Can a fascist support free market capitalism?
No.35. What is the difference between Fascism and Capitalism, since both admit the system of private enterprise ?In brief definition, Capitalism is the system by which capital uses the Nation for its own purposes. Fascism is the system by which the Nation uses capital for its own purposes. Private enterprise is permitted and encouraged so long as it coincides with the national interests. Private enterprise is not permitted when it conflicts with national interests. Under Fascism private enterprise may serve but not exploit. This is secured by the Corporative System, which lays down the limits within which industry may operate, and those limits are the welfare of the Nation.From Oswald Moseley, Fascism: 100 Questions Asked and Answered. Moseley was a British M.P. who broke from the Labour Party and formed the British Union of Fascists in the 1930s.
Do you support Crony Capitalism?
Nah, I would rather work for my Communist union comrades, or lay around and draw unemployment, welfare and food stamps and let you educate and pay for my kids and my house. (Sarcasm) I never worked for a poor man.
Did fascism allow capitalism and religion?
Yes.Fascism is anti-communist, anti-socialist, anti-anarchist, anti-unionist, ultra nationalist, anti-democratic, authoritarian, militant, and backed by big business. It’s somewhat of a corporate takeover of government. The only thing separating some right wing capitalist religious folks from being outright fascists is that they still support having elections.
Why do some Leftists support capitalism & the free market?
“Leftist” is a vague term and most people who use it capitalized are politically ignorant (“Left” isn't a proper noun like “Marx” or “Trotsky”). People on the political left, in the American context, range from Elizabeth Warren and other progressive Democrats to Noam Chomsky or Kshama Sawant or other socialist activists. So there's a lot of political and intellectual terrain here, and many people to the left of the Democratic Party establishment (which is itself centrist, compared to the last century of American politics) disagree vehemently with each other.People on the left who accept market-based distribution of goods generally do so for one of the following reasons:They accept capitalism as long as the wealth that capitalism produces keeps some important social programs running.This is called “social democracy” and includes most of the American labor movement, the left wing of the Democratic Party, etc. These people don't accept the critiques of capital advanced by Marx and others, and they therefore support private ownership of businesses and large property. Since they recognize that markets often involve terrible short-term human costs in the long-term production of wealth, they also support some level of regulation and redistribution to mitigate the human costs of markets.They recognize the efficiency of markets in aggregating preferences, even while partially rejecting capitalism as such.A lot of “left-libertarian” types don't think that the large-scale relationship of capital to labor is acceptable, so they partially rejecting the role of capital in producing wealth. However, markets aggregate individual preferences more efficiently than command economies probably ever can. So even in a society where large businesses were publicly or worker owned, markets might still be desirable to coordinate production and consumption.They hope to eliminate private ownership of capital and markets in the future, but focus on politically achievable projects in the present.This is pretty simple: few people expect some kind of revolutionary change in how we own and distribute the means of production, so one might believe that such goals should be delayed in favor of reducing spending on wars, corporate welfare, etc in favor of redistribution, health care, and education. Since the more achievable political goals are compatible with a capitalist economic system, there's no need to make noise about some kind of imaginary future political project.
Is fascism an extreme form of capitalism or a separate economic system of its own?
Capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production for the purpose of profit. Any other free market liberal gloss you put on it is misleading at best and straight up propaganda at worst. These things are voluntary additions to a capitalist method of production, not intrinsic to it.When looked at from this original definition of capitalism then you could probably make a theoretical argument that fascism is unrelated to capitalism as the State owns the means of production rather than private interests, but the State in practice in a fascist system does not mean the public. It means a very select few interests controlling large monopolies that enforce their will on everyone else but under the guise of benefiting the nation. Which sounds like late stage capitalism dressed up in nationalist clothes.Socialism does not also always mean state control of the economy. The whole school of Anarchism makes this clear. In fact, it could be argued that true socialism only comes about when the state is dissolved, as hierarchies still exist within the state. What we think of as socialist or communist historic governments are most of the time merely state capitalist (look at China today).
Socialism vs Communism vs Fascism vs Capitalism?? ?
Socialism is a method of governing where the government controls goods and resources and decides for the people who needs what and everyone will work for the good of the people as oppsoed for their own wants/needs. It's unrealistic as it discounts human nature (hence why the Soviet Union failed and China is becoming capitalist) Fascisim is a method of governing that implies total government control and oppression of all dissenting opinions Capitalism is a method where individuals and companies control the distribution of goods and market forces. It drives competition and innovation as people act on the basic human nature Communism is a philosophy that all socio-economic structures will eventually evolve to the point where all people are equal and will provide for each other based on needs and not on greed or a desire for power. As the communes of the 60's prove this is an impossible ideal as it's totally contrary to human nature. So neither of you are right - the Nazi's were socialists just like the Russians - The Nazi's didn't attack them because of ideological differences, the Nazi's attacked them because they wanted to be in charge. The Nazi's were also fascists but so were the Russians (to enforce a Socialist society you pretty much have to be fascist). Despite what a lot of liberals in the US will tell you the US is not fascist yet and neither are the Republicans... a fascist government would supress freedom of speech (like the fairness doctrine will do). No country is 100% capitalist. If you count the black market, no country is 100% socialist either. There has never been a true Communist country.... countries call themselves by what their "ideal" government would be. That's why socialist China and Russia call themselves Communist while the U.S. calls themselves a capitalist democracy (we're actually a semi-Socialist Republic). As most major countries are realizing it takes a mixture of all factors to properly govern and last.