Results 1 to 20 of 38
Was the Soviet Union a fascist state?
When we get down to it the Soviet Union always had in a certain way a dictatorship governing over the people. The people had little to no say in this type of government. I also found this definition that defines fascism similarly to Leninism and Stalinism:
"Fascists sought to unify their nation through a totalitarian state that promoted the mass mobilization of the national community[5][6] and were characterized by having a vanguard party that initiated a revolutionary political movement aiming to reorganize the nation along principles according to fascist ideology.[7] Hostile to liberal democracy, socialism, and communism, fascist movements shared certain common features, including the veneration of the state, a devotion to a strong leader, and an emphasis on ultranationalism and militarism. Fascism views political violence, war, and imperialism as a means to achieve national rejuvenation[5][8][9][10] and asserts that stronger nations have the right to expand their territory by displacing weaker nations"
Absolutely not.
Fascism is an ideology with its own economic, political and social principles that in no way mirror those of the USSR during any of its periods.
Just because fascist states were authoritarian and so were many communist-ran states doesn't mean communist-ran states were fascist.
This idea, I believe, either came from Trots or one of the bourgeois academics that cashed in by bashing various socialist-led nations, the term and idea of "red fascism"
Red fascism is not a thing. It's an invention.
I can see the similarities, but the ideas held by the USSR and ideas held by Italy or Germany is what sets them apart. The USSR also ultimately ended the reign of fascism, which puts them at odds.
Fascism actually took from socialism most of it's tactics for national unity, that's why fascists back then would call themselves socialists. Socialists still call for international unity, while fascism seeks the domination of a state. That alone makes them polar opposites.
When you look at it, Stalin did have satellite nations, did impose a dictatorship, did treat Russians better than other groups, and may have been nationalistic at times. Also his socialism in one country doesn't help his case, but the idea he preached and the fact that he wasn't an imperialist keep him away from fascism.
Ultimately, the USSR wasn't anywhere near socialism or communism and they knew it. They did not claim to be Communist. Fascist states on the other hand, did claim to be near their goal. As it appears they came dangerously close to their goal.
However, if a different state did what the USSR did without upholding communism we would probably be labeling them fascist for the resemblance, but it would still lack the important imperialist and nationalist elements.
"Maybe some day... I'll find a way... without you.."
You're thinking of Nazism, not fascism. Mussolini never claimed to be promoting socialism of any type.
never might be a bad choice of words considering mussolini was a leading figure among italian marxists pre-ww1
I view the destruction of the fascist dictatorships merely as competition between nations and Stalinist Russia needed to come out on top just like any corporation.
The SU definitely wasn't fascist. The fascist movement has specific goals and tendencies - anything that is authoritarian can therefore not automatically be labelled as "fascism".
FKA Chomsssssssky, Skwisgaar, The Employer Destroyer, skybutton
If by Fascist you mean Communist and if by Communist you mean apparatchik fuckery. Then yes, totally.
Come little children, I'll take thee away, into a land of enchantment, come little children, the times come to play, here in my garden of magic.
"I'm tired of this "isn't humanity neat," bullshit. We're a virus with shoes."-Bill Hicks.
I feel the Bern and I need penicillin
The Soviet Union started as an emancipatory project but ended in a complete nightmare. Although Stalinism and fascism might share some similarities they are definitely two different ideologies. I would categorize the Soviet Union as bureaucratic collectivism.
Authoritarian, yes. Divergent, yes. Corrupt bureaucracy, yes. Fascist, absolutely not. If anything, it was anti-fascist, having lost a large chunk of its population in a war against fascists from Germany and all.
My machine my machine,
Please bring my machine.
I was referring to his doctrine of fascism.
Fascism is a radical authoritarian nationalist political ideology. Fascists seek to unify their nation based on commitment to an organic national communitywhere its individuals are united together as one people through national identity. The unity of the nation is to be based upon suprapersonal connections of ancestry and culture through a totalitarian state that seeks the mass mobilization of the national community through discipline, indoctrination, physical training, and eugenics. Fascism seeks to eradicate perceived foreign influences that are deemed to be causing degeneration of the nation or of not fitting into the national culture.
-Portal: Fascism, Wikipedia
Radical Authoritarianism
USSR: Hell yes
Radical Nationalism
USSR: Hell yes
"National Unification based on commitment to an organic national community"
USSR: Yes, in the form of socialism and economic collectivism. Of course communism an internationalist ideology, and likewise, the USSR countries collaborated amongst each other, as well as with other "communist" powers.
Totalitarian State
USSR: Widely considered one of the first totalitarian states formed.
Mass mobilization of the national community through discipline, indoctrination, physical training, and eugenics.
-Look no further than the USSR.
Eradicate perceived foreign influences that are deemed to be causing degeneration of the nation or of not fitting into the national culture
USSR: The Cheka and the NKVD made no hesitation to purge and demonize political opponents of the Soviet government. Of course this was from more than ideological standpoint, not necessarily a cultural one.
Was it fascist? No, but definitely close.
Last edited by RedCornFlakes; 14th February 2014 at 20:31.
Giovanni Gentile was the real author of that document (though, he too was a former socialist if I remember correctly).
The revolutionary despises public opinion. He despises and hates the existing social morality in all its manifestations. For him, morality is everything which contributes to the triumph of the revolution. Immoral and criminal is everything that stands in its way.
ex. Takayuki
It wasnt a fascist state.It was a bourgeios state.
I hope for nothing,I fear nothing,I am free-Nikos Kazantzakis
I prefer the term bureaucratic collectivist state over charges of 'state capitalism', but that's not the point. Point is, it wasn't socialist, and certainly not capitalist.
There was a period during the do-nothing Kerensky government where worker's soviets did form a congress that dominated the region in practice, but how short-lived this was is not known to me exactly. I suppose we could essentially say that during this period, it was for all intents and purposes, a society controlled by the DotP that was fastly implementing socialism and doing away with the old society, but again, short lived and probably could be disputed.
This is some sort of logical fallacy, I just don't know the name of it. "X has characteristic Y, and so does Z. Therefore, Z is X." Just because both the socialist-led state of the USSR and Fascist Germany and Italy were authoritarian does not mean that they were both one in the same.
Authoritarian is a bit of a loaded word to begin with, to make matters worse.
Not overtly. There was FOR THE MOTHERLAND rhetoric here and there, but most state propaganda was very steeped in internationalism. There was no sort of exceptionalist ideology spewed forth that held Russians up on a pedestal as the best nationality of all time or any such garbage as we saw in Italy or Germany.
Again, afraid not.
You were expected to tow party lines, but there was no "get down on one knee and say 50 "hail our soviet motherlands" before going out to work" type nonsense as was common in Fascist states. Fascism is, at its root, a class collaborationist ideology. It's about the unity and oneness of society, the state coming together with private enterprises who come together with the working class who form various councils that help manage certain sectors of the economy or society, or "corporatism". There was no such thing as this in the USSR.
Well, no. Totalitarian denotes autocracy. Power in the USSR was not concentrated into the hands of one man during any period of its existence, with the party itself and even its lower level officials on a local level always holding great deals of influence.
Ideological discipline, perhaps. Indoctrination, another cutesy loaded word, but I suppose it did exist within the USSR as it exists in every nation on earth. Physical training? Certainly there was an emphasis on healthy lifestyles, but they didn't want to make killing machines out of every last citizen, no. Eugenics? There were some sketch as fuck scientific experiments that didn't put much of an emphasis on human cost, but not literal eugenics, no.
As you point out in your last point this was ideological and nothing to do with nationality.
Again, while there could be parallels drawn, it's just not fascism.
One could much more easily make the argument that what we see in liberal bourgeois democracies today is more or less economic fascism, and to some degree social, with the emphasis on the proprietor class coming together with government, rampant national exceptionalism, etc.
Fascist states are also bourgeois states so that doesn't say much.
Is this resistance or a costume party?
Either way I think black with bandanas is a boring theme.
fka Creep
The soviet union wasn't imperialist? Really? REALLY?
Social Imperialism is real, yo. Ask Finland or.. almost any Eastern Euro nation.
Cambodia, too. And Vietnam.
I'm not the biggest expert on the Soviet Union, but I don't remember them exploiting resources like most imperialists do. If they did they where really bad at it. They did make an effort to increase their global influence, like the foreign governments they supported and the satellite states, but I never saw that as imperialism until now. Can you elaborate for me or send me some links? This sounds very interesting.
"Maybe some day... I'll find a way... without you.."
Ismail knows about this more, but Khrushchev really wanted to turn Albania into a food colony, calling it the "Grain Orchard of the USSR" or some such.
Economic imperialism is not the only form of Imperialism, however. The Invasion of Hungary, the war with Finland, the realpolitik behind Molotov-Ribbentrop, East Germany, etc. All just off-the-top-of-my head examples, I'm sure there are more
