Comment by runarberg

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.