Colinxy: A Unified Typology of Socialisms - Class, State, and Race

For more than a century, the word socialism has been stretched, twisted, weaponised, and diluted until it has lost almost all analytical value. In modern discourse, “socialist” can mean anything from Scandinavian welfare policies to Stalinist purges. “Fascist” and “Nazi” are used interchangeably, despite representing fundamentally different worldviews. Marxists deny the lineage of Critical Theory. Fascists deny their socialism. National Socialists deny their collectivism. And the result is predictable: conceptual chaos.

To restore clarity, we need a typology — a framework that identifies the organising principle behind each form of socialism. Because while all socialisms share a collectivist core, they differ radically in what they collectivise around.

This essay presents a unified typology of the three major socialist traditions of the 20th century: Class Socialism, State (or Country) Socialism, and Race (Ethnic) Socialism. Once these distinctions are made explicit, the ideological landscape becomes far easier to navigate — and far harder to manipulate.

The Three Axes of Socialism

Every form of socialism answers the same question differently:

“Who is the collective?”

The answer determines the ideology.

1. Class Socialism

Organising principle: economic class. Exemplars: Marxism, Leninism, Trotskyism, Mao’s first revolution

Class Socialism divides society into economic categories, the bourgeoisie vs. the proletariat, and seeks to abolish class hierarchy through revolution. The State becomes the instrument of class purification, and private ownership of the means of production is eliminated. Violence is justified as a tool of class justice.

2. State (Country) Socialism

Organising principle: the unified nation-state. Exemplars: Italian Fascism, Falangism, British Fascism, Peronism

State Socialism rejects class conflict entirely. Instead, it elevates the nation as an organic whole, demanding unity, hierarchy, and obedience. The economy is corporatist: private property exists, but only under State direction. The State is supreme — morally, politically, and economically.

3. Race (Ethnic) Socialism

Organising principle: biological or ethnic identity. Exemplars: National Socialism, Imperial Japan’s racial ideology, apartheid-era racial planning

Race Socialism collectivises around ancestry. It divides society into “pure” and “impure” groups, and seeks racial purification through segregation, eugenics, or extermination. It is the most destructive form of socialism because it treats identity as immutable and violence as destiny.

Why These Categories Work

These three categories are not arbitrary. They reflect the three major ways collectivist ideologies define the “we”:

• Class Socialism: “We, the workers”
• State Socialism: “We, the nation”
• Race Socialism: “We, the bloodline”

All three reject individualism. All three justify coercion in the name of a higher collective good. All three produce authoritarian systems.

But their targets, enemies, and methods differ profoundly.

Mapping Historical Movements onto the Typology

A. Class Socialism

• Marx and Engels
• Lenin and the Bolsheviks
• Trotsky
• Mao’s early revolution
• Castro and Guevara
• The Khmer Rouge (extreme class purification)

These movements focus on economic hierarchy and seek to abolish class distinctions through revolution and central planning.

B. State (Country) Socialism

• Mussolini’s Fascism
• Franco’s early Falangism
• British Fascism (Mosley, BUF, IFL)
• Peronism
• Ba’athism in Iraq and Syria

These movements elevate the State as the supreme moral authority. They demand unity, discipline, and national regeneration.

C. Race (Ethnic) Socialism

• Hitler’s National Socialism
• Rosenberg’s racial theory
• Imperial Japan’s “Yamato race” ideology
• Apartheid-era racial planning

These movements collectivise around ancestry and treat racial identity as destiny.

Hybrid and Transitional Forms

History is messy. Some movements straddle categories or evolve over time.

1. Mao’s Two Revolutions

• First Revolution: Class Socialism
• Cultural Revolution: a hybrid of State Socialism and Gramscian cultural warfare

Mao shifted from class purification to cultural purification — a far more totalising project.

2. Francoism

• Early Franco: State Socialism (national syndicalism)
• Later Franco: authoritarian conservatism with diluted socialist elements

Franco abandoned the economic core of Falangism once it proved disastrous.

3. Modern Critical Theories

Not economic socialism. Not racial socialism in the Nazi sense. But structurally similar to Race Socialism because they collectivise around identity categories and treat them as politically determinative.

And similar to Gramscian cultural socialism because they seek institutional capture rather than economic revolution.

Comparing the Three Socialisms


Click to view

This table alone clarifies why “fascist” and “Nazi” are not synonyms — and why Marxism cannot be lumped in with either.

Why Modern Discourse Gets This Wrong

Modern political language is sloppy by design.

• “Socialism” is used as a catch-all insult.
• “Fascist” is used for anything authoritarian.
• “Nazi” is used for anything extreme.
• Marxists deny Critical Theory’s lineage.
• Fascists deny their collectivism.
• National Socialists deny their socialism.

The result is a conceptual fog where distinctions vanish, and propaganda thrives.

A unified typology cuts through that fog.

Implications for Understanding Modern Ideologies

Once you understand the typology, modern movements become easier to classify:

• Identity-based movements resemble Race Socialism structurally.
• Bureaucratic managerialism resembles State Socialism.
• Neo-Marxist economics retains Class Socialism’s logic.
• Many modern ideologies are hybrids.

The typology helps identify what kind of collectivism is being deployed — and what dangers it carries.

Conclusion: Clarity as a Defence Against Manipulation

Socialisms differ not in their collectivism, but in what they collectivise around. Once that is understood, the ideological landscape becomes far clearer.

A unified typology:

• restores conceptual precision
• prevents rhetorical inflation
• exposes ideological sleight‑of‑hand
• and allows us to recognise new forms of collectivism as they emerge

In an age where political language is increasingly weaponised, clarity is not pedantry. Clarity is protection.

Colinxy regularly blogs at No Minister, This article was sourced HERE