I feel there may be some confusion about the relation of economic power, property, business, markets, to fascism, perhaps caused by a determined and ongoing conservative, right wing rhetorical effort to inaptly cast fascism as communism. Let’s discuss it this week.
First, let’s get something out of the way. Both fascism and communism are authoritarian, anti-democracy movements led by aggressive, power hungry “vanguards” who suppose they know better than the voters and are supported by people who agree with them or are complacent, indolent, indifferent. That’s the kernel of truth to conservative rhetorical efforts to associate fascism with communism. Now let’s discuss why they’re different focusing on their views on economic power, markets, the allocation of resources, that sort of thing, and why conservatives resort to such subterfuge.
Fascism is a conservative, right wing, anti-left movement all about economic power, private property, markets, businesses, stock markets, rich people, and on. Communism is, economically at least, a left wing movement focused on alternative views on how best to allocate scarce resources. Obviously, the allocation of scarce resources, who gets what and why, is very important, which is why historically fascists and communists have always been, at the end of the day, deadly enemies despite their shared disdain for what they both see as weak, ineffective, unnecessary democracy. Thus, for example, fascists back in its European heyday, as the Nazis for example, supported private property, economic power, business, corporations, markets, rich people. They were meant to defend conservative values against left wing views including when delivered by voters in a democracy. Modern US fascists are very much the same. Under the US Constitution, voters may provide normative inputs to economic policy relating to economic values, goals, objectives, evaluation. They may revise the distribution of economic power, use or reject markets in some or all cases, regulate, etc. US conservative, Republican fascists cannot accept that. They perceive voters and democratic government as potential threats that must be stopped and the US Constitution as something that must be terminated because it allows such a threat. When voters agree conservative economic views, conservatives are happy to support democracy as legitimizing their views, but make no mistake, for them pursuing their economic views is not legitimized by democracy but rather democracy is legitimized by congruence with their economic views. US conservatives are fair weather friends of democracy. When winning, they’re meant to be representative of 18th century anti-monarchical “classical liberalism” including its unresolved tensions between democracy and markets, when losing, democracy is out but still they inaptly claim the title.
There are, of course, some relatively superficial differences between the old European fascist and modern US fascist take on conservative economics. Old European fascism was meant to be a paternalistic affair in which ostensibly naturally superior economic elites wisely ruled an organic society. They were meant to want to fix up any rough spots in otherwise free market systems, encourage private firms to care for workers, direct their fascist government to look after the welfare of all under their Great Daddy, the Leader, who was meant to care nothing for himself, only the nation, etc. Modern US fascism is a bit vague and coy on such issues, particularly the moral significance of economic power as evincing ethical merit, but even more importantly whether the rich are meant to then pretend an interest in woke, socialistic, welfare state goals like the welfare of others, society. But it’s not a very significant issue, more a rhetorical curiosity than anything else. In US fascism, one finds all sorts. Are ostensibly naturally superior rich people meant to rule as wise heads of the social family, so rich they’re no longer concerned about money, become philosopher kings? Or are rich people and their fascist government meant to rule like selfish, egoistic bastards because the magic of the marketplace means when they do that everyone else is helped as well, social welfare is maximized? Alternatively, is what happens to other people, social welfare, irrelevant? Modern US fascism is a Big Tent affair. It doesn’t really matter why one hates democracy, wants to terminate the US Constitution, as long as one supports authoritarian government by the rich, the economically powerful, the establishment elite, while keeping out the hoi polloi, voters, the poor.
Want to work out if you’re a fascist or not? Do you support democracy and the right of voters under the US Constitution to deliver views on laws about economic power, markets, property, regulations, economic goals, economic evaluation, and so on, that is, the allocation of resources? Then no. Or do you suppose, contra the US Constitution, one must prevent voters “interfering” or “distorting” the one true take on laws relating to economic power, property, markets, allocation of resources, and one must thus oppose democracy, terminate the US Constitution if necessary? Then yes.
To conclude, contra US conservative rhetoric, supporting conservative views on economics, economic values, policy, objectives, evaluation is consistent with being a fascist, if one rejects democracy to promote such views. Fascism is not communism. Fascism opposes both communism and democracy.
