Updated: Jan 22
What’s worse? The name “fascism,” or the features it brings to society?
Across global education, there is a caricature of fascism. Here are the misleading half-truths they teach about fascism:
Fascism is hyper-nationalistic. This is true, but not unique to fascism. While socialists claim “international devotion” in idiotically propagandistic phrases like “workers of the world unite,” and “the global village,” the best way to determine whether or not a nation is hyper-nationalistic is by how much they actually cooperate with other nations through aid and trade. That includes the trade of citizens and visitors as well as commerce.
How much international aid have the communist North Koreans, Chinese, and Venezuelans provided to the world during crises? How much aid did the communist soviets provide? The theocracy of Iran? Saudi Arabia? How many desperate people have Latin American nations dumped onto US social insurance and public services? How many wars have African, Asian, and Latin American nations fought to secure liberty and prosperity for allied foreigners?
These social democracies, theocracies, communist nations, and monarchies might hurl podium bravado about how internationally-minded they are, but when their self-interest and failure to do much of anything for other nations is considered, they are hyper-nationalistic.
The pageantry of Fascism is certainly hyper-nationalistic, but its net effect in international exchange is not much different than more than half of the planet which does not describe itself as fascist.
Mindless “educated” functionaries can’t tell the difference between podium propaganda and ground truth. Conversely, measuring the right indicator to cut to the true reality is a hallmark of Alvarism's methods.
Fascism has an extreme level of authoritarianism. This is true, but not unique to fascism. Communism, monarchy, theocracy, indebted social democracies with large governments, and Jacobin “democratic states,” share this feature.
In the authoritarian state:
Civic proposals do not get fair and honest consideration by the public. They constrain political pluralism
Political power relies upon appeals to emotion
“Enemies of the people” are scapegoated for national strife
Social mobility is limited by political affiliation and connections
Laws enter every sphere of life and executive power is immense
All of the other forms of governance listed above, including social democracies, share these features. Even scholars at Stanford’s Hoover Institution have argued to dispose of the checks and balances that have constrained centralized power in the USA:
But the fascist is beyond authoritarian. They are totalitarians. The totalitarian is not satisfied with acquiescence to authoritarian standards. In addition, they require that citizens affirm specific ideas as well, so thought control and thought crimes are added to the authoritarian program.
With Human Resource departments in corporations and job recruiters building blacklists, universities punishing students and professors for speech, social media de-platforming and censorship, people jailed and fined for “hate speech,” and carbon-copy news reports propagandized in unison by NewsGuard “trusted” websites, the social democracies share totalitarian standards with fascists. The only difference is the level of overt control. Social democracies enforce thought conformity with covert control, culture war, and coercion.
Fascist economy is corporatism. The fact that there are corporations does not make a nation “corporatist.” Corporatism is function-segregated industrial organization that is hierarchically controlled by “experts,” such as the CDC, the American Medical Association, the U.N. WHO, government departments, and unions.
Democratic socialists, union socialism (syndicalism), monarchies, theocracies, and communists have employed the corporatist model.
The promise of corporatism was for industrial self-governance. The reality is that regulations, union lobbying, and tax codes erode ownership and indirectly eradicate industrial self-governance. The social democracies can claim they are not socialist because “the government does not own the means of production.” This is a lie.
The government does not have to directly own the means of production to control it. They erode ownership with ten-thousand regulations, tax codes that favor some while punishing others, and union lobbyists buying laws that reduce competition.
At last count, and published in the book Economic Sovereignty, the US government imposes $2 trillion in regulatory costs upon its citizens, $6 trillion in federal, state, and local taxes, and spends $2 trillion per year on nonprofit civics. The USA is spending $10 trillion per year on civics, while its citizens combined barely make more than that amount for themselves in income.
The French call it dirigisme, and the Germans call it zwangswirtschaft (command economy). Economic command-and-control is a program of the democratic socialists, communists, fascists, monarchs, and theocrats. For citizens, it is economic bondage – serfdom. It is opposed by economic freedom – what I call Economic Sovereignty.
Placing a vapid label of “corporatism” on imagined economic freedom, and disparaging those who argue for economic freedom as “fascist” is one of the most banally ignorant items of propaganda in leftwing politics. The fascists hated capitalism as much as communists. They all co-opted the wealthy, pandered to the poor, and slaughtered the upper middle class (defined as vorardennes in Economic Sovereignty).
Along with this fictitious view of corporations, they paint pictures of “fat-cat” CEOs, greed, and wealth. In reality, those “fat-cats” were created by leftists. It is their program of economic command-and-control that builds oligopoly and eradicates competition.
If they read the history of fascism and communism, they would realize that the level of dirigisme in the USA would even make the fascists and communists jealous. From FDR’s New Deal to LBJ’s Great Society, the irrevocably unintelligent leftists complain about the products of their own policies.
Fascism brings militarism. And I suppose we should call “fascist,” the democratic socialists of Europe, for invading Libya under Samantha Powers’ U.N. doctrine of “responsibility to protect” (R2P)? Do the incessant socialist military parades in North Korea, Russia, and China indicate fascism as well?
Warfare emerges universally in democratic socialism, monarchy, theocracy, democratic republic, fascism, and communism. Economic and political freedom combined minimize the domestic incentives to instigate war.
There are martial ideologies that prevail in all of those forms of government. They impact the kind of warfare nations choose. That is an in-depth item which will be published in the next Alvarism book.
Much confusion about fascist militarism arose from ignorance of German history. They conflate the prevailing German martial ideology from Bismarck to Hitler, with fascism itself. A survey of the militarism across all forms of government, makes it an unremarkable feature of fascism. If most governments are doing it, it is not a special feature of fascism.
Fascism is hostile to liberalism and Marxism. This is superficially true. Pepsi and Coca-Cola battle each other mindlessly for market share as well, like an eternal Looney Tunes episode. They might change the symbols, the slogans, the brand, the surface rhetoric and claims, but honest people will admit – Pepsi and Coke taste almost the same.
Fascism is hostile to communism, because it emerged as an alternate form of socialism, as Hitler noted in the quote from Economic Sovereignty. The formula for fascism emerged from Marxism, and guild socialism. The fascists were all socialists when they formed their new brand.
It would be more accurate to say that fascism is fundamentally hostile to economic and political freedom, but only symbolically hostile to Marxism. The other forms of government mentioned share hostility towards economic and political freedom as well.
Fascist is “far-right wing.” This is a blatant lie created and perpetuated by leftists. Fascism is opposed to liberty, as much as social democracy, communism, monarchy, and theocracy. They have different methods of eroding freedom, but they do it all the same. This makes fascism “far-south wing,” along with those other forms of government.
Because fascism seeks to rapidly experiment on society with government action, it is left wing. Because fascism invokes heritage and pageantry of historical symbolism, it is right wing. In the synthesis of these two polarized drivers, fascism is enigmatically centrist. If you remember that one fact, you will understand why fascist authors constantly berate both left- and right-wing political parties.
In hysterical contradiction, the modern leftists call Trump “fascist” while calling themselves educated at the same time.
The Real Features of Fascism
While other forms of government share features espoused by the public school’s ignorant definition of fascism, what are the true indicators of fascism?
Workers’ Rights. Fascism’s economic program involves domination of the economy by institutions, regulations, unions, and trade protectionism (syndicalism, unions, guild socialism)
Anti-imperialism. Fascists seek liberation and subsequent autonomy of their ethnic brethren across the globe. Sound like leftwing anti-colonialists? It is. Sound like Palestinians? It is. Sound like Iranian theocracy? It is. Sound like most Islamic nations in the world? It is.
Environmentalism. Fascists claim that autonomy is only possible by preserving a synergy with their environment. The Nazi policies of environmentalism included blut und boden (blood and soil), Wandervogel, and lebensreform.
Responsible markets. By responsible, they mean zwangswirtschaft – command economy – highly regulated and centrally planned by the government and its delegates in industry.
Law and order, and addiction-free community. Crime, self-harm, and weakness have no place in the fascist society. The belief is that it is the duty of the government to stamp out every facet of criminal culture and self-harm. They use nonprofits, “help” groups, medical centers, and other state surrogates to insinuate the program of eradicating harmful existence throughout every community. In the extreme form, this created concentration camps, forced sterilization, abortion, and other eugenics implementations.
Ethnic autonomy and preservation of heritage and culture. The fascists respect other nations’ desire for cultural autonomy as much as their own. They do not believe in radical egalitarianism – that all people should have equal outcomes – and they do not believe that multiculturalism is beneficial. They believe their societies are best served by preservation of heritage. How many white people are in China? How do the Chinese treat internal disruptions to ethnic conformity? Ask the Falun Gong or the Uyghurs. How many Christian churches has the Chinese government demolished? The Chinese even invade American universities with espionage operations to coalesce ethnic enclaves internationally.
Fascism in the World Today
Fascism correctly describes the Nazis, the Italian Fascists, effectively the Japanese under Hirohito, and most Muslim nations of the modern era, including Saddam Hussein’s Arab Socialist Ba’ath Party and other pan-Arab movements inspired by men who fought alongside Nazis like Amin al-Husseini.
Russia has transformed into a neo-fascist state after perestroika, with the Eurasianist program and people like Aleksandr Dugin and Vladimir Putin leading the way. Russia’s annexation of Crimea was a pure fascist play – when they claimed “ethnic synergy with Russians rather than Ukrainians,” as the justification for “reuniting” Crimea with Russia. China is taking on more fascist features after the “Food is Heaven, State Capitalism” rhetoric of the 1980s. They have changed their language, but in reality, the Chinese have simply recalibrated policies of tyranny and control.
Whether, inspiring fear with class warfare, poverty hustling, hatred of the rich, racial paranoia, egalitarianism, or any other item of social division – the net result is high taxes, control, and erosion of economic, social, and political freedom.
Alvarism opposes all of these things. The best way to eradicate systems of tyranny is with virtue and knowledge. We inspire the confidence in economic, social, and political freedom that knowledge enables. The standard “education” on fascism is a key example of how misinformed people can perpetuate features of fascism because they’re lost in the wrong definitions and labels.
It’s pathetic that a nation which claims to be the land of liberty now spends $10 trillion per year on civics. This doesn’t make America much different from the other “democracies” across the globe. But remember – they’re all opposed to fascism, even though they share some of its key features.
The following is an excerpt from an addendum in Ludwig von Mises authoritative book, Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis. The original work was published in 1922. If you want an accurate chronicle of fascism, this is the knowledge that will gratify you. After reading this article, you will see how relevant this history is to our present problems in global governance. Do we have new labels, new slogans, and symbols? Do they implement fascist policies under the name of democratic socialism and “democracy?” In conclusion:
“It may happen that Fascism will be resurrected under a new label and with new slogans and symbols. But if this happens, the consequences will be detrimental. For Fascism is not as the Fascists trumpeted a ‘new way to life’; it is a rather old way towards destruction and death.”
From Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis
“Syndicalism is nothing else but the French word for trade unionism. The glorification of violence which characterizes the policy of Russian Sovietism, of Italian Fascism and of German Nazism, and which today seriously threatens all democratic governments, sprang from the teachings of revolutionary syndicalists. The essence of the trade union problem is the compulsion to coalesce and to strike.
It is important to realize that Fascism and Nazism were socialist dictatorships. The communists, both the registered members of the communist parties and the fellow-travelers, stigmatize Fascism and Nazism as the highest and last and most depraved stage of capitalism. This is in perfect agreement with their habit of calling every party which does not unconditionally surrender to the dictates of Moscow – even the German Social Democrats, the classical party of Marxism – hirelings of capitalism.
It is of much greater consequence that the communists have succeeded in changing the semantic connotation of the term Fascism. Fascism, as will be shown later, was a variety of Italian socialism. It was adjusted to the particular conditions of the masses in over-populated Italy. It was not a product of Mussolini’s mind and will survive the fall of Mussolini.
The foreign policies of Fascism and Nazism, from their early beginnings, were rather opposed to one another. The fact that the Nazis and the Fascists closely cooperated after the Ethiopian war, and were allies in the second World War, did not eradicate the differences between these two tenets any more than did the alliance between Russia and the United States eradicate the differences between Sovietism and the American economic system.
Fascism and Nazism were both committed to the Soviet principle of dictatorship and violent oppression of dissenters. If one wants to assign Fascism and Nazism to the same class of political systems, one must call this class dictatorial regime and one must not neglect to assign the Soviets to the same class.
Dictatorship and violent oppression of all dissenters are today exclusively socialist institutions. This becomes clear as we take a closer look at Fascism and Nazism.
When the war broke out in 1914, the Italian socialist party was divided as to the policy to be adopted. One group clung to the rigid principles of Marxism. The second group was deeply affected by the traditional hatred of Austria. In their opinion the first task of the Italians was to free their unredeemed brethren. Only then would the day of the socialist revolution appear. When the war came to an end, Mussolini’s popularity dwindled.
The communists, swept into popularity by events in Russia, carried on. But the great communist venture, the occupation of the factories in 1920, ended in complete failure, and the disappointed masses remembered the former leader of the socialist party. They flocked to Mussolini’s new party, the Fascists.
The youth greeted with turbulent enthusiasm the self-styled successor of the Caesars. Mussolini boasted in later years that he had saved Italy from the danger of communism. His foes passionately disputed his claims. Communism, they say, was no longer a real factor in Italy when Mussolini seized power. The truth is that the frustration of communism swelled the ranks of the Fascists and made it possible for them to destroy all other parties. The overwhelming victory of the Fascists was not the cause, but the consequence, of the communist fiasco.
The programme of the Fascists, as drafted in 1919, was vehemently anti-capitalistic. The most radical New Dealers and even communists could agree with it.
Fascist economic policy did not – at the beginning – essentially differ from those of all other Western nations. lt was a policy of interventionism. As the years went on, it more and more approached the Nazi pattern of socialism. When Italy, after the defeat of France, entered the second World War, its economy was by and large already shaped according to the Nazi pattern. The main difference was that the Fascists were less efficient and even more corrupt than the Nazis.
It was almost forgotten when the Fascists attached to it a new label, and flamboyantly proclaimed corporativism as the new social panacea. The public inside and out side of Italy was captivated. Innumerable books, pamphlets and articles were written in praise of the stato corporativo. The governments of Austria and Portugal very soon declared that they were committed to the noble principles of corporativism. The papal encyclical Quadragesimo Anno (1931) contained some paragraphs which could be interpreted – but need not be – as an approval of corporativism. In France its ideas found many eloquent supporters.
It was mere idle talk. Never did the Fascists make any attempt to realize the corporativist programme, industrial self-government. They changed the name of the chambers of commerce into corporative councils. They called corporazione the compulsory organizations of the various branches of industry which were the administrative units for the execution of the German pattern of socialism they had adopted.
But there was no question of the corporazione’s self-government. The Fascist cabinet did not tolerate anybody’s interference with its absolute authoritarian control of production. All the plans for the establishment of the corporative system remained a dead letter.
Fascism was not, as its advocates boasted, an original product of the Italian mind. It began with a split in the ranks of Marxian socialism, which certainly was an imported doctrine. Its economic programme was borrowed from German non-Marxian socialism and its aggressiveness was likewise copied from Germans, the All-deutsche or Pan-German forerunners of the Nazis. Its conduct of government affairs was a replica of Lenin’s dictatorship.
Corporativism, its much advertised ideological adornment, was of British origin. The only home-grown ingredient of Fascism was the theatrical style of its processions, shows and festivals.
The short-lived Fascist episode ended in blood, misery and ignominy. But the forces which generated Fascism are not dead. Fanatical nationalism is a feature common to all present-day Italians. The communists are certainly not prepared to renounce their principle of dictatorial oppression of all dissenters. Neither do the Catholic parties advocate freedom of thought, of the press or of religion. There are in Italy only very few people indeed who comprehend that the indispensable prerequisite of democracy and the rights of men is economic freedom.
It may happen that Fascism will be resurrected under a new label and with new slogans and symbols. But if this happens, the consequences will be detrimental. For Fascism is not as the Fascists trumpeted a ‘new way to life’; it is a rather old way towards destruction and death.”