Differences between the DPRK/USSR and fascism?

[ZvP]

-

[Delenda Carthago]

Nah, you jus stupid.

[LordAcheron]

leninists living in denial is the difference. The same thing goes on in nationalist/fascist circles. They claim that germany/italy were failed examples of fascism or some stupid shit like that, and that nationalism is actually about peace and love and community.

[Delenda Carthago]

leninists living in denial is the difference.

"Left Communists" and anarchists living in balance with European Union.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Day_of_Remembrance_for_Victims_of_Stalini sm_and_Nazism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platform_of_European_Memory_and_Conscience

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prague_Declaration_on_European_Conscience_and_Comm unism

[Jimmie Higgins]

The DPRK and USSR

-nationalistic
-authoritarian
-run by total dictators
-strove for nationalist glory at the expense of the people
-constantly reinforce the idea of unity under the state
-centrally planned economyWell Germany didn't have a centrally planned economy any more than the New Deal US did. From what I understand, they had military and kensian involvement in the economy: using the state to mitigate unemployment, implement protectionist trade policies, and build infrastructure to stimulate the growth of business - not to directly plan or organize the economy. Hitler repeatedly claimed that he thought economics are unimportant: translation to business is 'I'm not a threat to the staus-quo'. There was even a lazes-faire faction within Hitler's government who were initially opposed to the keynsian deficit-spending. Not to mention that even though they went the Keyensian and military spending route ultimately, the developed stronger support from and ties to privite business as they persued these policies.

But at any rate, I'd agree that the USSR and North Korea fit those things more or less as have fascist states, but also as have nationalist states and bourgois republics and military dictatorships.

Fascism is organized vigilanteism in the service of re-inforcing the existing social order. Specifically the social order of capitalism because fascism appeals to the petty-bourgoise experience in periods of capitalist economic crisis where they are threatened both with the capitalist crisis and the fear of worker's power. They generally see their role as stepping in and smashing resistance to "order" by workers or members of oppressed groups, often both.

[Rugged Collectivist]

The DPRK and USSR


-nationalisticFor the DPRK, absolutely. The USSR had varying degrees of nationalism.


-authoritarianAll governments are authoritarian. Granted, the ones listed were highly authoritarian but it isn't an aspect that's unique to "fascism"


-run by total dictatorsTrue for Stalin. Any other Soviet leader, including Lenin, could hardly be described as a dictator.


-strove for nationalist glory at the expense of the peopleBullshit. They pursued their interests at the expense of the people, but it wasn't for glory, it was for profit. Once again, all governments do this.


-constantly reinforce the idea of unity under the stateAll governments do this. "We need to come together as Americans" etc.


-centrally planned economyNazi Germany didn't have a centrally planned economy.

[/QUOTE]

[LordAcheron]

Nazi germany really isn't the only example of fascism though

[Delenda Carthago]

True for Stalin.

[/QUOTE]

Are you sure?

[Rugged Collectivist]

Are you sure?

Yeah, I'm pretty sure.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

Are you sure?

Yurs.


What they records show is declining democratic participation at all higher levels of the party during the Stalin years...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v142/GreaterDCU/Misc/Partydemocracy.png
:tt2:

[Delenda Carthago]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure.

Weird. Cause I know at least 4 occations in the history of USSR, in things that changed the future of the revolution which his opinion was not the one that was applied in the end. One of which was the re-introduction of capitalist elements(market, profit etc) in the socialist economy, something that Stalin was against.


But if you are sure, OK.

[l'Enfermé]

The Soviet Union's economy wasn't centrally planned though, it was complete and utter chaos and anarchy. Germany was as "centrally planned" as the UK and the Untied States during the war. All three were more "centrally planned" than the Soviet Union really. As for one-man rule, that was true in the 30s and 40s and early 50s under Stalin, but from 1917 until somewhere in middle or late 20s the RSFSR/USSR certainly wasn't under one-man rule, the leadership was more or less collective. After Stalin, when the party elite under Khrushchev freed the party apparatus from the secret police, leadership was again more or less collective.

[Sasha]

differences are countless, similarities are that all 3 are authoritarian nationalist-capitalist systems where eventually the workers got the even worst end of the stick than in liberal-globalist capitalism.
same shit, entirely different gravy.

[Omsk]

The DPRK is a revisionist abomination, i'm not going to wirte about that. But here is for the USSR.



-nationalistic


No, the USSR was a multi-national state where all the nationalities had the same rights, it can't be a Georgian, Russian, Ukrainian, etc etc Nationalist state at the same time. It was simply not nationalistic.


-authoritarian


That argument is stupid and has nothing to do with Marxist analysis.


-run by total dictators

This is an idiotic phrase used by american liberals and conservatives, and it's a laughable over-simplification.


-strove for nationalist glory at the expense of the people


This is also stupid and means nothing. The Third Reich strove for German glory at the expense of the people, yes, but for which national glory did the USSR fight? All of the republics were named as victor republics.


-constantly reinforce the idea of unity under the state

Actually, in the USSR of the '30 and '40, it was proletarian unity inside a proletarian dictatorship. Things changed later.

Stop being such a boring liberal.


-centrally planned economy

There were capitalists in the Reich, they enabled the rise of Hitler and the war, it was capitalism behind WWII. But, you being a liberal, probably don't even care. The USSR, on the other had, in the revolutionary period, didn't have a capitalist class.

[helot]

No, the USSR was a multi-national state where all the nationalities had the same rights, it can't be a Georgian, Russian, Ukrainian, etc etc Nationalist state at the same time. It was simply not nationalistic.


To me this implies that you regard the nation as some entity that's set in stone. The UK is also a multi-national state yet while there is Scottish or English nationalism there is also a British nationalism. What constitutes one nation from another is incredibly fluid precisely because the nation exists not as a concrete entity but as a collective consciousness.

[Let's Get Free]

I don't know if I would classify the USSR as fascist just for being a strict authoritarian state. Kim Il Sung's Juche ideology, on the other hand, is leaning heavily towards Third Positionist ideologies, with its adoration of the military, disregard for class politics, an all pervasive personality cult, and a fierce nationalism, and therefore could hardly be considered even a part of Stalinist tradition. I would say that Juche represents a final step in the general process of ideological degeneration of the Third World nationalist doctrines, as it obviously lacks even the traces of rationalist discourse left in other such ideologies.

[Geiseric]

The USSR was a workers state, and the planned economy was actually a great thing. The way it was built was awful, however as we see today, the standard of living was much higher in the fSU. The bureaucracy had to create the planned economy, or else the Kulaks would of overthrown the socialist regime, they would create a new monarchy and capitalist government, and Russia would of went back into Czarism.

Fascism is something very specific that only rises out of the petit bourgeoisie, and is later supported by the bourgeoisie, because it is enforcing capitalism at gunpoint. Italy and Germany never had planned economies, regardless of what high school teachers might say. It can only survive with an entirely liquidated, unorganized, and defeated working class. Nazis were able to rise because of how much of a mess the KPD and SPD were, due to ultra leftism, and opportunism, respectively. The KPD was quite opportunist in the mid 20's as well which didn't help.

Khrushcev and the remaining heirs of Stalin all, one at a time, paved the way for capitalism to be restored. They may of supported foreign attempts at revolution, which is good, however they crushed just as many attempts against them in East Germany and Hungary. What matters though is that a revolution wasn't necessary to restore capitalism, which means alot about the preceeding 60 years.

[Ostrinski]

Their economies were administered with the same methods, only real difference being the difference in material wealth in two regions, and perhaps the nature of the ideological backbone of the state. North Korea has moved in a very heterodox Stalinist direction with its ideological content. But even so, these differences are only quantitative, not qualitative. It's still the same arrangement.

I'd tend to agree with L'Enferme on this one. To call these economies centrally planned is to give them too much credit.

[l'Enfermé]

No, the USSR was a multi-national state where all the nationalities had the same rights, it can't be a Georgian, Russian, Ukrainian, etc etc Nationalist state at the same time. It was simply not nationalistic.
Sure, it was a Russian nationalist state. Where I come from(Chechen-Ingush ASSR), Chechens and the Ingush were excluded from the government with the exception of Chechens and Ingush who married Russian women, the first non-Russian to be appointed as the First Secretary of the Republic's KPSS/CPSU(i.e leader of the ASSR) was Zavgayev (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doku_Zavgayev), in 1989(at this point Russians made up 23 percent of the ASSR's population), and only because he was married to a Russian, all the high-paying jobs were reserved for Russians, all the schools, even in the most remote villages, were all Russian-language and speaking in Chechen was forbidden even in between classes, etc, etc. A similar pattern occurred in most other regions of the Soviet Union.

So, no, all the nationalities definitely did not have the same rights, not since the Bolshevik policy of Korenizatsiya (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korenizatsiya)was abandoned after the 1920s by the Stalinist counter-revolution.

[hetz]

Sure, it was a Russian nationalist state.It was neither a "national" nor a "nationalist" state.


Where I come from(Chechen-Ingush ASSR), Chechens and the Ingush were excluded from the government with the exception of Chechens and Ingush who married Russian women, the first non-Russian to be appointed as the First Secretary of the Republic's KPSS/CPSU(i.e leader of the ASSR) was Zavgayev (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doku_Zavgayev), in 1989(at this point Russians made up 23 percent of the ASSR's population), and only because he was married to a Russian, all the high-paying jobs were reserved for Russians, all the schools, even in the most remote villages, were all Russian-language and speaking in Chechen was forbidden even in between classes, etc, etc.I assume Chechens were also forbidden from becoming air-force generals, colonels and chiefs of staff of Soviet missile and artillery forces in the Baltics and so on.


So, no, all the nationalities definitely did not have the same rights, not since the Bolshevik policy of Korenizatsiya (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korenizatsiya)was abandoned after the 1920s by the Stalinist counter-revolution. K. of course changed in nature but it was never "abandoned". In the Baltics they still spoke their own languages. During Stalin's time many nationalities got their own alphabets etc., something that certainly resulted in local cultures "growing stronger "roots" ( koren' ).
Besides, not all nationalities were equal even long before the Stalinist counter-revolution, as you say.

Ever heard of anti-Cossackization, a policy approved by Lenin?

[l'Enfermé]

As I said, Chechens married to Russians had career oppurtunities. Since you're talking about Dudaev, must I mention that he married a Russian?

As for the Baltic, I don't understand your point. After the annexation of the Baltic countries in 1940 indigenous Balts were deported and Russian-speaking settlers were brought to colonize and Russify the Baltic. The Russification campaign was so severe that during the Russian occupation, so many colonists were brought over that the East Slavic population of Latvia increased from 12 percent before the occupation to 45 by 1989. In Estonia, East Slavs made up 8 percent of the population before the occupation and 35.2 in 1989.

As far as alphabets, I believe they were created in the 1920s. When Stalin consolidated power in the 1930s, the new Latin alphabets were discarded in favor of Cyrillic alphabets, which was a step towards Russification and Great Russian chauvinism.

As for the Raskazachivaniye, that's nonsense. Cossacks weren't a nationality but a (mostly reactionary) social caste - they were, after all, mostly Russian and Ukrainian.Raskazachivaniye was a program of crushing this social caste, not repressing an ethnic group. The 1926 Soviet Census mentions almost 200 different nationalities/narodnost'ies, but not Cossacks. Cossacks as a nationality is a modern invention, comrade.

[hetz]

Very well then, I'll leave it to the more knowledgeable members to either approve or refute the points you brought up.

I just don't think that Russian and other settlers were brought in to "colonize" the Baltics, or Kazakhstan. The USSR didn't need "colonies", why would it?
These weren't colonies but place where there was a need for workers, Estonia had just over a million people in 1939.

[l'Enfermé]

Yeah I guess the French weren't colonizing Algeria either, they were merely bringing over workers :rolleyes:

[hetz]

Yeah I guess the French weren't colonizing Algeria either, they were merely bringing over workersAlgeria was a colony with all that comes with it, Estonia was a SSR.
I really don't think that is an appropriate analogy.

[Rugged Collectivist]

Weird. Cause I know at least 4 occations in the history of USSR, in things that changed the future of the revolution which his opinion was not the one that was applied in the end. One of which was the re-introduction of capitalist elements(market, profit etc) in the socialist economy, something that Stalin was against.


But if you are sure, OK.

The return to capitalism isn't synonymous with dictatorship. Stalin could very well have been opposed to those things, but it wouldn't change the actions he performed while in office.

[Sea]

Weird. Cause I know at least 4 occations in the history of USSR, in things that changed the future of the revolution which his opinion was not the one that was applied in the end. One of which was the re-introduction of capitalist elements(market, profit etc) in the socialist economy, something that Stalin was against.


But if you are sure, OK.You don't have to have your every single wish carried out to be a dictator.