Some communist governments are authoritarian, all fascist governments are authoritarian, and not all authoritarian governments are fascists. The Soviet Union under its most authoritarian and repressive ruler fought and defeated fascism. So the Soviet Union was in the first category above: communist + authoritarian.
Fascism is more then authoritarianism. It is a set of explicitly right wing and explicitly anti-communist and anti-socialist policies, fascism is extremely pro-business. And it is explicitly racist and nationalistic.
The Soviet Union was explicitly pro-worker, it was explicitly communist, it was explicitly left-wing. Under its first ruler it was even explicitly internationalist (to the extend that the Internationale was their national anthem; But their second ruler was for sure a nationalist). There is no definition of fascism which includes the Soviet Union. If the Soviet Union were fascist, then fascism becomes a useless term completely synonymous with authoritarianism.
It doesn't matter what they said they were, it matters what they actually were. Else you'd have to concede that Hitler was a socialist and North Korea is a democracy. The fact is, the USSR was fascist, not communist. Some of its founders may have had dreams of communism but they rapidly did not translate to the real world.
What they did was fight fascism. And liberate Eastern Europe from fascism.
If we were to consider the Soviet Union fascist, simply because of their atrocities, than we would have to consider the British rule over India fascist. And there we also run into problem, because the British also fought and defeated fascism (albeit not as decisively as the Soviet Union; leaving fascists in power in Spain and Portugal). And there is even more of a case for fascist UK because unlike the Soviet Union, the British enacted racist ethnodemocratic policies emblematic of fascism.
But we have another name for the types of government which ruled India in terror. And that name is Colonialism. The British government wasn’t fascist, it was colonial. And it committed their numerous atrocities in India under the ideology of colonialism.
Likewise with the Soviet Union. At no point in their history were they ruled by a right wing, pro-business, pro-religion, racist regime. The Soviet Union committed their atrocities not to enrich the business elite, with some ethno-nationalist/religious ideology, but to further the ideology of Communism. Businesses were state owned, education was universal, and unions were elevated. The party elite then put them selves in high paying positions for the state owned businesses, created better schools for their own children, and pushed union leadership loyal to the party. So corruption for sure, but still not fascism. For that we need the unions disbanded, their union leaders executed, ethnic minorities kicked out of schools and into ghettos, and state corporations handed over to the aristocracy, etc.
Some communist governments are authoritarian, all fascist governments are authoritarian, and not all authoritarian governments are fascists. The Soviet Union under its most authoritarian and repressive ruler fought and defeated fascism. So the Soviet Union was in the first category above: communist + authoritarian.
Fascism is more then authoritarianism. It is a set of explicitly right wing and explicitly anti-communist and anti-socialist policies, fascism is extremely pro-business. And it is explicitly racist and nationalistic.
The Soviet Union was explicitly pro-worker, it was explicitly communist, it was explicitly left-wing. Under its first ruler it was even explicitly internationalist (to the extend that the Internationale was their national anthem; But their second ruler was for sure a nationalist). There is no definition of fascism which includes the Soviet Union. If the Soviet Union were fascist, then fascism becomes a useless term completely synonymous with authoritarianism.
It doesn't matter what they said they were, it matters what they actually were. Else you'd have to concede that Hitler was a socialist and North Korea is a democracy. The fact is, the USSR was fascist, not communist. Some of its founders may have had dreams of communism but they rapidly did not translate to the real world.
What they did was fight fascism. And liberate Eastern Europe from fascism.
If we were to consider the Soviet Union fascist, simply because of their atrocities, than we would have to consider the British rule over India fascist. And there we also run into problem, because the British also fought and defeated fascism (albeit not as decisively as the Soviet Union; leaving fascists in power in Spain and Portugal). And there is even more of a case for fascist UK because unlike the Soviet Union, the British enacted racist ethnodemocratic policies emblematic of fascism.
But we have another name for the types of government which ruled India in terror. And that name is Colonialism. The British government wasn’t fascist, it was colonial. And it committed their numerous atrocities in India under the ideology of colonialism.
Likewise with the Soviet Union. At no point in their history were they ruled by a right wing, pro-business, pro-religion, racist regime. The Soviet Union committed their atrocities not to enrich the business elite, with some ethno-nationalist/religious ideology, but to further the ideology of Communism. Businesses were state owned, education was universal, and unions were elevated. The party elite then put them selves in high paying positions for the state owned businesses, created better schools for their own children, and pushed union leadership loyal to the party. So corruption for sure, but still not fascism. For that we need the unions disbanded, their union leaders executed, ethnic minorities kicked out of schools and into ghettos, and state corporations handed over to the aristocracy, etc.
2 replies →