To say that both Socialism and Fascism are entirely bad in any and every way, shape and form, the only real way these ultimately decided views are cemented is by the darkened memories of people such as Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, Francisco Franco, Joseph Stalin, and Mao Zedong; each with a shady past, and even shadier and dishonest time in power.
That’s not to say that these ideologies aren’t flawed; it’s to say that they’re just as flawed as any other past or present political ideology, and that includes democracy, which can be immediately tied to things like fascism when one brings into account the fact that Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler was (in technicality) elected into office by democratic, constitutional means, despite the fact that fascist revolutions are primarily remembered as coming to fruition through armed uprisings; although one can just as easily argue that some democracies (if not democracy in general) all came into existence both directly and indirectly as a result of armed revolt and/or conflict.
For example: the American Revolution expelled British colonialism from the United States, and established the world’s first modern democratic state; and the French Revolution (which, in the end, did lead to the rise of Napoleon who formed a French military dictatorship with incredibly expansive imperialistic intentions) began as an attempt to destroy medieval feudalism in Europe and directly convert to democracy, although, in the end, the majority decided that was too much of a disparity from what had preceded the revolution, and they quickly allowed themselves to be subjugated by a man with obvious intention.
Although democracy leaves a nations power where it belongs: in the hands of the people; many have also flirted with the idea of a ‘responsible dictatorship,’ in which the supreme leader of a nation would easily be able to override long political stalemates between the opposing left and right, and in which there would be no drawn-out stall in political response to different situations and circumstances.
As the Great Depression shows, the incredible lack of response to the economic decline in democratic states was primarily due to a lack of understanding for the inner and outer workings of economics, as well as constant infighting between the left, right, and center; and during that period of time, it’s easy to see the appeal of a fascist dictator or socialist movement, as it allowed the overriding of all political opposition, and an actual addressing of the problems which were clearly laid out right in front of them.
Coming from an angle such as that, humanity can reasonably say that temporary dictatorships or state intervention into national economics is justifiable under certain circumstances. The only problem is that these dictators and state interventions of the past have always been carried out with ulterior motive and no intention to give up that power without a good, long fight, even after the storm has passed. With that constant occurrence, it lead to even more storm clouds following the end of the depression, which eventually led to the Second World War, as well as the Cold War that followed, each being a clear clash of ideologies. So, let’s officially begin this essay with an obvious segregation of the two great ideological evils of the 20th century.
Fascism can be clearly defined as ‘ A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.’ (Houghton Mifflin Company)
As true as this may be, it’s not the only definition of fascism there is. Fascist Italy under Benito Mussolini (often accredited as the creator of the fascist ideology) did not become a outwardly racist state until 1938 (Adler) after it’s relationship with the incredibly anti-Semitic Nazi Germany was strengthened ten-fold due to Hitler’s policy of expansionism and rearmament; as such, a separate, broader definition of fascism would be ‘oppressive, dictatorial control.’ (Houghton Mifflin Company)
Socialism, on the other hand, can be clearly defined as ‘a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.’ (Random House, Inc.)
Unlike fascism, there is a much more specific definition that applies better to this essay; and due to the nature of this essay (comparing the greater of the two evils), it seems necessary to give you the direct definition of totalitarian socialism (widely known as Stalinism): ‘The bureaucratic, authoritarian exercise of state power and mechanistic application of Marxist-Leninist principles associated with Stalin.’ (Whitefield)
To say that this totalitarian form of socialism is incredibly similar to fascism, most would agree with you. This form of authoritarianism seems incredibly right wing for a so-called ‘left-wing’ communist state.
So, instead of directly defining once again exactly what Soviet socialism (Stalinism) is, lets instead move on to define the different forms of fascism as applied to different countries: Nazi (National Socialist) fascism is most likely the most infamous form of government that has ever existed in the history of the world; not only did it advocate the simple manipulation and complete control of Germany’s people, but it also called for racist laws, as well as racial supremacy and racial extermination (usually by means of the infamous concentration camps).
The Nazis created a cult of personality around their ‘Fuehrer’ Adolf Hitler, who, in turn, with the major assistance of his close advisers, laid the foundations for the Aryan racial myth, which was, in a nutshell, the claim that all true German Aryans were descendants of the ancient Teutonic Knights, to whom were valiant warriors who built an incredibly advanced civilization whose heights of power and technological progress were never met by any of the other great powers of the time.
To attempt to build basis for these claims, the Nazi propaganda machine (under direction of Hermann Goering) reported the alleged ‘discovery’ of many ancient Aryan artifacts (all of which were proven false both during and after the Nuremberg Trials of 1945-46) as well as false confirmations of the Aryan ‘history’ by Nazi archeologists as well as outside sources to whom were either bribed or intimidated into falsely confirming the Third Reich’s claims. (Shirer)
Through this racial ideology, the Nazis gained an even tighter stranglehold on the German people, and were able to further exploit them for their own gain; it also provided justification for the discrimination of minority groups living within German borders, the most prominent being the Jews, 6 million of which were dead due to Nazi atrocity by the end of the war.
On the not-so-different side of things, Italian fascism gave root to the fascist ideology in the first place; yet Mussolini’s fascism, until around 1938, held one major difference from Nazi Germany; it didn’t advocate or practice state-endorsed racism; in fact, it was indifferent to every form of racism.
It wasn’t until around the time Germany invaded Austria that Italy began reforming its racial policies to be strongly opposed to the Jewish minority.
To include Spanish fascism (under Francisco Franco), their wouldn’t be much to add due to the fact that it was virtually Italian fascism, with the major difference that the movement in general was inspired by Adolf Hitler, and lasted much longer then any of the other fascist states of the Depression era; in fact, Franco’s fascist Spain lasted until his death in 1975, after which power was handed over to Alejandro Rodríguez de Valcárcel, who in turn gave the power back to Spain’s hereditary Royal Family whose heir at the time was King Juan Carlos I. Juan oversaw the transition of Spain from a fascist dictatorship to a parliamentary democracy. (The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition)
Now, to be fair in the weighing of the two ideological evils, a detailed explanation of Stalin’s Soviet threat is in order, beginning with his apparent ‘left-wing’ fascist tendencies that seemed to be more than slightly similar to Hitler’s power-driving techniques: these tendencies included the purging of political opposition to his regime, as well as the systematic starvation and/or murder of minorities (by means of Russian concentration camps, who to be fair, killed close to 2 million or so, as well as an additional 7 to 8 million died by simple starvation or execution under Stalin’s reign). (Margolis)
It’s a deep shame to the Western world to say that, out of desperateness, we were forced to temporarily befriend this megalomaniac in order to defeat another dictator to who shared a lot in common with the man whose country he attempted to invade. Sadly, as was expected near the end of the war, this simply lead to further threat and further issue with the beginning of the Cold War, which is said to have officially begun in Berlin directly following the end of the Second World War, but it can also be argued that it began prior with the focused efforts of the Western Allies to beat the Soviet Union to liberating certain countries and/or geographical areas from Axis control (most notably the race for the liberation of the Balkans, which Stalin expressed interest in, yet British Commonwealth forces beat them to it).
The Cold War lasted for 45 long years of tension, in which both the Comitern and the Allies feared nuclear war, until the eventual dismantling of the USSR by Mikhail Gorbachev in 1991. (Clines)
To come to a final verdict on which was (and may still be) the greater evil of the two, we need to investigate the impact both ideologies had on history; and with this, we’ll start with fascism.
Fascism, through the Nazis, gave way for the renewed efforts of racially discriminatory groups (such as the Klu Klux Klan) as well as the formation of many new organizations like the American Nazi Party, renewed German Nazi organizations following German reunification, the formation of skinhead movements across North America; most prominently in the U.S. state of California, and general neo-Nazism worldwide.
Using the broader term of fascism, the creation of fascist political parties throughout democratic countries is nothing new. Despite the fact that these attempts to resurrect the fascist ideals, these parties have usually remained quite obscure and have never gained much of a momentum in any country, let alone even come close to gaining power.
The BNP (British National Party) which, although it does not directly identify itself as fascist, but instead as a far-right conservative movement, practices many fascist tendencies, and, although this observation may seem slightly bias to some, it would be quite easy to argue that the BNP is indeed a fascist movement, considering their immigration policies which are stated directly on there website which read:
‘The BNP’s policy is to:
- Deport all the two million plus who are here illegally;
- Deport all those who commit crimes and whose original nationality was not British;
- Review all recent grants of residence or citizenship to ensure they are still appropriate;
- Offer generous grants to those of foreign descent resident here who wish to leave permanently;
- Stop all new immigration except for exceptional cases;
- Reject all asylum seekers who passed safe countries on their way to Britain.’ (British National Party)
Also, seemingly for its own gain, on the page which details its policies on democracy, it is directly stated that ‘The British National Party is proud to be in possession of some of the most modern and progressive concepts of democracy which are firmly at odds with the other parties’ increasing totalitarianism.’ (British National Party)
To coast back to the to the central topic of this essay, lets look into the impact which Stalin’s totalitarian socialism left on the world; one of which holds quite a lot in common with one of the major impacts which Hitler and his National Socialist party left, known as Neo-Stalinism, which is favor of the restoration of Stalin’s cult of personality (which means the restoration of many old Soviet statues of the brutally suppressive dictator, as well as looking at him in a bias, positive light in the field of education as well as any contemporary works on the subject).
Constructive impacts which in all generality have stuck with Russia since the end of the Second World War include the transformation of Russia from a unindustrialized state lacking the basic necessities of today’s life (such as electricity and running water) into one of the worlds leading military and economic superpowers which, agriculturally, far out-produced the United States or the entirety of all the NATO countries combined, at least agriculturally, during the Cold War era, and in most regards continues to do so to this day. (Dlmick)
So, I guess it’s fair to say that Stalin did impact Russia positively when looking at it from a strictly economic point-of-view; but at what cost?
About 20,000,000 people died premature deaths in the Soviet Union before the end of Stalin’s reign of terror; about 10 million due to the Second World War (in which individual retreat was against the army doctrine, and if they turned to run from German bullets, instead they were shot by their commanding officers. That’s not to say retreat didn’t occur; but when it did, it was a collective decision, not individual) another 1,048,000 killed simply for having an ethnic background considered unfavorable to the state, another 4 million after being repatriated following the end of the war, and killed due to the perception that they had ‘Nazi-infected minds,’ and about 6 million more were also exterminated for either speaking out against Stalin, or simply because food wasn’t provided to them, and they ended up starving to death. (*Multiple Sources)
To say that these deaths don’t have impacts that still reverberate around the world today would be a lie, and with a combination of the knowledge of Stalin’s so-called Socialism, as well as Hitler’s so-called National Socialism, we are now able to predict and protect ourselves from such things ever occurring again.
In the case of Nazi German fascism versus Soviet Russian socialism, there is no greater evil; I’d have to consider it a fair draw.
Overall, in the case of fascism versus socialism as simple raw ideologies as opposed to actually applied to any particular state or historical period, the idea of socialism is of a much fairer and beneficial nature to the peoples progress, protection, and well-being; although that’s not to say that the raw ideology itself is without flaws; it’s just to say its incredibly humanely altruistic as compared to the inward greed of fascism.
Although, to be fair, to say that the raw ideology of fascism has no upsides or benefits would also be a mistake; yet, it would seem that it would only be a positive idea when applied to economic prosperity, not the general well-being of the people.
So in my final verdict, I’d have to say that fascism is the greater of the two evils, and that in generality, socialism is only an evil when applied to the century that came to an end almost 10 years ago, and that it’d be very possible for the ideology to make a comeback, albeit in a positive, democratic means, as opposed to a repeat of the Stalinist era.
Fascism won’t be making any sort of major comeback if I have anything to say about it.
No comments:
Post a Comment