Privatization Is at the Core of Fascism

Eric Zuesse, originally posted at

Privatizations are increasingly fashionable, such as in Greece, Ukraine, the U.S., and UK — and privatizations are a central feature of fascism.

The core of fascism is the idea that there is some elite, whether ‘Aryan’ or ‘chosen by God,’ or otherwise, who should run things, and that everyone else exists in order to serve that elite. Inevitably, this official elite consists of the people whom the powers-that-be assign as constituting the owners of almost everything that’s valuable. Increasingly, things become those people’s private possession — even what was formerly a public asset becomes now private. Beaches become private. Schools become private. Natural resources become private. It’s not just the art that was stolen by the Nazis and privatized to them and/or shown at museums that they control, which becomes private; it’s whatever the elite want to have, and to control: it’s all now private. That’s the fascist ideal.

The legal system accommodates the legal owners, in any fascist nation, just as the legal system accommodates the legal owners in any nation at all. And, in fascism, the legal owners are the aristocracy, which are the people who have helped bring the system into being as it now is. Typically, they are the aristocracy that already exists in the given nation, if it was formerly a democracy (aristocrats tend to hate democracy; so, they bring into being fascism to replace it), but they can also be a group that is partially new and that is also partially composed of merely the winning segment of the old aristocracy — the segment of the old aristocracy that had won the type of intra-aristocratic conflict that always exists, within any aristocracy. Whereas any aristocracy is always at war against the public, there are also competitions within any aristocracy to determine which aristocrats will be the dominant ones.

Any fascism is controlled by the nation’s aristocracy, and serves those people — not really the public, who receive nothing but propaganda from the aristocrats’ regime. Even in a dictatorship, not only in a democracy, the press or media are needed in order to sell the government’s policies to its public. If the press is privatized, it’s owned by members of the aristocracy. If the press is owned directly by the government, it still is propaganda. The great majority of the public have no way around propaganda. If aristocrats are in control, few people will even know that that’s the case.

Privatization thus replaces public, government-owned, assets, by privately owned assets, and so it transfers control from publicly elected (government) leaders (who are answerable to everyone at ballot-boxes), to private ones — to private stockholders who decide how those assets will be used — regardless of whether the asset happens to be schools, or hospitals, or land, or natural resources, or roads, or whatever. Anything can be privatized. Anything can be run by an elite, by an ‘owner.’ Fascism tries to maximize that: private ownership of what was formerly public property.

Consequently, the first group of privatizations occurred in the first fascist nation, Italy, in the 1920s; and the second group of privatizations occurred in the second fascist nation, Germany, in the 1930s. Privatizations started under Mussolini, and then were instituted under Hitler. That got the fascist ball rolling; and, after a few decades of hiatus in the wake of fascism’s embarrassing supposed defeat in WW II, it resurfaced and then surged yet again after 1970, when fascist forces in the global aristocracy, such as via the CIA, IMF, Bilderberg group, and Trilateral Commission, imposed the global reign of the world’s main private holders of bonds and of stocks: the world’s aristocrats are taking on an increasing percentage of what were previously public assets.

Privatizations, after starting in fascisms during the pre-WWII years, resumed again in the 1970s under the fascist Chilean leader Augusto Pinochet; and in the 1980s under the fascist British leader Margaret Thatcher (a passionate supporter of apartheid in South Africa) and also under the smiling fascist American leader Ronald Reagan (who followed the prior success of Richard Nixon’s “Southern Strategy” of White domination in the by-then resurgent-conservative U.S., and might even be said to have been America’s first fully fascist President); and in the 1990s under several fascist (formerly communist) leaders throughout the former Soviet Union, under the guidance of Harvard University’s fascist economics department, which transferred control from the former nomenklatura, to the new (Western-dependent) “oligarchs.”

And, privatizations are now all the rage throughout the world, such as in today’s fascist United States, and today’s fascist United Kingdom.

Mussolini was the man-of-the-future, but — after Franklin Delano Roosevelt died, and finally Thatcher and Reagan and other ‘free-marketeers’ came into office — Mussolini’s “future” has increasingly become our own “now”: the Axis Powers’ ideology has actually been winning in the post-WW-II world. Only, this time, it’s called instead by such names as “libertarianism” or “neo-liberalism,” no longer “fascism,” so that only the true-believing fascists, the aristocrats, will even know that it’s actually fascism. It’s their Big Con. It’s their Big Lie. Just renaming fascism as “libertarianism” or “neo-liberalism,” has fooled the masses to think that it’s pro-democratic. “Capitalism” has thus come to be re-defined to refer to only  the aristocratically controlled form of capitalism: fascism. The ideological battle has thus apparently been won by a cheap terminological deceit. That’s all it takes for dictatorship to be able to win.

The democratically controlled form of capitalism, such as in some northern European countries, has commonly been called “socialism”; and, of course, it’s opposed to all forms of dictatorship, both communist and fascist. Socialism is the democratic form of capitalism. It’s the form of capitalism that serves the public, instead of the aristocracy, at any point where the two have conflicting interests. It subordinates the aristocracy to the public. Fascism instead subordinates the public to the aristocracy, which is the natural tendency (because the “World’s Richest 0.7% Own 13.67 Times as Much as World’s Poorest 68.7%,” and the “World’s Richest 80 People Own Same Amount as World’s Bottom 50%”).

(Thus, recognizing those just-linked-to shocking realities, the basic decisions for the future of the world can actually be made by perhaps as few as only a hundred or so people, whose representatives at forums such as Bilderberg can coordinate things in private, and so can provide a sort of global supra-government, with those representatives serving as ministers to their principals, who, of course, will then carry out the details of whatever has been agreed upon between their agents, on their behalf. Payments then can be made in the normal way, between their respective corporations, and this arrangement can include payments to lobbying firms, etc., as well as to media companies, for advertisements, both of a commercial, and of a political, nature, in order to keep everything in line with the mutually-agreed-upon global-aristocratic plan.)

Within recent decades, the international aristocracy, with America’s in the lead, has, in fact, set into motion a plan to privatize an emerging world government, so as to prevent it from being democratic: instead of socialist, this would be a fascist world government. Its origins can even be found in the writings by Mussolini himself. (If he might be said to have had a “Plan ‘B’,” then this could have been his, and the plan’s ultimate adoption seems now to be only a matter of time. The present informal fascist system, via Bilderberg meetings etc., as was just summarized, would then operate only around the fringes of that more formal system, which would destroy national sovereignty and any trace of democracy, regarding many currently governmental matters, such as regulating the environment and product-safety. In a sense: virtually the whole world would then be a prison containing the public, and only aristocrats would have keys to unlock it, if and when and where they wish to let someone out into their tiny luxurious free world.)

Mussolini, incidentally, did not create fascism; he learnt it from his personal teacher, Vilfredo Pareto, who was one of the founders of the microeconomic theory that exists to this day and that is intrinsic to all cost/benefit analyses in capitalist economics. (It’s actually fascist economics, neither socialist nor communist economics. No microeconomic theory for a democracy — no socialist microeconomics — has yet been put forth, or else none has survived that was.) Aristocrats liked Pareto’s theory, so it became embodied in what’s called “welfare economics,” which is designed to fit with his political theory, which is fascism. Pareto was even rightly called “the Karl Marx of fascism.” For example: According to Pareto, freeing a slave from his or her master would be wrong unless the master accepts it as part of a transaction in which the slave is being sold and the master is satisfied with the payment that is being offered in the transaction. If the master isn’t satisfied, then the transaction would be “inefficient,” in the terminology of fascist microeconomic theory, which is the foundation of the existing type of capitalist economics — the type of economics that is being taught around the world.

America’s President Abraham Lincoln was one of the first people to advocate coherently for socialism. Whereas, to Pareto, property came first; to Lincoln, persons came first. To Pareto, property-rights were supreme. To Lincoln, human rights came first.

Lincoln was tragically shot by a conservative, and the political Party that he had helped to found (the Republican Party) was then quickly taken over by America’s aristocrats (and it, too, is described at that last link, making clear that Lincoln would have despised the Republican Party that followed after him; he would repudiate it).

Although the America of today is opposed to socialism, America’s two greatest Presidents, Lincoln and Franklin Delano Roosevelt, were both socialists: they both placed human rights above any property rights; they both favored democratic capitalism. Unlike FDR, Lincoln existed before fascism did; so, in his era, the equivalent was feudalism, and he was determined to end that in the U.S. South — thus, the Civil War.

Even an ordinary American scholar has argued that both Lincoln and FDR were “socialist,” and in the case of Lincoln he lists the actions this President took, as being the reasons for calling him a “socialist.” Lincoln wasn’t merely a pioneering socialist; he was, indeed, a very bold one.

America did not become fascist until recent decades. At the end of an analysis of polling-data in 2012, I had concluded: “The danger of outright fascism coming soon in Washington is real – the culmination of Reagan’s rightward thrust. It’s shown not just in the polling data, but in each day’s news, especially when viewed in the light of history. Everyone should be made aware of it.” But now I would say: We are already there.

And the last U.S. President before Ronald Reagan, which was Jimmy Carter, has recently said, in a startling outburst of honesty, reflecting upon what has happened to the United States after he left office:

Now it’s just an oligarchy with unlimited political bribery being the essence of getting the nominations for president or being elected president. And the same thing applies to governors, and U.S. Senators and congress members. So, now we’ve just seen a subversion of our political system as a payoff to major contributors, who want and expect, and sometimes get, favors for themselves after the election is over. 

He just described fascism: the privatization of the government itself.


Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

This entry was posted in Business / Economics, General, Media, Politics / World News, propaganda, Science / Technology and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.
  • elizabethhanson

    And here are the weapons of mass deception the elite use to take over our schools… because human minds and $750 billion in funds belongs to them… don’t you know….

  • berger friedrich-wolfgang

    In View of AMERICANS Spiritual “INCAPABILITY / UNWILLINGNESS” , to “Determine their FATE” by “Themselves” , It’s an Irresponsible Waste of Time , to Await Any Coordinated ACTION !!!

    • Lord High Wulfenstraat

      How far off the beaten track are you? Americans own our capabilities and willingness to determine our own fate. And we’re doing it. Two points to make on all the money that we owe China, which should relieve everyone’s mind but the Chinese.

      Number One: As of September 2014, foreigners owned only $6.06 trillion of U.S. debt. The American public holds the rest of that debt, which is approximately another $13 trillion. In fact, we owe it to ourselves. And China only holds a percentage of our foreign debt. Consequently, we don’t owe our soul to China. We owe it to Americans who hold the bulk of our debt.

      Number Two: According to Paul Krugman, the famed economist, “It’s true that foreigners now hold large claims on the United States, including a fair amount of government debt. But every dollar’s worth of foreign claims on America is matched by 89 cents’ worth of U.S. claims on foreigners. And because foreigners tend to put their U.S. investments into safe, low-yield assets, America actually earns more from its assets abroad than it pays to foreign investors.”

      If your image of America is of a nation that’s already deep in hock to the Chinese, you’ve been misinformed. Nor are we heading rapidly in that direction. We hold the keys to the safe. We don’t make mistakes. And we’ll let the stock market drop and drop and drop until we’ve bankrupted the Chinese war machine. It’s far better to fight a war this way, where our pocketbooks get lighter, than fight a war where our children die under heavy shelling or in nuclear conflagrations.

      Yes, we’re about ready to hit hard times in the US, but it’s lots better than fighting a hot war. So, just relax. Factories will close and unemployment will rise and the stock market will hit new lows…but the Chinese will be stopped from becoming a global hegemon, to whom you would pay tribute if we lost the war.

      In fact, we’re betting on China splitting apart with the strategies we’ve instituted, including the breaking apart of the Han strongholds into the cultural and industrial watersheds of the Yangtze River, the Yellow River and the Pearl River…with each having a more manageable population approximating the size of the United States. And the present colonies of the PRC will rise as the new countries of Tibet, East Turkestan, United Mongolia, Manchuria, Macau and Hong Kong. Likewise, Taiwan will re-enter the United Nations as its own independent country, without ties to the mainland.

      And that’s that, with a more economically and militarily balanced Asian community of nations. Let’s not forget that it’s not Obama or Congress running this show. They’re only for show, only for blame. They’re the whipping boys whose hands are too often caught in the till. And we don’t live in a real democracy where the people actually rule That’s just more theater. The real rulers are far smarter, more agile, and entirely commonplace…just like the invisible hand of the market.

      • berger friedrich-wolfgang

        TIME runs Out for Cleptocratic Corporate Shills like “YOU” !

  • ClubToTheHead

    Profitizations are always more expensive because of the parasites that flock to the points where the taxpayer’s public money leaks out to be caught up in the blood funnels of the economically elite.

  • MrLiberty

    It is important always to distinguish traditional “privatization” or the transfer of the government monopoly to a hand-picked private monopoly and the outright elimination of the government provision of a service with it replacement by a free, open, and competitive marketplace solely governed by the actions and will of the market players. Government has no business doing most it not all of what it does, but consumers should be the ones deciding if the service should be performed at all, paying for it voluntarily if they desire it at all, and deciding among available choices who should provide it for them. Anything less is not freedom.

    • Army of Addicts

      That sounds great! But first you must give the airwaves back to the people, to whom they belong. Because, at thus point, all they produce is BS, designed to empty your pockets(and your brain)when you are looking the other way.

      • You are spot on! Allot folks do not know that *90%* of media in America is ruled by only *6* Corporations!

        Oct 28, 2012 Who owns the media?

        The six corporations that collectively control U.S. media today are Time Warner, Walt Disney, Viacom, Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp., CBS Corporation and NBC Universal. Together, the “big six” absolutely dominate news and entertainment in the United States.

  • Charlie Primero

    Zeusse thinks government taking your property and handing it to corporations is “privatizing”.

    What a retard.

  • March 12th, 2015 Fascism: Humanity’s Scourge

    It gave us Hitler and Mussolini. Today it’s headquartered in Washington – with global client states run by puppets serving US interests.

  • Brilliant article!

    At the core of it all, the means of credit are privately owned and controlled, in order to receive this credit nations must become vassal states for the oligarchy that is the financial elite.

  • Brockland A.T.

    Financialization is the highest form of privatization. Its possibly a better word than privatization for the postmodern era. Who owns, rulez, and who owns the money, rules all.

    Privatization as traditionally understood, is like a modular economic arrangement, and a little outdated. Privatization can be countered by deliberate nationalization.

    Financialization overcomes this by layering in the bankster private banking system. That way everyone is tied into the private fiat matrix.

    The only way around that, is to stop traditional central banking and go with public banks more overtly and obviously controlled and owned by ‘the people’, creating money based on real wealth and real human needs.

    Not surprisingly, taming public banks are a priority for the bankster class. the TPP and TTIP will leave public banks open to ‘unfair competition’ lawsuits.

  • Oct 13, 2014 CrossTalk: Imperial Pax Americana

    What is the health of the American empire? How does the American empire differ from all other empires in history? What factor will inevitably be the collapse of the American empire? Is it supporting policies that actually play against US interests?

  • On a mention in the article, Abraham Lincoln was a Tyrant truth be told!

    Abraham Lincoln: What They Wont Teach You in School

    Was Lincoln a slave-defending patriot or a blood-thirsty tyrant?

    Lincoln Signs the Federal Conscription Act: THE GLOOMIEST YEAR OF OUR STRUGGLE December 31, 1863 (Thursday – New Year’s Eve)

    May 3, 2012 Generals Sherman and Sheridan The War Criminals

  • Cin

    With the following lines you proved your ignorance and I will not waste anymore time reading your articles…”America’s two greatest Presidents, Lincoln and Franklin Delano Roosevelt, were both socialists: they both placed human rights above any property rights; they both favored democratic capitalism”.

    • berger friedrich-wolfgang

      Register in the “Fairy Tale SECTION” !!!