We’re using different definitions of “socialism” then. Your definition is straight out of orthodox Marxist terminology; my definition is much broader. Marxism is a type of socialism, but so was the New Deal. I agree with you insofar as your definition of socialism goes; but I stick to what I said given my own definition.

Indeed the United States was able to out-produce the Soviets and Germans — but only after the United States became much more socialist in nature. Factories were converted from making consumer goods to military goods not by the free market, but because the United States went into a war footing — and 20th-century style total war can only be effectively waged by socialist countries. A libertarian Germany would not have made it all the way to Moscow; a libertarian Russia would have folded like a wet napkin against the Wehrmacht.

In terms of “Right-wing = Fascism”, this is emphatically not what I’m saying. I’m saying that Fascism is a sub-set of right-wing thought. One can be right-wing — even extreme right-wing — without being a Fascist, and even while being bitterly opposed to Fascism. One example would be anarcho-capitalists; another would be Mencius Moldbug. Hence also my point about the inadequacy of single-axis classification systems.

)

    Progressive Reformation

    Written by

    A Right-Opposition for the New Left.