You're viewing part of a thread.
The 1930s USSR was squarely under the rule of Joseph Stalin, a brutal dictator. It was a time of mass starvation and persecution.
Yes. And communist, fascist, and dictator mean 3 very different things. I used to think they were synonymous, too, but they’re not.
Communist and fascist are polar opposites. Authoritarian is the extremes of both sides. A dictator can exist at any point in the spectrum, and isn’t unique to any side.
It really does help if we can agree what words mean.
Communist means something different but the USS Fucking R certainly belongs with the other two.
Of course. Many nations have been 2 of the three. But nobody has ever been all 3, because 2 are antithetical to one another.
e: obv the USSR was communist and authoritarian. Who said they weren’t?
Looks like you know your prayers.
"That didn't happen.
And if it did, it wasn't that bad.
And if it was, that's not a big deal.
And if it is, that's not my fault.
And if it was, I didn't mean it.
And if I did, you deserved it."?
I’m not defending anything. You seem too defensive for this conversation, if that’s what you think. (Judging by you downvoting my comments before you even reply, that’s becoming obvious.)
Can you actually define the words you’re using, even to yourself? Or are you lashing out at me based on what you feel they mean?
I’m willing to talk to you, but only if we can agree upon what words like ‘socialism’ mean. If not, we’ll only talk past each other, and I think you’ll agree that will waste both of our time.
Authoritarian is not fascism. It is a component, but communism and fascism are not even close to synonymous.
There was one famine from mismanagement, and Stalin wasn't a great guy but this shit is really overblown.
Are you trying to say that authoritarianism is a component of fascism, but fascism isn't the only type of authoritarianism? 'Cause that's not super clear from your wording.
Yes
The USSR was a fascism because it was a central dictatorship with violent tendencies. The actual definition of the term.
That's not the definition of the term, by any ones analysis. The simplest, original definition is that fascism is state and corporate power combined. Like the US has been for half a century.
Didn't the state own all the corporations in the USSR? How would that not be state and corporate power combined?
There were no corporations in the ussr. There were business, not multi regional conglomerates.
And even then the purpose of a corporation is to profit. That is it's sole goal.
That doesn't change that the powers of governance and commerce were in the same hands. Changing what you call it is just semantics.
Intent is incredibly important. In all systems trade happens. The idea that capitalism=markets is incredibly stupid, equally stupid is the idea that all work is done under a corporation for the sole purpose of making someone else rich, as you have suggested here.
The problem is not that things are done for the sake of the state or not, but what purpose things are done for. In fascism the state is owned by corporate interests, the leading interest being whatever dictator sits at the top. Work is done solely to make those corporate owners privately rich, nothing more. Each system is built openly for class oppression.
Even in the most brain rotted American views the ussr is nothing like that. You'd have to be a fascist or brain damaged to even try to argue it.
the leading interest being whatever dictator sits at the top.
This is the part that matters. This is also true for Soviet communism or really any real life communism. The instruments are different, but the song is the same.
Nope, it truly isn't. A lot of very rich people that currently own the US have paid a ridiculous amount of money to convince you that's the case, but any dual citizen of China will tell you xi's not a dictator like Biden or Trump.
The same was true in the ussr. Or any communist party controlling a socialist state. Your ignorance doesn't change reality, neither does your gullibility.
yunxiaoli, you've been made a complete fool of.
Not really, you're the one that is just taking all 1.67 inches of capitalist dick while trying to redefine fascism away from Mussolini's definition so you can protect the status quo you have been sold as 'not perfect but the best we've come up with'.
Capitalism and liberalism have always lead to fascism. They are the only ideologies to ever develop into fascism. Socialism and communism, maybe even anarchism are the only future humanity has. Humanity can't coexist with capitalists long term.
1.67 is really specific, did that number come from anything, or is it just random?
If you truly promoted socialism you would never support the USSR or the CCP.
And if you knew anything about socialism you'd support the cpc. Maybe not the ussr but we've learned from their failures.
China is a fully socialist state. If you think otherwise you either stopped paying attention to socialism in the mid 1800s, or you don't know enough about China.
I think when most people fantasize about socialism they are thinking of Nordic style and not authoritarian CCP style.
My litmus test is the ability to openly criticize your government. In an open and free society this is allowed.
Any authoritarian society, regardless of economic system, is not in the right track. In my opinion. Then again I only consume western media so maybe the CCP isn't that bad. Can you tell me what happened on June 4th, 1989?
I wanted to make a joke reply and list a bunch of other unrelated things that happened on that day... But of course I find nothing but that one thing...
Google is free dude.
Google doesn't cost money, but it's not free.
Google is evil. Use another search engine instead.
https://european-alternatives.eu/alternative-to/google-search
Authoritarian is the word you're looking for, not fascist.
I'm surprised the comments seem to be defending authoritarianism like it's any more acceptable than fascism. "Stalin may have had millions of people killed and fueled the negative reputation of communism world wide for nearly a century, but at least he wasn't a fascist.". I don't seem to understand why democratic social ownership is considered a worse alternative than letting a centralized tyrannical government harm people unchecked.
I’m not defending anything like that, but:
-
Authoritarian != communism. Authoritarianism applies equally to communism and fascism. The latter two describe ideology, where ‘authoritarian’ describes scale. Your sentence is like if I said I I use reds, not apples, in my pies. It sort of makes sense, but not really.
-
You said: ‘I don't seem to understand why democratic social ownership is considered a worse alternative’ yes, exactly! That’s socialism, which is an economic – not a political – system. You can combine that with democracy or communism or fascism.
I really recommend you learn what all these terms mean, because it’s not only super fascinating, but we can each understand and communicate better when we can build upon common concepts.
I've been a democratic socialist for years. Communism is not an authoritarian belief, it is a socioeconomic model separate from that concept. Stalinist Communism -in practice- was an absolutely authoritarian dictatorship with well documented hardship suffered by the Russians, that people for some reason can't seem to unhook from actual proper communism and will defend to the death in a fit of tribalist rage as if all communism is good communism. I chose to define Democratic Socialism rather than use the term intentionally, because I felt like just blurbing it out would come across as a buzzword. I'm not opposed to communism and would prefer socialism, but I am absolutely not going to advocate for Stalinist Communism.
I don't know, the thing annoying me about the tread is everyone is correcting the person by saying "They're Communist, not Fascist!" instead of saying that it was "Authoritarian rather than Fascist". I feel like framing it in the latter way unhooks the term from authoritarianism, but also doesn't preclude it from possibly becoming authoritarian like any other socioeconomic system. I feel like the prior framing gave the impression that Stalinist Communism had nothing to do with authoritarianism in general, which I will absolutely disagree with. Stalinist Communism was absolutely not Fascism, but it was absolutely an Authoritarian Dictatorship and I don't appreciate the implication that it wasn't.
I don't know if any of that makes sense, I have a hard time articulating my points. Feel free to critique and thank you for the conversation.
-
Words have meanings - if people start calling left-leaning authoritarians "fascists" and no one corrects them, the red-hats will never understand how to differentiate; or why to differentiate.
"shooting a home invader and killing the neighbor next door are both violent killings, so we should classify them both as murder" - you, probably.
I'm using the definition of fascism as it relates to dictator advocacy. I know that confuses a lot of people who associate socialism with left and fascism with right, but it is proper use of the term.
The etymology is rooted in Italian authoritarianism from root words meaning a political gathering of men.
Who has defined fascism as such? How do the practices of Stalinism root in Italian authoritarianism?
Defining fascism as any form of authoritarianism broadens the term so much as to render it useless.
It’s useful to be able to talk about the ways in which the ideologies which governed Franco’s Spain and Mussolini’s Italy are more similar to each other than say, something like the DPRK under Juche. If we want to refer to something as authoritarian, we already have the word authoritarian.
Source?