Europe during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries was characterized by great social and political unrest. Citizens were dissatisfied with their governments, especially in Germany, Italy, and the Soviet Union. Discontent led to ideological shifts as citizens looked for answers and rulers put forth new fundamental beliefs and solutions. During the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, both socialists, who sought to end social inequality through the rise of the working class, and fascists, who arose out of discontent in Italy and sought to unite the country through extreme nationalism, claimed to have found the ideology that best guaranteed happiness and stability.
The socialist doctrine Manifesto of the Communist Party by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engel identified the oppression of the working class as an issue that resulted from a capitalist system. Marx believed that capitalism created a disparity of wealth where the bourgeoisie prospered and the proletariat suffered. He said that the bourgeoisie had “established new classes, new conditions of oppression” and believed class divisions would perpetuate inequality unless action was taken (357). Because the means of production are privately owned in a capitalist system, only those who owned factories, the bourgeoisie, were able to make a profit. As the bourgeoisie rose up in society, “the modern laborer, on the contrary, instead of rising with the progress of industry, sinks deeper and deeper below the conditions of existence” (360). Marx expressed that the true problem was social inequality because, as the bourgeoisie gains more power and wealth, the proletariat’s suffering will only increase.
Marx believed that the problem of class inequality could be solved through the unity of the working class and that the current societal condition was lending itself to the rise of the proletariat. He claimed that “not only has the bourgeoisie forged the weapons that bring death to itself; it has also called into existence the men who are to wield those weapons” (359). This meant that the proletariat had the power to overthrow the political system and create a fair society based on communist teachings. Marx also said that the proletariat can’t rise “without the whole superincumbent strata of official society being sprung into the air” (359). Marx’s claims served to motivate the proletariat and inspire a feeling of devotion to the needs of the group. He said that “with the development industry the proletariat not only increases in number; it becomes concentrated in greater masses, its strength grows” (359). Marx believed that the collective strength of the proletariat could effectively overthrow the bourgeoise.
Throughout Our Programme, Vladimir Lenin reaffirms Marx’s teaching and stresses the need for a proletariat revolution to bring order and equality to Soviet Society. He believed socialists should follow Marx’s ideology because it “explained the way in which the employment of workers…the enslavement of millions of those possessing no property…is concealed” (463). While Lenin agreed with Marx’s desire for a unified proletariat as a solution to the class inequality, he structured his solution in a more methodical manner.
Lenin’s Our Programme claimed that class inequality can be ended through a political and economic fight. Lenin believed that the economic fight was “the fight against [the] individual capitalist” and the political fight was “against the Government for the extension of the rights of the people” (464). He thought the political fight must take precedence because “in Russia, not only the workers but all the citizens are deprived of political rights” (464). To place the economic fight above the political fight would “mean a digression from the most important principle of international social-democracy” (464). Lenin believed that the political problem of workers’ rights must be addressed before the economic problem, because without political rights, workers do not have a voice in the government. Lenin’s plan identified the steps which would create equality through political and economic freedom and inspired unity the idea that when “the working class raises the banner of a fight of this kind it will be supported on all sides” (465).
Using extreme nationalism, fascism sought to achieve devotion to the state and create a powerful nation. Benito Mussolini’s Born of a Need for Action defined the fascist movement by its founding principle: “the conception of the state, its character, its duty, and its aim” (545). Fascism was appealing following WWI when Italians felt that they did not receive the reparations they were entitled to and lacked faith in their government. Mussolini’s fascist party claimed to have a solution saying that fascism is “revolutionary” and “anticipates the solution of the universal political problems” (546). Mussolini promised a strong Italian government that would address citizens’ discontent and be respected worldwide.
Fascism was also used by Adolf Hitler to unify the German state and establish a strong government. This appealed to citizens who blamed the Weimar Republic for Germany’s treatment under the Treaty of Versailles. In Mein Kampf, Hitler claimed that “the state is a means to an end” and that fascism could solve the economic problems of Germany. By targeting the Jewish population and blaming them for Germany’s struggles, Hitler evoked a feeling of unity within the German state. Hitler claimed that the Jews are “without any true culture” (551). The victimization of the Jews was used as a tactic by Hitler to inspire support for a “pure” Germany and provide the people with a scapegoat for their economic and political troubles.
Mussolini’s Born of a Need for Action compared fascism to other ideologies to display its uniqueness and superiority. Mussolini claimed that fascism is “the complete opposite” of socialism and that the world cannot be “explained simply through the conflict of interests among the various social groups” (544, 545). He believed this was an oversimplification of history that failed to consider factors besides class. Additionally, Mussolini claimed that fascism in Italy was “reposing upon broad and popular support” (546). Mussolini’s claim of popular support seems to align with the democratic ideal that power is derived from the consent of the governed, but he refuted this similarity by saying that fascism “combats the whole complex system of democratic ideology” (545). He says that “fascism denies that the majority, by the simple fact that it is a majority, can direct human society” (545). Here he makes a distinction between how the power of the government is derived in democratic versus fascist ideology.
Though the ideals may be employed differently, collectivism and the surrender of individual rights are essential to both fascism and socialism. Fascism utilized a spirit of collectivism to create a focus on the state rather than the individual citizen. Mussolini says that “it is the State which educates its citizens in civic virtue, gives them a consciousness of their mission and welds them into unity” (545). Because a fascist regime forces its citizens to find their identity in the state, a sense of togetherness and nationalism is created. In socialism, a focus on the needs of the group is necessary to inspire support for the working class and a sense of unity among the proletariat.
Both fascism and socialism sought to solve political and social problems prevalent in Europe during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Fascism utilized nationalism to create a unified state, while socialism sought an equal society founded through the rise of the working class. Each ideology was believed to be the answer to a successful society and greatly impacted future development.