I said in a previous post that fascism and communism (as they’ve been practiced) are basically twins that share more similarities than differences. When I refer to them as on “opposing” sides of the economic systems model, perhaps it could be better expressed as a full circle than a straight line, with democratic systems falling between the two totalitarian extremes.
Or perhaps it would be best expressed as a “U-shaped” model where “fascism” and “communism” are represented as belonging on one side of the spectrum, opposing all democratic systems of governance. We know that communism and fascism (in practice) have joined forces with one another in attempts to stamp out centrist dissidence, so this model makes the most sense to me. Some would say “fascism” and “communism” actually overlap or blend together at times.
So what do they consist of and in what ways do they differ? More importantly, in what ways are they similar?
According to WikiAnswers:
First, both communism and fascism are types of authoritarian rule, where the interests and freedoms of the individual are subordinated to those of the state, and quite frequently a powerful leader.
Let me stop there to remind us that authoritarian styles of governance are not always unwanted or undemocratic. Sometimes a touch of authoritarianism is needed, or even desirable. But where do we draw the line, ensuring it does not become too oppressive?
Secondly, in many cases both fascist and communist rule are bolstered by a highly powerful military apparatus, as a way to stifle opposition. Thirdly, both types of government are statist, in that the central government has some degree of control over the economic means of production (as opposed to, say a free market, or laissez-faire economy as in the US), and also oftentimes social policy.
However, there are also notable differences.
Fascism tends to be driven by nationalistic or ethnic divisions. For example, Hitler’s NAZI party used populist appeals to ethnic divisions in Germany- especially hatred towards Jews- as a way to gain popular support.
Secondly, fascism has strong corporatist elements, where the government has significant control over private enterprise, but does not entirely co-opt it (as in, say, communism). The NAZIs, for example, considered themselves a “Third Way” between laissez-faire capitalism and socialism, in that rather than completely nationalizing industry and taking over the means of production, the government had a very powerful influence.
According to a post on Strike the Root:
The difference between fascism and communism is that in communism, the state owns everything outright; in fascism, a thin veneer of private ownership is maintained while the state exercises absolute control over industry. So the biggest difference between communism and fascism, which are both state socialistic governments, is that communism is complete state ownership, while fascism is complete state control. In economic and political effect, both are remarkably similar, and both oppose true free markets. Both communism and fascism value collectivism over individualism, and see the state as the ultimate expression of good, with the individual only existing to serve the state. Both communism and fascism have given rise to totalitarian police states, where the freedoms of individuals were sacrificed for the good of the state. In both communism and fascism, the state is everything, the individual is nothing. It is interesting to note that though both communism and fascism claim to be ideological enemies and complete opposites, for someone who values individual freedom and free markets, there is really no difference.
The articles goes on to say:
In Milton Friedman Unraveled, Murray Rothbard shows that there can be quite a difference between those who claim to support free markets and what they actually support. The section on Friedman’s Chicagoite Egalitarianism is especially illuminating, and contains the following insights: “The idea is that there are two sharply separated and independent worlds of economics. On the one hand, there is the ‘micro’ sphere, the world of individual prices determined by the forces of supply and demand. Here, the Chicagoans concede, the economy is best left to the unhampered play of the free market. But, they assert, there is also a separate and distinct sphere of ‘macro’ economics, of economic aggregates of government budget and monetary policy, where there is no possibility or even desirability of a free market . . . . In common with their Keynesian colleagues, the Friedmanites wish to give to the central government absolute control over these macro areas, in order to manipulate the economy for social ends, while maintaining that the micro world can still remain free. In short, Friedmanites as well as Keynesians concede the vital macro sphere to statism as the supposedly necessary framework for the micro-freedom of the free market.” This is currently how democratic “free market” nation-states operate, and is very close or identical to the economic model of fascist state control. In truth, democratic socialist nation-states have mostly shunned state ownership of industries (communism), and have increasingly turned to privatization of state assets, while maintaining and increasing strict control of industries through legislation (fascism).
The relationship between the state and corporations that support the state is often termed “state capitalism.” Though there are others terms, like corporatism, that are also used, state capitalism fully denotes the illegal use of the state to fund capitalism. In state capitalism, the power of the state is used to create favorable legislation that rewards the politically well connected with legal plunder by eliminating or reducing competition and requiring that certain products be purchased or funded. State capitalism is the antithesis to free market capitalism. As Murray Rothbard denotes in A Future of Peace and Capitalism, “The difference between free-market capitalism and state capitalism is precisely the difference between, on the one hand, peaceful, voluntary exchange, and on the other, violent expropriation.”
Perhaps confusion would be lessened if we simply called fascism and communism (as they’ve been practiced) what they truly are: totalitarian forms of government.
Few can agree on a definition of “communism” because what Karl Marx envisioned never was put into practice; we know what came to be known as “communism” were brutal, authoritarian regimes. “Fascism” is equally as confusing when we attempt to assign the label to German Nazism, Mussolini’s Italian regime and Soviet Stalinism, but can’t we agree that all of these regimes proved to be brutal and authoritarian? In other words, what all of these forms of governance have in common, regardless of their attached labels, is that they’re oppressive toward people. They stifle dissent. They reduce or eliminate civil liberties as it suits the leaders’ interests. Their governments, in one way or another, involve exerting tremendous influence, if not outright control, over the economic sector. They all can be considered Big Government models, and each uses military might to reach its objectives, both domestically (think paramilitary or secret police forces) and against foreign entities/nations.
The real differences appear to be the means in which the end is reached, but once the end is realized those appear to be little more than nuances since the outcome is virtually identical. If not exactly identical, they’re perceived as being as much by freedom-loving individuals since all possible ends to brutal, authoritarian forms of government result in mass oppression of people and the reduction of civil liberties. What’s the real difference in that? The government oppresses you directly or conspires with Big Business to do so.
Trivialities, if you ask me.
Wikipedia describes Totalitarianism this way:
Totalitarianism (or totalitarian rule) is a concept used to describe political systems where a state regulates nearly every aspect of public and private life. The term is usually applied to Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany or communist states, such as Stalinist Russia, Democratic Kampuchea, Vietnam, Mao-ere China, Cuba and North Korea. Totalitarian regimes or movements maintain themselves in political power by means of an official all-embracing ideology and propaganda disseminated through the state-controlled mass media, a single party that controls the state, personality cults, central state-controlled economy, regulation and restriction of free discussion and criticism, the use of mass surveillance, and widespread use of terror tactics.
Sounds faintly familiar.
Newsvine
