One of the greatest political myths that arose in latter half of the 20th century and persists into the 21st is the myth that fascism is a doctrine of the political right and that Conservatives are really just proto-fascists who might, at the slightest provocation, slip on the brown shirts and jack boots and start rounding people up. The political left use this great myth as a blunt instrument to bludgeon into silence those who take a stand against: immigration, the preservation of culture, identity and heritage in the West by accusing them of being racist, fascist and/or Nazis.
This brief article will put forward evidence that will prove beyond reasonable doubt that fascism is in fact a product of socialism, specifically the socialist-right and has nothing to do with the political right or ‘right-wing’ at all. I have provided references and recommended further reading on this subject for those who want to learn more.
A brief background of the political ‘left’ and ‘right’
The terms ‘the left’ and ‘the right’ in the political sense arose out of the fairly arbitrary arrangement of sitting members in the parliament of France during the period of the French revolution (1789-1799) . Those who held power and therefore the status quo sat on the right side of the chamber, and those sitting on the left, the ‘progressives’, wanted change. They opposed the status quo and advocated ideals such as the ‘universal rights of man’.
Since that time those arbitrary positions have hardened into formal political ‘wings’, so in Australia, for example, the Labor party represents the ‘left wing’ (socialist) and the Liberal party (conservative) represents the ‘right wing’ of mainstream politics.
So what is fascism?
Briefly, fascism  is generally a totalitarian one-party state that incorporates socialist ideals, allows, to varying degrees, private property and private enterprise in a state-directed economy and promotes nationalism as a binding force for the community. One of the most widely known derivatives of fascism is National Socialism, as practised by the National Socialist (Nazi) regime in Germany just prior to and during World War Two.
So what is Marxism?
Marxism  is named after its primary theorist Karl Marx who postulated an economic theory where the worker is the owner of the product of his labor (not the so-called ‘capitalists’ who employ them) and where private property is ‘collectivised’. This led to the development of Communism, which consisted of a totalitarian one-party state, not dissimilar to a national socialist state. The main difference is that communist states have command economies that are tightly controlled and promote their ‘internationalism’ and the unity of workers (solidarity) worldwide. They can be said to be ‘international socialists’ as opposed to the ‘national socialists’.
Isn’t fascism a ‘far-right’ ideology?
Prior to World War Two, fascism was the cause célèbre amongst leading socialist intellectuals of the time. Indeed, the most prominent fascist theorist was Benito Mussolini of Italy. Mussolini was also the leading Socialist of Italy at the time and also the editor of their prominent socialist newspaper “L’Avanti”. A split developed in Italian socialism over Italy’s involvement in World War One, causing Mussolini to break away and start his own socialist newspaper “Il Popolo D’Italia” (‘The people of Italy’). Like modern-day socialists, he railed against the bourgeoisie, democracy and capitalism. Even his Fascist Manifesto contained many general socialist ideals:
- The nationalization of all the arms and explosives factories.
- A strong progressive tax on capital that will truly expropriate a portion of all wealth.
- The seizure of all the possessions of the religious congregations and the abolition of all the bishoprics, which constitute an enormous liability on the Nation and on the privileges of the poor.
- The formation of National Council of experts for labour, for industry, for transportation, for the public health, for communications, etc. Selections to be made from the collective professionals or of tradesmen with legislative powers, and elected directly to a General Commission with ministerial powers.
- A minimum wage.
- The participation of workers’ representatives in the functions of industry commissions. 
Oswald Mosley was another leading socialist, before he went on to become Britain’s main promoter of the cause of fascism. Mosley even fell out with his father, a staunch conservative, over the fact that Mosley had become a socialist:
“My relationship with my father remained good until I joined the Labour Party in 1924. Our tranquil relations exploded when in his view I entered the devil’s service by becoming a socialist.” 
Much is made of the fact that Mosley entered the British parliament as a Conservative (or Tory) MP, therefore he was classed as ‘right-wing’. However, as Mosley admitted in his memoirs, he only became involved in the Conservative Party as it represented the easiest way for him to get into parliament. Soon after he was elected, he formally switched to the Labour Party and continued to champion the socialist cause:
“During this period I spoke frequently in university debates and I believe I was responsible for carrying the first motion in favour of socialism by twenty votes at one of them and just lost by four votes at about the same time in the other.” 
Mosley was also a Fabian socialist  and his name was published in annual reports. He was well acquainted with the founders of the ‘London School of Economics’, also so known as ‘The Fabian Society’. So two prominent fascists have been shown to be have been socialists of one stripe or another. That leaves us to consider another prominent fascist of the same era.
Hitler was a socialist 
Hitler of course is considered the epitome of right-wing extremism and leftists will often charge that Hitler was right-wing – and they are partly right as, like Mussolini and Mosley, Hitler represented the socialist right. Just as the Australian Labor Party has ‘left’ and ‘right’ factions, so too does socialism (and conservatism for that matter). Essentially Marxism represents the socialist left and fascism represents the socialist right.
Socialists today do not want to, and in some cases cannot, admit that fascism is a socialist doctrine. The idea that fascism is a ‘right-wing’ political creed is firmly rooted in popular culture and is one of the biggest lies of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries.
Despite the name of Hitler’s party, The National Socialist German Workers Party (in German, Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei) – socialists insist that the word ‘Socialist’ in the name was not genuinely meant to mean ‘socialist’, but what they fail to realise was that the Nazis were genuinely socialist but of the ‘right-wing’ variety. In fact, there were varying shades of socialism within the Nazi Party, from extreme socialists to moderate socialists. No doubt there are some modern-day socialists who recognise that fascism is a species of socialism but who recoil from the political and social ramifications of publicly admitting it. We turn to Hitler’s own words as evidence that he was in fact a right-wing socialist:
“There is more that binds us to Bolshevism than separates us from it. There is, above all, genuine, revolutionary feeling, which is alive everywhere in Russia except where there are Jewish Marxists. I have always made allowance for this circumstance, and given orders that former Communists are to be admitted to the party at once. The petit bourgeois Social-Democrat and the trade-union boss will never make a National Socialist, but the Communists always will.” 
“Of what importance is all that, if I range men firmly within a discipline they cannot escape? Let them own land or factories as much as they please. The decisive factor is that the State, through the Party, is supreme over them regardless of whether they are owners or workers. All that is unessential; our socialism goes far deeper. It establishes a relationship of the individual to the State, the national community. Why need we trouble to socialize banks and factories? We socialize human beings.” 
One of the objections typically raised by socialists against the idea that Hitler was in fact one of them is their belief that Communism and National Socialism differed over who owned ‘the means of production’. Their objection is trivial however, since the Nazi government extended controls over so many German private enterprises that it, in essence, made businesses part of its National Socialist structure. The bureaucracy created enormous employment guilds and dictated to business that they could and could not employ. If a business did not ‘toe the line’, it would find itself under the control of Nazi bureaucrats. Leonard Peikoff  exposes the hollowness of their arguments:
“Contrary to the Marxists, the Nazis did not advocate public ownership of the means of production. They did demand that the government oversee and run the nation’s economy. The issue of legal ownership, they explained, is secondary; what counts is the issue of CONTROL. Private citizens, therefore, may continue to hold titles to property — so long as the state reserves to itself the unqualified right to regulate the use of their property.”
The Nazi’s anti-Jewish stance was also a product of socialist thought of the day. Anti-Semitism is deeply embedded in Marxism. The early German socialist parties of the day published anti-Semitic tracts, which clearly had an influence on Hitler’s thinking. It no surprise that now we are seeing a rise in anti-Semitic and anti-white thinking within socialist groups around the world and in Australia today. It is also one of the reasons that the socialists are so supportive of Islam.
The genocidal actions of the Soviet Socialists against the Ukrainians, of the NKVD and Katyn Forest, of the National Socialists against the Jews, of the Khmer Rouge against the Communists of Cham, of the Vietnamese Communists against the Montagnards and Hmong, and of the Chinese Stephane Courtois has said of Soviet Socialism and National Socialism, they are deemed “a part of humanity unworthy of existence”.
Indeed, Jonah Goldberg has pointed out the similarity:
“Many of the left talk of destroying “whiteness” in a way that is more than superficially reminiscent of the National Socialist effort to ‘de-Judaize” German society.”
Ultimately much of the carnage in the last one hundred plus years has been caused by socialism in one form or another: Consider the millions killed by the Soviet Socialist regime (Russia/USSR) including the gulags, the National Socialist regime (Germany/WW2) including the concentration camps, the Polish Communists’ mass relocation of German ethnics, the Communist Party of China including during the “Great Leap Forward”, the Khmer Rouge (Cambodia), the Communists in Vietnam, the first KKK (Klu Klux Klan) which served the interests of the Democratic Party (19th Century America) and others.
The distinction between socialism and fascism is not one of opposites attacking each other, but rather of two siblings fighting over common ground. The hatred between two people close to each other can be more virulent than that between two strangers, such as can occur with a nasty ending to a previously close relationship. The relationship between socialism and fascism was a close one, with a shared origin and even shared personnel. The widespread ignoring of the socialist origins of fascism, and their shared socialist ideals, is one of the greatest political misrepresentations of our time. However, it is the modern era of the new style of fascism that is of most concern.
As we all know, politics is not a static situation, with many changes occurring over time. Modern fascism is not to be found with the antics of goose-stepping Hollywood-style characters, but with the new version of those who seek ever-increasing control over our daily lives. It is no coincidence that modern-day socialists have been the driving force behind mountains of new rules and regulations that control even minute actions of citizens. The so-called “Nanny State” has been imposing more controls over our daily lives than the early fascists could have imagined. “Political correctness” has also become so all-pervasive, that it too has control over our lives to a large extent: controlling what we read or hear in the mass media, sacking workers for words spoken, and even giving the power to heavily fine or jail “heretics” – again, even just for words spoken or printed. And the truth is no defence in such trials.
The politically correct radical socialists of today have fooled many with a great confidence trick, by telling the public that they are there to promote freedom and fight fascism – when, in fact, the opposite is the case. The symbol of the Fabian Socialists is a wolf in sheep’s clothing and it was chosen for a good reason, because their aim is to fool the people as to their intentions.
This article has exposed some of the deep connections between fascism and socialism. However, this is not for academic reasons alone. If we are to have a more democratic society, then we must be prepared to fight the all-pervading reach of fascism and to do this we must recognize who the fascists of today are – the Nanny State socialists, radical leftists, and those of all shades who would impose political correctness by force.
- Liberal Fascism ~ Jonah Goldberg
- Hitler was a socialist – John J. Ray (http://jonjayray.tripod.com/hitler.html)
- French Revolution ~ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolution
- Fascism ~ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
- Marxism ~ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism
- Modern leftism as recycled Fascism ~ John J. Ray (http://jonjayray.tripod.com/musso.html)
- My Life ~ Oswald Mosley.
- Fabian Society Annual Report 1929-31.
- Hitler was a Socialist, John J. Ray (http://jonjayray.tripod.com/hitler.html)
- Hitler Speaks ~ T. Butterworth
Subscribe to our NewsletterStay updated with Party For Freedom news and updates!
General offence is not, and has never been, a valid reason to enact prohibition of free speech. Indeed, it's one of the sacrifices required for a free society. Personal offence can be dealt with by the long-standing civil law aspects of defamation and libel. This whole societal change, pile-driven by...posted in The Liberal Party fails to uphold freedom of speech
from Andy Shine
Absolutely right Marion, I implore all freedom-loving Australians to write, email or visit their local MP, the Prime Minister AND the Attorney-General to voice their disgust at the continued existence of this piece of blatant free-speech impingement (sec. 18c). Let's keep up the pressure on the libs to truly represent...posted in The Liberal Party fails to uphold freedom of speech
from Andy Shine
I was disgusted to read this article and be told that the Libs have reigned on their promise to repeal section 18c of the Racial Discrimination Act. I had hoped for much better. People need to bombard Abbott and Brandis with 1000s of snail mail letters in protest against this...posted in The Liberal Party fails to uphold freedom of speech