[starman2003]

Welcome to the forum EuropeanNationalist. You've stated the obvious. Btw I've been so busy on the IFF and IDF boards I haven't had time for this.

[Karl_Bonner_1982]

You could argue that the state economy in the Stalinist USSR behaved a bit like one huge monopoly corporation in a fascist economy, or for that matter, a corrupted capitalist economy (think of Midgar and the Shinra from Final Fantasy 7!). Stalin definitely didn't govern according to traditional socialist or communist principles, in fact, he slaughtered nearly all the original revolutionaries.

[starman2003]

From the start, people have always insisted on making a great distinction between communism and fascism. Considering the theoretical differences, what is really striking are the similarities in practice.

[Donna]

The Soviet Union under Stalin did not have a syndicalist economy, so it wasn't fascist.

[Rojik of the Arctic]

Stalin wasn't fascist or communist. Stalin was Stalin. A psychopathic mass murderer who ran the country with all the morals of a mafia boss. Of course he had to pay some lip service to Lenin and Marx but that was only to legitimise his rule. To say that Stalin only held absolute power in the late 30's is nonsense. From the moment Kirov was assinated not one person in the USSR was safe from Stalins reach. Even loyal Molotov was being prepared to be purged in the end. I think it would be fair to say that you could count on one hand the rulers in the worlds history that had Stalins absolute power.

[kowalskil]

P.S. At another blog:

I wrote:

Suppose a hypothetical western journalist, in 1940, asks Stalin about the source of his wisdom. On the basis of what I know, the answer would probably be as follows.

'I am not a genius; what I think and what I do is based on general ideas formulated by Marx and Engels. And I am a faithful follower of Lenin, who applied Marxism to specific Russian conditions. My wisdom, if you wish to use this term, is the collective wisdom of our ideology. A brief summary of that ideology can be found in my 1938 book entitled ‘Dialectical and Historical Materialism.’

[Admin edit: Posts should only written in plain black. If you wish to highlight a quote, please use the board's Quote function. It can be found in the tool bar.]

Everything that Stalin did was justified by him in terms of Marxist-Leninist ideology. How is this ideology presented to Russian students today? Describing Stalin without the ideology he served would not be fair. To understand Stalin one must understand ideas that motivated him. How can his historical significance be separated from the ideology imposed by Bolsheviks on generations of Russian people (to replace their earlier beliefs)? . . . “

This was a reply to a Russian who glorifies Stalin as a great leader and, at the same time thinks the Orthodox church ideology is, and always was, the most appropriate for Russians. How can such position be maintained, considering what Stalin did to that church?

[Rojik of the Arctic]

What you say makes sense. Stalin had to live within the Marx/Lennin framework but I don't think he saw his job as anything but keeping power for powers sake. To have introduced a free-market economy wasn't so much an ideological brickwall but more that it would have meant giving up some of his absolute power. Enjoyed the essay BTW

[Bosnjak]

Stalin was never ever fascist, he was Totalitarian, Hippies call everybody authoritarian Fascist.

Stalin was the sole realy convinced communist leader, he did not even had any luxury for himself, he had an puritan life.


Unlike fascist leaders who loved luxury and Mercedes Limousines;

[Skunk]

So, what are your thoughts on this. Was Stalin a fascist?

No, and I don't think I could say he was with a straight face.

In all seriousness though Stalin era Russia couldn't be compared to Mussolini era Italy, I mean the two are essentially black and white. Regardless of the position of the party or the use of nationalist sentiments during WWII (see Mao on nationalism) it’s really not comparable to Fascism because Fascism not only implies a specific ideology (which is very far from Marxism) it also implies a specific system structure of which wasn’t seen or attempted in the USSR.

[Karl_Bonner_1982]

The biggest difference between Stalinism and Fascism was economics. Under Fascism the state controls, despite being numerous, were at least somewhat decentralized so that individual enterprises could still make some of the day-to-day decisions regarding the processes of production. But in the USSR everything down to the finest detail was planned by the Kremlin.

Also Stalinism had a much more futuristic ethos than Fascism, despite co-opting elements of nationalism and class hierarchy.

[Nikkolas]

Hey first post.

I was just reading over this topic and figured this article be informative.
http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/goeb58.htm

Biased but what isn't biased?
"

[Varax]

Welcome to the forum, Nikkolas.

On topic, I think it is only possible if one looks on the surface and sees Stalin as an authoritarian and then also fascism as authoritarian can one attempt to place Stalin as a Fascist. However if one where to actually look at the roots of Stalinism and fascism then it quite obvious that they are diametrically opposed to one another. This is another failing of liberal philosophy which takes a reductionist approach to authoritarianism of which regimes have long been present in human civilization far more than democracy and attempting to lump them together under one umbrella, if you will. This is especially true in terms of Stalin and fascism as liberals have considered both to be their primary enemies in the 20th century.

Despite the attempts to of some newer Marxists to say otherwise, Stalin’s brand of Marxism-Leninism was very much an attempt to put into practice a socialist transition phase with, at least ostensibly, the goal of achieving communism. This is of course diametrically opposed to capitalism, emphasizes the working class completely at expense of capitalists and regards fascism as its arch-nemesis. The official line being that fascism constitutes an ‘openly terroristic dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.’ Fascism on the other hand acknowledges both the role of the state and businessman as well as worker in the creation of a productive human society. Fascism has no intentions of the complete reckless abolishment and appropriation of private property that Stalinism is so fond of. Furthermore, the opposition to communist movements was at the very forefront in rise of the fascist movements with many business conservatives looking towards a militant, strong fascism to do what liberalism seemed incapable of - providing a bulwark against and protecting their rightful property from Bolshevik expansion. Said expansion was highly aggressive and it should not be forgotten the dreams of ‘global communism’ that many Marxists share - even if Stalin emphasized the Soviet Union first and foremost.

I could go into more depth about the deep-seated differences between Stalinism and Fascism but suffice it to say they are diametrically opposed to one and another and to say otherwise is a complete and utter misreading of history.

[telluro]

I would point out however that total state control of the economy is not a fascist policy. Fascism, being essentially a petty bourgeois ideology preserves private property.

Wrong.

[Tally-oh]

""I issued a call for an unknown leader, ... capable of overturning the Jewish government and creating a new Russia. I failed to see that, by the will of fate, of his own genius, and of millions of toilers, Comrade J V Stalin, the leader of the peoples, had become this unknown leader."

"Stalinism... is our Russian Fascism cleansed of extremes, illusions and errors."
-Konstantin Rodzaevsky, Leader of the Russian Fascist Party.

[Potemkin]

""I issued a call for an unknown leader, ... capable of overturning the Jewish government and creating a new Russia. I failed to see that, by the will of fate, of his own genius, and of millions of toilers, Comrade J V Stalin, the leader of the peoples, had become this unknown leader."

"Stalinism... is our Russian Fascism cleansed of extremes, illusions and errors."
-Konstantin Rodzaevsky, Leader of the Russian Fascist Party.

...which he said just before Stalin had him shot.

[Jackal]

I can't believe this thread has gone five pages.

[Tally-oh]

...which he said just before Stalin had him shot.

And shooting him proves Stalin was morally superior to the Fascist filth, right?

Naturally, Stalin wasn't exactly going to take up Rodzaevsky because that would have undermined one of the central patriotic myths of modern Russia, the Great Patriotic War. It would have been similar to Hitler suddenly declaring the Strasserites and the National Bolsheviks where right after successfully defeating the Soviet Union. Now, the point isn't to think that Stalin was a pure Fascist, but to see that the similarities and the parallels do exist. The answer to the question may be no, but not a complete no. After all, many Fascistic organisations and leaders saw the Soviet Union and Communism as a potential vehicle for their ends. Mussolini was very distressed when Hitler invaded Russia, because he thought Stalin had already done the job of stopping Communism for them. In his exact words in a pleading letter to Hitler, "Stalin has killed Bolshevism... Unlike Trotsky he has completely renounced world revolution."