A message from the young thinkers of the University College London Union:
This Union resolves to… struggle against fascism and the far-right… with the perspective of fighting the root cause of fascism – capitalism.
Apparently fascism is “far-right” – a claim that Mussolini and Hitler, avowed socialists, might have found puzzling – and is caused by capitalism. And not caused by, say, dogmatic collectivism and its endless justifications for authoritarian urges. Urges not unlike those of the Union itself, with its intent to ban student groups that it deems both “sexist” and “anti-Marxist,” and which therefore must be met with “unconditional resistance.” To say nothing of the Union’s somewhat ambitious plan to bring about “a socialist transformation of society.”
Via BenSix.
Oh no, not the silly ‘Hitler was a socialist’ thing again, as if the appending of ‘national’ was just decorative. I guess we will all have to accept that the GDR was ‘democratic’ too, eh?
If you criticize leftwing political correctness this makes you racist, sexist and homophobic? And these are the clever kids, right?
And these are the clever kids, right?
I’m still not sure what it is exactly the UCLU was so incensed about. Apparently, the Union “resolved that the group’s ultimate aim was to promote fascism and racism on campus.” This is what they “believe.” Though I haven’t yet found any actual evidence of this intent. In fact, the article above mentions a lack of such, twice. Presumably the poster about equality being a false god was deemed sufficient proof of unspeakable intent. Again, the modern definition of “radical” seems to be “a person for whom almost everything is scandalous and beyond the pale.”
From the comments at the Tab article:
“Marxism is the process of reassigning all power and knowledge from the bourgeois to the edgy middle children of the bourgeois.”
Oh no, not the silly ‘Hitler was a socialist’ thing again, as if the appending of ‘national’ was just decorative.
So a “national” socialist is not a socialist? And in the swallow a camel but choke on a gnat level, passing to comment on the idea that the root cause of fascism is capitalism?
“So a “national” socialist is not a socialist?”
No, a national socialist is a fascist. This is not usually controversial. Its like the German Democratic Republic wasn’t really democratic. I know that may be hard to swallow. Like to buy a bridge?
A National Socialist is a socialist on a national or ethnic scaled as opposed to being internationalist. Which explains why socialism works best in homogeneous societies as in the Scandi countries. This also explains how begins to fall apart in such societies as immigrants from other societies with different cultural assumptions move in.
The GDR was not democratic because they did not practice democracy. National Socialism subjugates the individual for the betterment of the Nation (state). It is socialistic in nature. It just limits the size and scope of its society.
You again passed on your position as to whether the root cause of fascism is capitalism.
“A National Socialist is a socialist on a national or ethnic scaled as opposed to being internationalist”
So that will be a socialist that does not adhere to any of the basic positions of any known variety socialism? That kind of socialist?
I was under the impression the student left had been trying to perfect fascist behaviour.
“You again passed on your position as to whether the root cause of fascism is capitalism.”
Sorry, didn’t mean to ignore this challenge, but I am finding it difficult to understand since you do not accept that ‘facsim’ as a category exists. Do you mean to ask if I think capitalism is the root cause of socialism? Well, I suppose in a sense it is.
I was under the impression the student left had been trying to perfect fascist behaviour.
Well, when I see tactics and ambitions that demand conformity and are censorious and bullying, especially among students, they most often come from one part of the political spectrum. From the theft and vandalism of insufficiently leftwing student newspapers and an intolerance of debate and factual challenges to the signature thuggery and mob coercion of Occupy and associated groups. The intellectuals of which tells us that we – thee and me – need “slapping around a little bit.” For our own good.
I am finding it difficult to understand since you do not accept that ‘facsim’ as a category exists
I see your difficulty. Please point out where I denied that fascism as a category exists.
Actually, I kind of broadened the term a bit by referencing the Scandi countries as (light) forms of fascism. Not all fascism is of the kill the Jews, invade Poland variety.
Do you mean to ask if I think capitalism is the root cause of socialism? Well, I suppose in a sense it is.
No, I mean to ask the question I asked, per the original post. Capitalism is now the root cause of socialism? Assuming that is what you really meant to say, would this be because capitalism has resulted in the creation of so much wealth as to enable various parasitical political entities to have the time and energy to promote a rehashing of the the economic central-planning that has been the source of misery for most of human history? BTW, you could state in unequivocal terms what you really mean and we won’t have to play silly games like this.
“I see your difficulty. Please point out where I denied that fascism as a category exists.”
I have misunderstood, I thought you were denying that Nazism was fascism but socialism instead. Or perhaps you think that the Nazis were socialists but the Italian (say) fascists were the real deal. I am curious to know what the big differences are, though. I know Mussolini killed fewer Jews but it can’t surely be that.
“No, I mean to ask the question I asked, per the original post. ”
yes but the students were referring to fascism as in Hitler. I think that is clear. And you don’t think Hitler was fascist, so I am still struggling to know what question you want answered.
“Capitalism is now the root cause of socialism?”
In a sense. Marx thought so at any rate.
” Assuming that is what you really meant to say, would this be because capitalism has resulted in the creation of so much wealth ”
Yes, in part. Again, that’s what Marx thought and why he was such an admirer.
And you don’t think Hitler was fascist, so I am still struggling to know what question you want answered.
I’m sorry…have you suffered some sort of stroke this morning? I can’t for the life of me figure out from what I have said here how in the world you come to the conclusion that I “don’t think Hitler was fascist”.
Yes, in part. Again, that’s what Marx thought and why he was such an admirer That would be using the term “admirer” in the Mark David Chapman context, correct?
Can I get a witness here? I gotta get back to work to support the socialists in the midsts.
“I’m sorry…have you suffered some sort of stroke this morning? I can’t for the life of me figure out from what I have said here how in the world you come to the conclusion that I “don’t think Hitler was fascist”.”
Well, you said he was a socialist. Do you just use the words interchangeably? I think it would be easier just to settle on one and that one should be ‘socialist’ to avoid confusion.
@WTP
How very evasive & slippery that Minnow person would appear!
I found this comment somewhere re: a LvM quote..
..Luwig von Mises, on the reason German capitalists tended to support the National Socialists (a fact sized upon by communists and fellow travelers as proof of the capitalist roots of fascism):
“German workers are the most reliable supporters of the Hitler regime. Nazism has won them over completely by eliminating unemployment and by reducing the entrepreneurs to the status of shop managers (Betriebsführer) [who must follow Nazi directives if they wish to stay in business]. Big business, shopkeepers, and peasants are disappointed. Labor is well satisfied and will stand by Hitler, unless the war takes a turn which would destroy their hope for a better life after the [Molotov-Ribbentrop] peace treaty. Only military reverses can deprive Hitler of the backing of the German workers.
“The fact that the capitalists and entrepreneurs, faced with the alternative of Communism or Nazism, chose the latter, does not require any further explanation. They preferred to live as shop managers under Hitler than to be “liquidated” as “bourgeois” by Stalin. Capitalists don’t like to be killed any more than other people do.” Interventionism: An Economic Analysis (1940)
“reducing the entrepreneurs to the status of shop managers (Betriebsführer) [who must follow Nazi directives if they wish to stay in business]”
Notice that part about ‘staying in business’. Not that Misses is the most reliable historian. Business did have an alternative to supporting Hitler: opposing him.
Fascism = tyranny. Socialism/Communism = tyranny. They are two sides of the same coin and to the societies they infect the effect is the same, subjugation.
Stop playing Marxist word games insisting that people who call themselves Socialist are actually Fascist – as if there is a difference to those being oppressed by the progressive in charge. The reason socialist/communists call Fascism “right-wing” is so they can confuse the electorate by then linking liberty minded people to an extreme ideology and then play a moderate, thinking, centrist. The left-right construct is just another progressive lie. There is just Liberty (Capitalism) and Tyranny (the rest), and lets face it Tyranny cannot stand Liberty, which is why Progressive leaders continue to attack Capitalism.
Indoctrination, not Education, is the order of the day. Propaganda works.
“Stop playing Marxist word games insisting that people who call themselves Socialist are actually Fascist”
Just a reminder that the ‘people’ we are talking about here are Hitler and Mussolini. Just out of interest, if you don’t consider those two fascists, who do you think the term suits? Or are all bad men socialists by definition?
Minnow
Let me quote Hitler: “We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions.”
Please tell me of the free-market policies of national socialists.
Both Hitler and Mussolini took central control of the economy. Hitler also said that his economic philosophy was based on Marx’s. Of course he said so in private because he was opposing the communists, rival socialists. However the efficient Germans recorded everything. He said that his only innovation was to realise that an authoritarian government need not own any business to control it.
I am too lazy to find it again, but I read it and he was quite clear in his admiration for the anti-Semitic Marx*. You can use a search engine as easily as I. It is on line.
If you don’t want to look that up, please try to address this careful analysis of the socialism of the Nazis https://democraticpeace.wordpress.com/2009/05/23/hitler-was-a-socialist/
* Yes, I know Marx was Jew; he also exploited the workers (not even worker he had given employment; he took money from Engels, who owned a factory or some such) and lived off his quite sizeable private income. He kept a woman a virtual slave, and denied his child from an affair with her. He was a hypocrite as well as lacking in intelligence, a quite disgusting man. He hated Jews because he did not want to pay them back the money he owed let alone interest. Marx seriously overspent even his solid income. Easy to see why Hitler admired him.
Oh no, not the silly ‘Hitler was a socialist’ thing again, as if the appending of ‘national’ was just decorative.
“We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions.”
—Adolf Hitler, [144] 1927 speech”
Hitler was named “Man of the Year” in 1938 by Time Magazine. They noted Hitler’s anti-capitalistic economic policies:
“Most cruel joke of all, however, has been played by Hitler & Co. on those German capitalists and small businessmen who once backed National Socialism as a means of saving Germany’s bourgeois economic structure from radicalism. The Nazi credo that the individual belongs to the state also applies to business. Some businesses have been confiscated outright, on other what amounts to a capital tax has been levied. Profits have been strictly controlled. Some idea of the increasing Governmental control and interference in business could be deduced from the fact that 80% of all building and 50% of all industrial orders in Germany originated last year with the Government. Hard-pressed for food- stuffs as well as funds, the Nazi regime has taken over large estates and in many instances collectivized agriculture, a procedure fundamentally similar to Russian Communism.”
(Source: Time Magazine; January 2, 1939.)
Fascism is socialism.
How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
The net effect of all centralizing force in civilizations is the eventual control of the economy, therefore ability to exist in a wage based society, into a smaller group of decision makers. This is true of capitalism as it is of all the other (ism).
The real and only possible exception is a nation which recognizes the people (General Population) is the final arbiter. This is very difficult unless the concept of Law, both common law and tort) is the rule even when arcane or as will happen , unjust in a particular circumstance. With a base of Law and a guiding principal such as a Constitution this is possible until the people are bought of by brokerage politics.
There is one nation, a broad demographical based country, which just may avoid the sellout to a diminishing number of people actually at the centre of the consolidating forces of civilization. This is, as being stated by a Canadian, The United States of America. Cheers
These young fools do not know what they are doing. They clearly have no understanding of where freedom comes from and what slavery is and can be in many forms … right now we are tax slaves, if they socialists (or the muslims) win, we will be total physical slaves with no rights and no protections.
You know, the way it was before capitalism and it’s need for free enterprise from a free thinking, free people with innovative ideas so that socialists can have iPhones.
Minnow
If you want a broader historical analysis from the perspective of an economist, try this link https://mises.org/daily/3274
I have found another good quote from Hitler comparing Nazism with Bolshevism. The link also has the words of Eric Hobsbawm, infamous communist historian who was in Germany in the 1930s, saying he would have been a Nazi had he been a German Gentile. So clearly he saw a close similarity between Nazism and his own philosophy.
http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/id9.html
The spam filter is once again getting ideas above its station. If anyone has trouble with comments not appearing, email me and I’ll shake them loose.
“And these are the clever kids, right?”
Socialism is stupidity for clever people…and cleverness for stupid people.
And these are the clever kids, right?
The clever kids who say they hate fascists but won’t allow other people to say things they disagree with.
Minnow has it all correct.
Funny how economic freedom is the root of all evil (even fascism apparently) but no evil can come from socialism.
Why do so many people resist the notion that a government strong enough to tell people, “you may work, but you may not keep the fruits of your labor” may evolve into a government that believes the citizens only exist for the state?
And these are the clever kids, right?
They’re not being clever; they’re operating from within a cult with its attendant pathologies: lock-step thinking, extreme self-righteousness, sharp in-group/out-group boundaries, extreme intolerance for dissent, obsession with thoughtcrimes, merciless expulsion from the group for heresy, word-salad discourse that can be understood only by the pure in heart, chanting to shut down other voices, public confession/penitence rituals, absolute severing from one’s background/history, etc.
Such cults attract those who highly prize social cohesion over messy individuality: it gives them an unambiguous moral hill to stand on, thus sparing them the difficult, painful, and occasionally alienating process of Thinking For Oneself, which might result in mockery from the self-appointed bien pensant class, and we can’t have that.
Minnow, Hitler was many things, but socialist was one of them. He was also justifiably paranoid, a nationalist, a racist, an authoritarian, an enviromentalist [sic] and a vegetarian.
The 25 Points of Hitler’s Nazi Party is pertinent here.
The first 8 points describe the “National” aspect, whereas 8–25 provide the “Socialism” (with a soupçon of nationalism sprinkled therein).
For left-leaning students to issue blanket condemnations of “fascism” is to condemn a goodly portion of what they themselves accept. Fascism is a heresy of socialism — not its opposite — and differs from socialism only in that the state did not actually seize the means of production but instead put a gun to the heads of the corporate owners and made them dance to the Fascists’ tune.
No, the hatred of Jews wasn’t exclusive to Hitler’s flavor of socialism: the Jews were the very embodiment of capitalism, they being the bankers and merchants, and so exterminating them was a logical measure to purge the society of capitalism’s foul stench. Eugenics (for which there was a scientific consensus) was merely a means of cleansing the race quickly instead of waiting for Darwinian Evolution to do its work. Win-win!
Socialists in the West (Fabians, Progressives) objected to Hitler’s extermination project only because he was supposed to be exterminating on basis of class, not ethnicity. The extermination (of which George Bernard Shaw was a full-throated supporter) wasn’t a problem at all.
Promoting socialism or communism while condemning fascism is as anti-historical and anti-intellectual as it gets.
But then, that’s never stopped other university-level movements before; why start now?
Fascism was specifically co-opting the bourgeois (capitalists) into supporting state political aims for a quid pro quo.
A more menacing Crony Capitalism if you like.
Why do so many people resist the notion that a government … may evolve into a government that believes the citizens only exist for the state?
Because for some people it’s a feature, not a bug. Those in control like it, of course, but many of the controlled are fine with having a peaceful yet externally regimented life.
The Grand Inquisitor describes it thus, in his accusation of the returned Christ:
This is the oldest of human dilemmas: Who will bear the burden of the terrible freedom we have — wherein we reap the very consequences of our actions, whether good or ill?
You don’t have to believe in Christ or any divine thing to recognize the horror of reaping precisely what one has sown. Who wants such a grave responsibility? Who wants to consider so carefully one’s present actions — to discard many pleasant ones and undertake difficult ones — because of a merciless chain of causality?
No, giving one’s freedom over to a mob is far more comfortable and far more rewarding — at least in the short term — for most people to pass up. As the Grand Inquisitor claims, that freedom is so burdensome that it’s an act of mercy for Better Men to bear that burden for the masses, bless their caring little hearts.
Why do so many people resist the notion that a government strong enough to tell people, “you may work, but you may not keep the fruits of your labor” may evolve into a government that believes the citizens only exist for the state?
Well we do need the state for some purposes. Defense from foreign and domestic threats, mitigate contract disputes, define boundaries, etc. Along with this must come the general infrastructure, bureaucracy, etc. to pay for and enforce these things. Then there are things that, while not fitting into any of the former categories, are ‘nice to haves’ that, for better or for worse, enhance or are perceived to enhance the general welfare. Things such as public parks, roads, etc. Once we admit the latter, the camel’s nose is under the tent. Given that common sense is not all that common, the line begins to blur and (philosopher’s resolutions be damned) a slippery slope develops. I understand how it happens, what infuriates is attempts to discuss with leftists where these lines are result in sophistry and word play.
As for Minnow’s inability to comprehend re Well, you said he was a socialist. Do you just use the words interchangeably? Is it so hard to comprehend my position that National Socialism == Nazism == Fascism? As I originally stated, the difference between National Socialism and Socialism is the scope. I don’t accepted that Fascism being mutually exclusive to Socialism. The similarities are way too strong. No they’re not the same but they’re not exclusive either. Must I draw a Venn diagram?
Dicentra, thanks for the link to the 25 points. Pretty much ends the discussion.
@dicentra-
“Fascism is a heresy of socialism — not its opposite — and differs from socialism only in that the state did not actually seize the means of production but instead put a gun to the heads of the corporate owners and made them dance to the Fascists’ tune”.
“Socialists in the West (Fabians, Progressives) objected to Hitler’s extermination project only because he was supposed to be exterminating on basis of class, not ethnicity. The extermination (of which George Bernard Shaw was a full-throated supporter) wasn’t a problem at all”.
That’s why I love this blog- I could not have put it better myself, Sir/Ma’am, and I will nick and use your undoubtedly accurate “heresy” analysis from herein onwards.
@David- just rattled the tip jar. Keep it up, please.
I got the “heresy” thing from Jonah Goldberg’s Liberal Fascism and the bit about “they’re killing the wrong peeps” from The Soviet Story and the G.B. Shaw business from Glenn Beck, who used to play this clip rather often.
God Bless the Internet
Business did have an alternative to supporting Hitler: opposing him.
Wait wait wait wait wait.
In that great upheaval, the Nazis and the Socialists vied for power. “Opposing Hitler” would have spelled one of two thing: if Hitler wins, be executed as an enemy of the state (Not Being a Nazi); if Stalin wins, be executed as an enemy of the state (Being a Shopkeeper).
Mises said, “They preferred to live as shop managers under Hitler than to be ‘liquidated’ as ‘bourgeois’ by Stalin.”
SUBMIT OR DIE, in other words. Cripes, that doesn’t even come close to indicating that capitalism was the foundation of fascism.
Will you think that through, please?
Just out of interest, if you don’t consider those two fascists, who do you think the term suits? Or are all bad men socialists by definition?
SOCIALIST — n. Adherent of the doctrine of socialism, which holds that the state ought to own and control the means of production as well as all other aspects of the country’s life. Stalin’s brand of socialism held that “workers” all over the world had more in common with each other than with the bourgeois of their respective countries.
NAZI — n. A member of the National Socialist Workers Party of Germany, whose nickname was “Nazi.” Also, a German Fascist.
FASCIST — n. Adherent of the doctrine of fascism, a variant of socialism practiced by Mussolini, a die-hard Marxist who, having seized power in Italy, decided he didn’t want to answer to Moscow and so declared his regime to be “national” socialism. The term “fascist” arises from the fasces, a symbol of power in ancient societies that consisted of many rods bound together with an axe sticking out. The bundle of rods demonstrated the principle that “apart we are weak but together we are strong.” The Italian word “fascio” means “labor union.”
From The Doctrine of Fascism by Benito Mussolini:
Note that for Mussolini, a “totalitarian” regime was a good thing.
Similarly, the term “dictator” was held as positive 100 years ago because such a ruler could overcome the corruption of parliaments and special interests and “get things done” such as make the trains run on time. The Progressives and Fabians thought a dictatorship would be perfectly splendid, provided that one of theirs was doing the dictating. Woodrow Wilson fancied himself an Ideal Administrator who would dictate the U.S. into utopian perfection. (Much of the garbage he introduced plagues us to this day.)
Also please note that the free market and private ownership of property is part of Classical Liberalism, which Mussolini and Hitler fervently opposed. If you read the text at that entire link, you’ll see that Mussolini’s concept of the individual in relation to the state is intensely collectivist. If you can, please indicate which of the points (besides number 8) differs significantly with the socialist concept of the individual/state relationship.
Also please show where in The Doctrine of Fascism is the least glimmer of support for capitalism or the free market.
Anyone who preaches socialism is a socialist. Anyone who preaches fascism is a national socialist. And for my money, anyone fitting into those two categories is indeed bad.
I use words according to their denotative properties, not according to their emotive value. “Fascist” as those college students use it has purely emotive value. The denotation is not something they’ve been taught, because if they were, they’d never consent to using the term to label their enemies.
dicentra “Mussolini, a die-hard Marxist who, having seized power in Italy, decided he didn’t want to answer to Moscow and so declared his regime to be ‘national’ socialism.”
Another factor in Mussolini’s abandonment of international socialism in favor of a nationalist form were his experiences during WWI: Contrary to Marxist predictions, the Italian proletariat did not oppose the war but supported it with fervent nationalist feeling. Mussolini decided that if the workers were going to continue to embrace nationalism then what was needed was a socialism that embraced nationalism.
Curiously, all the leftists I have known who put themselves forward as serious students of the history of the left fail to mention this…and vehemently deny it when pressed, uttering all sorts of obfuscatory garbage in an attempt to confuse the issue. Funny thing, that. I just can’t imagine why leftists would tell so many lies. /sarc
Funny thing, that. I just can’t imagine why leftists would tell so many lies
As I observed to a Twitterlocutor who struggled with the idea that Hitler was a SOCIALIST of type national, “the victor writes the history.” The Soviet Union defeated the Nazis, so Stalin’s characterization of Nazism/Fascism as “right wing” was preserved amongst the socialists in the universities. Stalin used “right wing” as a standard pejorative to describe all his rivals, and in all fairness, not many movements were to the left of Stalin.
The Twitterlocutor — way in over his head (as per usual) — denied that Stalin OR the Soviet Union had written any history textbooks.
Thereby refuting me so definitively that I was left utterly
speechlesstweetless.I mean, how do you counter a fact-set like THAT?
“Political tags — such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth — are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort.”
― Robert A. Heinlein
“Fascist” as those college students use it has purely emotive value. The denotation is not something they’ve been taught, because if they were, they’d never consent to using the term to label their enemies.
If we can find this stuff easily why can’t UCL students?
If we can find this stuff easily why can’t UCL students?
I suppose that has quite a lot to do with the kind of students they are. The kind of students, for instance, who tell us that, “While the first workers’ state is no more, Lenin is still very much alive… and today the Marxist theoretical giant and leader of the Russian Revolution celebrates his 144th birthday.”
These, remember, are students – supposed intellectuals – who use the words “comrades” and “Marxist revolution” unironically, as if these terms had no dubious or unflattering historical connotations. And who, not entirely coincidentally, regard a lack of evidence to support their ban as something to be addressed “later, if necessary.”
The basic concept of economics is that of voluntary trade for mutual benefit by individuals, based on their respective judgments with regard to the value of the items being traded. Capitalism is the system in which individual judgment is respected, and therefore brings a rising standard of living. It is the normal and proper system for human beings to live under.
Socialism is defined as a system in which government owns the means of production. Fascism is usually thought of as a system in which nominal private ownership is maintained, but in which government makes economic decisions anyway. In practice there is little or no difference between the two. Under capitalism, economic decisions are made by people who have a much greater likelihood of knowing what they’re doing.
Fascism usually picks its enemies based on “race” whereas socialism chooses its enemies based on “class”. The totalitarian thuggery is the same; only the hatreds are different.
“While the first workers’ state is no more, Lenin is still very much alive… and today the Marxist theoretical giant and leader of the Russian Revolution celebrates his 144th birthday.”
Holy crap. The real world (and the dole queue) is going to be such a shock to them.
The real world (and the dole queue) is going to be such a shock to them.
Oh, these moral titans won’t need jobs. They’ll be much too busy transforming the world.
“SOCIALIST — n. Adherent of the doctrine of socialism, which holds that the state ought to own and control the means of production as well as all other aspects of the country’s life.”
No, it doesn’t. You need a better dictionary. There are many forms of socialism, of course, (no such thing as a ‘doctine of socialism’)but all of them, as far as I am aware, share the goal of liberating the worker from the state as well as capitalist exploitation, not increasing the power of the state. Socialists want (or wanted) the means of production to be owned by the people who produce, the workers, not the state. Fascists, disagreed fundamentally. These were quite major disagreements.