Comparing Marx's Theories Of Fascism And Communism

Communist thought acknowledges the technological achievements that have been made possible through liberal thought and capitalism, but argue that the conditions produced have been more enslaving than freeing. Marx himself notes the significance of the industrial revolution, with its “productive forces” (Marx & Engels, 1848, p. 15) in the “subjugation of nature” (p. 15) as greatest ever observed in human history. Marx however pessimistically downplays the significance of the ‘freeing’ aspects of liberalism. Instead, through his theory of historical materialism, he views societal relations in the industrial age similarly to other epochs in a past, a history of mankind marked by “class struggle” (p. 14). He posits the progress of societal relations

Fascism is highly “anti-individualistic” (Mussolini, 1932, p. 3), unlike liberal ideals which see virtue in freedom in allowing diversity of individual interests, Fascism instead posits the importance of unity and highlights the role of the state as the bearer and expression of this collective will (p. 3). In practice, this means that while liberals contend that a natural equality of man is justification for personal autonomy, without being “subject to the will or authority of another” (Locke, 1690, p. 76). Fascism fundamentally rejects any notion of equality, arguing that a liberal society of individuals guided by rationality does not conform with “nature’s plans” (p. 8). Fascism argues that society exists for more than the “well-being” (p. 8) of its citizens, positing instead that there is an aspect of life that is inherently irrational, and even “spiritual” (p. 2); a view of human life that can only be achieved through a fascist state where formerly private citizens “transcend the individual” (p. 2) in becoming part of a collective which provides this spiritual fulfilment. The fascist state is then conceived of being “totalitarian” (p. 4) where the state ensures the intellectual development of citizens, and “directing” the productive powers of her citizens towards the strength of the state; conceived as an “organic” (p. 11) body that “organizes the nation” (p. 11). This notion of strength relates to the motives of the state, which valorises war as an act which fulfils irrational values like “sacrifice” (p. 12), and “fighting spirit” (p. 6), negating freedom liberal individualism as a form of social “decay” (p. 10). A notion that also legitimises the need for strong leadership, and argues for imperialism as a natural consequence and a “manifestation” (p. 12) of the strength of the state, and by extension, its citizens. Freedom here is