Communism or Fascism = Opium or Castor Oil?

The question is poorly posed, but it deserves to be examined, even if it means settling into a veritable Procrustean bed.

The prejudice that vitiates every discussion on the subject, and which has now become established in public opinion as a dogma, is that according to which what essentially differentiates the two systems in question is on the one hand the exclusivity and singularity that characterized the historical parenthesis that opened with the establishment of fascism and Nazism and, on the other, the irreducibility of socialist and communist ideology and experience in a single theoretical/political perimeter. In other words, there would be only one fascism and one Nazism, while, vice versa, socialism and communism would be a rather complex, multifaceted and multifaceted theoretical system that has given rise to multiple versions and typologies of themselves.

Fascism has only one face and one voice, that of Mussolini. Nazism, on the other hand, is that of Hitler. The same reduction, vice versa, could not be made with regard to what we call socialism or communism.

The second rather widespread reasoning flaw is that according to which, while fascism and Nazism were born a priori as criminal and liberticidal projects, socialism and communism were instead born as projects to safeguard justice, equality and pluralism.

Fascism and Nazism would be intrinsically and genetically unhealthy, while socialism in essence advocates human emancipation. The supporters of these theses, however, seem to underestimate the real impact of fascism in the world, sometimes even almost ignoring it. Among the historical experiences marked by fascism, they seem to forget or neglect that which occurred with the establishment of Francisco Franco’s regime in Spain, which in fact does not diverge in any way, in substance or form, from what we rightly call “fascism” . In fact, the appeal does not lack any typical characteristics of the fascist monster: extreme nationalism, dictatorial repression, domination of the single party, promotion of the idea of ​​superiority and specialty of the nation, economic autarky, corporate state, organization and coordination of working societies and trade unions, colonial ambitions etc.

Nonetheless, the Estado Nuevo (new state), in Portugal, founded and led by Antonio de Oliveira Salazar or, broadening the view, also the regime of Augusto Pinochet itself, in Chile, should be included in this list. Each of these examples, dramatic albeit rather limited in scope and dimensions, they undermine the fable according to which fascism would always and a priori be a phenomenon harbinger of abnormal and immeasurable damage similar to that caused by Mussolini’s paradigmatic fascism, demonstrating how both socialism and fascism return to history examples of large or modest damages, when the opposing narrative claims to prove that political moderation is the prerogative only of real socialism.

Often the socialist/communist massacres are even silenced or passed over in silence, while, if exhumed from the dusty historical archives, they still manage to evoke the screams of desperation and anguish of the victims they claimed, unfortunately vilified by far too much silence and denialism . Yet the black pages of history expertly illustrate the massacres obliterated with the approval of a certain political fringe, and among them there are tragedies worthy of an obstinacy (at least) equal to that dedicated to the Nazi-fascist massacres.

Between intentionally caused famines, mass executions, deaths from forced labor, hunger and incarceration, the most cautious historians estimate the number of victims to be between 10 and 20 million, while the less indulgent ones speak of a maximum of the total 148 million. There are numerous authors who have attempted the delicate attempt to provide estimates that are as reliable and faithful to reality as possible, so here I intend to mention just a few of them, attaching the relative numbers obtained:

• Zbigniew Brezinsky: 60,000,000 victims
• Rudolph Joseph Rummel: 110,000,000
• Steven Rosefielde: 60,000,000
• Stephen Kotkin: 65,000,000

Another argument put forward by them in support of the goodness of a certain socialism that existed, is that among the number of socialisms we should also include those numerous parties and movements which, however, did not manage to actually conquer power, but which practically militated under the banner of so-called noble and commendable ideals, of great dreams and aspirations.

Now, with the necessary distinctions, especially in the quantitative order of the potential threat constituted by the two macro-alignments, we indeed have a counterpart to the aforementioned argument, since “virgin” movements and parties, never come to power but qualitatively similar to the various socialist movements, objectively there are also among the “virgin” fringes inspired by fascism. In fact, sticking to the programs or models from which both claim to be inspired, nothing prevents us from inserting them both into a perimeter of potential threat, especially in light of the numerous demonstrations of sympathy, solidarity and justification towards the actions of the USSR as well as that of the concrete relationships maintained with the same by some of them; it is also not surprising that mottos and songs praising Russian and Chinese communism have been composed, found for example in some verses present in the song “le otto ore” of the socialist/communist cultural repertoire.

Therefore, although the various movements of clear fascist inspiration such as the MSI in Italy, the AfD in Germany, Vox in Spain, or Golden Dawn in Greece etc. do not and cannot in any way arouse positive expectations of any kind, it is clear that not even the general adhesion and the established justificationism of the Soviet legacy permeating a large part of the former Italian socialist movements and parties can be exempt from somewhat nefarious predictions or at least alarming. And it is precisely here that the core of the question lies: are we unequivocally certain that by jumping from one criterion of judgment to another, it is possible to definitively exempt socialism/communism from such a feared degree, however large or small, of equivalence with fascism? Because, as stated above, both real fascism and socialism have returned examples of abnormal as well as modest damage and not even potential fascism or socialism have ever managed to escape de jure predictions that are to a certain extent harmful or alarming. And therefore, precisely, the “lair” into which the critics of the thesis which affirms this equivalence take refuge is that of the insurmountable and abysmal divergence in the theory between the two macro-alignments.

It is true. The one colours, paints and praises the good that it claims to pursue with colours, words and emphasis that are certainly more attractive, reassuring and effective than the other (famously fascism). But the fact that one is more successful than the other in advertising terms does not prevent us from believing that the latter is equally driven by its own particular idea of ​​well-being and social justice, whether true or not. Therefore, coming ultimately to the supreme point adduced to deny any qualitative equivalence between the two ideologies, even from this “den” we will see that, if a careful analysis of the analogies between the two -isms is conducted, it is possible to evict these “deniers ”.

In fact, notoriously, both fascism and communism preach the need to subordinate individual aspiration and request to the ends of the collective good and interest, resulting, de facto, in elevating this request as a justification for the repression of the right to word, in the suppression of the “enemies of the people” or the “favored class” depending on whether one refers to one cause or the other, or sometimes even resulting in the de facto elimination of the division of powers.

Obviously, each disease has its own history, its own peculiarities and characteristics, but if we have to settle into the Procrustean bed that the question being answered represents, a common denominator in the two theories must be admitted, net, obviously, of all the necessary differentiations that are impossible to make in the proper and exhaustive manner in a two-page article. Therefore, between the sun of the future or the LIGHT institute, the night would be better between the two, not waiting for a Golden Dawn, but for a cultural spring that sees everyone, individuals and collectives, classes and nations, truly satisfied of the life they are lucky enough to live.