Sir Oswald Mosely - The True Revolutionary

http://www.famous-speeches-and-speech-topics.info/famous-speeches/oswald-mosley-speech-comrades-in-struggle.htm

Brother Blackshirts, my comrades in struggle:

Our fight is for the soul, and in that battle we go forward together till victory be won. Our struggle is hard, because we are fighting for something great, and great things are not lightly or easily gained. We are fighting for nothing less than a revolution in the spirit of our people. We must be worthy of our mission, for blackshirts are those who are summoned to lead the people to a new and a higher civilization.

The Blackshirt is a revolutionary dedicated to the service of our country. We must always possess the character of the true revolutionary. It is not the character that you observe in the little men of the old parties, blown hither and thither by every gust of convenience opinion, elated by a little success, downcast by a little failure, gossiping and chattering about the prospects of the next five minutes, jostling for place, but not so forward in service. Without loyalty, endurance, or staying power, such a character is the hallmark of financial democratic politics. It is the opposite of national socialism.

In the true revolutionary, the first quality is the power to endure. Constancy, loyalty to cause and comrades, manhood and stability of nature. These are the qualities of the true Britain and the true revolutionary. In our movement that great character of the British has been reborn. And for that reason we carry within us the destiny of Britain. We care not whether we win tomorrow morning or at the end of a lifetime of labour and of struggle. For to us the little calculations of the little men mean nothing. All we care is that win we will because Britain demands it and no power on earth can hold down the will within us.

Struggles we have had and will have. Blows we have taken and will again. Victories we have had and will have again, yes greater victories than even Britons have ever known. Through good and ill we march on, till victory be won, for this is the character of the true revolutionary. In the great moments of supreme struggle and decision it is easy to hold that character, even in supreme sacrifice. It is not so easy in the hard daily task. It is then even more that in the great fights we have together that I would like to be the companion of every one of you. I would like to be with every action team that carries the message of our new faith to new streets. I would like to be with every man or woman during the hard but vital job of giving leadership to the people in the block of houses for which they are responsible.

For these are the jobs that come, by the dedication of thousands to that mission of leading the people in their own homes and streets, revolution is won. In that task I cannot in body be with everyone of you every day. But in spirit I am with you always. Because this work of the dedicated Blackshirt will win the Britain to which my whole spirit is given. Together in Britain we have lit a flame that the atheists shall not extinguish. Guard that sacred flame my brother Blackshirts until it illumines Britain and lights again the path of mankind

A vibrant message. In his time he might have given a true blood call. Were his economics as far advanced? I know next to nothing about him.

Romanticist wrote:


http://www.famous-speeches-and-speech-topics.info/famous-speeches/oswald-mosley-speech-comrades-in-struggle.htm

Brother Blackshirts, my comrades in struggle:

Our fight is for the soul, and in that battle we go forward together till victory be won. Our struggle is hard, because we are fighting for something great, and great things are not lightly or easily gained. We are fighting for nothing less than a revolution in the spirit of our people. We must be worthy of our mission, for blackshirts are those who are summoned to lead the people to a new and a higher civilization.

The Blackshirt is a revolutionary dedicated to the service of our country. We must always possess the character of the true revolutionary. It is not the character that you observe in the little men of the old parties, blown hither and thither by every gust of convenience opinion, elated by a little success, downcast by a little failure, gossiping and chattering about the prospects of the next five minutes, jostling for place, but not so forward in service. Without loyalty, endurance, or staying power, such a character is the hallmark of financial democratic politics. It is the opposite of national socialism.

In the true revolutionary, the first quality is the power to endure. Constancy, loyalty to cause and comrades, manhood and stability of nature. These are the qualities of the true Britain and the true revolutionary. In our movement that great character of the British has been reborn. And for that reason we carry within us the destiny of Britain. We care not whether we win tomorrow morning or at the end of a lifetime of labour and of struggle. For to us the little calculations of the little men mean nothing. All we care is that win we will because Britain demands it and no power on earth can hold down the will within us.

Struggles we have had and will have. Blows we have taken and will again. Victories we have had and will have again, yes greater victories than even Britons have ever known. Through good and ill we march on, till victory be won, for this is the character of the true revolutionary. In the great moments of supreme struggle and decision it is easy to hold that character, even in supreme sacrifice. It is not so easy in the hard daily task. It is then even more that in the great fights we have together that I would like to be the companion of every one of you. I would like to be with every action team that carries the message of our new faith to new streets. I would like to be with every man or woman during the hard but vital job of giving leadership to the people in the block of houses for which they are responsible.

For these are the jobs that come, by the dedication of thousands to that mission of leading the people in their own homes and streets, revolution is won. In that task I cannot in body be with everyone of you every day. But in spirit I am with you always. Because this work of the dedicated Blackshirt will win the Britain to which my whole spirit is given. Together in Britain we have lit a flame that the atheists shall not extinguish. Guard that sacred flame my brother Blackshirts until it illumines Britain and lights again the path of mankind

Tell me was Sir Oswald Mosley not a Fascist? Was he not the leader of the BUF, the British Union of Facists? Did he not 'blow' from a 'Fascistic' position a la Mussolini's Italian Fascist State, to Adolf Hitler's National Socialism? His embrace of a revolutionary socialist position did not really occur until several years after the defeat of the Third Reich, untill he was floundering in the political doldrums of yesterdays political ideologies.

There are many in Britain who still dream of the return of the fascist dream, you will find them on Stormfront along with others that uphold a reactionary nationalist position. Speaking for myself, you might find the audience there more receptive to fascism than here on a non-fascist forum.

During my years as a Strasserist, Oswald Mosley was one of the political figures I most admired. To this day, I still think he was among the most gifted orators ever involved in politics. I believe the socialist historian, A. J. P. Taylor, was basically correct when he wrote:

"[Mosley is] the greatest comet of British politics in the twentieth century . . . an orator of the highest rank. He produced, almost unaided, a programme of economic reconstruction which surpassed anything offered by Lloyd George or, in the United States, by F. D. Roosevelt . . . He has continued fertile in ideas . . . A superb political thinker, the best of our age."

Interestingly, during his career as a fascist, Mosley identified himself as a leftist: "I am not, and never have been, a man of the right. My position was on the left and is now in the centre of politics" [Letter to The Times (26 April, 1968), p. 11]. However, even at the most progressive period of his political career (during the Union Movement in the mid '50s, when he was advocating a form of syndicalism which he called "European Socialism"), he still promoted a form of social-imperialism. According to his autobiography, this idea originated as early as the 1920s, when he was a member of the Labour Party and introduced legislation which would establish a system of British "socialist imperialism." Not only is imperialism thoroughly reactionary, but it violates the progressive nationalism we espouse on this forum. As the second quote I posted also indicates, shortly before his death, Mosley's politics had moved decidedly to the center, having abandoned socialism entirely and, instead, endorsing dirigisme.

Celtiberian, can you indicate the sources for your quotations? You quote texts whose titles you don't reveal, like the source of that letter to The Times. Also, since you've been an admirer of his for so long, tell us, where ought someone who is interested in Mosley begin their reading?

Yes, this is me asking you about titles again, but from now on I'll do on public forums so everyone else can benefit as well.

Bladridigan wrote:Celtiberian, can you indicate the sources for your quotations? You quote texts whose titles you don't reveal, like the source of that letter to The Times. Also, since you've been an admirer of his for so long, tell us, where ought someone who is interested in Mosley begin their reading?

Yes, this is me asking you about titles again, but from now on I'll do on public forums so everyone else can benefit as well.

A. J. P. Taylor's quote was basically just taken from a blurb written on Oswald Mosley's autobiography, My Life. The quote from The Times can be found in Philip Rees's Fascism in Britain (p. 156).

As for where one should begin a study of Mosley, I always recommend consulting primary sources first—since they free from secondhand bias—so I would start by reading his various speeches and essays, many of which can be found at OswaldMosley.com, and then progress to his aforementioned autobiography. I've owned Stephen Dorril's Black Shirt: Sir Oswald Mosley and the British Fascism for quite some time now, but have only browsed through a little of it thus far—suffice it to say, it's incredibly biased.

Isakenaz wrote:There are many in Britain who still dream of the return of the fascist dream, you will find them on Stormfront along with others that uphold a reactionary nationalist position. Speaking for myself, you might find the audience there more receptive to fascism than here on a non-fascist forum.

Ofcourse the link between the bourgeoisie and historical fascism is obvious. But that doesn't make any difference to the fact that there where (and are) "fascists" or corporatists who where sincerely in their aspirations and wanted the best for the working class and their people. They seek other means (in their case class collaboration) to achieve the same goal, better and just conditions for the workingclass and the people. So I don't think it's a bad thing to be somewhat receptive and to discuss these kinds of views without portraiying them directly as "the bourgeoisie".

Nationaal-Syndicalist wrote:Ofcourse the link between the bourgeoisie and historical fascism is obvious. But that doesn't make any difference to the fact that there where (and are) "fascists" or corporatists who where sincerely in their aspirations and wanted the best for the working class and their people. They seek other means (in their case class collaboration) to achieve the same goal, better and just conditions for the workingclass and the people. So I don't think it's a bad thing to be somewhat receptive and to discuss these kinds of views without portraiying them directly as "the bourgeoisie".

This is a revolutionary socialist forum. What we aspire to, as socialists, is the emancipation of labor from capital. Anything that deviates from that fundamental principle is unacceptable.

The economic goals of fascism/corporatism and all other expressions of bourgeois reformism are not at all the same as ours. You may be credulous enough to think so — and I must say that such a position raises some serious questions as to what your declared ('National-Syndicalist') tendency consists of — but most rational people are not.

Admin wrote:This is a revolutionary socialist forum. What we aspire to, as socialists, is the emancipation of labor from capital. Anything that deviates from that fundamental principle is unacceptable.

Ofcourse, I read your FAQ and I think I know what you guys are about. It's already quite something that you guys have a "opposing views" forum and give people with other opinions the chance to engage in the discussions. That's a good thing for sure. It prevents that people only preach for their own parish.

The economic goals of fascism/corporatism and all other expressions of bourgeois reformism are not at all the same as ours. You may be credulous enough to think so — and I must say that such a position raises some serious questions as to what your declared ('National-Syndicalist') tendency consists of — but most rational people are not.

Our definition of National Syndicalism you can find on our blog. My personal view is a Nationalist Socialism (so the total exproriation of the capitalist class and collectivisation of property), i also denounce every form of internationalism or universalism. As a group we're opposed to any form of dogmatism. We got comrades who prefer the Socialist view and some who prefer the Corporatist view. That can lead to interesting discussions and ofcourse sometimes colliding opinions.

In the end we see "revolution" as an act of practice and not as an act of theory or discussion. Every comrade who puts his words into action is welcome to do so if his aspirations are honest and heartfeld. I think it's quite an insult to refer to this kind of people as "agents of the bourgeoisie". That's about the same nonsens the cosmopolitan leftwing states about "progressive nationalism" as being a branch of Nazism.

The main question for me is does theoretical sectarist quarrel stimulate any form of concrete revolution? In my humble opinion certainly not.

Admin partially has a point, since historically fascist 'corporatism' has essentially amounted to a system where the state forces the workers to comply with the wishes of the capitalists. For example, as I found out in the thread on Falangism, the Falangists referred to themselves as 'National Syndicalists' as a cover for corporatism. As such, working with fascists might present a risk because, as with Ernst Roehm and the 'leftwing Nazis', we may find that we replace one capitalist regime with another. Corporatism is not socialist, because socialism cannot exist while bourgeoisie are permitted to.

On the other hand, I have encountered neofascists who are willing to at least give real syndicalism a listen. I view them less as possible allies and more as potential socialists.

RedSun wrote:Admin partially has a point, since historically fascist 'corporatism' has essentially amounted to a system where the state forces the workers to comply with the wishes of the capitalists.

Ofcourse, but that's not real corporatism and also no "class collaboration". A lot of historical Fascist leaders where nothing more than oppertunist demogoges who betrayed their own political doctrines and their followers. The same we can see with some of the "Communist" movements who are also used by Capitalists to achieve their goals. Does this mean all of the ideas, doctrines and all of it's followers are by definition bourgeoisie?

For example, as I found out in the thread on Falangism, the Falangists referred to themselves as 'National Syndicalists' as a cover for corporatism.

It was a united front of people with different political ideas, it wasn't only Fascist but did have a strong Fascist wing. In the end José Antonio Primo de Rivera took his distance from the international Fascist movement and realised a really distinct form of "Fascism". His anticapitalist setting and his opposition to more conservative powers was one of the main reasons that Franco did order his execution (somewhat the same story as Night of the Long Knives).

As such, working with fascists might present a risk because, as with Ernst Roehm and the 'leftwing Nazis', we may find that we replace one capitalist regime with another.

And if somebody follows a Socialist leader who needs support for his own personal agenda, he can also betray the revolution and the ideology by collaborating with the bourgeoisie. It should only be a theoretical discussion, it shouldn't be about demonising people with sincere beliefs but with different opinions how to get there. The situation the world and Capitalist system are in, doesn't call for sektarist quarrell if you'd ask me, revolution isn't possible without a broad movement.

Corporatism is not socialist, because socialism cannot exist while bourgeoisie are permitted to.

That's a thesis I do agree with. Only Corporatists do have some good arguments and most of them are heartfeld and are sincerely "Anti Capitalist".

The most Corporatists and Guild-Socialists I talk to, see "Capital" and "Property" as two different things. They believe in a motivating factor of individual freedom and see small entrepreneurship as the backbone of a healthy economy. They don't mind people who have some small amounts of property if they worked for themselves, they allow people to work to better the situation for their selves and their family.

They justly raise the question of in these times one can refer to the middleclass, like the 2 man construction company, a blacksmith or a storekeeper, as "the bourgeoisie". These are people who work hard for their living, while some people are unemployed and live a "middleclass life" while bivakking on a Occupy camp from taxpayers money. These entrepreneurs are also working class and also victims of the Capitalist system and the exploitation. So Corporatism is not an "evil bourgeouis" view in my opion, but it's a well intended view to better the situation for the people.

Ofcourse it's very good to critize the fact that there is no total economic equality and collectivisation within the Corporatist/Guild-Socialist view. It's also important to realize the system can be used as a weapon of the Capitalist class to reinforce their system (as other ideologies do). At the other hand I can find some reason in their meritocratic beliefs; the belief that people have the individual right to earn a position in society. But those are good content for discussions and no reason to demonize people with good intentions.

On the other hand, I have encountered neofascists who are willing to at least give real syndicalism a listen. I view them less as possible allies and more as potential socialists.

What's "real" Syndicalism? Syndicalism is a fundament for some Marxists, Anarchists and some Fascists; none of them has the exclusive right on that. It has always been an experimental concept that found it's roots in the practice of the union movement in France, the theory was later on derived from this.

I see your point, but how can a corporatist be anti-capitalist when his ideology is devoted to preserving capitalism?
I think the concern about property has moved on from communal ownership of everything to permitting people to own (read: to control) the fruits of their own labour. That's why the syndicate was created-- so that workers could control the product of their labour. Corporatism denies that right by allowing the bourgeoisie to retain partial control of a company for which they do no meaningful work. Read another way: corporatism denies that right by allowing bourgeoisie to continue to steal from the workers.
This is what I think Proudhon meant by 'Property is theft', and this is the difference between a bourgeois and a worker-- a worker puts in actual labour, while a bourgeois simply finds a way to subsist off of others.

In answer to that last question, it's "real" syndicalism if it dispenses with the capitalist class and gives the workers full control of the company. As opposed to Franco & Hitler's practices of pretending to be socialist/syndicalist while allowing capitalism to remain in order to court the favour of the rich.

I actually asked the difference between the two on another thread: http://www.socialistphalanx.com/t601-corporatism-vs-syndicalism
If my response was too rambling and confusing, see if Celtiberian's explanations make sense.

Nationaal-Syndicalist wrote:Ofcourse, I read your FAQ and I think I know what you guys are about. It's already quite something that you guys have a "opposing views" forum and give people with other opinions the chance to engage in the discussions. That's a good thing for sure. It prevents that people only preach for their own parish.

Yes, we feel that engaging those with opposing viewpoints (provided they demonstrate a sufficient level of civility and open-mindedness) in debate is tremendously important. Socialists who refuse to do so are doing a disservice to the cause they purport to believe in.

Our definition of National Syndicalism you can find on our blog. My personal view is a Nationalist Socialism (so the total exproriation of the capitalist class and collectivisation of property), i also denounce every form of internationalism or universalism.

I don't understand why you find it necessary to reject "every form of internationalism". Such a parochial tendency strikes me as completely counterintuitive, from the standpoint of revolutionary socialism. Such a self-imposed isolation is impractical and morally reprehensible in a number of critical contexts.

As a group we're opposed to any form of dogmatism. We got comrades who prefer the Socialist view and some who prefer the Corporatist view. That can lead to interesting discussions and ofcourse sometimes colliding opinions.

How can you expect your movement to be taken seriously when it lacks any real ideological coherency? And how can you expect to be taken seriously, as a socialist, when you are willing to jeopardize your principles through a political union with fascists?

In the end we see "revolution" as an act of practice and not as an act of theory or discussion. Every comrade who puts his words into action is welcome to do so if his aspirations are honest and heartfeld.

It seems to me that you are only interested in revolution for the sole sake of social transformation, no matter what the outcome (so long as it's 'nationalist' in orientation, of course).

I think it's quite an insult to refer to this kind of people as "agents of the bourgeoisie". That's about the same nonsens the cosmopolitan leftwing states about "progressive nationalism" as being a branch of Nazism.

Sorry, but there is no equivalence between the two. Corporatism maintains capital; corporatists therefore function as the agents of the bourgeoisie. Having said that, I do not feel that all corporatists fulfill that function in a malevolent (or even conscious) capacity. Certainly, many of them are convinced that their proposals serve the best interests of the working class, just as there are numerous individuals who sincerely believe that free market capitalism serves the best interests of the working class. Unfortunately, the amiable demeanor of the individuals behind these economic non-sequiturs is inconsequential.

The main question for me is does theoretical sectarist quarrel stimulate any form of concrete revolution? In my humble opinion certainly not.

To characterize the conflict that exists between socialism and corporatism as a case of mere sectarianism presupposes a level of ideological similitude that simply does not exist between the two. The social outcomes that would accompany the institutionalization of either system are so foreign to one another that the basis of their 'revolutionary' unification would have to be extremely superficial.

RedSun wrote:I think the concern about property has moved on from communal ownership of everything to permitting people to own (read: to control) the fruits of their own labour. That's why the syndicate was created-- so that workers could control the product of their labour. Corporatism denies that right by allowing the bourgeoisie to retain partial control of a company for which they do no meaningful work. Read another way: corporatism denies that right by allowing bourgeoisie to continue to steal from the workers.

Most forms of Corporatism denounce every form of speculation and exploitation; it's considered as a crime against the general interest of the people. Guild-Socialism wants to bring the worker in contact with his labour again. Big companies will be the property off all who work in it (all workers become shareholders), while small enterprises are run by the people who started them and worked for it.

This is what I think Proudhon meant by 'Property is theft', and this is the difference between a bourgeois and a worker-- a worker puts in actual labour, while a bourgeois simply finds a way to subsist off of others.

Indeed, but as I stated before all Corporatists and Guild-Socialists I know are against this form of exploitation.

In answer to that last question, it's "real" syndicalism if it dispenses with the capitalist class and gives the workers full control of the company. As opposed to Franco & Hitler's practices of pretending to be socialist/syndicalist while allowing capitalism to remain in order to court the favour of the rich.

I agree, but every one who studied the NSDAP program of Gottfried Feder and looked at the actual policy of Hitler must acknowledge that Hitler betrayed their own partyprogram and was very inconsequent with the implemitation of this program. Only some of the 25 points where partly implemented. In that case I think Hitlerism is just another branch of "Fascism" and does not representative the real German National-Socialist doctrine at all.

Theory and practice are two different things; the "USSR", the "DDR" and the "Peoples Rupublik of China" are also no perfect manifestations of the Communist ideal and theory. The same goes for different forms of Facism.

Admin wrote:I don't understand why you find it necessary to reject "every form of internationalism". Such a parochial tendency strikes me as completely counterintuitive, from the standpoint of revolutionary socialism. Such a self-imposed isolation is impractical and morally reprehensible in a number of critical contexts.

Because we see internationalism (better formulated "universalism") as a form of imperialism. Self-determination is our fundamental base. We don't believe one can simply export "revolution", but we believe it should be a manifestation that comes out of the people and the nation without any interference of foreign powers.

How can you expect your movement to be taken seriously when it lacks any real ideological coherency? And how can you expect to be taken seriously, as a socialist, when you are willing to jeopardize your principles through a political union with fascists?

We believe in a non sectarist principle; we will work together with everyone who can help to achieve revolution. Ofcourse we encounter a lot of opposition against that principle. But in our eyes there are more advantages then disadvantages in that strategy.

It seems to me that you are only interested in revolution for the sole sake of social transformation, no matter what the outcome (so long as it's 'nationalist' in orientation, of course).

You can talk days, months or years about revolution, but in reality a true revolution is far away. The biggest stumble block is the constant theoretical quarrel between workers. It's the divide and conquer strategy that works well for Capitalism, only a united front of workers can destroy that system. Let's first achieve any kind of transformation and progression before we start a quarrel about what the final outcome should be and how the new system should look like.

Sorry, but there is no equivalence between the two. Corporatism maintains capital; corporatists therefore function as the agents of the bourgeoisie. Having said that, I do not feel that all corporatists fulfill that function in a malevolent (or even conscious) capacity. Certainly, many of them are convinced that their proposals serve the best interests of the working class, just as there are numerous individuals who sincerely believe that free market capitalism serves the best interests of the working class. Unfortunately, the amiable demeanor of the individuals behind these economic non-sequiturs is inconsequential.

Then it's up to us to convince them, not to insult them. No heartfeld worker who strives for better conditions is a "agent of the bourgeoisie" in my opinion. These ideological differences can be dealt with at day X.

Nationaal-Syndicalist wrote:Indeed, but as I stated before all Corporatists and Guild-Socialists I know are against this form of exploitation.

If they're against this form of exploitation, why do they let capitalists exist? Just by existing the capitalist class exploits the workers.

Nationaal-Syndicalist wrote:Theory and practice are two different things; the "USSR", the "DDR" and the "Peoples Rupublik of China" are also no perfect manifestations of the Communist ideal and theory. The same goes for different forms of Facism.

I'd still rather work with a movement which eliminates the possibility of bosses than a movement which takes it for granted at the outset that they're here to stay.

Nationaal-Syndicalist wrote:You can talk days, months or years about revolution, but in reality a true revolution is far away. The biggest stumble block is the constant theoretical quarrel between workers. It's the divide and conquer strategy that works well for Capitalism, only a united front of workers can destroy that system. Let's first achieve any kind of transformation and progression before we start a quarrel about what the final outcome should be and how the new system should look like.

There isn't a united front of workers when a significant portion of them are trying to preserve capitalism.

@Redsun
Exactly that same thesis we can use on every form of statesocialism. They also preserve the capitalist class by their state bureaucy. But it looks like most users on this forum are not fundamently opposed against this manifestation of the bourgeoisie. So why is it okay to work together with this manifestation of statesocialism/statecapitalism? Ofcourse there are differences with guild socialism, but in the basis they are fundamentally the same because they both maintain a form of capitalism. The old statesocialist manifestations like the ussr can also be considered as a reactionary manifestation in that sense. The Russian workers liberated themselves from tsarism but where deeper enslaved by the new ruling class.

Nationaal-Syndicalist wrote:Most forms of Corporatism denounce every form of speculation and exploitation; it's considered as a crime against the general interest of the people. Guild-Socialism wants to bring the worker in contact with his labour again. Big companies will be the property off all who work in it (all workers become shareholders), while small enterprises are run by the people who started them and worked for it.

I'm not aware of any school of corporativist thought which supports the notion of workers owning the means of production. As for guild socialism, it's a mistake to associate corporativism with the views advocated by that ideology.

Regarding the perpetuation of the petite bourgeoisie following a socialist revolution, I think it's a positively foolish idea. Not only are social relations in petit-bourgeois firms virtually identical to those in large capitalist firms (i.e., exploitative), but the petite-bourgeoisie have always and will always represent a counterrevolutionary class—the reason being, petit-bourgeois shopkeepers aren't going to content themselves with their firm remaining relatively small should the business prove successful on the market. Economic planning—which many of us here endorse—is also structurally incapable of retaining a petit-bourgeois class. (If you're interested in reading the socialist objection to the petite bourgeoisie, see this post.)

I agree, but every one who studied the NSDAP program of Gottfried Feder and looked at the actual policy of Hitler must acknowledge that Hitler betrayed their own partyprogram and was very inconsequent with the implemitation of this program. Only some of the 25 points where partly implemented. In that case I think Hitlerism is just another branch of "Fascism" and does not representative the real German National-Socialist doctrine at all.

The NSDAP's program merely called for the nationalization of joint-stock corporations; large traditional capitalist enterprises and petit-bourgeois firms were completely supported. In other writings, Gottfried Feder also discussed the exploitative nature of interest and supported the nationalization of financial institutions, but he consistently defended industrial capital. Hitler indeed failed to implement most of the economic policies called for in the 25 Point Program while in power, but even if he had, the Third Reich would have been no more "socialist" than the UK under Clement Attlee.

Exactly that same thesis we can use on every form of statesocialism. They also preserve the capitalist class by their state bureaucy. But it looks like most users on this forum are not fundamently opposed against this manifestation of the bourgeoisie.

No one on this forum advocates on behalf of state socialism, but many of us do acknowledge the significant differences between the bourgeoisie in capitalist states and the nomenklatura in state socialist regimes.

Celtiberian wrote:I'm not aware of any school of corporativist thought which supports the notion of workers owning the means of production.

In some works Oswald Mosely advocates this kind of form of guild socialism.

Not only are social relations in petit-bourgeois firms virtually identical to those in large capitalist firms (i.e., exploitative)

I would not like to state that a storekeeper, carpenter or other working small enterpreneurs are the same as capitalist
speculants and stockholders. That's a pretty bad comparison for somebody who wants to represent the working class.

petit-bourgeois shopkeepers aren't going to content themselves with their firm remaining relatively small should the business prove successful on the market.

They have to because the state limits the markets and economy.

Hitler indeed failed to implement most of the economic policies called for in the 25 Point Program while in power, but even if he had, the Third Reich would have been no more "socialist" than the UK under Clement Attlee.

I only state that National Socialism is no Facism although historical Hitlerism manifestated itself as Facism. The same we can say about some socialist regimes.

but many of us do acknowledge the significant differences between the bourgeoisie in capitalist states and the nomenklatura in state socialist regimes.

Fundamentally there is no difference. If the old form of private capitalism is made impossible it will fall back on statecapitalism. Statecapitalism is statesocialism; it maintains the exploitation in the form of a socialist society where the "most qualified" lead the produktion and the masses submissive do their work. It doesn't matter if we call this manifestation statesocialism or fascism. But this is what connects the socialist USSR, facist Italy and nazi Germany: they are all different forms of reactionairy statecapitalism. They all use heartfeld and sincere theoretical ideologies to realize their bourgeois systems. So the problem is not so much the theoretical manifestations, but the fact that these sincere ideologies are being hijacked and incorporated within the capitalist system. That's no fascist or petit bourgeoisie complot, but the capitalist dynamic to adapt and maintain itself. That's also the main reason why we consider dogmatism and sektarist quarrel as political suicide.

Nationaal-Syndicalist wrote:In some works Oswald Mosely advocates this kind of form of guild socialism.

You must be referring to Mosley's brief advocacy of a "European Socialism." However, Mosley had essentially abandoned corporativism by that time (1956), and despite the radical rhetoric he employed in the "European Socialism" article for Nation Europa, in reality his "socialist" proposals were incredibly modest—as he explained in his autobiography:

"The tradition of the medieval guilds in England, of the Hanseatic League and the syndicalism of the Latin countries was much nearer to my thinking at that time, and I returned to it in my European Socialism during the 1950s, when I proposed a workers' ownership of industries already nationalised, and, in the event of their success, the extension of the principle to other fully developed industries; measures accompanied both by vigorous encouragement of a completely emancipated private enterprise in all remaining industries and also by a reversion to private enterprise in cases where workers' ownership failed; a pragmatic method implementing the test of practical results."
Mosley, Oswald. My Life, p. 145 (emphasis added).

So, we find that Mosley's support of syndicalism was conditional, based upon the "success" of labor managed firms (as if capitalist enterprises are immune from failure )—which were to be confined to already nationalized companies—and operating in conjunction with a robust private sector. Thus, the only difference between Mosley's "syndicalism" and traditional British Social Democracy is that the former features minor elements of worker self-management. Mosley subsequently abandoned this ideology, just as he had previously done with corporativism, and ended his life a staunch supporter of dirigisme (i.e., state-directed capitalism).

I would not like to state that a storekeeper, carpenter or other working small enterpreneurs are the same as capitalist speculants and stockholders. That's a pretty bad comparison for somebody who wants to represent the working class.

There is a significant difference between self-employed workers and the petite bourgeoisie; the latter employs wage laborers while the former does not. Wage labor necessarily implies exploitation, since workers are denied the right to participate in the allocation of the social product, and, consequently, aren't paid the full value of their labor.

To be sure, petit-bourgeois shopkeepers engage in work, but then so do corporate executives. Even stockholders occasionally do work in the form of researching market trends, and so forth. The point is, these individuals are not being remunerated for their work; they derive their wealth from ownership of the means of production. That's what fundamentally separates them from the proletariat.

They have to because the state limits the markets and economy.

Which is precisely why they would constitute a counterrevolutionary class. They would come to view the state as artificially restricting their ability to amass a fortune on the market and would therefore do all they could to subvert socialism.

Fundamentally there is no difference. If the old form of private capitalism is made impossible it will fall back on statecapitalism. Statecapitalism is statesocialism; it maintains the exploitation in the form of a socialist society where the "most qualified" lead the produktion and the masses submissive do their work.

The only similarity you're noting is the hierarchical and authoritarian nature of production under both capitalism and state socialism, and I agree that this does represent a legitimate similarity. The differences between the systems, however, are substantial. Unlike capitalism, state socialism does not feature market allocations of goods and services, the orientation of production is instead determined by a central planning agency; individuals can no longer receive payment by virtue of ownership claims in productive assets under state socialism; etc.

Celtiberian wrote:There is a significant difference between self-employed workers and the petite bourgeoisie; the latter employs wage laborers while the former does not. Wage labor necessarily implies exploitation, since workers are denied the right to participate in the allocation of the social product, and, consequently, aren't paid the full value of their labor.

I must acknowledge that even small enterprises with only several employees are based on wagelabour and some form of exploitation. But this could be solved with State intervention and a profit sharing policy that makes every worker a shareholder.

I still regard most of these people you refer to as "petit-boutgeoisie" as "working class", especcially because the situation has radically changed over the last century in the Western countries. The "working class" as we know it from the industrial revolution is abolished and made place for a Western society where a lot of people could be regarded as "middle class".

To be sure, petit-bourgeois shopkeepers engage in work, but then so do corporate executives. Even stockholders occasionally do work in the form of researching market trends, and so forth. The point is, these individuals are not being remunerated for their work; they derive their wealth from ownership of the means of production. That's what fundamentally separates them from the proletariat.

I agree. But small enterpreneurs worked hard for this and derived their means of production and private property from their own labour in much cases. I can understand why people would support small amounts of private property and the right for individuals to derive more wealth for their families with their capacity and own labour. It can be a motivating factor for a lot of people to be creative and to work hard. Ofcourse there have to be strict limits to this to protect the general interest. Pure economic egalitarianism can have a stagnant effect on society because the only stimulus is solidarity. The view some corporatists and guildsocialists promote is in that sense comprehensible and honest to me. The meritocratic system most of them pursue is also somewhat understandable to me.

The only similarity you're noting is the hierarchical and authoritarian nature of production under both capitalism and state socialism, and I agree that this does represent a legitimate similarity. The differences between the systems, however, are substantial. Unlike capitalism, state socialism does not feature market allocations of goods and services, the orientation of production is instead determined by a central planning agency; individuals can no longer receive payment by virtue of ownership claims in productive assets under state socialism; etc.

Statesocialism does feature market allocations of goods and services, only instead of granting private interests this right, they allow the State interests this right. The State interests (which are most of the time not the general interest of the proletariat) are the interests of the ruling class. In that sense the bureaucracy of Statesocialism is nothing else as a Capitalist class with a full monopoly on the market. In that sense it's maybe more authoritarian then some Fascist regimes which retainned some form of industrial "democracy".

Now Mosley may have been a member of upper class and his Facism intolrable but He was a great speaker.I wonder how diffrent England would have looked if he was a working class left wing nationalist.



His words would have stirred me to action at the time if I was a war veteran or unemployed youth what ever his political outlook coupled with his promise of a fairer,brighter future.Although I suspect it wouldnt have been fairer it should imagen he would have consolidated the traditional upper classes power and curbed the merchant or banking/New money upper classes power while the rest of us do the "Know your place" game.

The phrase "England Lives and Marches on" however probably would stir many English people even to this day.

Nationaal-Syndicalist wrote:I must acknowledge that even small enterprises with only several employees are based on wagelabour and some form of exploitation. But this could be solved with State intervention and a profit sharing policy that makes every worker a shareholder.

The rate of profit in petit-bourgeois businesses is generally so low that if profit sharing policies were introduced in such firms, they would feature income egalitarianism comparable to cooperative firms—which begs the question, why not just convert the entire enterprise into a labor managed firm?

I still regard most of these people you refer to as "petit-boutgeoisie" as "working class", especcially because the situation has radically changed over the last century in the Western countries.

My conception of class derives from the Marxian tradition, wherein ones social class is determined by their relation to the means of production. Owners of means of production who employ wage laborers are capitalists (bourgeois and petit-bourgeois alike), and the individuals who are forced to sell their labor power on the market are proletarians. This definition of class, it should be mentioned, is shared by most non-Marxist schools of socialist thought as well, so I'm perplexed as to how you've come to the conclusion that the petite bourgeoisie are members of the working class.

The "working class" as we know it from the industrial revolution is abolished and made place for a Western society where a lot of people could be regarded as "middle class".

"Middle class" is an income quintile, not a proper class designation. Consequently, its explanatory power for matters beyond consumption is negligible at best. The fundamental relationship between workers and capitalists has not changed since the ascent of bourgeois society.

I agree. But small enterpreneurs worked hard for this and derived their means of production and private property from their own labour in much cases. I can understand why people would support small amounts of private property and the right for individuals to derive more wealth for their families with their capacity and own labour.

Appealing to the allegedly honest means by which the petite bourgeoisie sometimes acquire their means of production is of no consequence to socialists, as we consider the entire system—including the property acquisition therein—to be utterly unjust. Your argument is akin to a mafioso pleading to a judge that he shouldn't be found guilty of his crimes since he followed every rule his crime family established. Either wage labor is exploitative or it isn't. Establishing arbitrary exceptions is illogical and unnecessary. And, again, the petite bourgeoisie cannot be retained within the context of a planned economy; but perhaps you're a market socialist and therefore this isn't of concern to you, I don't know.

It can be a motivating factor for a lot of people to be creative and to work hard. Ofcourse there have to be strict limits to this to protect the general interest. Pure economic egalitarianism can have a stagnant effect on society because the only stimulus is solidarity. The view some corporatists and guildsocialists promote is in that sense comprehensible and honest to me. The meritocratic system most of them pursue is also somewhat understandable to me.

The notion that the prime motivator for people is extrinsic reward—derived, for example, from ownership of exploitative property—is a cornerstone of bourgeois economic theory. Noam Chomsky addressed this fallacy quite well during a critique he wrote of Richard Herrnstein's work in psychology:

"For Herrnstein’s argument to have any force at all we must assume that people labor only for gain, and that the satisfaction found in interesting or socially beneficial work or in work well-done or in the respect shown to such activities, is not a sufficient 'gain' to induce anyone to work . . . This, of course, is not an argument, but merely a reiteration of the claim that, necessarily, individuals work only for extrinsic reward. Furthermore, it is an extremely implausible claim. I doubt very much that Herrnstein would become a baker or lumberjack if he could earn more money that way . . . [His] assumption that people will work only to gain in wealth and power is not only unargued, but quite probably false, except under extreme deprivation. But this degrading and brutal assumption, common to capitalist ideology and the behaviorist view of human beings, is fundamental to Herrnstein’s argument."
Chomsky, Noam (1972), "I.Q. Tests: Building Blocks for the New Class System." Rampart: 24–30. pp. 28, 30 (emphasis added).

The truth is people labor for far more than extrinsic reward. Daniel Pink, among others researchers, has found that the intrinsic gratification people receive from autonomy, mastery, and purpose can motivate individuals even more than common monetary incentives do in the workplace. Furthermore, your claim that without the petite bourgeoisie the economy would "stagnate" is completely unfounded. The most innovative capitalists in history seldom (if ever) remained petit-bourgeois, and yet that's precisely what would occur under the system you're proposing. If the homo economicus model of human behavior you're implicitly supporting is true, then what would be the petite bourgeoisie's incentive to be innovative if the state prohibited them from greatly profiting and expanding as a result of the success of their firms?

There are, incidentally, many methods by which innovation would be encouraged under a socialist mode of production, but I will save that discussion for a more appropriate thread.

As for "pure economic egalitarianism," very few socialists or communists support anything of the sort. Karl Marx, for instance, claimed that any system which "aims to destroy everything which is incapable of being possessed by everyone" is no better than capitalism since, like capitalism, it's based on envy: "universal envy [sets] itself up as a power" that aims at "leveling-down on the basis of a preconceived minimum." But this envy is only a "camouflaged form of [the envy that animates capitalism], which re-establishes itself and seeks to satisfy itself in a different way" [Fromm, Erich. Marx's Concept of Man, p. 102]. What socialists (like myself) seek isn't absolute egalitarianism, but rather equity in remuneration.

Statesocialism does feature market allocations of goods and services, only instead of granting private interests this right, they allow the State interests this right.

By definition, state socialism is a mode of production wherein the state controls the means of production and allocation. Thus the market plays no role whatsoever in the allocation of resources—black market activity can obviously coexist under such systems, but it's illegal. In the Soviet Union, for example, it was Gosplan which established the economic plans determining the manner in which resources would be utilized.

In that sense it's maybe more authoritarian then some Fascist regimes which retainned some form of industrial "democracy".

I'm unaware of any legitimate expression of industrial democracy existing under a fascist regime.

Celtiberian wrote:"Middle class" is an income quintile, not a proper class designation. Consequently, its explanatory power for matters beyond consumption is negligible at best. The fundamental relationship between workers and capitalists has not changed since the ascent of bourgeois society.

I agree. But in the European welfare states of the 21st century we see that the middle class is not only exploited by the capitalist class, but also by the unemployed class (the people who want to profit from someone else their labour). I find the meritocratic ideas corporatists support very interesting because of that.

And, again, the petite bourgeoisie cannot be retained within the context of a planned economy; but perhaps you're a market socialist and therefore this isn't of concern to you, I don't know.

I told you before that I only find some corporist thought interesting; they seek the problems in the alienation of the worker from his labour and the "spirit of capitalism" and promote a meritocratic system. Ofcourse it's a completely different school of thought than socialism and in some parts very inconsequent. But it isn't a bourgeois or capitalist conspiracy as some like to put it; it's abused by capitalism just as many other systems before it did.

The notion that the prime motivator for people is extrinsic reward—derived, for example, from ownership of exploitative property—is a cornerstone of bourgeois economic theory. The truth is people labor for far more than extrinsic reward. Daniel Pink, among others researchers, has found that the intrinsic gratification people receive from autonomy, mastery, and purpose can motivate individuals even more than common monetary incentives do in the workplace.

That can be. But as we can see in some former communist states, statesocialism is destructive for individual work ethic; individuals didn't have any autonomy or mastery over their own labour. Corporatists support the notion that a fundamental problem lies in the alienation of the worker from his labour, something I personnally do acknowledge as a part of the problem. Under the statesocialist bureaucracy industralisation expanded still alienating the worker from his labour. Systems like guildsocialism do offer a solution to that; they bring the worker in contact with his own labour again and let him reap the benefits of his own labour, own ceativity and own entrepreneurial.

Furthermore, your claim that without the petite bourgeoisie the economy would "stagnate" is completely unfounded. If the homo economicus model of human behavior you're implicitly supporting is true, then what would be the petite bourgeoisie's incentive to be innovative if the state prohibited them from greatly profiting and expanding as a result of the success of their firms?

That's not what I'm saying. A planeconomy and statebureaucracy does opress the individual freedom on a much bigger scale then limited state intervention would do, so statesocialism is demotivating the more creative and enterprising elements of society. So it's not so much the economic factor that stagnates the economy, but the lack of individual freedom.

As for "pure economic egalitarianism," very few socialists or communists support anything of the sort. Karl Marx, for instance, claimed that any system which "aims to destroy everything which is incapable of being possessed by everyone" is no better than capitalism since, like capitalism, it's based on envy: "universal envy [sets] itself up as a power" that aims at "leveling-down on the basis of a preconceived minimum." But this envy is only a "camouflaged form of [the envy that animates capitalism], which re-establishes itself and seeks to satisfy itself in a different way" [Fromm, Erich. Marx's Concept of Man, p. 102]. What socialists (like myself) seek isn't absolute egalitarianism, but rather equity in remuneration.

That's a interesting quote.

By definition, state socialism is a mode of production wherein the state controls the means of production and allocation. Thus the market plays no role whatsoever in the allocation of resources—black market activity can obviously coexist under such systems, but it's illegal. In the Soviet Union, for example, it was Gosplan which established the economic plans determining the manner in which resources would be utilized.

I agree. But what is the fundamental difference between a statebureacracy that has a monopoly on the means of production and accolation or a capitalist class which does have this monopoly? In both cases the ruling class controls the means of production and accolation of goods and opresses the proletariat. I see no big difference between Capitalism or Statesocialism behind the facade of communism. I think statesocialism is just another manifestation of monopoly capitalism. The elemination of the market gives the ruling class an absolute monopoly; it's the ultimate capitalist dream.

I'm unaware of any legitimate expression of industrial democracy existing under a fascist regime.

Class collaboration can be seen as a early form of industrial democracy. The fascists did realize good benefits for the workers and did better their situation. They incorperated several laws and courts which gave workers the right to accuse their employer of exploitation. They where the forerunners of the rights a lot of workers enjoy in Europe today. This is in sharp contrast with some of the communist manifestations from the past where forced collectivisaties led to millions of workers who worked themselves to death under miserable conditions.

Nationaal-Syndicalist wrote:I agree. But in the European welfare states of the 21st century we see that the middle class is not only exploited by the capitalist class, but also by the unemployed class (the people who want to profit from someone else their labour). I find the meritocratic ideas corporatists support very interesting because of that.

I disagree that individuals on welfare are taking advantage of the system and, thus, "exploiting" middle class workers. And even if a few eccentric people are, capitalism is systemically incapable of attaining full employment anyway. One of the primary objectives of socialism is to create the conditions wherein full employment is attained. Once that is achieved, the only people who should receive welfare assistance are the disabled or pregnant—medical services, housing, and public transportation would be available to all. As Lenin was fond of quoting, "He who does not work, neither shall he eat."

With respect to "meritocracy," it's not as though anyone is opposed to the notion of positions being given to the most qualified individuals. What socialists do oppose, however, is granting unaccountable authority to some technocratic elite.

Ofcourse it's a completely different school of thought than socialism and in some parts very inconsequent. But it isn't a bourgeois or capitalist conspiracy as some like to put it; it's abused by capitalism just as many other systems before it did.

Not even the most anti-fascist partisan historians of fascism claim that corporativist theory was a bourgeois "conspiracy." No one doubts that the corporativist theoreticians were honestly attempting to formulate a more just economic system, but the theory was clearly a form of capitalism nonetheless—private ownership of the means of production, wage labor, and generalized commodity production were are all retained. Furthermore, when the bourgeoisie in Italy and Germany were faced with growing radical movements, they turned to fascism simply because, of the two most popular movements at the time (i.e., socialism and fascism), fascism didn't threaten to expropriate their property. They obviously found fascism distasteful in its own right, but it was still manageable in their eyes.

That can be. But as we can see in some former communist states, statesocialism is destructive for individual work ethic; individuals didn't have any autonomy or mastery over their own labour.

I never claimed otherwise. One the main reasons I'm not a state socialist is because workers exercise absolutely no self-management in that system.

Systems like guildsocialism do offer a solution to that; they bring the worker in contact with his own labour again and let him reap the benefits of his own labour, own ceativity and own entrepreneurial.

I still don't understand which form of guild socialism you're referring to, because you tend to use the term synonymously with corporatism. As I explained elsewhere, guild socialism shares far more in common with syndicalism than it does with corporativism.

I agree. But what is the fundamental difference between a statebureacracy that has a monopoly on the means of production and accolation or a capitalist class which does have this monopoly? In both cases the ruling class controls the means of production and accolation of goods and opresses the proletariat.

The difference is individuals within state socialist regimes are no longer capable of accumulating wealth merely by virtue of privately owning means of production. Consequently, class distinctions and inequality are somewhat reduced, albeit far from completely. Radical economist Paul Cockshott explains the distinguishing features of Soviet socialism as follows:

"Soviet socialism, particularly following the introduction of the first five-year plan under Stalin in the late 1920s, introduced a new and non-capitalist mode of extraction of a surplus. This is somewhat obscured by the fact that workers were still paid ruble wages, and that money continued in use as a unit of account in the planned industries, but the social content of these 'monetary forms' changed drastically. Under Soviet planning, the division between the necessary and surplus portions of the social product was the result of political decisions. For the most part, goods and labour were physically allocated to enterprises by the planning authorities, who would always ensure that the enterprises had enough money to 'pay for' the real goods allocated to them. If an enterprise made monetary 'losses', and therefore had to have its money balances topped up with 'subsidies', that was no matter. On the other hand, possession of money as such was no guarantee of being able to get hold of real goods. By the same token, the resources going into production of consumer goods were centrally allocated. Suppose the workers won higher ruble wages: by itself this would achieve nothing, since the flow of production of consumer goods was not responsive to the monetary amount of consumer spending. Higher wages would simply mean higher prices or shortages in the shops. The rate of production of a surplus was fixed when the planners allocated resources to investment in heavy industry and to the production of consumer goods respectively.

In very general terms this switch to a planned system, where the the division of necessary and surplus product is the result of deliberate social decision, is entirely in line with what Marx had hoped for. Only Marx had imagined this 'social decision' as being radically democratic, so that the production of the surplus would have an intrinsic legitimacy. The people, having made the decision to devote so much of their combined labour to net investment and the support of non-producers, would then willingly implement their own decision. For reasons both external and internal, Soviet society at the time of the introduction of economic planning was far from democratic. How, then, could the workers be induced or compelled to implement the plan (which, although it was supposedly formulated in their interests, was certainly not of their making)?

We know that the plans were, by and large, implemented. The 1930s saw the development of a heavy industrial base at unprecedented speed, a base that would be severely tested in the successful resistance to the Nazi invasion. We are also well aware of the characteristic features of the Stalin era, with its peculiar mixture of terror and forced labour on the one hand, and genuine pioneering fervour on the other. Starting from the question of how the extraction of a surplus product was possible in a planned but undemocratic system, the cult of Stalin's personality appears not as a mere 'aberration', but as an integral feature of the system. Stalin: at once the inspirational leader, making up in determination and grit for what he lacked in eloquence was capable of promoting a sense of participation in a great historic endeavour, and the stern and utterly ruthless liquidator of any who failed so to participate (and many others besides). The Stalin cult, with both its populist and its terrible aspects, was central to the Soviet mode of extraction of a surplus product."
Cockshott, Paul. Towards a New Socialism, p. 5.

I see no big difference between Capitalism or Statesocialism behind the facade of communism. I think statesocialism is just another manifestation of monopoly capitalism. The elemination of the market gives the ruling class an absolute monopoly; it's the ultimate capitalist dream.

Since the primary objective of the bourgeoisie is to accumulate as much profit for themselves as possible, I think state socialism (like all forms of socialism) is the antithesis of capitalism.

Class collaboration can be seen as a early form of industrial democracy.

In practice, there was no collaboration.

"Mussolini was supposed to be enthusiastic about the Corporate State, but the corporations remained ultimately toothless because whereas the employers were fully represented, the workforce was not. Representatives of the working class in the corporations were usually Fascist Party bureaucrats or Ministry of Corporations officials who had no real contact with the shop floor or village. In a similar fashion Bottai's 'Charter of Labour', which was supposed to focus on labour relations and social issues, proved to be a sad disappointment for those syndicalists of the Rossoni era who had seen the Corporate State as a means of eradicating class tensions and regulating capitalism.

Employers in Confindustria were gratified that the corporations did not involve them in any kind of centralised Soviet-style planning machanism. Neither were the Fascist syndicates represented at the shop-floor level in the way that free trade unions were represented by shop stewards. In fact, the syndicates continued to be an instrument for the coercion of a working class which was penalised if it dared to strike, and which suffered severe wage cuts between 1930 and 1934."
Neville, Peter. Mussolini, p. 113.

But even if the corporations genuinely had represented labor, it would have done absolutely nothing to eliminate the central injustice of capitalism, namely: exploitation. So long as wage labor exists, so too will exploitation; and as long as generalized commodity production is a feature of an economy, alienation will also exist (this applies to market socialism as well).

The fascists did realize good benefits for the workers and did better their situation.

So did social democracy.

They incorperated several laws and courts which gave workers the right to accuse their employer of exploitation.

If the employer/employee distinction exists, exploitation will inevitably occur because surplus value will be extracted from labor and transferred to the bourgeoisie—but I know you're probably referring to "exploitation" in the form of unjust firings and so forth. These laws, to the extent they were actually followed, were the least the fascist regimes could do considering they banned independent trade unions. What the National Socialist "labor courts," for example, did was make whatever disputes arose in the workplace an individual issue between the worker and the manager or capitalist involved, as opposed to issues which would have previously been handled via collective action (in the form of strikes). From the perspective of a socialist, this represents a regression.