| > Under National Socialism, control by the state was so complete, the private ownership meant nothing. Sure, state control is a hallmark of fascism/totalitarianism. However, the USSR did not have a socialist mode of production essentially because of the lack of worker control of the state (and therefor the means of production). I would argue that if the state owns the means of production, then the state must necessariy have some kind form of democratic control by the citizens in order to be considered socialist. The USSR may have had this very early on, but as Stalin rose to power it slipped away and became what is known as state capialism. There needs to be a distinction between a "socialist country" (as in, a country with a socialist mode of production where the workers control the means of production) and "country rules by socialists" (USSR, China, Cuba, etc) where the means of production is centrally controlled by a government not representative of the population. As far as I'm concerned, no socialist countries have ever existed for more than a handful of years. In other words, Marxism, at its core, is at odds with fascism in a fundamental way, and Marxist-Leninists (and by extension Stalinists and Maoists) are fundamentally at odds with Marxism. I think you can draw a parallel between "people who think they support Marxism" and fascism, but drawing a parallel between Marxism and fascism is a stretch. |