6 Answers

  1. Not supercapitalism, but finance capital – banking capital combined with industrial capital. And not just the government-financial capital is in power in all advanced capstans, but a terrorist dictatorship. I.e., financial capital that does not bother with democratic conventions.

  2. Rather, I disagree. The Communists made up a lot of terms. Fascism, socialism, imperialism – all these are varieties of capitalism. With varying degrees of state involvement, feudalism, and wage labor for money. The state is an invention of capitalism – we should not forget that. Before capitalism, there was no state at all. If we understand the state as the protection of order, education, health care, housing.

    Therefore, the idea that fascism frees people from the state is nonsense. If the term “supercapitalism” is understood as a weakening of the role of the state. It is more correct to call the 20th century imperialism. Fascism is just a form of imperialism.

    They are trying to save us from the state now, in the 21st century! And completely different people and organizations – not fascists, but the new Western socialists. Which we see in the US. Super-capitalism or post-capitalism is what is coming in the 21st century, if you think logically.

  3. This is a political statement officially approved at the Congress of the Comintern. It pursues not scientific, but political goals, namely::

    • draw a clear line between socialism and national socialism
    • assign responsibility for the crimes of fascism to the capitalists
    • ennoble the image of socialism.

    But in reality, German and Italian fascism used the same tools as Soviet socialism. Exactly:

    • coming to power by manipulating the masses in a socio-economic crisis
    • elimination of political opponents and complete absorption of the state apparatus, unification of the state apparatus with the party apparatus
    • closing borders and subordinating all spheres of public (and, if possible, private) life to the interests of the party and state apparatus
    • introduction of full (USSR) or partial (Germany, Italy) state control over the economy
    • establishing the supremacy of one's own ideology
    • militarization of the state and society.

    German and Italian fascism are not “supercapitalism” because:

    • both systems represented a much reduced version of capitalism with partial state control over the economy
    • both systems were originally conceived as a kind of “third way”, different from both capitalism and socialism
    • both systems were built on balancing the interests of capital and the interests of the masses of the common people
    • both systems were based on the idea of corporatism, that is, the idea of the possibility of social reconciliation and peaceful coexistence of different social classes under the rule of the state
    • heads of state (Hitler, Mussolini) had unlimited power, without being representatives of big capital
    • there is no evidence that big capital exercised direct power in fascist Germany or Italy, and there is no evidence that Hitler and Mussolini carried out any orders from representatives of big capital
    • in the last years of their lives, Hitler and Mussolini pursued disastrous policies that aroused the indignation of representatives of capital, but capital was not able to influence state policy or remove discredited and not completely sane “leaders”.
  4. The very statement about the opinion of communists is also incorrect. Fascism was founded on the money of large international capital, but it had a social base in the petty-proprietorial strata of the population and the lumpen proletariat. And the output from it. Reliance on big capital does not create “supercapitalism”.

  5. It is not clear why the distinction is made between communists-philosophers (communists-theorists) and communists-practitioners. This is nothing more than a flawed scheme (along with many others) to confuse people in understanding the essence of socialism. As Mises explains in his seminal work “Human Activity”: “Logical thinking and real life do not exist separately from each other. For a person, logic is the only way to cope with the problems of real reality. What is contrary in theory is also contrary in reality.” And then he adds: “Any problem is exclusively intellectual and should be considered as such. It would be disastrous to translate it into the realm of morality and deal with the supporters of the opposing ideology, calling them scoundrels. It is useless to insist that everything we strive for is good and everything our opponents want is bad. It is necessary to decide what should be considered good and what should be considered bad. The inflexible dogmatism of religious groups and Marxism only leads to insoluble conflicts. He recognizes all dissidents as criminals in advance, calls into question their good intentions and offers to surrender without preconditions. Where such a position prevails, no public cooperation is possible.”

    From the point of view of economic theory, the fascist stato corporativo (corporate state), the Nazi doctrine with its ersatz substitutes, and Soviet “real socialism” are one and the same thing, which is usually characterized by the term socialism, i.e. “any systematic or institutional coercion or aggression that restricts the free exercise of entrepreneurship in any social sphere and is carried out by the authority responsible for ensuring the necessary social coordination in this sphere” (definition of Jesus Huerta de Soto). This means that socialism is aggressively opposed to human activity and is directly opposed to capitalism. Socialists of various breeds strive to drive man into an illusory paradise, without starting from the inherent vices and shortcomings of man, capitalism, on the contrary, starts primarily from the nature of man and builds a viable system.

    I will mention that stato corporativo is nothing more than a” reissue of guild socialism ” (Mises), in which there are differences in degree, and not in the essence itself. It is well known that Mussolini's father Alessandro was an ardent socialist and instilled it in his son Benito, but having broken away from the international parties of socialism, the fascists could no longer manifest themselves as socialists, adopting the doctrine of corporatism, never really implementing it and subsequently replacing it with the Nazi model.

    The Nazi model (Hindenburg, or German, as Mises calls it) the same socialism, but “outwardly disguised by the terminology of capitalism”, where some market labels are preserved, which have completely lost their nature. Entrepreneurship, private ownership of the means of production, competitive prices, etc.do not exist in this economy, there is only their appearance. The State appoints a factory manager (Betriebsführer, Fuhrer / leader of the enterprise), who obeys the highest state authority. a body (Reichswirtschaftsministerium, Reich Ministry of Economy)that determines what and how to produce, at what prices, from whom to buy, to whom to sell, to whom to pay what salary, etc.

  6. I don't really agree, I'd say. Any fascism is the power of the state in the first place, in which everything, and first of all, the economy, is subordinate to the state and the needs and interests of the state. The economy is just like under communism, working according to plan, but the major difference is that the state does not nationalize enterprises, but leaves them in the hands of the entrepreneur, but the entrepreneur cannot do what he wants. The economy of Nazi Germany is largely based on myths, in fact, there was a terrible shortage and rising prices, because “all the berries are used to make jam for the army”, although there was no war yet, this is 1937. The economy was completely reoriented to military spending, and big business would have liked to put conditional berries on the general market, because it would have been profitable, but it was forced to make conditional jam for the army.�

    Moreover, Nazi Germany imposed terrible tariffs on the import of goods and resources, a bunch of ships stopped in the ports of the Netherlands with orders from big businesses, and then turned around and sailed back because they could not enter Germany with their goods. All because, like any dictator, Hitler really wanted to get rid of any dependence on other countries. But Germany didn't have much of its own resources, and as a result, big businesses lost money, stopped production, lost money again, and so on.�

    Finally, if you look for active resistance to the Nazi regime among Germans, you will find echoes of it in the trade union movement. And how can there be an active trade union movement under the rule of big capital?

Leave a Reply