Just because the American education system defined "socialism" as "when the government does stuff" doesn't mean that's what it is, in, y'know, the actual real historical world.
Revolutionary socialism / communism = a working class movement trying to overthrow the dominance of the capitalist class. So putting the working class above all else.
Fascism = a nationalist movement trying to dissolve all class and other distinctions into the nation. So putting the nation above all else.
The role of the state may look effectually similar in the practices of both, but the reason and practice for doing so is entirely different.
At least in Marxism-Leninism, you have a party vanguard implementing a dictatorship of the proletariat that could be somewhat analogous to the bureaucracy of the fascist state, so I'd say that the practices are fairly similar in at least some situations. The major difference would be that Marxism-Leninism advances the idea of that bureaucracy also using some sort of democratic process to operate and make decisions, but as we know, that can be easily undermined with a cult of personality.
In that perspective, we can look at progressivism, communism, and fascism as different perspectives on technocratic managerialism — all of whom experienced similar problems, eg, purging/sterilizing undesirables via eugenics programs.
Which is why parent-of-you commenter is missing the mark about my comments. I'm not making a "no true Scotsman" argument, and talking about "those weren't really socialist" blah blah. The reality is that material forces in the early 20th century pushed many places into these forms which looked much like each other, and had little to do with the ideologies held in the head of the parties and people involved and more to do with the combined and uneven nature of the economies of Russia, etc. and the structure of imperialism/colonialism at the time.
I'd point the finger back at parent-poster -- it's not about the essences of"progressivism" and "socialism" and "fascism" ideologies having some common net effect, or common DNA. That, too, is unscientific and idealist (in the philosophical sense) and frankly false.
It's about what productive forces and the state of the world looked like in the 20s and 30s, which also forced entire societies on trajectories regardless of what the leadership of said countries said about themselves.
And circling back, the value of "Trotskyism" as an intellectual current (when it's not debased by weird cultism) is not in the personhood of Trotksy himself or the fact that he somehow was some saintly figure (he was not), but in that he offered up a materialist, Marxist, analysis of what the USSR had become and how it had gotten there. Which had little to do with the people or their ideas, but the material forces that had made those people, their ideas, and their actions possible.
Gallons of ink have been spilled talking about how the two types of populism are similar -- horseshoe theory -- but the reason why it's a horseshoe and not a circle is exactly the issue of capital ownership.
They were more akin to socialist party bosses -- do what the nazis say at the directed wages, prices, and quantities and then take your socialist party boss cut off the top.
More to the point, it's the type of bunk that is being pushed by the people currently in power to argue that every vaguely left-leaning person in the USA is actually a secret communist revolutionary and should be crushed by any means necessary, law and constitution and common decency be damned:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unhumans
JD Vance put a blurb on this book praising its core argument. This is how the fascists currently in power will expand their extrajudicial purges from hispanics to political opponents. It's dark shit, and you're helping them.
I'm under no illusion Nazis meet the wet definition of communism, which IIRC when distilled down to just the 'water' without impurities doesn't even have a central government.
Collective ownership in practice means state ownership. And state control.
Fascism has state control as well.
Fascism comes with a deeply stratified class hierarchy. Collective ownership in the socialist sense is incompatible with this.
You mean the actual similarity.
The ideological aspect IS the superficial part when you put it into practice.
Did you come to the understanding you have through careful consideration and thought? Are you open to re-consideration of the ideas you have about this?
It is, however, an inherent, defining feature of fascism.
A defining trait of a national state is sovereignty over a territory and control of the use of violence in that territory, and those are both traits that multiple socialist ideologies explicitly reject.
Whether or not you believe any of the variations can work is orthogonal to the point that socialism is not a singular ideology, but a spectrum of ideologies that where many reject the state, and so the existence of one is not a defining trait of socialism.
Insisting that it is, is a bit like insisting that capitalism is the same as fascism because capitalism too relies on a state (to enforce property rights). If anything, capitalism is inherently tied to the existence of a state because of the need to enforce property rights that many socialist ideologies reject. But very few socialists would equate capitalism with fascism (some would).
They weren't socialist at all. It's a common talking point from modern fascist apologists (I'm not accusing you of being one—this nonsense leaks out into the popular culture and just gets picked up by accident, too) but it has zero basis in reality if you run down a list of what they did. It doesn't remotely look like what an even lightly-socialist-leaning government would do. Such claims are always supported by pointing at the name (LOL. LMFAO.), making things up, and maybe cherry-picking a couple things that seem socialist-ish if you squint really hard and don't put them in context. There's some early rhetoric about it, but zero action, that was just a cynical appeal to populism, usually accompanied with attempts to redefine socialism itself to mean not-socialism—they wanted the word, but not the meaning.
Of course there is no real communism, there is no real socialism, and there is no real fascism. Nevertheless if I'm talking to some guy on a street I'll understand what he means if talks about com-bloc eastern europe or asia, and I understood OP was referring to communist countries in the way in which the term is typically used.
There's a reason that Communists that don't follow Leninism or its derivatives tend to view the countries that call themselves “Communist” (all of which follow Leninism or one of its derivatives) as only rhetorically socialist in system and substantively state capitalist at best, as they are run by a narrow and self-perpetuating elites exploiting the working class through, among other means, control of the non-financial means of production.
Labor unions in communist countries were directly controlled by the Communist Party.
It's very much a "it started socialist but they were used and quickly purged from the party" situation.
1. Evidence for socialism:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beefsteak_Nazi
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strasserism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_R%C3%B6hm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturmabteilung
2. Evidence against socialism:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_of_the_Long_Knives
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mefo_bills
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_Meeting_of_20_February_...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrielleneingabe
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freundeskreis_der_Wirtschaft
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_sector_participation_i...
See for example this pamphlet:
https://research.calvin.edu/german-propaganda-archive/haken3...
All the NAZI leadership (after the knight of the long knives) openly spoke of their hatred of any kind of socialism -- philosophically and organizationally -- and of all socialists and socialists of all kinds were the first to be put in death camps. The entire moral and ethical framework -- the celebration of the nation and race above all else, the subservience to a singular leader, etc. reflect a hatred of socialist (internationalism, secularism, class solidarity instead of nationalism, helping the poor and weak, women's liberation) values which were considered "degenerate" and "Jewish"
(And unlike Stalinism/Maoism which also reflects similar outcomes in this case the goal is explicit and stated and propagandistically proclaimed rather than hidden under a layer of Bolshevik ideology)
So I'm not sure why libertarians etc (and recently Elon Musk) in the US keep repeating this assertion ("NAZIsm is socialism!) as some kind of fact. It only underscores a lack of knowledge of history, it's not some "gotcha", it's a self-own that only takes advantage of people who don't know the history.
First they came for the Communists...
Then they came for the Socialists...
Then they came for the trade unionists...
Then they came for the Jewsthe USSR came after all of those (who weren't Bolshevik aligned) but the Jews, they did let the jews live but they closed many of the synogogues and many of them had to flee to barely hospitable fringe regions to practice their religion.
(And frankly people who grew up in the Eastern Bloc in USSR-times were not taught this in history class, either. Or they got a distorted version of it)
What was established there in the late 20s and early 30s was very much a return of many of the forms of Tsarist autocracy, but with a paint job.
"Socialism in one country" and the efforts around it was the re-establishment of Great Russian Nationalism and a cult around a leader as the motive force of everything. Underneath that there was some usage of aspects of "Marxist" ideology, so it's not nearly as clear as what happened in Germany, but it's not dissimilar.
There's a reason why the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact was able to be signed.
In that Marxist sense, that "socialism" has a very limited implication about a very limited set of concepts around putative public ownership of the means of production, one could call the Stalinists socialist. But by that use, then one should be aware that it's a trait of a set of ideologies that otherwise have pretty much nothing to do with each other.
And indeed, he called out the "return of many of the forms of Tsarist autocracy, but with a paint job" explicitly in describing "feudal socialism".
A later preface (by Engels, I think? I think it was one of the prefaces from after Marx death) points out that they used the word "communist" because the word socialist at the time had become largely associated with some of those ideologies that they did not want to be confused with. And of course "communism" has since become equally overloaded by ideologies so different their adherents have pretty much nothing in common.
Already before Lenin died, there was already the notion of "left" and "right" communism, as two incompatible camps that were not even single ideologies, but sets of ideologies. Hence Lenin's "'Left-Wing' Communism: An Infantile Disorder" that covered a range of "left" communist ideologies (because the Bolsheviks were considered "right" communists)
The reality is that "actually existing libertarianism" is just as or more liable to degrade into authoritarianism as it hands over blanket authority to the private market -- and, eventually, the form of the state that arises when said market goes into crisis. As we've seen in practice many times, and with the way a whole class of American "libertarians" have embraced the triumph of the will motive force behind Trumpism in the present day. (Or lined up behind Pinochet, etc. in the 70s)
Fully agree with you regarding the "fascists are just socialist" canard.
With respect to libertarianism, I like to taunt US libertarians by pointing out that the first liberatarian was Joseph Dejacque, a French anarcho-communist, who, of course, given his anarchist background, praised Proudhon for the view that property is theft - and requires state power to oppress those who reject it - but criticized Proudhon as a "moderate anarchist, liberal, but not libertarian" for not going far enough in his rejection of authority.
It tends to make a lot of them very upset.
With respect to people repeating this idiotic claim, it dates at least back to the 70's in various places, seemingly as a counter for groups on the right that wanted to create distance from the nazis.
Here's a large amount of reading matter to explain. Fill your boots.
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/faq/europe/#wiki...
So US Labour Day is an intentionally captured, defanged, neutered version.
No, the Reich did not make International Workers' Day a holiday. It made May 1st the Day of National Work and prohibited all celebrations except those arranged by the nazi state, especially celebrations by worker organisations.
I tend to think we forget that things we enjoy today were won through, sometimes violent, struggle, and we take them for granted, what makes it easier to lose them.
To me this is one of the most important celebrations.
We have every type of revolutionary tv shows, including some fairly rediculous ones (e.g. divergent) but almost never strikes. The only exception i can really think of is that one episode of battlestar galactica (maybe give star trek ds9 half a point because they treated it in such a silly fashion).
Same reason all sorts of other stuff has gone nearly extinct.
Mainstream entertainment media is subject to the same eyeball-hour based economics as everything else and that content doesn't resonate with enough people.
(I think that’s the real reason these movies don’t get made: they’re too “Communist” for American audiences.)
https://jacobin.com/2019/06/tiananmen-square-worker-organiza...
It's also one of few depictions of strikes in US TV that treated the strikers with substantially more sympathy than their counterpart. Incidentally, this is another parallel to Babylon 5, which also had a strike, and were the negotiator that was brought in was a really unsympathetic caricature.
DS9 even managed to paraphrase the Communist Manifesto, and still painted the strikers in a good light.
It speaks to the foundational values of the franchise being widely accepted that the strike episode is what is remembered as the labour thing, as if a lot of people would like the results of an egalitarian society but have been taught that the means to achieve it are somehow controversial.
In Critique of the Gotha Program he outright ridiculed what is now the German SDP for demanding that "the proceeds of labor belong undiminished with equal right to all members of society".
He went on to write: "Further, one worker is married, another is not; one has more children than another, and so on and so forth. Thus, with an equal performance of labor, and hence an equal in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. To avoid all these defects, right, instead of being equal, would have to be unequal."
Later in the same text he then reiterated the traditional socialist slogan, that explicitly also rejects equal distribution: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!"
For one the slogan of communist movements tend to be 'from each according to ability, to each according to need', and secondly it is more likely that a communist society would use scientific academies or committees rather than rely on inventors to accomplish technological or other achievements.
You're right though, its definitely better than the babylon 5 episode.
I also kinda like the Babylon 5 episode, but it has an entirely different feel to it, and the way it is resolved does make it weaker overall - it's the captain rather than the strikers that seal the win. The main strength of the Babylon 5 episode is that caricature of the negotiator and the visual presentation of the conflict, that feels like it is referencing an old-fashioned way of presenting conflict in US media that is made toothless by focusing on the anger while giving little play to the issues. Only in the Babylon 5 case, the extreme caricature of the negotitator gives him the more negative portrayal often given to strikers.
Although it might not be the type of movie you’re looking for, because the miners lost.
For reference:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bar_Association_(Star_Trek:_De...
On the other hand, Season 4 of For All Mankind depicted a strike of private sector workers in such an unrealistic, ham-fisted way that it couldn’t be taken seriously – much like many of the other half-assed story-lines that were crammed into the show for in Seasons 3 and 4.
— Milan Kundera, The Book of Laughter and Forgetting
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage_in_the_United_Sta...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_US_states_by_minimum_w...
In the biggest state with just the federal minimum wage, Texas, individual income percentile of $20k per year ($10 per hour/40 hour work weeks/50 weeks per year) is 20th percentile. That will capture all the part time workers too, so it seems the lowest priced labor in most US labor markets is disjoint from the federal US minimum wage.
https://dqydj.com/scripts/cps/2024_income_calculators/2024_i...
"Scott Bessent believes federal minimum wage should not be increased" - https://www.nbcnews.com/video/scott-bessent-believes-federal...
If you look at minimum wage purchasing power over time, it peaked in about 1970, with about $15-equivalent 2025 dollars.
That tracks fairly closely with purchasing power having declined 68% since the last time minimum wages were updated.
Should probably tie it to inflation while we're in there
The Voice of America is the only media outlet I've ever heard actually celebrating Law Day. An old job of mine had a poster on the wall for Law Day that VoA had actually printed and given away for some reason.
palmotea•3h ago
NhanH•3h ago
amarcheschi•3h ago
sgt•3h ago
MarcelOlsz•3h ago
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5zQpN28xa4
nosioptar•3h ago
I prefer to raise awareness to the plight of the rich with music:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=ej7dfPL7Kho&pp=ygUNc2F2ZSB0aGUgc...
tchalla•1h ago
> Progressive Kristallnacht Coming? > I would call attention to the parallels of Nazi Germany to its war on its "one percent," namely its Jews, to the progressive war on the American one percent, namely the "rich."
https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304549504579316...
moomin•1h ago
shove•3h ago
cratermoon•44m ago
bawolff•2h ago
ks2048•2h ago
That's why labor gets 1 day and owners get 364.
(Just realized that's roughly in the ballpark of CEO-to-worker wage ratio. ~290:1)
alabastervlog•1h ago
belter•1h ago
arbuge•50m ago
cratermoon•45m ago
That phrase doesn't compute. Except for "during that weekend", when of course they all jack up their rates knowing who is coming to stay.