I don’t think I’ve ever heard that definition of socialism before. I gave the American Heritage definition of socialism earlier in the thread, which was ‘the state controlling the means of production and distribution’. Does that mesh well with your understanding of socialism?
No, that definition is inherently incongruent with my understanding - that is Communism as I understand. In Socialism, the means of production is controlled by the workers, businesses are similar to co-operatives.
There can be structural hierarchies within, but workers have democratic input on the direction of the means of production. By definition today, the U.S. (while implementing social policy) is not Socialist, the Capitalist structure ensures the worker is subjugated. The worker has no bearing on the direction of the company, and thus democratic voice in the work place.
Most countries adopted the ideals of popular framework of socialism (the classic Marxian sense) to some degree after WW2, they put the worker at the heart and center of the society. Through unions, workers were the central organizing unit of society - they demanded political reforms, and thus society was geared towards making the lives of the middle class/working class better. There was excellent public healthcare, great public schools, cheap universities in the 50s, 60s and 70s. So… although Socialism didn’t win and was stomped out, it was only by adopting the frameworks (by having unions that fought for the rights of the workers) would the public accept this, as their lives would improve.
That is, until the 80s, with ‘The Revolt of the Elite’, and the rise of Neoliberalism. Here is where the worker was slipped away, and the Consumer became the organizing unit of society. The mentality of the consumer, infected the minds of the masses, and it’s consequences have fundamentally changed our society. Today unions have no significant power, society is catered to the elite, while the middle class and especially the working class are left to ROT.
Corporatism is the public ownership of a business. It’s in the name, corpo, body, the people, the state…the state controlling the means of production.
Corporatism was one of the main tenets of Mussolini’s Fascism. I mangled my neurons, because ‘Italian Fascism’ is fascism in the as is ‘National Socialism’ modern sense.
As to why Corporatism was present in Mussolini’s Italy but not Hitler’s Germany, this was because of two main things:
- They did not serve the goals of the Nazi state, rearmament and external power.
- Germany’s labor market was already controlled by trusts, combines and cartels covering the whole economy with a network of authoritarian organizations
- the business leaders were powerful enough to impede the implementation of the NSDAP’s 1920 Program’s corporatist proposal.
- these organizations supported the goals and aims of the Nazi state anyway, just like is happening in the US today.
Either way, what is happening in the US right now is more similarly Corporatocracy, which is what I actually meant the Nazis were engaged in when I made my comment. They essentially pioneered authoritarian capitalism.
Not trying to be difficult by asking this, but how are you defining fascism? And how are you defining ‘far-right’?
Fascism as in the Cambridge definition:
- a political system based on a very powerful leader, state control of social and economic life, and extreme pride in country and race, with no expression of political disagreement allowed
While some people escaped Germany and lived fine in Italy, that does not indicate any specific traits of those countries, as the person who escaped Germany could have just been Italian… They were at odds with each other because they are/were unique nations with differing material conditions to bring forth different outcomes. A-la how Corporatism was present in one, but never came to fruition in the other.
Fascism is a ‘far-right’, authoritarian and ultranationalist political ideology.
‘Far-right’ refers to right-wing extremism. A range of ideologies marked by ultraconservatism, authoritarianism, ultranationalism, radical anticommunism and nativism. It distinguishes itself from more mainstream right-wing ideology by its opposition to liberal democratic norms and emphasis on exclusivist views.
- Reactionary conservatism, fascism, Nazism, white-supremacy and other movements characterized by chauvinism, xenophobia, and theocratic or reactionary beliefs.
The left/right thing has always been an overly simplistic way to classify policies and political movements to me. The Nazis did align themselves with a powerful conservative party during their rise to power and disallowed the socialist and communist parties from participating in the government, but they also implemented a great deal of social welfare programs, unemployment programs, brought woman into positions of power within the government, allowed woman the right to vote as well, and had state funded vacations for citizens. I don’t know if you can classify all of that as right wing or not, maybe you can, I don’t know 🤷♀️
While it is, yes, an overly simplistic division tactic, it’s ubiquity throughout society means it is unavoidable. People have tried to improve on it (with the 2-axis political spectrum), but it is insufficient, has created worse problems, and probably was an even further division tactic.
The Nazis could align with the conservative party, because their politics are most alike. Because they both exist on the right side of the political spectrum. Disallowing political opposition as you describe, banning the opposite side of the spectrum, socialists and communists, is pure fascism.
Implementing social welfare programs and unemployment programs, is not inherently Socialist. Just because something benefits a subset of the population does not mean it it socialist. Furthermore, the reason for these benefits is not least to provide the necessary national myth of unity to hold the remaining society together.
When these benefits come off the backs off of an ethnic cleansing campaign, they can no longer be considered Socialist. Socialism would have required Nazi Germany to NOT have built an ethno-state to serve with those benefits, rather serving the entire existing community as democratically would benefit them the most.
Providing those benefits is also not inherently against a far-right ideology either, and thus isn’t evidence against them being on the right. Since every one of those benefits was only provided in an ultranationalist, anticommunist and nativist sense.
Welfare chauvinism is a common tenet of far-right ideology.
No, I do not believe the DPRK is democratic. Why do you ask?
I asked because I figured you were on the opposite side of the informed spectrum, like the majority who say the Nazis were socialist, saying they are simply because they have it in their name. I.E. the Democratic People’s Republics of Korea must be Democratic. However you are quite informed, with a curious perspective. So that gotcha fell flat 🤣
I’ll read and get back to you properly when I’m free