Pierre Poilievre, Fascism, Socialism and the Political Landscape Today

Just recently, Pierre Poilievre has once again displayed his penchant for stating something that is technically true but politically incorrect, and in doing so has successfully tilted his political opponents into making obvious mistakes that benefit him. This time he published a message on X commemorating Black Ribbon Day and implied that Socialism was a destructive ideology that drove both Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany to commit their atrocities.

It’s been over ten years now that I have blogged intermittently and during that time I have lamented many times about the growing tide of Socialism in Canada and what that means for the future. But even I was surprised by the number of socialists that crawled out of the woodwork to defend their ideology. According to Poilievre’s detractors, Nazism is not in any way related to Socialism and in fact are total opposites.

Since Poilievre’s message has led to such a deluge of responses, now seems a good time to discuss what fascism is, what are its origins, and where do socialists stand today in our current political landscape.

Fascism Today and in the Past

Fascist is an adjective that is thrown around a lot these days.

Apparently, Trump is a fascist; and so is Poilievre, not to mention in Italy the descendants of actual fascists have taken over the country!

The truth is that leftist activists have made the word fascist a useless expression, devoid of any real meaning due to their trite tactics of shouting the same insults over and over again while failing to engage in any real dialogue. There is no real attempt to define the term on their part, they merely use it in a negative connotation to disparage anyone that disagrees with them.

In a more critical and analytic sense though, the term fascism can help to elucidate the past and make us better able to understand the events that shaped the first half of the twentieth century. It seems undeniable to me that Fascism is indeed an offshoot of Socialism.

Many will read this statement and shake their head with incredulity, after all, did fascists and socialists not kill each other in the millions during the Second World War? Surely two sides that fought such a bitter and bloody conflict must have diametrically opposed ideologies. That is certainly a rational opinion to hold, but if we look at history, wars have been fought over less.

It’s important to note that both Socialism and Fascism are collective ideologies, they seek to manifest the will of the majority for the supposed greater good. The problem with collectivist ideologies is highlighted by the philosophical concept of nominalism. There is no actual thing as the “collective” or “collective will.” Collectives are made up of individuals and are in fact represented by individuals, there is nothing concrete about them, they are merely abstract concepts. So when an individual or group begins to speak for the collective, inevitably, other individuals or groups will claim to better represent the collective. This is a problem for anyone who has grand plans of imperialism or complete control of society. As the Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, pointed out, grand plans are easier to manifest through a dictatorship.

This, in my estimation, is the reason why both socialists and fascists are essentially forced to use the same means to arrive at their political ends. They have no choice but to use force to suppress all opposition; hence why both the Nazis and the Soviets have the one-party system, the use of secret police, concentration camps, jail for political opponents, and control of the media.

So while it is true that both ideologies use the same means and many fascists, including Mussolini, started out as devout followers of Marx, the two ideologies have a different spirit that animate their supporters. Socialism takes after Liberalism and it’s revolutionary spirit for equality, reason, and progress; it seeks to tear down the Old Order based on feudalism and the divine right of kings to rule. Fascism on the other hand is a counter-revolutionary movement aimed at preserving the current order. It’s deeply skeptical of Socialism and it’s attempt to dislodge the current socioeconomic elites. Both movements, to a large extent, attempt to deal with the industrialization that transformed European society. Socialism sees industrialization as an extension of the Old Order and a form of control by elites, while Fascism sees industrialization as a form of individualism run amok, upsetting the current social hierarchy, tradition, and giving rise to decadency.

So Polievre is both right and wrong, more right than wrong though in my view.

The State of Socialism in Canada

While socialists are definitely present in Canada and are well represented in the upper echelons of government, it becomes much harder today to pin down what Socialism actually is and what socialists actually believe.

Socialism, from an intellectual standpoint, is a spent ideology. The failure of the Russian experiment along with numerous others proves it is simply not a viable system. Famed socialist, Robert Heilbroner, admitted as much when he finally acknowledged that “Mises was right,” there is simply no way for Socialism to resolve the economic calculation problem without market prices in capital goods.

Ever since then it seems that socialists have not even attempted to build a coherent economic theory. Rather, they focus more on issues like the environment, feminism, and other ad-hoc ones like Israel-Palestine. Trudeau is a prime example, you can see he is clearly more at ease and in his element when he is talking about LGBT issues and gender neutral cabinets. The only economic issues socialists seem to get around to is when they criticize the current system as manifestation of capitalist exploitation. Then they will usually propose a new government program aimed at curbing the supposed excesses of Capitalism.

Still, this general viewpoint leaves key questions unanswered. Is there a limit to how much government should spend? Can the government simply continue to expand without any negative consequences? I have not seen socialists even attempt to grapple with these questions.

Since it’s very beginning, Socialism has been plagued by its inner contradictions, it’s biggest strength has always been the ability to mobilize the masses though it’s rhetoric. And today that is still it’s biggest strength, its demagoguery and disparaging remarks of businessmen and Capitalism in general can always be counted on to draw at least some support. The problem is that despite socialists being in power for many years through the Liberal Party(cruel irony indeed), they have not brought about the benefits to the middle class like they have promised.

This has left many Canadians despondent of politics and searching for answers. I certainly can’t claim to know what the future holds, but I am confident in that the more socialists attempt to hold on to power, the easier the case for Liberalism becomes. And Liberalism has the power to change the course of history like no other force before, because it has done so already and can do so again.