Was Joesph Stalin a Fascist? discussion and poll

Page 4 of 6 [ 92 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Aspie_Chav
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Feb 2006
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,931
Location: Croydon

03 Aug 2012, 6:42 pm

The guy is a Red. I am sure he was well meaning. Whether he is fascist is besides the point. His system does not work.

JakobVirgil
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Feb 2011
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,744
Location: yes

03 Aug 2012, 6:50 pm

edgewaters wrote:

JakobVirgil wrote:

He was racist though right?
The Doctors' Plot ?

Maybe ... but he went after any ethnic group that got too nationalist, because he was worried about fascism and/or separatists, and he didn't seem to play racial favourites about it - he came down hard on the Georgians, his own people, for instance. Because of their nationalist streak. Which he once shared ....

But that particular case is a hard one to decide. Did he think Jews in the USSR were getting too nationalist, was there too much Zionism? Or was he an anti-semite? It's kind of hard to say, really. It doesn't make sense to say he was worried about separatism, but on the other hand, Zionism was a form of nationalism and it was popular there at the time, and he was an equally opportunity oppressor of nationalists. Tough call indeed.

Ah wait! He was not equal opportunity - he never bothered the Russians about nationalism, he encouraged it during the war! Perhaps he was a fascist during the war years, not at heart but as a strategy to win the war. He stopped after the war though, just as he enlisted the Orthodox church during the war and went right back to repressing them after (and there's the traditionalism, too). So it looks like he did dabble in fascism for a time.

I have this feeling that he never lost any sleep over all the people he sent to be tortured, killed, and erased from memory by Beria; but I bet those "Mother Russia" posters and "Great Patriotic War" slogans had him tossing and turning all night.

I think we should call this a good discussion. least I enjoyed it.

_________________
?We must not look at goblin men,
We must not buy their fruits:
Who knows upon what soil they fed
Their hungry thirsty roots??

http://jakobvirgil.blogspot.com/

enrico_dandolo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 20 Nov 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 866

03 Aug 2012, 11:53 pm

edgewaters wrote:

Ah wait! He was not equal opportunity - he never bothered the Russians about nationalism, he encouraged it during the war! Perhaps he was a fascist during the war years, not at heart but as a strategy to win the war. He stopped after the war though, just as he enlisted the Orthodox church during the war and went right back to repressing them after (and there's the traditionalism, too). So it looks like he did dabble in fascism for a time.

But then, he also tried to win the non-Russian minorities by pandering to their own nationalisms during the war. I don't think it was anything but an expedient, like the calling back of officers from the Gulag.

Besides, if nationalism is a criterion for fascism, the United States were and are fascist.

edgewaters
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 16 Aug 2006
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,427
Location: Ontario

04 Aug 2012, 1:03 am

JakobVirgil wrote:

I think we should call this a good discussion. least I enjoyed it.

Me too

enrico_dandolo wrote:

edgewaters wrote:

True, but we're not talking about nationalism in isolation here, but in the context of a totalitarian system run by a dictator and with a number of other facets as well (such as courting the Orthodox church to provide the element of traditionalism).

Yes, it was expedient to power and success against enemies ... but I think fascism might always be adopted for that reason. Although I'm not entirely sure ... that's why I said he "dabbled" in it. And I think he did so with distaste, since it all comes to a screeching halt after the war.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

04 Aug 2012, 3:26 am

Stalin dissolved the ComInTern. Sure proof of his fascism. National Communism is no less fascist than National Socialism.

ruveyn

Guppy
Pileated woodpecker

Joined: 31 Jul 2012
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 188
Location: Somewhere below the North Sea

04 Aug 2012, 3:29 am

For god's sake.

enrico_dandolo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 20 Nov 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 866

04 Aug 2012, 3:31 am

ruveyn wrote:

Stalin dissolved the ComInTern. Sure proof of his fascism. National Communism is no less fascist than National Socialism.

ruveyn

That was under Allied pressure. The first thing he did after the war was to create the Kominform.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

04 Aug 2012, 3:32 am

Guppy wrote:

For god's sake.

What do you have in mind. Marx postulated that the dissolution of the burgoise by the emerging worker class would be international in nature.

Stalin contradicted Marx virtually from the git go. So did Lenin. Trotsky was closer to the "true faith". For that, he was killed.

ruveyn

enrico_dandolo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 20 Nov 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 866

04 Aug 2012, 3:44 am

Stalin did not contradict Marx, reality did. The Revolution started in Russia, which was already a proof that things were wrong because it was supposed to start in the most developped countries (although a few marxists had said the opposite, and that Russia was the "weakest link" of capitalism). After, in 1919, various communist revolutions were quelled. In 1920, the Red Army was pushing through Poland, hoping to ignite the world revolution, and it was pushed back by the Poles at the Vistula. No world revolution happened, nothing. That was theoretically unexpected.

Guppy
Pileated woodpecker

Joined: 31 Jul 2012
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 188
Location: Somewhere below the North Sea

04 Aug 2012, 4:12 am

ruveyn wrote:

Guppy wrote:

For god's sake.

What do you have in mind.

I am continuously bothered by the misuse of the term Fascist.

edgewaters
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 16 Aug 2006
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,427
Location: Ontario

04 Aug 2012, 12:08 pm

enrico_dandolo wrote:

Stalin did not contradict Marx, reality did.

Yep. First, reality contradicted it, then the Bolsheviks tried to "adapt" it to make it possible and sustainable, to the point where it ended up looking more like a reactionary totalitarian regime with a substitute Czar; not even as revolutionary as Western capitalism, just a sort of bureaucratic, industrial feudalism.

thomas81
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 2 May 2012
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,147
Location: County Down, Northern Ireland

04 Aug 2012, 2:08 pm

This thread demonstrates much naivety into what Fascism actually is.

Mussolini explained Fascism as 'hyper capitalism'- a state where the political power of big business trumps all and the state runs roughshod over the workers right to association against the capitalist class. There is also an element of ultra-nationalism combined with an emphasis on militarisation.

Since Stalin does not satisfy the first condition, he cannot be labelled a 'fascist'. In fact he was ideologically polarised to private capitalism (something that fascists are not) Stalin was an authoritarian Socialist.

Essentially Fascism is the state and big business working hand in hand with the common objective of eliminating opposition to its common goal through the use of force, legislation, and where it suits its purpose, racism.

This is why many are fast reaching the conclusion that the United states is becoming fascist.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

04 Aug 2012, 2:16 pm

thomas81 wrote:

You are overlooking that collectivism is the common characteristic of both Il Duce fascism and Stalinist (so-called) communism. The individual has no standing in either order. That State is the supreme element of society, so both are Statist.

ruveyn

thomas81
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 2 May 2012
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,147
Location: County Down, Northern Ireland

04 Aug 2012, 2:26 pm

ruveyn wrote:

In all manifestations of contemporary fascism (Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, Pinochet etc) bar none, corporatisation and the over riding power of heavy industrialists and large companies are present. Without this fundamental tenant in place, it serves a disservice to the term to use it in the context of governments where it was not in place therefore they should not be labelled facist.

Part of the problem is that there has never been a strictly agreed definition for the term 'fascism' and use of the term in anything other than contemporary context only serves to obfusticate its meaning. This is what has led to it being nothing more than a arbitrary perogitive buzzterm to be used lightly against any and all authority figures. This very thread, is such an example of that.

JakobVirgil
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Feb 2011
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,744
Location: yes

04 Aug 2012, 2:28 pm

enrico_dandolo wrote:

edgewaters wrote:

But then, he also tried to win the non-Russian minorities by pandering to their own nationalisms during the war. I don't think it was anything but an expedient, like the calling back of officers from the Gulag.

Besides, if nationalism is a criterion for fascism, the United States were and are fascist.

To my way of thinking fascism is not a rational cohesive system but rather a fashion of rule.
Based on the Noble Lie, (I blame Plato for most things :lol:

)
So using Fascist techniques qualifies a person even if he "does not mean it."

I will accept that if fascism is an ordering with Obama<Bush<Salazar<Franco< Mussolini<Hitler
From least to most fascist.

_________________
?We must not look at goblin men,
We must not buy their fruits:
Who knows upon what soil they fed
Their hungry thirsty roots??

http://jakobvirgil.blogspot.com/

thomas81
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 2 May 2012
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,147
Location: County Down, Northern Ireland

04 Aug 2012, 2:40 pm

JakobVirgil wrote:

I will accept that if fascism is an ordering with Obama<Bush<Salazar<Franco< Mussolini<Hitler
From least to most fascist.

Again, this 'heirarchy' of facism isn't strictly correct.

While its true to say that Hitler was a fascist, equally its untrue to say that he was or wasn't any less Fascist than Mussolini. Mussolini, didn't carry Hitler's racist baggage (he actually granted citizenship to Ethiopian immigrants provided they 'embraced' Italian culture). However Hitler employed much left-sounding demagogy to appeal to the working class to gain a mass movement. Mussolini was more concerned with support from the large capitalists.

From these conflicting policies, its difficult to tell which one is more left or right wing. They both had extremely reactionary views and while Mussoloni was not responsible for the holocaust, its difficult to say which was farthest to the right wing. Hitler was a National Socialist which is more of a sub ideology or offshoot of classic fascism.

Page 4 of 6 [ 92 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next

Jump to:

Was Joesph Stalin a Fascist? discussion and poll Post Reply New Topic

Was Joesph Stalin a Fascist? discussion and poll