this post was submitted on 02 Sep 2023
21 points (80.0% liked)
Memes
44226 readers
1765 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I'm confused, are you saying he's using it wrong?
Here's a copy paste from Webster.
often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
Replace the word race with party and you've got an incomplete yes, but not necessarily inaccurate description of Stalins USSR.
Seriously not trying to just be a troll or shill here, so if you feel I'm wrong please let me know how and why. I am legitimately, in good faith, curious about the perspectives of some communist here. It is an ideology I am somewhat interested in.
I'm sure a lot of people will chime in, I just want to add this short vid with Domenico Losurdo.Here.
You can't just swap words out and assume the framework is the same. It literally makes no sense. Changing one word can, and does, have a huge effect on overall meaning of a sentence.
That's a pretty significant difference, don't you think? Exalting racism and exalting a political organization that opposes racism are diametrically opposed things, not equivalent.
Replace (good thing) with (bad thing). You looking pretty fucking bad now don't you tankie?
Not saying it is a fair exchange, you are correct. But do keep in mind the wording in the definition is "often". My suggestion of replacement was to emphasize that race is not a requirement to the definition, it's just pointing out that it is usually the characteristic used to define who is the most loyal or desired type of citizen. From what I understand party loyalty could be definitely be applied there.
There's a reason that race is included though, and that reason is that fascism aims to strengthen and reinforce existing hierarchies. That generally includes race, gender, sexual orientation, class, disabilities, etc. Theoretically it's conceivable that you could have a political project that includes all of that except for race, but in practice it's extremely unlikely that a fascist project would exclude it, which is why it's mentioned in the definition.
Communists (esp. Marxist-Leninists) believe in using political power to reduce or remove these hierarchies, even if it requires the use of force. For instance, I think it's good that slave owners in the US were forcibly suppressed and the people they enslaved were liberated. Does that "willingness to forcibly suppress the opposition" make me (and Lincoln) a fascist, even though my goals and values are completely opposite to those of fascists?
If "the opposition" in your definition is taken to include groups that would also forcibly suppress their opposition given the opportunity, then it seems that Webster's has unintentionally baked in assumptions from which the only conclusion is something like anarcho-pacifism, while labelling all states as inherently fascist. This is either a bad definition, or a bad interpretation of the definition.
That is a good point. It's a really interesting application of the tolerance paradox. This is some good perspective I'm getting, glad I made this comment thread.
Replace the Sodium in Sodium Chloride with Hydrogen and OH GOD IT BURNS IT BURNS OW OW OW OW!
A different response, which comes from a different angle to those pointing out that Marxism-Leninism is not fascist:
The word 'fascism' is used so fast and loosely outside of a technical context that I wouldn't say one interpretation is necessarily right or wrong. It depends on context. (Incidentally, same for 'socialism', even principled well-read communists can't agree on a definition.)
For example, if we're talking about the actual Fascist ideology (think of Mussolini and associates) then I would even hesitate to include Nazism due to the very different roots: they're both nationalist anti-liberal anti-democratic, anti-socialist 'third way' ideologies and they did ally in the war, sure, but to group them both as 'fascism' trivializes core differences in how they formed, why they successfully formed, how they appealed to their followers (fascism actually recruited many self-identifying socialists in Italy and its important to recognise why to prevent it), and why they were ultimately antisocial and unsuccessful in their goals.
This isn't just some academic masturbation nitpicking or anything: I believe that the ignorance of Classical Fascism by lumping it in with the far more obvious and baseless idiocy of Nazism makes it harder to recognize and counter, especially when neo-Nazis are such ridiculous cartoonish farces. Fascism stemmed from National Syndicalism and has core economic ideas like corporatism (from 'corpus') that could fool people, and sounds much less stupid that Hitler's bizzare esoteric fantasies about Aryan racial supremacy: even Mussolini considered Hitler crazy.
The point of me making this distinction is that the dictionary definition you gave isn't even wrong in describing fascist ideologies, but, I don't think that list of common traits should be mistaken for a definition. Those traits are the results, not the foundation of the ideology, and a neo-liberal state like the USA can easily match many of those traits despite being a very distinct ideology. Any you will absolutely see people saying 'USA is fascist' as a shorthand for nationalist, racist, imperialist, oppressive, blah blah blah, but it's definitely not post-National-Syndicalist faux-socialist corporatist collectivism. We should obviously fight both but they are not the same and manifest differently.
"Replace the word 'pollution' with the word 'jews' and captain planet looks pretty fascist!"
Personally I like the definition that the historian Robert O. Paxton uses. Now, he's a liberal, but he does have good insight into fascism and he doesn't fall into that trap of deciding that communists and fascists must be the same thing. His definition isn't materialist, but it's a good start.
To paraphrase, his definition is "a suppression of the left among popular sentiment." By left he means things like socialists, labor organizations, communists, etc. Fascism is a situation where a country has found its theater of democracy has failed and the capitalists need anything at all to keep themselves in power, even if it means cannibalizing another sector of capitalists. The fascists are the ideological contingent of this, who put forward a policy of class collaboration between working class and capitalist, instead of what socialists propose, which is working class dominance in the economy. Fascists exalt nationality or race because that extends through class sentiments. It brushes aside concerns like internal economic contradictions. I once had a comrade say something like "Fascism is capitalists hitting the emergency button until their hand starts bleeding."
Communists using a vanguard party is to defend their own interests against capitalists or outside invaders. The praise of the CPSU in Stalin's era was precisely because it acted as a development and protection tool for the working class. It did its job and people were wary of any return to the previous Tsarist or liberal governments. Women began going to school, women were given the vote for the first time. Pogroms ceased. In less than one lifetime of the CPSU administrating the country, people went from poor farmers to living in apartments with plumbing, heating, and clean medical care. That's why there was such praise of the party, because they actually did things people liked, and they didn't want anything to threaten them.
Also, what does it matter if there's one party or two? The working class have a singular, uniting interest to overthrow capitalism. Why are multiple parties needed? Anything the working class needs to negotiate for can be handled within a socialist, democratic structure, not two or three competing structures against one another. Take a look at Cuba, which has one party, but doesn't use their party to endorse candidates. Everyone's officially an independent in the National Assembly.
I'm confused how he could make these observations and remain a lib, what happened?
He was a professor at Harvard most of his career, if that explains anything. He's also on record calling the January 6th capitol thing a fascist coup attempt.
If i remember his book correctly, at start he explicitly denies marxist definition of fascism, and then in course of the book his research lead straight to it being correct on at least two separate occasions, them makes full stop and end the topic when he realise what would he have to write next.
I don't know if thats merely ritually exorcising communism in order to have his book accepted by liberal academia (like in case of Geza Alfoldy for example) or he really is this intellectually dishonest, because he clearly did realised. Anyway it was funny as hell and the book isn't even bad.
Possibly because of the way he's found his career. Paxton is very popular in France and was very instrumental in introducing liberal historiography into French WW2 history. For him to throw a bone to Marxists would be undermining how he earned a name for himself in the first place.
Yeah i see that in polish social sciences too, especially by older authors, it's hard here to keep position in the academia without paying at least lip service to anticommunist witchhunt. Unfortunately even those people are already dead and the new ones are not even shy about being opportunists, most books publish nowadays are almost worthless since it's either anticommunist propaganda, pophistory or bland compilations from older ones.