[serena]

Stalinism, whether you consider it to be a form of Communism or not, has much more in common with Fascism than Marxism.

The Stalinist Soviet Union, (c. 1920s to 1940s) shared the four major pillars of fascism: Authoritarianism, nationalism, militarism, and preserved class hierarchy.

Stalin, clearly was a social authoritarian, this isn't even debatable IMO.

Nationalism in the Soviet Union, while not standing out in history as that of Nazi Germany or Fascist Italy, was still rampant. There was extensive propaganda encouraging praise of Mother Russia, calling on the Soviets to Protect their Motherland, in the Great Patriotic War...
...which leads to Militarism. The Red Army was huge, and military and Political Commissars were supreme.

Finally, and the most important distinction IMO between fascist Stalinism and Marxist Communism... was the preserved class hierarchy. Most branches of Fascism include an extreme fixed heierarchy, whether the elite class was the Leader, the Military, the Capitalists, or just the State... the USSR under Stalin definitely had this. The "Communist" Party of the Soviet Union was an elite class of its own... while the rest of the people were left in dire conditions... something that the Revolution sought to put an end to.

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

On a lighter side note, despite my passionate opposition to authoritarianism, and my belief in the USSR's comparison to fascism... I cannot help but find in Soviet culture... some strange intrigue.

[Attila The Nun]

No, he wasn't a fascist. He was never ever close to being a fascist. To say any different is a huge misunderstanding of fascism.

[serena]

No, he wasn't a fascist. He was never ever close to being a fascist. To say any different is a huge misunderstanding of fascism.

Of course he was not a fascist by Party name or by ideological submission... but what aspects of fascism lacked the Stalinst USSR?

Very few, I would say.

[Attila The Nun]

His whole economic policy perhaps?

[serena]

His whole economic policy perhaps?

Total state control... wasn't socialism, because there was no egalitarian society there. Rather, the Party controlled everything.... Party officials led luxurious lives. I would say it qualifies for the fascist economic system of preservation of an elite class.

[C-Kokos]

Trotsky commented that the Soviet union - its social basis = fascism.

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.

[starman2003]

Fascism may preserve private property but for all practical purposes there wasn't much difference, given the extent of State domination of industry under fascism. State bureaucrats imposed plenty of rules and regulations. The key theoretical difference between communism and fascism was that the former was egalitarian. But again, in practice, communist states were quasi meritocratic and hierarchical. So while communism and fascism have been considered polar opposites by some, they're really so alike that I prefer a term embracing both, Wholism, inasmuch as both emphasized the State or common cause, not the individual.

[kami321]

Fascism = Totalitarianism + Corporatism
Totalitarianism in Soviet Union - almost (no country or system can be fully totalitarian because no country or system can be fully perfect)
Corporatism in Soviet Union ("it is a merger of state and corporate power") - no. There is state power, but there is no corporate power.

Therefore Stalinist Soviet Union fails the definition of fascism.

starman
Let's talk about fascism in theory, not its half-assed practical representation in Italy.

[Attila The Nun]

Fascism may preserve private property but for all practical purposes there wasn't much difference, given the extent of State domination of industry under fascism. State bureaucrats imposed plenty of rules and regulations. The key theoretical difference between communism and fascism was that the former was egalitarian. But again, in practice, communist states were quasi meritocratic and hierarchical. So while communism and fascism have been considered polar opposites by some, they're really so alike that I prefer a term embracing both, Wholism, inasmuch as both emphasized the State or common cause, not the individual.

That is a very incorrect take on the corporatist economy. The state dominates the economy, but there is private property and the state merely directs the private corporations, mainly through the leaders of those industries. The state guides the economy, it does not incorporate that economy into the state.

[serena]

I would like to re-emphasize that I am talking about Stalinist Soviet Russia, not Communism, when comparing to fascism.

Corporate fascism, is more like Italy under Mussolini, and to a degree, America today (in that corporations can lobby for political candidates thus having power in elections and disrupting democracy)

[Theodore]

I've never encountered your criteria before, serena. Using Eco's definition (which I believe to be both correct and wide enough to encompass other accepted definitions within it), let us see whether Stalin's regime had fascist characteristics:

- cult of tradition - no

- rejection of modernism - no

- cult of action for action's sake - no

- disagreement is treason - yes

- fear of difference - no

- appeal to a frustrated middle class - nyet

- obsession with a plot - yes

- a view of the enemy as both powerful and weak - yes

- a view of life as permanent warfare - no

- contempt for the weak - no

- cult of heroism and death - no (traces, perhaps, but it never reached 'viva la muerte' levels)

- machismo - no

- Newspeak - no

3/14. Some modern democratic regimes would score higher.

[kami321]

serena
In America, the corporate power is higher than state power.
In WW2 Italy, the state power is higher than corporate power.
In Soviet Union, there is no corporate power.

That is the difference.

Theodore
I don't think fascists reject progress, or fear difference. Is there evidence of that?

[serena]

I've never encountered your criteria before, serena. Using Eco's definition (which I believe to be both correct and wide enough to encompass other accepted definitions within it), let us see whether Stalin's regime had fascist characteristics:

- cult of tradition - no

- rejection of modernism - no

- cult of action for action's sake - no

- disagreement is treason - yes

- fear of difference - no

- appeal to a frustrated middle class - nyet

- obsession with a plot - yes

- a view of the enemy as both powerful and weak - yes

- a view of life as permanent warfare - no

- contempt for the weak - no

- cult of heroism and death - no (traces, perhaps, but it never reached 'viva la muerte' levels)

- machismo - no

- Newspeak - no

3/14. Some modern democratic regimes would score higher.

I would say that machismo and newspeak apply to Stalin. As with cult of heroism and death, contempt for the weak, and life as permanent warfare. But that's just how I personally look at Stalin.

[Theodore]

I don't think fascists reject progress

Not tehnical or scientific progress, but modernity.

, or fear difference.

All fascist regimes are nationalistic and xenophobic, most are racist as well.

I would say that machismo and newspeak apply to Stalin.

Machismo in this case means repression of women, gays, etc. So no, it doesn't apply to Stalin. And there was no Soviet newspeak, just administrative jargon (they came pretty close to having an abbrevation for everything).

As with cult of heroism and death.

Like I said, it existed in traces, but it never reached a fascist level.

contempt for the weak

Pro... I mean, can you prove that?

and life as permanent warfare

Stalin's theory of socialism in one country would seem to suggest otherwise.

[kami321]

, but modernity.

What do you mean by that?

All fascist regimes are nationalistic and xenophobic, most are racist as well.

I don't see how that relates to "fearing difference".

[Theodore]

First of all, what happened to your avatar?

What do you mean by that?

Enlightenment values, what fascists see as the excessive materialism and hedonism, and so on.

I don't see how that relates to "fearing difference".

Targeted groups are seen as an 'Other', an Other different from 'Us', that we must fear and struggle against.

[kami321]

First of all, what happened to your avatar?

My avatar? I never ever had one.

Enlightenment values, what fascists see as the excessive materialism and hedonism, and so on.

Hmm, this still seems to me a bit too vague, but I think I see what you're saying.

Targeted groups are seen as an 'Other', an Other different from 'Us', that we must fear and struggle against.

Doesn't that apply to any system wahtsoever? Terrorists, communists, counter-revolutionaries, trotskyists, fascists, every system has its "Others" that are different from "Us".

[Theodore]

My avatar? I never ever had one.

I must have confused you with another member...

Doesn't that apply to any system wahtsoever? Terrorists, communists, counter-revolutionaries, trotskyists, fascists, every system has its "Others" that are different from "Us".

I'm tragically inept at explainig anything, so I'll just quote Eco:

Besides, disagreement is a sign of diversity.

Ur-Fascism grows up and seeks consensus by exploiting and exacerbating the natural fear of difference. The first appeal of a fascist or prematurely fascist movement is an appeal against the intruders. Thus Ur-Fascism is racist by definition.

[kami321]

The first appeal of a fascist or prematurely fascist movement is an appeal against the intruders. Thus Ur-Fascism is racist by definition.

This seems a bit contradictory to me. For example, if you are a racist and your country is already multinational / multicultural, you want to make a difference by segregating or expelling the "others". You surely are not afraid of this difference, right?

[Theodore]

But the people are indoctrinated to fear and hate that which is seen as different.