberals in that they know they are closet socialists and do not like hearing the truth. I have read their objections and now I am going to do a more complete treatment of this subject.
      There is no question that both Mussolini and Hitler considered themselves practical Marxists. There exist sufficient quotations from their own words and writings to support that contention. Where they differed from Marx, and as we know there are as many ways to implement Marxism as there are failures of it, was that they openly admitted that Marxism could not be imposed with any pretension of democracy. Thus they were unapologetic dictators.
      And it is clear that people are not Marxists at heart. It is not in human nature to live equally with all others without competition. All socialists and US liberals agree that social differences much be minimized. As with the present opening volley on affirmative action, they are supporting equality of results.
      The only way US liberals differ is that they are still not freely admitting that it is only by force that social differences can be minimized. What they hide behind is what they can not get democratically they will accept by judicial fiat that is undemocratic. They, like Mussolini and Hitler, fully understand that they must use the force of government to attain their ideals.
      The primary means of refusing to admit Socialism in Fascism is to point out that Fascists were dictators. But as just discussed they fully accept the use of democratic and undemocratic force to attain their ideals. What they focus on is the lack of democracy in Italy and Germany in those days while ignoring the use of force to impose social ideals.
      A side note here, the US Supreme Court was not granted the power in the Constitution to find laws unconstitutional. Nor was it granted any power to initiate judicial remedies. Its only power is judge the cases brought before it.
      This refusal of liberals to focus on the use of government force and instead focus upon the democratic, but at best extra-constitutional, use of force to impose their ideals, is only a diversion. They do support the use of the coercive power of the government to force people to behave as they wish. In this manner, they are promoting the idea that the government should have unlimited powers just as did those two unashamed dictators.
      The next obfuscation is to claim socialism is not a form of Marxism. The best they can do to support this claim is to point to some obscure social thinkers while ignoring where they got their ideas. But even granted that, the socialists early this century gave no signs of having ever heard of these obscure writers either.
      And the final obfuscation is to claim that socialism existed before Marx and therefore could not be founded upon Marx. This is one of the more interesting ones. Their examples are of communal living that in all cases failed save when there was some from of discipline, usually religious and most always iron, imposed upon the group. The early Christians are reported to have shared in common. Acts does not record why they abandoned the idea. From other examples in history we can see why. It does not work with free men.
      All monks might have been equal, eaten equally, dressed equally but there were always the small perqs of rank and age that prevent complete equality. In learning not to take the choicest of the meats from the community bowl he learned humility. He also learned the last to receive the bowl were the seniors and the best pieced had better be there for them. And of course the duties of looking after the business of the monastery severely limited their time in the fields.
      Not only were these pre-Marx examples hierarchal and not egalitarian, none held for mutual control of the means of production, only for voluntary shared contribution of talents and resources. Required anything to be taken from another. None held there was any social benefit to this life style but rather that it was spiritual, to leave the world, rather than to control it and its wealth.
      These were not the predecessors of the socialist derivative of Marxism. These were completely personal and voluntary. These were not considered the future state of all humans. These were not considered something that needed to be imposed to redress social wrongs. These were no more than a superficial resemblance to the socialist form of Marxism.
      And neither did Marx claim such an intellectual ancestry as they were pre-industrial revolution events and he was interested in addressing the landed nobility having the only access to the capital needed to exploit the industrial revolution. His view was that people who had always been able to exploit the land were unable to exploit the mineral resources of the land for lack of capital and eventually that would change.
      Today he might have said Yeoman Entrepreneurs without need of capitalization. He was not thinking of monks and farmland and going into the wine business.
      When you look at the composition of the socialist groups and the near socialist groups you find them littered with members who freely quoted the writings of Karl Marx. In other countries those openly calling themselves socialists and talking Marx met with varying degrees of success. Often, as in England, they had to call themselves the Labour Party or some such to avoid the Marxist identification.
      In the US, the parties with socialist in their names did not get very far. What happen in the Democrat Party, which today has lead to the "liberal" philosophy, is that they merely spoke of principles without ever mentioning their origins. This is demonstrated today in that liberals can only deal with emotion and can not rationally support their positions. That is because they have cut themselves off from their intellectual roots in Marxism.
      When asked why it is good to tax the rich and give to the poor they reply with emotion not reason. Either a heart rending appeal on the condition of the poor or an accusation the questioner is heartless. Had they not abandoned their Marxist roots they could simply point to their presumption that the industrial world is headed toward a classless society and that their policies are simply a result of social forces much as those supporting free enterprise point to equally undefinable market forces.
      But lacking intellectual roots they have only emotion to use. That a country should be operated based upon emotion rather than reason is not a position even liberals will openly support although they will continue to use only emotional justifications. It is not only understandable, it is easily explainable.
      But note there is not one idea liberals or admitted socialists promote that can not be traced back to Marxism. Nor is there one social idea of Mussolini and Hitler they did not admit came from Marxism. The only difference is in the admission or denial that force in necessary to impose their ideas.