21 October 2009
Fascism and socialism: spot the difference
There is a lot of bollocks going around at the moment to the effect that socialism and fascism are somehow the same. Superficially, and for the truly political illiterate, the idea has some merit because fascism needs the support of the urban working class to take off, and they are the very ones who look to collectivist solutions to their economic problems. Thus fascism has to cover itself in pinkish clothing to get that support.
Although defining fascism has always been a problem, one thing about it is clear and that is that it represents, primarily, the owners of capital and their middle class lickspittles. Socialism represents the producers, the working class, the poor sods who labour to keep everyone else in clover.
What happened to the upper classes in Argentina, Germany and Italy during their fascist periods? The answer is that nothing happened to them, they did very well out of those years. Contrast that with Cuba in 1959: the old ruling class had its property expropriated and there was a mad dash for anything that would fly or float to get off the island.
As for the middle class, let the example of this chief of police serve to show what happened to those rancid fuckers:
Today, and for all its faults, Cuba is a country without a parasitic middle class and with its former rulers sitting in Miami, drinking the bitter draught of total defeat.
Is there any bugger still around who does not yet understand the difference between socialism and fascism?