Socialism and Fascism

 

 

Introduction

Socialism and Fascism share some characteristics but are entirely different in other ways. The two ideologies took shape in reaction to what was viewed as the faults in liberalism. Socialists, who preceded fascists, criticized liberal democracy for the inequalities that had emerged among the people and in advanced nations. Fascists, on the other hand, believed that the tenets on which liberalism was based were incorrect. Hence, we can compare and contrast socialist and fascist criticism of liberal democracy and their visions on how best to govern a nation.

Criticism of Liberal Democracy

Both socialism and fascism disagree with the liberals’ view on individualism. In a liberal democracy, society is made up of individuals who look out for their self-interests and adopt a laissez faire policy to pursue profits privately. This view is criticized by socialists, who believe that people are social creatures and must work in cooperation to achieve liberty and prosperity (Ball et al. 123). Fascists criticize individualism from the viewpoint of nationalism. This is the belief that people fall into distinct groups that form nations (Ball et al. 191). Gentile notes that in fascism, an individual finds a purpose and fulfillment in obedience (Gentile 292) According to the fascists, the nation takes precedence over the individual and it is only by coming together as a nation that true liberty can be experienced. Although both fascists and socialists are against liberalism, they differ in several other aspects. One of these is elitism.

Elitism is the view that society should be governed by a few elite individuals. Liberal democracy, on the contrary, maintains that people should govern themselves through a representative government led by democratically-elected leaders. For fascists, this idea is unacceptable. Elite theorists of the early twentieth century believed that society is, and will always be, ruled by a small group of leaders (Ball et al. 193). Subsequently, famous fascists such as Benito Mussolini of Italy adopted this ideology and implemented a totalitarian government. Socialists, on the other hand, support democracy, but in a different sense than liberal democracy. While liberal democracy is marked by policies that facilitate capitalism, socialist democracy allows the government to hinder capitalism in the quest for a classless society (Ball et al. 124). Besides elitism, fascists and socialists criticize liberalism on the issue of equality.

Liberalism calls for equality and freedom. This was the view of the classical liberals when they demanded minimal government interference and economic competition for all. However, during the industrial revolution, inequalities emerged as a consequence of capitalism. The rich steadily grew richer while the working-class was overworked, underpaid and poor. Socialists believe that such inequality should be corrected. They, therefore, call for equality of common people collectively, rather than that of the individual (Ball et al. 125). They believe this can be achieved through fighting capitalism. Fascists, on the other hand, find equality unnecessary and, at times, even distasteful. To them, equality promotes individual freedoms at the cost of the glory and greater good of  the nation. This disdain for individual equality and freedom is captured in Mussolini’s famous slogan “believe, obey, fight” (Ball et al. 187). Gentile addresses this issue by stating that for fascism, freedom has no importance except in the context of the state (Gentile 293). Hence, both socialist and fascist ideologies are against liberalism based on equality and freedom, but in quite different ways.

A study of the criticisms makes it evident that socialists and fascists are opposed to liberal democracy. Socialist and fascist views on individualism, governance, and equality do not resonate with the liberal political ideology. Fascists and socialists have their own vision of how best to govern a nation and are guided by the end goals of their ideologies. The socialists’ end goal is to fulfill human needs through such means as will ensure that all workers get a fair share of the product (Ball et al. 126). For fascists, the end goal is to obtain power and glory for the state (Ball et al. 199). One similarity between the two is that more power and authority rest with the government for the collective good in a socialist economy, and national glory in a fascist regime.

The Vision of How Best to Govern a Nation

Totalitarianism is the mode of governance for fascists and, in many ways, for socialists as well. Socialism requires that the state should own and control property for collective benefit (Ball et al. 123). Such control is exercised by a centralized or decentralized government. The result is a society where the government has the power to plan, manage, and coordinate the country’s economy (Ball et al. 124). Fascist governments, on the other hand, vest power in a few elites or even one individual to lead the nation to more power and glory. The people are expected to follow the vision of the leader without question as was the case with Nazi Germany under Hitler. Such kind of governance is, therefore, plainly dictatorial. Fascist leaders also use apparatus such as educational institutions and communication systems to control the masses (Althusser 143). One difference between fascist and socialist governance is the main agenda of each of the governments.

Socialist governance is mainly aimed at the economy. By controlling and coordinating economic activities, socialists believe that they can eliminate capitalism and the ills that result from it. This is meant to ensure freedom for all. On the other hand, the main agenda for fascist governments is achieving more power for the nation. This was proved by both Mussolini and Hitler who were obsessed with creating empires. For these fascists, the economy was not a major agenda. Mussolini’s Italy, for instance, was filled with corruption (Ball et al. 200). Ardent notes that fascism is all about a movement accompanied by terror to achieve an agenda dictated by an individual (Arendt 310)

Another contrast between fascist and socialist governance can be seen in their views and treatment of differences in people. Both apartheid rule in South Africa and Nazi rule in Germany had one thing in common: people are not alike (Ball et al. 190). This motivated the discrimination against the blacks by Afrikaners and the Jews by “Aryan” Germans. Many fascists, including contemporary ones, believe that whites are a superior race to others such as blacks. Therefore, it is common for fascist governance to discriminate based on race and ethnicity. Socialist governance, on the other hand, is devoid of such concerns. Rather than focusing on nationalism, socialists focus on social class divisions which they insist must be eliminated.

Finally, it is important to look at the liberties that these governments assure their people. Socialists aim for the freedom of the community while fascists place a premium on the nation’s freedom. Socialist governments work to facilitate freedom, at least in theory, in the form of a fair share of the profits, fulfilling work, and equal opportunities to develop talents (Ball et al. 125), and achieve this by taking full control of the economy. Fascists view liberty in a completely different light. According to fascists, true freedom and fulfillment can only be achieved by serving the state (Ball et al. 199). Hence, fascist governments demand the unwavering and unquestioning loyalty of the people.

Conclusion

Socialists and fascists, similar in some ways and different in others, developed as a reaction against the political ideology of liberalism. Hence it is possible to compare and contrast their criticism of liberal democracy. These two ideologies formulated what they considered the best way to govern a nation, while avoiding the pitfalls of liberalism. However, history has shown us that these ideologies, which favor an all-powerful state, take control and become restrictive and dictatorial in the name of the greater good of the people and have not been successful or endured for long. On the other hand, even liberal democracies aid and assist citizens through welfare schemes and processes that are undeniably socialist in essence. This information enables us to understand why fascists such as Hitler committed unspeakable atrocities, why Russia indulged in socialism, or even question whether capitalism is the best social, economic and political system of governance.

Work Cited

Althusser, Louis. “Ideology and ideological state apparatuses (notes towards an investigation).” The anthropology of the state: A reader, vol.9, no.1, 2006, pp. 127-186.

Arendt, Hannah. “Ideology and terror: A novel form of government.” The Review of Politics, vol.15, no.3, 1953, pp. 303-327.

Ball, Terence, et al. Political Ideologies and the Democratic Ideal. Taylor & Francis, 2016.

Gentile, Giovanni. “The philosophic basis of fascism.” Foreign Affairs, vol. 2, no. 6, 1927, pp. 290-304.