[Inexorable]

There has always been heated debates over the economics of fascism and the trend among many on this forum is to take the theory of corporatism seriously. One of the more absurd moves of the American right is to declare fascism and NS leftwing socialist movements, which they clearly were not. Nonetheless there are many self-proclaimed fascists who play up these socialist aspects and declare themselves third way opponents of international capitalism.


I want to take an entirely different approach and point out that Fascist Italy and NS Germany were the ONLY countries in the early 20th century that carried out a massive privatization campaign while the rest of the world turned towards Social Democracy, New Deal, Communism, and other state interventionist tactics. In fact, the very word 'privatization' was coined by an Englishman who studied the Third Reich. Nearly all state interventions were in fact headed by bourgeoisie who had party membership in their respective regimes.

This massive privatization effort would not be duplicated again until the rise of neoliberalism in the 1980s. I therefore reject the nationalistic and autarkist model of fascism and NS in favor of a model that emphasizes state subsidizing favored international corporations.

Although it may seem counterintuitive I should point out neoliberalism and nationalism have never been at odds and have acted as complimentary forces in many countries.

Sources for my claims:

Fascist privatization: http://cadmus.eui.eu/handle/1814/12319

Nazi privatization: http://c4ss.org/content/124

[Piccolo]

There seems to be gaps between rhetoric and practice with regard to fascist economics. When fascists are out of power, it seems more likely that the left-wing theories of fascist economics (corporatism, national syndicalism) will be popular as fascism is a marginal political movement.

However, when fascists were actually in power they were more conservative on economic matters, which is to be expected since business leaders threw their lot in with Mussolini and Hitler in large measure because they felt they could dispose of the Red Menace and create an environment that would be favorable for capital. Fascists understood that private industry was an important part of their political base.

I think the real division between fascism and neoliberalism comes down to the issue of "who is on top?" In most neoliberal countries, private business interests call the shots. The politicians and political parties are the lackeys of private business entities who are the senior partners in the relationship. However, under fascism, the paths through which private industry exerts its influence, (the organs of liberal representative democracy) are weakened or eliminated so the Leader and the Party become the driving force in the State.

Hitler’s control over the machine of German government, including its police, and military, made it so that he probably could bend private business to his will if he so chose. This is not really possible in the modern neoliberal countries. Witness how even minor reforms under Obama in the U.S. had to basically be screened before industry groups (Big Finance, Big Insurance) before they could pass into law.

[Inexorable]

I'm going to agree with you and I think my comparison was too hasty. Clearly both models had certain advantages and disadvantages to the respective capitalists.

[Rei Murasame]

Did either of you fully read the two links in question? The conclusion of both seems to be actually the opposite of what you two said it was. As well as how it happened and who did it.

The privatisation that occurred under Fascist governments in Europe, was for the purpose of removing certain industries from the state's balance sheet in order to balance the budget, and it it was used as a tactic to win easy co-operation from industrialists who up until that point didn't want to even see a fascist's face, much less collaborate with one.

After privatisation ideas were brought out, industrialists were allowed to manage their own businesses, which increased industrialist support for fascism. During the first phase, it was necessary for them to make those overtures in order to get themselves elected in the environment that they were in. After they were elected, they continued it until they had the political power to stop doing it, which is when the syndicalism-corporatism agenda - the 'preferred' agenda - came into play. But at the beginning, they had to pursue orthodox growth-oriented policies.

The way that a system is implemented depends on the situation that exists at the time.

If you were to expand your assessment to include places like Ba'athist Iraq and Right-Socialist Japan, then you would have a slightly different story, but it would be trending toward the same goal.

[Andrea_Chenier]

The privatisation [...] as a tactic to win easy co-operation from industrialists who up until that point didn't want to even see a fascist's face, much less collaborate with one.

Not really...

In 1932 the president of Weimar Republic received a letter signed by 20 major representatives of german capitalism who were asking him to make Hitler chancellor. The petition even contained empty thid positionist slogans and of course lots of anti-communism. It was pretty much forshadowing of what the Nazi economy would then turn out to be in reality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrielleneingabe

[Rei Murasame]

Not really...

In 1932 the president of Weimar Republic received a letter signed by 20 major representatives of german capitalism who were asking him to make Hitler chancellor. The petition even contained empty thid positionist slogans and of course lots of anti-communism. It was pretty much forshadowing of what the Nazi economy would then turn out to be in reality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrielleneingabe

I was basing my comments on what was in the article that was linked about Fascist Italy though. The PNF was not doing well in elections, up until they implemented the so-called 'pro-growth' platform.

The year 1932 in Germany that you refer to, was just two years before Nazi Germany replicated the same behaviour. So on that one too, it seems like NSDAP changed rhetoric in order to get the representatives to perceive them as 'at least not communists'.

[Bridgeburner]

There has always been heated debates over the economics of fascism and the trend among many on this forum is to take the theory of corporatism seriously. One of the more absurd moves of the American right is to declare fascism and NS leftwing socialist movements, which they clearly were not. Nonetheless there are many self-proclaimed fascists who play up these socialist aspects and declare themselves third way opponents of international capitalism.

NS had a very significant left wing (SA) that was mobilized during the important "street battle" phase of Weimar Republic. I'll remind you that it was only until after the election and Chancellorization of Hitler that Rohm and Strasser bros. were purged from the system. In this regard its not hard to remember that lots of NS/fascists believe that the revolution was only half finished. In Italy, Mussolini can have said to stopped to crumble under pressure to the old order - Church and Monarchy.

I want to take an entirely different approach and point out that Fascist Italy and NS Germany were the ONLY countries in the early 20th century that carried out a massive privatization campaign while the rest of the world turned towards Social Democracy, New Deal, Communism, and other state interventionist tactics. In fact, the very word 'privatization' was coined by an Englishman who studied the Third Reich. Nearly all state interventions were in fact headed by bourgeoisie who had party membership in their respective regimes.

I don't know about that, look up Hjalmar Schacht and the MeFo bill-based economic policy. There was an extremely significant state presence - while not directly, it was nevertheless there

This massive privatization effort would not be duplicated again until the rise of neoliberalism in the 1980s. I therefore reject the nationalistic and autarkist model of fascism and NS in favor of a model that emphasizes state subsidizing favored international corporations.

The difference being NSDAP Germany hthe corporations were SLAVED to national interest. Any internationalist pretensions would be quashed in a second. That's the primary difference between neoliberalism and the "capitalism" you see in NSDAP Germany. Neoliberalism detests the middle class and makes no attempts to hide its exploitation and discarding of it when it becomes economically feasible to do so - in NSDAP Germany, as Piccolo pointed out, whilst they were pragmatic rather than dogmatic economically - it arguably is a forced example of class collaboration between capital and workers under the auspices of the vanguard party. There would have been no ability for corporate interests in NSDAP Germany to go "full internationalist" and divest their interests from the nation-state and act in an independent fashion.

Although it may seem counterintuitive I should point out neoliberalism and nationalism have never been at odds and have acted as complimentary forces in many countries.

Both the proto-philosophies of neoliberalism were always intensely opposed to fascism - it's always been a fight of nationalism vs internationalism in this regard, neoliberalism is distinctly internationalist to the core, something that took me a long time to recognize