vcanada2.comvcanada2.com/h20_website/unit 4 aftermath of the... · web viewa). create a word...

U n i t 4 : A s s i g n m e n t 8 : U n d e r s t a n d i n g F a s c i s m & C o m m u n i s m | 1

GROUP ASSIGNMENT 8: Encouraging Political LiteracyMany people throw around terms like “fascism” and “communism” without really knowing what these words actually mean. People tend to hurl these words at one another as a sort of insult. This does not accomplish anything in particular other than score cheap points with dull-minded and ignorant people.

In 2008 American President Barack Obama’s critics called him both a fascist and a communist. His public critics did not address his ideas. Instead, they attacked him personally.1 By definition a person cannot be both a fascist and a communist. These two ideologies (political systems) are basically opposites and based upon fundamentally different assumptions about the world.

Interestingly, the two ideologies share some things in common in terms of their structure and how their adherents exercise power. This assignment is designed for the express purpose of increasing student literacy around fascism and communism—ideologies that continue to exercise a great deal of influence on society today.

Procedurea). Create a word document in Google Docs. Name it [Your_Name]_Assignment_8. Share the document with your teacher ([email protected]) granting full editing privileges.

You have two tasks: firstly, read Part One in its entirety and then answer the four associated comprehension questions (found on pages 25 and 31); and secondly, read Part Two (pages 32 to 39) in its entirety using three different colored highlighters indicating:

In yellow, any ideas or concepts you do not understand or have questions about In green, ideas striking you as either important or interesting (for whatever

reason) In blue, ideas, concepts or approaches fascism and communism share in common

1 When you attack the person and not the idea, you are committing the logical fallacy known as the Ad Hominem attack. Ad Hominem literally means “attack the man” and it’s fallacious because calling someone a big fat head doesn’t invalidate or disprove the truth of what they’ve said.

mailto:[email protected]


Then after reading Part Two in paragraph form answer the following hypothetical question: if you had the choice of living in either a fascist or communist state, which one would you choose to live in and why?PART ONE: IntroductionThe purpose of this article is to help students understand and appreciate the origin and nature of the ideologies of communism and fascism. An ideology is a system of political ideas and ideals. Ideologies are, in a sense, a type of secular faith, i.e. there is no God to believe in; yet, just like any religion an ideology like fascism makes claims to truth requiring believers to think in a specific way. The same is true of every ideology, e.g. communism, fascism, liberalism, socialism, progressivism, and so on.

Ideologies are the basis of every political movement; they are by their nature problematic: firstly, they limit the ability of an adherent to think “outside of the box”; secondly, the world is actually quite complicated while ideologies boil something as complex as human nature into something simple. For example communism tries to address the problem humans have with greed. Yet, not all humans are by definition greedy. Human beings are complicated but ideologies present them as simple.

Perhaps the only assumption we can make about human nature is people, by and large, are typically more motivated by emotion as opposed to logic. Possessing a working knowledge of what ideologies are, and why they are a problem, is an absolute pre-condition to understanding why history has unfolded as it has.

What is Fascism?Fascism is an ideology emerging in the early 19th century.2 Fascism is more or less a response of conservative-minded thinkers to what they perceived as excesses of the Enlightenment.

The Enlightenment, also known as the Age of Reason (1650-1800 CE), was an intellectual movement that transformed the Western world. This movement placed traditional beliefs about the world in to question. For example, France’s Voltaire wondered whether

2 An ideology is a system of ideas and ideals, especially one that forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.

Figure 1 Adolf Hitler is an example of a populist leader. He was a fascist who led Germany through a combination of charm and fear. He became popular because he promised to make Germany great again by tearing up the Treaty of Versailles and restore the country’s honor which was lost following its defeat during the Great War.


or not it was wise to unquestioningly accept the authority of the Catholic Church. England’s John Locke argued the People had a right to overthrow a king when that king ruled selfishly and only in their own narrow self-interest; and Scotland’s David Hume argued it was wise for individuals to possess a questioning attitude; they should question everything rather than just accept whatever they are told at face value.

The work of these thinkers, among others, resulted in both an intellectual revolution and two political revolutions, e.g. the American Revolution (1776 CE) and the French in 1789.

Nineteenth century conservative thinkers like France’s Joseph de Maistre responded to the Enlightenment in two ways: firstly, he opposed democracy because he had no faith in the intellectual abilities of the average person. Why give decision-making power to poorly educated people who did not deserve power or understand how to wield it? The only people worthy of ruling, de Maistre argued, was an elite—an aristocratic (wealthy) and educated one. Secondly, de Maistre was a proto-fascist.3 This means he was an early fascist who romanticized and idealized the past: to him the present was “chaotic and disorderly” while the past was a “simpler purer time.”4

De Maistre argued in order to deal with social chaos we needed men of action, not ideas or reason. De Maistre’s worldview stood in obvious contrast to what Voltaire, Locke and Hume promoted: fascists valued obedience and tradition whereas Hume and his fellow Enlightenment philosophers valued curiosity and progress (change).

Taken at face value order, simplicity and purity appear to be virtues; however, in their 20th century expression “fascist simplicity” takes the form of “anti-intellectualism.”5 For example, in the 1930s German fascists held rallies burning books written by “impure” authors like Helen Keller, Thomas Mann, Sigmund Freud and Charles Darwin. Keller’s books were burned because she was both deaf and blind and did not represent the ideal physical human form. Thomas Mann’s works were burned because, despite being an 3 The prefix “proto” literally means “first.” Placing “proto” in front of another word modifies that word making it mean “to come before something else.” Proto-fascists like de Maistre were not Nazis. The Nazis appear well over a hundred years later; however, ideas have a lot of staying power where something said long ago can exert tremendous influence later on. In the latter 19th century, the Italian proto-fascist Gabriele d’Annunzio inspired later fascist movements. For example, D’Annunzio argued dictatorship, not democracy, was the path to national strength. He promoted the idea of using religious symbols in secular settings. Symbols, d’Annunzio argued, inspired people to patriotism. He also promoted the use of dramatic speeches to rev up a crowd; and he was responsible for developing the concept of the “cult of the leader” (promoting a blind obedience in the People to follow a divinely inspired leader). Proto-fascism was, arguably, an attempt to reinvent or rebrand religion within a secular context.4 Joseph de Maistre (Richard A Lebrun (Translator)), Maistre: Considerations on France, p.33-36. De Maistre believed in an idealized view of the past in the present to justify future action (a past, mind you, that never existed). Fascists do not deal in facts or reason; they deal in passion and unreason.5 Anti-intellectualism is hostility to and mistrust of intellect, intellectuals, and intellectualism commonly expressed as deprecation (putting down) of education and philosophy, and the dismissal of art, literature, and science as impractical and even contemptible human pursuits. Anti-intellectualism is a synonym for “unreason”.


able-bodied German, he argued war was stupid and should be avoided. Fascists promote the idea of war and the importance of building a strong military. Freud’s books were burned simply because he was Jewish (and fascists, more often than not, are anti-Semites); and Charles Darwin’s books were burned because Origin of the Species (a book describing a process called evolution) established every race belonged to single human family. No one race was genetically superior to any other. They all came from the same common ancestor and were therefore equal.

Darwin’s idea, humans all come from a shared ancestor, contradicted so-called “master race theory” taught in Germany’s classrooms in the 1930s. The Nazis argued Germans were racially superior to anyone else because their genes were “pure.” Darwin’s thinking completely contradicted this view: a common ancestor meant there was no such thing as “pure genes.” Instead, what exists is a situation where there’s “racial variation.” There is no ideal human form—German or otherwise. But facts do not matter to the fascist: what matters is the degree of conviction and commitment to an idea. And the idea of a master race existing lead German fascists to believe they were destined to conquer the so-called “inferior races.” This belief inspired a generation of mass murderers: they used their philosophy of hate to justify the construction and operation of death camps of Auschwitz and Treblinka in the 1940s.

Predictably, fascists reject skepticism (the questioning attitude Hume valued). Fascists hated the intellectual disorder created by not giving unquestioning obedience to authority. Fascists argued people were not placed on earth to be free (this is something weak kneed democrats believed); on the contrary, people existed in order to obey great power, great men, and something greater than liberty: fate and national destiny.

Fascism is always tied to a populist or mass movement.6 In 1933 Germany was dominated by the National Socialists (Nazis). The Nazi movement stressed the glorification of the state and the importance of racial purity. For this reason the Nazis controlled every aspect of German life—its education, politics, the arts, newspaper and radio, economics and, of course, reproduction.7

6 Populists are individuals who claim to be a man or woman of the people (just an ordinary person); populist leaders make this claim because they want to appear to be trustworthy and not distant (like some more intellectual-minded leaders are accused of being).7 The Lebensborn program was started in 1935 by the SS. The goal of the program was to raise the birth rate of so-called “Aryan” children who were classified as “racially pure and healthy” based on Nazi standards of racial hygiene and ideology. This was essentially a breeding program where women were rewarded with the Cross of Honor of the German Mother for giving birth to Aryan babies.


Reinforcing the Nazi’s hold over the minds of millions of Germans was the pseudo-science of ethnology.8 Ethnologists borrowed the philosopher H. S. Chamberlain’s term “Aryan” to refer to the German people—a mythologized group of apparently genetically superior people originating from Northern India who eventually migrated and settled, as coincidence would have it, in Germany.9

Not all fascists are necessarily racists. Italian fascists in the 1920s were more or less ultra-nationalists who wanted to establish law and order in a country experiencing political chaos and disorder.

Italy became a country in 1861 and, from the start, suffered from constant political division. There were so many political parties—some representing a Catholic bloc, some socialist, others fascist, and still others a liberal worldview—no single party could establish a parliamentary majority in the country’s parliament called the Chamber of Deputies. (Italy continues to suffer from a similar problem in the present day.)

Again, Italian fascists, far from being racists simply wanted to rein in the division and chaos unleashed by democracy (and the Enlightenment) in order to make Italy strong again.10 Democracy, it was believed, weakened the country. Fascists argued Italy did not need liberalism or parliamentary institutions:11 it needed a decisive leader capable of returning the country to its former Roman glory.8 Pseudoscience literally means “fake science.” 9 Aryans are first mentioned in the Hindu (Indian) holy books known as the Vedas. They were described as blonde-haired, blue-eyed invaders. Nonetheless, Chamberlain’s grasp of either history or science was questionable, i.e. the Germans are a Teutonic people and their origins are traceable to the Caucasus region (not India) along with all the other European peoples (other than the Finns; Finns are unique in Europe from both a linguistic and genetic standpoint); moreover, there’s no reason—scientific or otherwise—to suppose Teutons, Aryans, Slavs, Jews, Tartars, or Zulus belong to a “master race”. There is no such thing as “pure genes” or “master race.” There’s genetic variation and that variation is one of the reasons why human beings have been so successful for so long. Chamberlain tried to promote racism as though it were something scientific; racism, by definition cannot be scientific because it is founded entirely upon completely unscientific, unverifiable prejudice and belief (ideology).10 Donald Trump was elected president in 2016 in part because of his message, e.g. Make America Great Again. Trump is not a fascist per se; however, he does tend to lean towards governing through strength as opposed to consensus building and compromise. Dr. Lawrence Britt created a checklist to test whether a particular government is fascist or not. Check out the following link and see how many items apply to Trump’s administration, e.g. http://home.earthlink.net/~eldonenew/fascism.htm).

Figure 2 Benito Mussolini (center above) tried strengthening Italy by centralizing power around himself and the Italian fascist party. Fascist parties do not tolerate competition. For this reason fascist states are single party states.

http://home.earthlink.net/~eldonenew/fascism.htm


Although fascists are not democratic-minded, they do allow people a small measure of freedom: citizens can own private property or businesses; also, citizens are free so long as that freedom does not interfere with the greater aims of the state. Thus, Germans could marry anyone who was an “Aryan” but they were forbidden to marry so-called non-Aryans (in order to preserve the pseudoscientific appearance of racial purity).12 In the case of either fascist Italy or Germany, individuals did not “own” themselves.13 People existed as indistinguishable from the state. In this sense, fascism owes a lot of its inspiration from the Catholic Church (or religion generally): the Church treated the faithful as a “corporate whole” who belonged to one body and who were required to unquestioningly accept Rome’s authority on doctrinal matters; that is not to say the Catholic Church was fascist; nevertheless, fascist authorities (just like Church authorities) attempted to recreate an orderly past in the present, a time before democracy (or a time before “The Fall”)—a period when the People were one and did not challenge either the Church or a divine order established by God (the Divine Dictator).

In reality no such idealized past where law and order prevailed ever existed. People have always disagreed with one another. Authority has always been challenged. Kings like Henry II (1133-1189 CE) of England successfully challenged Rome’s power by pressuring the Vatican to appoint the bishops he wanted; also, six centuries before the Enlightenment the French writer Peter Abelard (1079-1142 CE) frightened Church authorities of his day by teaching his students religious doctrines should be based on reason (not faith) and must be logically supportable (or cast aside). This was dangerous talk for a Church that appealed to mystery, belief and revelation for its authority. For their part fascists do not really care if their view of the past is accurate or factual: fascist ideology is premised on the idea the country was somehow stronger and better off in the past. And they mean to recreate the order and security of that past.

11 On September 30th, 1862 Prussia’s Otto von Bismarck gave his famous “Blood and Iron” speech. In it he observed “the world does not look to Prussia’s liberalism but to her power.” Bismarck was, arguably, a proto-fascist.12 The idea of “racial purity” is not a scientific concept whatsoever. Fascists aren’t overly worried about being scientifically accurate though; instead, they use the idea of racism as a political tool to justify taking specific actions, e.g. segregating different races from one another or passing laws favoring men over women, and so on. In the case of the actual science (genetics) itself, there simply exists genetic variation suggesting no particular group of people is better, superior, weaker or inferior to any other; there’s just variety and every racial group belongs to a single human genome. In biology today, some scientists are arguing there’s no human genome instead there exists a universal genome to which all life on Earth belongs. The universal genome concept is a minority view in biology but is gaining adherents as our understanding of genetics improves over time.13 Fascists considered individualism a fictional notion, an unsupportable idea, etc. created by Enlightenment philosophers like Voltaire and Thomas Jefferson.


Fascist governments are authoritarian14 by nature: decisions are not made through consensus building15 or parliamentary procedures. Rather, fascist states dictate to the people what can or cannot be done; what can or cannot be believed; or, as the case may be, who you can or who you cannot marry. The assumption is the average person doesn’t know what is good for them. Therefore, the people need a benevolent (infallible) leader—like a Hitler or a Mussolini—to make important decisions for them. Fascists by and large hate the disorder perceived to be inherent in democracies. The Nazis, in particular, rejected any notions of entertaining pluralism (the idea that there’s more than one valid way of looking at the world). To the Nazis all of the people must agree both in their thinking and in their genes for national order to be preserved.16

Another feature common to most fascist states—from Germany and Italy in the 1930s or even “Communist” China and the United States in the present day—the greatest threat to society comes from within the country. Thus, fascist states seek to create and promote national unity at all costs. In Germany, this meant purging “undesirable” or “racially questionable” elements from the country like Jews, homosexuals, and the Roma (“Gypsies”). In the case of fascists in Italy, they sought to bring order to a country paralyzed by political disorder through abolishing democracy altogether and establishing a dictatorship. In China today it means rejecting any notion of electing anyone outside of the Communist Party to a position of meaningful influence; and in the United States, a softer, subtler form of fascism has led to the creation of identity cards for Hispanics in the state of Arizona, a concerted effort to deny gay people legal equality, a ban on Muslims traveling to the United States, and to the passage of the most intrusive piece of legislation passed by any government—democratic or otherwise—in history: the Patriot Act.17

1). Why do fascists ultimately detest Enlightenment ideals?2). List two assumptions fascists make about the world.

14 Authoritarian: favoring or enforcing strict obedience to authority, especially that of the government, at the expense of personal freedom.15 Consensus building is a feature peculiar to democracies, e.g. decisions are not imposed from above by a king or some other authority; rather, elected representatives debate and negotiate with one another to develop new laws and repeal old ones from below. The critical thing is for decisions to be made a consensus must be reached. Nobody gets to just impose their views or positions on others.16 Ironically, freedom can co-exist with fascism provided citizens remain incapable of effectively challenging the power of either the government or it supporting corporations. For this reason fascism is an insidious thing, i.e. even democracies can evolve in to it; that is, when it comes to communism, historically speaking, communism is born out of violent revolution while fascism is an example of evolution at work.17 An act designed to give the government unlimited access to the digital communications of Americans. This act also suspends habeaus corpus among other rights. This right literally just means a person has to be physically brought before a judge to be charged. One of the benefits of habeas corpus is charges can be dropped and an accused individual go completely free. If you drop this right, then charges can be brought upon individuals accused of crimes and they no longer have the right to appear before a judge to have their case heard. Personal liberty depends, in many respects, upon this simple aspect of the law being respected and secured. Democracy, it is said, dies the death of a thousand wounds, e.g. over time as fundamental freedoms are whittled away a country can evolve into something else.


What is Communism?During the Industrial Revolution (1750-1900 AD), a new factory-centered society emerged. The new industrial society was much wealthier than the previous agricultural one.

New technologies increased production levels while lowering the cost to produce and consume products. Novel labor saving devices were invented profoundly changing society: farms no longer needing as many workers meant young men, and their families, moved to large cities in search of work. In the process, a society based upon rural values—like simplicity, the importance of community, and a strong relationship to nature—was replaced by one emphasizing urban values like individualism, privacy, and a competitive spirit. People could no longer expect the same level of support from their extended families or communities (through institutions like churches). Instead, industrial society gave birth to a way of living called the “rat race” (a life dominated by routine, strangers, meaningless repetitive work, and endless competition).

In the centuries before the Industrial Revolution, the vast majority of humanity worked on farms, lived in the countryside, and possessed a strong relationship and appreciation for the natural world. Industrial society, with its fixation on producing things for the sake of profit alone, changed humankind’s relationship with nature: trees, rivers, fields, mountains, used to be valued as beautiful for their own sake. Now they became regarded as mere commodities to be bought and sold.

The new society certainly generated a great deal of wealth; yet, wealth was not distributed equitably. The majority of profit was pocketed by a profit hungry business class. By comparison the working class received low wages while eking out an existence in rapidly growing, overcrowded cities; and without traditional supports—from family and church—people became isolated from one another and less and less concerned with one another’s well-being. Significant increases in crime and disease made an already difficult existence in growing cities even more difficult.

Something had to give.


Karl Marx (1818-1883), the father of communist theory, developed the political philosophy of communism18 in response to the social, economic and political problems created for society by the Industrial Revolution.

Communists are largely motivated by a desire to end the exploitation of workers by business elites. In order to end exploitation, communists argued every citizen must be made economically equal. The only way this could be accomplished was by eliminating capitalism19, the ownership of private property, and putting an end to social class.

One of the most important ideas in communism was the belief history was as a conflict between different classes. In his book The Communist Manifesto, Marx describes a class struggle between the Proletariat (workers) and the Bourgeoisie (business class).20 Marx wanted to end this endless conflict by establishing a “classless society” based upon the “common ownership” of the “means of production.”21

18 Communism is one of many forms of socialism; it is accurate to say communism is socialism. However, it is not accurate to say socialism is necessarily communism. This is because there are different types of socialism (communism being only one kind). When most people hear the word “socialism” it is actually being used in reference to something called Fabianism; this word is an allusion to the “delay tactics” used to slow the invading armies of Carthage by the Roman General Quintus Fabius Maximum Verrucosus (280-203 BCE) during the Second Punic War (218-201 BCE). Fabians reject the revolutionary doctrines of Marxism, recommending instead a gradual transition to a socialist—or more equitable—society. Fabians do not want to abolish private property or do away with fundamental freedoms like freedom of speech. On the contrary, Fabian socialists (or “socialists”) are trying to mitigate some of the worse aspects of capitalism—like exploitation and massive wealth inequality—by introducing social reforms like progressive taxation, enacting minimum wage laws, improving working conditions, and guaranteeing the right of workers to bargain collectively and to strike.19 Capitalism is an economic system where workers exchange their labor for a wage. Wages can then be exchanged for items produced in factories. Entrepreneurs, people who started businesses, play a critical role in capitalism: through their desire to earn a profit (called the “profit motive”) they help grow a country’s economy. If the profit motive wasn’t present, wealthy people would have no incentive to start businesses (and employ people). With that said, for all of its benefits (and there are many) capitalism is notoriously lousy at promoting economic equality. To be clear capitalism is an economic system (not a democratic one). The purpose of this system is to generate wealth (who ends up with the money at the end of the day really does not matter). With that said, there is no reason why capitalism cannot be regulated or reformed so more people can benefit. Reformers are usually called “socialists.” Socialists, like communists, want change; however, socialists quite unlike communists do not want violent revolution. Socialism, sometimes called “Fabianism”, attempts to make small changes to the economic system over time to address the problems following from wealth being pooled in too few hands.20 According to Marx all of history was one continuous class struggle: a conflict of interest between the rich and the poor. For this reason Marx believed economic systems like capitalism which promoted competition were inherently violent, nationalistic, and imperialistic. Communist societies, according to Marx, were inherently more equitable and peaceful. The truth of the matter is both capitalist and socialist countries are equally violent, nationalistic and imperialist. This is because human nature, not political ideology, governs and determines human society and history.21 The means of production are all the facilities and resources used for producing goods, e.g. machines, factories, trucks, tractors.

Figure 3 Democratic elections tend to pit the different classes against one another.


In a communist state, the government owns all property.22 Marx believed if nobody owned private property then no one would have the ability to exploit others. Also, Marx considered capitalism a great social evil: the business class exploited the fact workers needed money in order to survive; and since thousands of workers competed for the same few jobs the employer had the power to pay workers as little, or as much, as they wanted (contributing to exploitation). Compounding the problem was the fact workers, not employers, were the ones doing all the actual work while employers reaped almost all of the economic benefits.

Marx believed communism was a genuine political alternative to democracy. There were at least two problems with democracy and representative institutions:23 firstly, democratic institutions pitted the different social classes against one another. The wealthy formed and supported parties to represent their specific interests; lower classes likewise formed parties to represent theirs, and so on and so forth. According to Marx

classes competing against one another in elections meant the needs of the People as a whole could not be met. Instead, elites tended to benefit from a political system dominated by either this or that party because they could either buy votes directly (literally bribing politicians) or indirectly (creating elaborate and expensive propaganda campaigns designed to undermine and confuse their opponents).24

In democracies the wealthy elite, though small in number, exercise a disproportionate amount of influence over the decision making process.25 In a communist society (at least in theory), decision-making was supposed to be genuinely democratic; that is, there is

22 Marx argued that the relationship citizens have with one another in a society reflects the economic system they are living under, e.g. capitalist societies are competitive; therefore, they promote inequality, exploitation and the creation of a class system. He argued if capitalism was destroyed and replaced by socialism—a society where no single person owned more than another—a more humane and freer society would naturally come into being. Again, Marx assumed that economics (rather than human nature) ultimately shaped how people interacted, governed themselves, and looked at the world. Change the economic system and you necessarily changed society. 23 A representative institution is any assembly or authority whose members are elected directly by the people in order to represent the people, e.g. legislature. 24 Italy’s political instability, a situation Mussolini exploited to his advantage, reflected an inherent unwillingness of its various political parties to cooperate with one another. Hitler, for his part, described the process of competing for votes in an election as something akin to “waving a magnet over a dunghill just to see what will stick.”25 The decision-making process is fundamentally tied to the procedures followed in parliaments to introduce, pass and enforce new laws.

Figure 4 French, English and German workers slaughtered one another on the battlefields of the Great War (1914-1918).


no elite (there isn’t even a central government). Instead, hypothetically decisions are made at the local (or regional) level by an assembly of workers councils (called soviets in the Russian context); and membership on these councils wasn’t based on education or class or wealth but was rotational—everybody (man or woman) had a chance to shape decision-making on a rotating basis.

Marx argued governments of capitalist societies like England and the United States were naturally imperialistic (warlike). Wealthy elites in Britain pressured their government to send soldiers26 to fight the Boers in 1899 to gain control of gold mines recently discovered in South Africa; and in 2003, the United States invaded Iraq claiming it was coming to bring the country freedom whereas the invasion likely had more to do with Iraqi vast oil reserves. In both examples, the lower classes of one country was sent to kill the lower classes of another to make the wealthy of each wealthier. Workers were mere tools to be exploited by elites in capitalist societies. Socialist societies, by contrast, prized the contributions of the worker (even placing them on a pedestal above the much hated capitalist).

Marx argued capitalist societies were naturally competitive and warlike. Workers, he argued, were alone capable of ending the perpetual state of war existing between nations: since the workers from every country were united through class consciousness27 they would, Marx believed, see the true enemy wasn’t a worker from another country but the elites who sent them to fight one another.

Interestingly, Marx’s theory was put to the test in 1914 when the Great War broke out. If his thinking on class consciousness was correct, and workers of the world were united in a single cause,28 then German soldiers (workers in civilian life) would refuse to invade France and attack French soldiers (who likewise were workers in civilian life). As it turns out, Marx’s assumption about workers making common cause with one another was completely incorrect: he didn’t understand that nationalism (emotion) was a far stronger force than class consciousness.

People first and foremost have an emotional connection to their tribe or nation. The notion of an “international proletariat” was a well-meaning fiction. Thus, French and 26 Marx called soldiers “wage earners.”27 Class consciousness is created by a series of experiences shared in common between members of the same social class, i.e. the wealthy shared experiences in common with one another making them feel distinct and separate from the poor; the poor likewise are formed by specific experiences with material deprivation and a sense of exploitation at the hands of the business class. Marx argued that once workers came to a collective understanding that there were more of them than there were of the wealthy, the workers would realize their revolutionary potential and overthrow the capitalist class once and for all.28 “Workers of the world unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains!” Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, The Communist Manifesto, Chapter 4.


British workers gladly joined their respective armies in 1914 to kill German and Austrian workers. Nonetheless, Karl Marx famously exclaimed, “Workers of the world unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains!”

What is sometimes confusing about fascism and communism is they are both forms of socialism; however, socialism has and continues to take many different forms. For example, in Britain socialism was not communism but “Fabianism”, i.e. Fabians rejected the revolutionary doctrines of Marx, recommending instead a gradual transition to a socialist (or more progressive) society through gradual political and economic reform.

Canada is a socialist liberal democracy: Canadians pay a little higher taxes in order to support public programs—like unemployment insurance and universal healthcare—so every Canadian can enjoy roughly the same standard of living. In both the British and Canadian contexts, socialism didn’t turn into totalitarianism, e.g. both countries continue to hold free elections, preserve fundamental rights like freedom of speech, and citizens live under the rule of law29 secured by a Constitution. Both the British and Canadians can own private property, as well. Canadians are exactly as free as any American who for whatever reason—usually out of ignorance—hates socialism (because they confuse it with Marx’s communism).

By contrast socialism, in its totalitarian30 (or communist and fascist) forms, tends to have the following characteristics:

Stresses the security of the state over the need to secure individual liberty. Consequently, neither fascist nor communist societies are ever genuinely democratic in terms of civic values.

Governments in either fascist or communist states always take an authoritarian form.

Adherents of both ideologies don’t want to reform the existing political system but outright replace it, e.g. through revolution.

29 Rule of law: the principle that all people and institutions are subject to and accountable to law that is fairly applied and enforced; no one is above the law; laws are written down in a constitution and can only be changed through democratic consensus building.30 Totalitarianism: a style of governance whereby the government has complete and utter control over every aspect of society.


Again, by contrast, the English socialist tradition31 took quite a different path: English socialists made their societies both freer and more democratic by fighting for reforms like workers winning the right to form unions, the introduction of minimum wage laws, and eventually, establishing universal healthcare. England and Canada practice a mixed economic model:32 governments and entrepreneurs cooperate with one another ensuring everyone has roughly equal access to the same education and economic opportunities. So, while fascist and communist states are typically dictatorships, liberal states like Canada’s and Britain’s are socialist and democratic.

3). What problem was Marx ultimately trying to solve through communism?4). List at least two assumptions about the world Marx made while formulating communism.

31 England constructed a rich intellectual tradition around the idea of political and social reform. John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) and Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) were both influenced by the liberal theorist John Locke. Thus, these men conceived of a new industrial society where individual citizens had independence but corporations weren’t allowed to exploit the working class. They argued existing society could be improved through gradual political and legal reforms. Karl Marx didn’t believe capitalist societies were capable of reforming themselves; he felt competitive societies naturally fell apart under their own inner contradictions. Yet, it seems history has vindicated Mill and Bentham and not Marx: liberal capitalist societies like Canada, England, and the United States passed progressive laws protecting workers from exploitation and secured them through social programs like universal healthcare. Marx didn’t believe this was possible. Capitalist societies were doomed to be replaced by so-called “scientific socialism.”32 There are three types of economic models, e.g. laissez-faire, command and mixed. Laissez-faire economies are not regulated by governments whatsoever, e.g. corporations determine wages, workers are at the mercy of bosses, etc. The second type of economic model is the “command model” which is characteristic of countries like the Soviet Union, e.g. the government regulates and controls every single aspect of the economy. Specifically, the government determines what is produced, how much is produced, when it is produced and how much workers are paid. In a mixed economic system, which is practiced in Canada, Britain and the United States, the government intervenes somewhat but also allows corporations a certain degree of freedom.


PART TWO: A Direction Comparison of Fascism & Communism1. Ultra-NationalismCommunists are international in their outlook while fascists are national. Nazi Germany, for example, was aggressive to its neighbors. The Nazis believed they were a so-called “master race” entitled to rule over “slave states” like Poland and the Soviet Union.

Communist countries, like the Soviet Union (Russia and China), were in principle ruled by an international workers class. According to the communists, workers of the world were exploited by corporate business elites around the world. Communists everywhere, therefore, were united by a single purpose—defeat the Bourgeoisie. 33

Fascists aim at exclusion not inclusion. German fascists excluded non-Germans. Fascists look inwards wanting to protect their local community from corrupting influences. Part of Donald Trump’s appeal in 2017 was a promise to build a wall along the American-Mexico border to keep immigrants from Latin America out. He stoked the fear of his supporters when he claimed, falsely, that some Latinos were carrying prayer rugs with them (implying Latino Muslims were invading America).34

By contrast communists look outside their own borders for enemies.35 Regardless of what country a worker or “wage earner” lives in they are part of a single historical movement—the rise of the working class and the defeat of the evil corporate world.

2. AuthoritarianismBoth fascism and communism are authoritarian. This means they are dominated by a single political party. All other political parties are banned. Germany was dominated by the National Socialists (Nazis) and the Soviet Union by the Communist Party. By contrast Canada has multiple political parties, e.g. Green Party, Liberal Party, New Democratic Party and the Conservatives. Dictators like the Soviet Union’s Josef Stalin and China’s Mao Zedong were strong men who refused to share power. They encouraged a “cult of personality” to emerge where the people were encouraged to essentially worship them.33 Bourgeoisie: a term Marx used to refer to the capitalist class, wealthy elites, etc. who exploited the proletariat (workers).34 As of 2010 Mexico had a total of 2500 Muslims in a country of 129 million.35 This is a bit of an oversimplification. The Soviets killed millions of their own citizens in an effort to maintain ideological purity. The Soviet Union established a network of concentration and labor camps (called Kolyma) which basically was the size of Western Canada. See Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s book The Gulag Archipelago for more.


Fascists want to build a strong state. In Germany, this was accomplished by governing through Führerprinzip (translated from the German as roughly the leadership principle). Hitler’s command was regarded as above all written law. This meant he could literally make laws up as he went. He was not limited or bound by any constitution. Basically, whatever orders Hitler gave had to be unquestioningly obeyed. All government policies, decisions, ministries, etc. operated in complete and absolute obedience to Hitler.36 In a country like Canada, the Constitution imposes legal limits on the prime minister’s power; this prevents governments from making the rules up as they go. The creation of constitutions is one of the greatest achievements in the history of liberty.

By contrast Marx envisioned authority in a communist society would be decentralized. This means a series of councils around the country would govern (instead of a single man or a political party). These councils, called soviets in Russia, acted as regional governing bodies; they replaced the need for city, provincial or federal governments. Marx’s vision notwithstanding, authority in fact was concentrated in the hands of a dictator in every single communist country. Dictators were assisted by an obedient ruling party; and critics and opponents were silenced through a combination of laws, secret police, snitching, prison camps, intimidation, and propaganda.

The average citizen, in both Germany and the Soviet Union/China, had absolutely no say in decisions directly affecting them. They lived in totalitarian societies.

3. EconomicsEconomically speaking, fascist states allow citizens freedoms unavailable to people living under communism. In Nazi Germany you could own private property. In the Soviet

36 The Nazi Party was structured along feudalistic lines, e.g. powerful party members were literally given territory or power in exchange for their blind obedience to Adolf Hitler. Hitler also encouraged the members of his party to compete with and distrust one another. In so doing, he prevented the emergence of a rival from below because ultimately everyone relied upon the Fuhrer for their position of privilege. See William L. Shirer’s, Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, p.146-149.

Figure 5 Fascist states glorified the military. They associated the idea of a strong military with the idea of a healthy nation.


Union, the government owned everything (it was actually illegal to own private property).

Taken at face value fascism appears to offer freedoms unavailable to communists; however, upon closer inspection the appearance of freedom in Germany is deceiving: while you could own a factory, and even keep profits for yourself, the Nazi Party told you what to produce, how much to produce, when to produce, and how much to pay workers.

In the Soviet Union, the government did the exact same thing—telling people what to produce, how much to produce, what to pay workers—but all profits went directly to the Communist Party before being in principle distributed to the People. By comparison fascist run economies are stronger than communist ones.37 This is because fascist states practice capitalism (and the profit-motive is a powerful incentive for generating profits). Economies in communist states are centrally planned. Planned economies are not based upon the idea of generating profit but creating work for workers to complete. Centrally planned economies are notoriously inefficient because the Communist Party, instead of the market place, determines what to produce (and sometimes useless things were produced like a million pairs of left foot only shoes for example).

4. The StateFascist states typically glorify war. Strong government is considered necessary to produce an equally strong, disciplined military. There is no room for catering to perceived public needs like political correctness or personal liberty in a fascist society. This is the reason Otto von Bismarck, a proto-fascist himself, observed the “world does not look to Prussia’s liberalism but to her power.” Prussia was arguably the strongest military power in Europe in the late 19th century.

In principle, a strong government in a communist system is considered a necessary but short-term evil. Karl Marx theorized that over time the need for a central government would eventually disappear; he believed a country could function through a series of workers’ councils. By comparison fascists make a point of permanently establishing a strong centralized government. Karl Marx argued that a dictatorship like Josef Stalin’s was only necessary in the short-term.

37 Fascists and communists both make use of command economies: this means the government, and not private individuals, determine what is bought and sold on the market. There is far more room for technological and economic innovation in a fascist state compared to a communist one. Also, there’s room for the profit motive in a fascist society; thus, fascists tend to be comparatively more productive.


Marxism as an ideology got a lot wrong: the reality is the Communist Party (in both China and the Soviet Union) did not “wither away” as Marx predicted. Instead, powerful men emerged taking control of the party; their greed and self-interest ensured a central government would remain in place indefinitely. There was too much to be gained by keeping things the same. If Marxism had any shortcomings, and it had many, it did not take into proper consideration the role and influence of human nature. If someone in a position of power wants to maintain the status quo (keep things the same) then change by definition becomes impossible (unless you remove that person from power). 38 The problem though is while you might remove one self-interested person from power there were hundreds more waiting in line to replace them. For this reason a revolutionary who used to be on the outside looking in, when they themselves are enjoying power and privilege, ceases being a revolutionary wanting to change—they become members of a new elite wanting to preserve a system benefiting them personally. This is how history and human nature work.

In the Soviet Union, communists overthrew the tsar (in 1917) to establish the ideal workers’ society Marx envisioned; yet, the Communist Party did not establish a classless society. On the contrary, the Communist Party formed the basis of a new permanent ruling class. Ironically, the workers were now exploited by the communists instead of the capitalists.

5. Ideological IssuesBoth fascism and communism are ideologies. An ideology is a systematic way of looking at the world. As worldviews go, neither fascism nor communism reflects how the world actually works, how people actually think, how they actually behave or what actually motivates people to do what they do.

38 The third President of the United States, Thomas Jefferson, observed how revolutionary it was for a leader to voluntarily give power back to the people. He was of course talking about the new form of republican democracy established by the United States in 1776. The Americans were the first to establish, and preserve, a system where term limits were voluntarily placed on the president. There are no constitutional limits placed on the number of times an individual can serve as president; it just so happens George Washington only served two five year terms thereby establishing the so-called “Washington Precedent” (which has applied to all subsequent presidents). It should be noted that both the ancient Greeks and Romans did have leaders at time voluntarily relinquish supreme executive power occasionally. The Americans are the first meaningful modern or recent example of it happening.

Figure 6 Henry A. Wallace was the vice-president (1941-1945) of the United States during President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s presidency.


This is a problem: specifically, since communists and fascists attempt to build societies based on how the world ought to be they fail to build long lasting institutions or values.

Communists assume people are either capable of cooperation or competition but never both. In reality, people are capable of both. For example, Marx did not believe economic elites in Canada, Britain or the United States would ever voluntarily share their wealth or weaken their control by allowing the creation of laws protecting workers, e.g. giving people universal healthcare, passing minimum wage laws, or providing workers with unemployment insurance. Yet, this is precisely what happened in the latter part of the 19th century into the early part of the 20th.

Marx did not anticipate this change because ideology literally blinded him to the possibility attitudes and societies can and do change over time. The reality is people are complex and capable of both cooperation, competition, and everything in between. Ideologies failing to take this complexity in to account—and this includes the world’s most dominant ideology, free market capitalism39—are doomed to fail because they encourage the adoption of an incomplete understanding of the world. This incomplete understanding leads people to make errors or exercise poor judgement.

Ideologies that take into account human nature’s complexity are longer lasting and more stable. For this reason England’s Westminster system of parliamentary democracy has existed uninterrupted, and in essentially the same form, since 1689. Canada has had the self-same government in place since 1867. Democracies like Canada’s, quite unlike fascist or communist states, encourage citizens to practice toleration, compromise, consensus building and pluralism.40 The fact citizens can meaningfully participate in the decision-making process creates a sense of legitimacy41 in the people. Legitimacy is the quality that government decisions are valid, fair and acceptable. States that make a point of building and maintaining legitimacy are by comparison more stable and longer lasting than totalitarian/authoritarian states.

39 Free market capitalism is a term describing a strong belief in the ability of laissez-faire (or free market) policies to solve most economic and social problems. The problem with free market fundamentalism is it assumes the production of more wealth overall necessarily means the majority of society’s members benefit overall. This idea of wealth solving all problems does not reflect reality. In the United States, free marketers argue governments should deregulate the economy (remove legal or ethical oversight) and that deregulation results in more money being created at the top that eventually trickle-downs to everyone else. Since the trickle-down ideology was first introduced in the 1980s wealth has actually pooled at the top as opposed to trickled down. This is one of the reasons socialism is necessary: through progressive taxation some of the money pooling among the wealthy can be gathered and redistributed to people through social programs. For this reason free market fundamentalists vilify socialism rightly seeing it as a challenge to their hegemony and power. 40 Pluralism: the belief that there’s more than one right way to look at the world and an acknowledgement that people can pursue different lifestyles, hold different worldview, etc. and all still be equally reasonable in doing so.41 Legitimacy is an important quality for the healthy functioning of a country: when people have meaningfully participated in the decision-making process they tend to accept and follow laws more readily.


Democratic governments do not try to stamp out differences of opinion or force people to agree with one another (as is the case in fascist and communist societies). Instead, the role of the government is simply to preserve the peace; that is, democratic governments function precisely to constructively manage disagreement making sure everyone respects the peace and the rule of law. Disagreement is not eradicated in democracies through threats or political murder. Disagreement is acceptable so long as it is expressed peacefully. Everyone has a right to their own opinion and the freedom to express those opinions publicly. By contrast communists and fascists make extensive use of a secret police, concentration camps, intimidation, and so on, to force citizens to “behave” and “agree” with official party policies.

6. Anti-Democratic MovementsFascists attack other political parties or groups. Fascists despise trade unions because the labor movement influences a country’s economic and political life without being subordinate (or obedient) to the aims of the state. Theoretically labor unions provide a healthy counter-balance to governments which tend over time to be more and more dominated by corporate elites. In other words, societies with a healthy and strong labor movement are more equitable than those that do not.

In Nazi Germany, individual citizens were simply expected to obey—disagreement, disobedience, freedom, and such, were considered contrary to the principle of building a perfect society. Thus, fascists sacrifice liberalism and freedom in order to achieve goals like “racial purity” or the “conquest” of weak neighboring countries. Unions were banned in Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy.

In principle, communist countries are supposed to be democratic; and by democratic everyone was supposed to have a direct say in how government was run. Yet, in practice communist countries tend to be anti-democratic: you do not build the perfect society through parliamentary debates or consensus building in the workers’ councils. You build it through terror, murder, discipline and intimidation.

A problem confronting any authoritarian-minded political party—whether it be communist or fascist—is most people genuinely prefer living in liberty rather than under a dictatorship. Therefore, fascist societies are governed through decree and anyone who opposes destiny is removed (imprisoned, exiled or killed outright). In the context of communism, Karl Marx assures us once the enemies of communism are destroyed the government will mystically “wither away”; then, and only then, will state sanctioned


murder become no longer necessary. The problem is no communist experiment—despite seventy plus years in Russia—ever succeeded. Communism does not work either theoretically or practically speaking. People don’t want workers’ councils. They want to live in freedom and liberty.

7. Racism & XenophobiaFascists believe their country is in crisis or “rotting from within” because of the presence of “impure” people. To address this crisis fascists attack enemies of the country’s “true identity” (usually members of some sort of ethnic, racial or religious minority).42 The rash of xenophobia in Canada towards Muslims in 2015 (Syrians in particular) demonstrates the sobering fact fascist tendencies (however weak) exists in many of us and is never far from the surface; it also reflects the fact we typically see the world through emotion as opposed to reason. Also, fascists consider any citizen who speaks out against attacks on minorities as enemies.43 For this reason people who supported the humanitarian aims of bringing Syrian refugees to Canada in 2015 were wrongly labelled by Canadian nationalists as either sympathetic or active “supporters of terrorism.” Fascist thinking is not so much thinking as it is a feeling. In the case of Canada in 2015, nationalists peddled fear because they could find no good reason to justify not saving tens of thousands of Syrian refugees. Fascists feel a sense of urgency when it comes to purifying society; it cannot be achieved fast enough.

Communists likewise desire purity; yet, the purity they are after isn’t racial. Instead, they want citizens to be ideologically pure. In other words, the Russian Communist Party wanted the “thinking” of their citizens to line up perfectly with the teachings of communist thinkers like Karl Marx or Vladimir Lenin.44

Perhaps the greatest expression of this pathological desire for ideological purity came when the Soviet Union liberated its soldiers from prisoner of war camps in Germany at the end of World War II (1939 to 1945 CE). Instead of being freed to join their comrades in the Red Army, these liberated prisoners were sent to new prison camps in Siberia, Russia. Stalin feared these soldiers would spread stories about what life was like outside of the Soviet Union. So to prevent Russians from being corrupted by

42 The focus on Muslims and Mexicans in the 2016 American presidential election provides a good example of this preoccupation with and fear of outsiders.43 Nazis referred to such people as “politically unreliable” and created an extensive system of concentration camps to house them, e.g. the Sachsenhausen camp.44 Vladimir Lenin (1870-1924) is known as the father of the Russian Revolution. He was the leader of the Bolshevik Party that eventually turned Imperial Russia into a communist state known as the Soviet Union. Some argue that if he would’ve lived longer the USSR would’ve taken a different course than the one it followed under the dictatorship of Josef Stalin (1878-1953).


returning prisoners of war he imprisoned and contained the threat. Ideological purity has to be preserved at all costs.North Korea in the present day does the same thing to its citizens—it prevents citizens from having any contact or knowledge of the outside world. The fear is if the North Korean people actually knew how poor they were, they might actually stop obeying Kim Jong Un (the Dear Leader).

Communists, just like fascists, do not tolerate criticism of the ruling party. Individuals do not have the right to freedom of speech or even a right to freedom of conscience. You are expected to give yourself entirely over to the communist cause (a cause which requires great sacrifice now with promises of paying off at some mysterious point in the future—a future that never seems to arrive, by the way). Both fascists and communists strive to build a utopia (a future perfect society).

Fascists view minorities as the enemy. Communists, on the other hand, insist capitalism is the real enemy. Fascists deal with minorities in one of the following ways: if they can they’ll expel them (kick them out of the country); and if this doesn’t work they’ll imprison them;45 and if imprisonment doesn’t work they kill them. Similarly Karl Marx argued exterminating the Bourgeoisie might be necessary since they would resist change and communism.

In principle fascism focuses on what a person intrinsically is or is not while communism focuses its attention simply on a person’s social role. Both communism and fascism have some serious drawbacks; but at least it can be said of communism that one doesn’t have to necessarily resort to mass murder to “purify” society.46 Again, in principle (so many principles), you can change a person’s social role without having to first destroy the person.

The difference between fascism and communism is fundamental: communism seeks to develop everyone while fascism excludes or eliminates all who don’t belong to the “ideal.”

45 The current “for profit” prison system in the United States puts disenfranchised (and poorly compensated) African Americans to work for the country’s corporations.46 Josef Stalin did frequently resort to mass murder, e.g. the genocide of approximately 2.5 million Ukrainians during Holodomor (1932-1933), the murder of tens of thousands of Russian officers during the Great Purge (1937-1939) or the murder of Polish intellectuals and officers during the Katyn Massacre (1941)). He also ordered the execution of hundreds of doctors who he feared might poison him.

vcanada2.comvcanada2.com/h20_website/unit 4 aftermath of the... · web viewa). create a word...

Documents