Marx postulated communism from an economic analysis with the goal to improve the economic and political situation of the working class. This is deeply antifascist.
Lenin abolished the tsarist rule and implemented progressive politics like womens rights and ended the criminalization of homosexuality.
Stalin while ideologically and economically not a fascist was staunchly authoritarian, which is a core theme of fascism and he rolled back many of the progressive social policies of Lenin. However authoritarianism is an universal political theme, whether fascist, stalinist, monarchist or even “democratic”.
hmm if you are condemning these acts from comrade Stalin, I think Marx encouraged dictatorship of proletariat, Karl Marx believed in a transitional period in the road to total communism this being a socialist state under a dictatorship authority of “the people’s party”, even the acts of purge that Stalin carried I think were mentioned by Marx, I personally don’t think that Stalin betrayed Marxism, but if Marxism is a totalitarian system, and we’re here calling totalitarians “fascists” then Marxism is a form of fascism
To be clear I am not a leninist or a marxist anymore. From what I understand something called democratic centralism is used. In democratic centralism there are elections for individual politicians instead of political parties. So while you can argue it’s only one party, you can actually elect whoever you want to your local seat, and presumably whoever you want for the president. That or the elected MPs select a leader as president, I am not really clear on this bit. Either way it’s not that different to how UK elections are run currently with individual MPs, just without that party bit. A bit like if every candidate was an independent.
The problem in the USSR and China being they restricted party membership and persecuted political enemies well beyond landlords and fascists, so that “anyone can be elected” bit simply did not happen.
Democratic Centralism is “diversity of thought, unity in action.” It essentially means that open discussion and election on where to go is key, but that members should not act against the decisions made, ie the results of elections are binding.
Anarchists criticize this because they argue it disregards minority opinions, though this is where the Soviet System came in and had “tiers,” so there were local elections and local decisions allowed, kinda like a local, state, federal split.
MLs argue that it gets far more done and that’s important when combatting something as strong as Imperialism and Capitalism.
The Dictatorship of the Proletariat is in contrast to Capitalist Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie. The DotP is a Democratic Worker State run by and for workers that suppresses the bourgeoisie in the same manner that Liberal Democracy is run by and for the Bourgeoisie and suppresses workers. It does not refer to a literal totalitarian dictator.
Fascism is not simply “when the government is big and does a lot of mean stuff.” It’s focused on Bourgeois class colaboration, entrenchment of Capitalism, and extreme Nationalism and Anticommunism, as a reaction against the rise of Socialism amidst Capitalist decline. The USSR cannot be considered “fascist” even by those who would condemn it, unless you redefine fascism itself.
Stalin was a very mixed bag. In some manners, he did continue Marxism-Leninism, but at the same time he did recriminalize homosexuality. He was very socially reactionary, yet did attempt to keep Marxism continuing past Lenin. In some ways, he did betray Marxism, but in other ways, he preserved it.
You might want to read Blackshirts and Reds: Rational Fascism and the Fall of Communism in the USSR. It talks about the antagonistic relationship between Socialism and Fascism, the weaknesses in the USSR that resulted in collapse, and how fascists plundered the disected state.
hmm, fascism is mainly a totalitarian system I think. I heard USSR did actually suppress some religious acts on its’ soil, which is an important aspect of individuality
There’s a general category of government oppression, which has existed for as long as governments have existed, and then there’s the political concept of fascism.
“The cult of tradition”, characterized by cultural syncretism, even at the risk of internal contradiction. When all truth has already been revealed by tradition, no new learning can occur, only further interpretation and refinement.
“The rejection of modernism”, which views the rationalistic development of Western culture since the Enlightenment as a descent into depravity. Eco distinguishes this from a rejection of superficial technological advancement, as many fascist regimes cite their industrial potency as proof of the vitality of their system.
“The cult of action for action’s sake”, which dictates that action is of value in itself and should be taken without intellectual reflection. This, says Eco, is connected with anti-intellectualism and irrationalism, and often manifests in attacks on modern culture and science.
“Disagreement is treason” – fascism devalues intellectual discourse and critical reasoning as barriers to action, as well as out of fear that such analysis will expose the contradictions embodied in a syncretistic faith.
“Fear of difference”, which fascism seeks to exploit and exacerbate, often in the form of racism or an appeal against foreigners and immigrants.
“Appeal to a frustrated middle class”, fearing economic pressure from the demands and aspirations of lower social groups.
“Obsession with a plot” and the hyping-up of an enemy threat. This often combines an appeal to xenophobia with a fear of disloyalty and sabotage from marginalized groups living within the society. Eco also cites Pat Robertson’s book The New World Order as a prominent example of a plot obsession.
Fascist societies rhetorically cast their enemies as “at the same time too strong and too weak”. On the one hand, fascists play up the power of certain disfavored elites to encourage in their followers a sense of grievance and humiliation. On the other hand, fascist leaders point to the decadence of those elites as proof of their ultimate feebleness in the face of an overwhelming popular will.
“Pacifism is trafficking with the enemy” because “life is permanent warfare” – there must always be an enemy to fight. Both fascist Germany under Hitler and Italy under Mussolini worked first to organize and clean up their respective countries and then build the war machines that they later intended to and did use, despite Germany being under restrictions of the Versailles treaty to not build a military force. This principle leads to a fundamental contradiction within fascism: the incompatibility of ultimate triumph with perpetual war.
“Contempt for the weak”, which is uncomfortably married to a chauvinistic popular elitism, in which every member of society is superior to outsiders by virtue of belonging to the in-group. Eco sees in these attitudes the root of a deep tension in the fundamentally hierarchical structure of fascist polities, as they encourage leaders to despise their underlings, up to the ultimate leader, who holds the whole country in contempt for having allowed him to overtake it by force.
“Everybody is educated to become a hero”, which leads to the embrace of a cult of death. As Eco observes, “[t]he Ur-Fascist hero is impatient to die. In his impatience, he more frequently sends other people to death.”
“Machismo”, which sublimates the difficult work of permanent war and heroism into the sexual sphere. Fascists thus hold “both disdain for women and intolerance and condemnation of nonstandard sexual habits, from chastity to homosexuality”.
“Selective populism” – the people, conceived monolithically, have a common will, distinct from and superior to the viewpoint of any individual. As no mass of people can ever be truly unanimous, the leader holds himself out as the interpreter of the popular will (though truly he alone dictates it). Fascists use this concept to delegitimize democratic institutions they accuse of “no longer represent[ing] the voice of the people”.
“Newspeak” – fascism employs and promotes an impoverished vocabulary in order to limit critical reasoning.
Fascism, in the views of most leftists, is primarily a Reactionary attempt by the Bourgeoisie to “turn the clock back” to the “good old days.” Core to this is Class Colaborationism between the Bourgeioise and Petite Bourgeoisie against the Proletariat and Lumpenproletariat. There is also extreme nationalism and corporatism, it’s a far-right response to the inevitable decline in Capitalism.
Looking at the USSR, it does not fit this general guideline. The USSR practiced Soviet Democracy, which definitely had issues, but was not “totalitarian.” It was also Socialist, via being a Worker State, and there were few bourgeois elements (at least until the Black Markets started taking off later in its lifespan, as it began to liberalize).
As for Religion, the USSR was Atheist as the state “religion,” it allowed Religious freedom when it comes to practice, but harshly limited the influence of Religion. There were individual events of repression against Religion overall, as this overtly Atheist goal did come into conflict with local religions.
umm, as you say you’re giving the marxist definition of fascism which excludes USSR, while capitalists will also give their definition which is BASED on USSR.
I imagine myself standing on the middle of this conversation and judging USSR by the elements that commoners associate with the word fascism, @Kwakigra@beehaw.org offered 14 points in his summarization, there are in particular 3 points that I’m familiar with in the political atmosphere of my country (which received some kind of help from USSR to achieve independence) :
1- Disagreement is treason
2- Appeal to a frustrated middle class
3- “Obsession with a plot”
4- Fascist societies rhetorically cast their enemies as “at the same time too strong and too weak”.
as explained by Kwakigra on each line, so it seems to me that ML is just fascism but without the brainwashing and with modernism, which doesn’t differ that much from liberalism (in theory, in practice I see liberalism as an imaginary spectrum)
umm, as you say you’re giving the marxist definition of fascism which excludes USSR, while capitalists will also give their definition which is BASED on USSR.
No, this is false. Capitalists also understand fascism to be based on Benito Mussolini’s Italy and Nazi Germany, reinventing fascism to be based on Communism is silly.
Secondly, your analysis of the 14 points is almost laughably incorrect.
1- Disagreement is treason
Sort of. Those attempting to overthrow the state and bring back the Tsars, known as the White Army, were fought violently. Those collaborating with Nazi Germany were also violently suppressed. I don’t think this quite counts as oppressing “wrongthink.” Overall, partially true, we can leave it, why not.
2- Appeal to a frustrated middle class
This is woefully false. The USSR appealed to the lower classes! The entire point of the USSR was Liberation of the proletariat! It was not focused on the Petite Bourgeoisie, ie small shop owners and the like, but the working men and women in factories. This is the furthest from the truth.
3- “Obsession with a plot”
Don’t know what you mean by this, at all, really. Let’s leave it as true and tally it up at the end.
4- Fascist societies rhetorically cast their enemies as “at the same time too strong and too weak”.
They did not, really. The USSR always portrated themselves as rising underdogs, and Capitalists and Fascists as their fearsome opponents. We can leave it as true, for tallying.
This means of the 14 points, we generously gave them 3. In reality, it would be 1-2, of a list designed to nail the main aspects of fascism. This is ridiculous, the US scores far higher and is still Liberal (for now).
so it seems to me that ML is just fascism but without the brainwashing and with modernism, which doesn’t differ that much from liberalism (in theory, in practice I see liberalism as an imaginary spectrum)
Completely false. You can disagree with Marxism-Leninism with facts and logic, not by contorting it into something it isn’t. That’s a textbook strawman.
hmm, for the 3rd point I meant that communist authority will condemn any other party, ideology or political spectrum as part of the capitalist/imperialist masterplan, I’m pretty sure I’m not the only one to criticize Marxists with this
hmm, in the same way I can say that “jews” served the purposes of the imperialist agenda inside and outside Germany, does that give the Nazis right to oppress an ethnicity and use that vulgar language against them? This is called political failure imo
The Orthodox church comemorates the thousands of clergy and laity who were killed or suffered gravely at the hands of the atheist revolutionaries. The commemoration is titled New Martyrs and Confessors of Russia.
What’s a tankie? Any Marxist? How is Marxism “fascist?” What is fascism in your view, and how does it match up to Eco’s 14 points:
The cult of tradition. “One has only to look at the syllabus of every fascist movement to find the major traditionalist thinkers. The Nazi gnosis was nourished by traditionalist, syncretistic, occult elements.”
The rejection of modernism. “The Enlightenment, the Age of Reason, is seen as the beginning of modern depravity. In this sense, Ur-Fascism can be defined as irrationalism.”
The cult of action for action’s sale. “Action being beautiful in itself, it must be taken before, or without, any previous reflection. Thinking is a form of emasculation.”
Disagreement is treason. “The critical spirit makes distinctions, and to distinguish is a sign of modernism. In modern culture, the scientific community praises disagreement as a way to improve knowledge.”
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.”
Appeal to social frustration. “[…] one of the most typical features of the historical fascism was the appeal to a frustrated middle class, a class suffering from an economic crisis or feelings of political humiliation, and frightened by the pressure of lower social groups.
The obsession with a plot. “The followers must feel besieged. The easiest way to solve the plot is the appeal to xenophobia.”
The enemy is both weak and strong. “[…] the followers must be convinced that they can overwhelm the enemies. Thus, by a continuous shifting of rhetorical focus, the enemies are at the same time too strong and too weak.”
Pacifism is trafficking with the enemy. “For Ur-Fascism there is no struggle for life but, rather, life is lived for struggle.”
Contempt for the weak. “Elitism is a typical aspect of any reactionary ideology.”
Everybody is educated to become a hero. “in Ur-Fascist ideology, heroism is the norm. This cult of heroism is strictly linked with the cult of death.”
Machismo and Weaponry. “This is the origin of machismo (which implies both disdain for women and intolerance and condemnation of nonstandard sexual habits, from chastity to homosexuality). Since even sex is a difficult game to play, the Ur-Fascist hero tends to play with weapons—doing so becomes an ersatz phallic exercise.”
Selective Populism. “There is in our future a TV or Internet populism, in which the emotional response of a selected group of citizens can be presented and accepted as the Voice of the People.
Ur-Fascism speaks Newspeak. “All the Nazi or Fascist schoolbooks made use of an impoverished vocabulary, and an elementary syntax, in order to limit the instruments for complex and critical reasoning.”
None of that answers the question, I’m well aware of Marxism-Leninism and the term “red-fash,” I don’t see how linking wikipedia articles on both of those terms answers how ML applies to Eco’s 14 points on fascism.
Those are not Eco’s 14 points, those are a brand new set of points, unsupported and uncited, from an Anarchist’s perspective. Marxism in general would be considered Right-Wing in the eyes of the author, who again just made 9 blanket, unsupported vibes-based claims. The USSR and Marxism-Leninism only really hit one or two points of the espoused 14 from Eco, much fewer than the vast majority of current states.
Additionally, Bernard Henri Lévy, the author cited by the author of your article as the basis for the article, is a Zionist, and is anti-palestine. He’s also pro-American, and pro-liberal, not a leftist.
“Bernard-Henri Lévy has used the term in arguing that some European intellectuals have been infatuated with anti-Enlightenment theories and embraced a new absolutist ideology, one that is anti-liberal, anti-American, anti-imperialist, antisemitic and pro-Islamofascist.”
It seems to me that being anti-anti-imperialism, and being a Zionist yet attacking Marxism might call into question Lévy’s motives.
Did you actually read Ur-fascism from Umberto Eco, or did you just google “Marxism fascism” and grab one of the first results? Neither your previous comment nor this one have answered my question.
Why do I need to write a 20-page thesis on why tankies are fascists? If you’re a Tankie, and it seems like you are because you are being very defensive, what could I write that could convince you that tankies are fascists?
Let’s try this another way.
Do you personally believe that democracies are good? That law should be decided by people?
Or do you believe that authoritarians are the best way to rule?
Why do I need to write a 20-page thesis on why tankies are fascists? If you’re a Tankie, and it seems like you are because you are being very defensive, what could I write that could convince you that tankies are fascists?
I’m a Marxist, and you’ve called Marxist-Leninists fascists. By your definition, I am both a Tankie and a Fascist for wanting a democratically run Worker State. If you want to convince me of Marxism being fascist, answer the question I originally asked: how does Marxism, Marxism-Leninism, or the USSR, satisfy Umberto Eco’s 14 points on fascism? You linked an article referencing a Zionist and Imperialist as a good authority on why Marxism is fascist, I wonder why you consider Zionists good company, but Marxists to be evil fascists?
Let’s try this another way.
Do you personally believe that democracies are good? That law should be decided by people?
Every Marxist believes democracy is good and that law should be decided by the people. Since you like Wikipedia, you might want to read about how Democracy was structured in the USSR.
Or do you believe that authoritarians are the best way to rule?
Genuinely, what does this sentence even mean? Are you asking if I believe all important decisions should be made by unaccountable strong leaders? No, of course not, no Marxist does. If you mean I believe in having a government, then yes, I am a Marxist, not an Anarchist.
Apples and oranges. You can have fascism with any political system. The overuse of tankies is a indicator that the accusing party doesn’t really understand that.
Fascists are always liars obsessed with social heirarchy. Marxists are anti-racist and anti-heirarchy. You are not a Marxist if you’re a fascist. Cope.
Ah yes that purity of spirit that a the marxist tries to gaslight with. Grow up. People are people and trying to suggest what you suggest is as bigoted as any maga.
hmm, does marxist/leninist/stalinist count as fascism ?
No, no and no*
Marx postulated communism from an economic analysis with the goal to improve the economic and political situation of the working class. This is deeply antifascist.
Lenin abolished the tsarist rule and implemented progressive politics like womens rights and ended the criminalization of homosexuality.
Stalin while ideologically and economically not a fascist was staunchly authoritarian, which is a core theme of fascism and he rolled back many of the progressive social policies of Lenin. However authoritarianism is an universal political theme, whether fascist, stalinist, monarchist or even “democratic”.
hmm if you are condemning these acts from comrade Stalin, I think Marx encouraged dictatorship of proletariat, Karl Marx believed in a transitional period in the road to total communism this being a socialist state under a dictatorship authority of “the people’s party”, even the acts of purge that Stalin carried I think were mentioned by Marx, I personally don’t think that Stalin betrayed Marxism, but if Marxism is a totalitarian system, and we’re here calling totalitarians “fascists” then Marxism is a form of fascism
You don’t actually know what the dictatorship of the proletariat is. I would suggest you read up on that first.
how informative -__-. At least I know that it involves one political spectrum and most of the time one governing party,
To be clear I am not a leninist or a marxist anymore. From what I understand something called democratic centralism is used. In democratic centralism there are elections for individual politicians instead of political parties. So while you can argue it’s only one party, you can actually elect whoever you want to your local seat, and presumably whoever you want for the president. That or the elected MPs select a leader as president, I am not really clear on this bit. Either way it’s not that different to how UK elections are run currently with individual MPs, just without that party bit. A bit like if every candidate was an independent.
The problem in the USSR and China being they restricted party membership and persecuted political enemies well beyond landlords and fascists, so that “anyone can be elected” bit simply did not happen.
I was talking more about the theory than the practice. I imagine that under Stalin in particular the democratic process was not followed properly.
Sure, any political system is only as good as the society enforcing its rules.
Democratic Centralism is “diversity of thought, unity in action.” It essentially means that open discussion and election on where to go is key, but that members should not act against the decisions made, ie the results of elections are binding.
Anarchists criticize this because they argue it disregards minority opinions, though this is where the Soviet System came in and had “tiers,” so there were local elections and local decisions allowed, kinda like a local, state, federal split.
MLs argue that it gets far more done and that’s important when combatting something as strong as Imperialism and Capitalism.
You’re confused on a few fronts, here.
The Dictatorship of the Proletariat is in contrast to Capitalist Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie. The DotP is a Democratic Worker State run by and for workers that suppresses the bourgeoisie in the same manner that Liberal Democracy is run by and for the Bourgeoisie and suppresses workers. It does not refer to a literal totalitarian dictator.
Fascism is not simply “when the government is big and does a lot of mean stuff.” It’s focused on Bourgeois class colaboration, entrenchment of Capitalism, and extreme Nationalism and Anticommunism, as a reaction against the rise of Socialism amidst Capitalist decline. The USSR cannot be considered “fascist” even by those who would condemn it, unless you redefine fascism itself.
Stalin was a very mixed bag. In some manners, he did continue Marxism-Leninism, but at the same time he did recriminalize homosexuality. He was very socially reactionary, yet did attempt to keep Marxism continuing past Lenin. In some ways, he did betray Marxism, but in other ways, he preserved it.
You might want to read Blackshirts and Reds: Rational Fascism and the Fall of Communism in the USSR. It talks about the antagonistic relationship between Socialism and Fascism, the weaknesses in the USSR that resulted in collapse, and how fascists plundered the disected state.
Enter the term “red fascist,” which does indeed redefine some core aspects of fascism to acknowledge the differences in breed of authoritarianism.
Why would Marxism-Leninism count as fascism? What is fascism, in your eyes?
hmm, fascism is mainly a totalitarian system I think. I heard USSR did actually suppress some religious acts on its’ soil, which is an important aspect of individuality
There’s a general category of government oppression, which has existed for as long as governments have existed, and then there’s the political concept of fascism.
I think Umberto Eco’s Ur-Fascism is the best introduction to fascist philosophy. Here are his 14 points summarized by Wikipedia
Fascism, in the views of most leftists, is primarily a Reactionary attempt by the Bourgeoisie to “turn the clock back” to the “good old days.” Core to this is Class Colaborationism between the Bourgeioise and Petite Bourgeoisie against the Proletariat and Lumpenproletariat. There is also extreme nationalism and corporatism, it’s a far-right response to the inevitable decline in Capitalism.
Looking at the USSR, it does not fit this general guideline. The USSR practiced Soviet Democracy, which definitely had issues, but was not “totalitarian.” It was also Socialist, via being a Worker State, and there were few bourgeois elements (at least until the Black Markets started taking off later in its lifespan, as it began to liberalize).
As for Religion, the USSR was Atheist as the state “religion,” it allowed Religious freedom when it comes to practice, but harshly limited the influence of Religion. There were individual events of repression against Religion overall, as this overtly Atheist goal did come into conflict with local religions.
umm, as you say you’re giving the marxist definition of fascism which excludes USSR, while capitalists will also give their definition which is BASED on USSR.
I imagine myself standing on the middle of this conversation and judging USSR by the elements that commoners associate with the word fascism, @Kwakigra@beehaw.org offered 14 points in his summarization, there are in particular 3 points that I’m familiar with in the political atmosphere of my country (which received some kind of help from USSR to achieve independence) :
1- Disagreement is treason
2- Appeal to a frustrated middle class
3- “Obsession with a plot”
4- Fascist societies rhetorically cast their enemies as “at the same time too strong and too weak”.
as explained by Kwakigra on each line, so it seems to me that ML is just fascism but without the brainwashing and with modernism, which doesn’t differ that much from liberalism (in theory, in practice I see liberalism as an imaginary spectrum)
No, this is false. Capitalists also understand fascism to be based on Benito Mussolini’s Italy and Nazi Germany, reinventing fascism to be based on Communism is silly.
Secondly, your analysis of the 14 points is almost laughably incorrect.
Sort of. Those attempting to overthrow the state and bring back the Tsars, known as the White Army, were fought violently. Those collaborating with Nazi Germany were also violently suppressed. I don’t think this quite counts as oppressing “wrongthink.” Overall, partially true, we can leave it, why not.
This is woefully false. The USSR appealed to the lower classes! The entire point of the USSR was Liberation of the proletariat! It was not focused on the Petite Bourgeoisie, ie small shop owners and the like, but the working men and women in factories. This is the furthest from the truth.
Don’t know what you mean by this, at all, really. Let’s leave it as true and tally it up at the end.
They did not, really. The USSR always portrated themselves as rising underdogs, and Capitalists and Fascists as their fearsome opponents. We can leave it as true, for tallying.
This means of the 14 points, we generously gave them 3. In reality, it would be 1-2, of a list designed to nail the main aspects of fascism. This is ridiculous, the US scores far higher and is still Liberal (for now).
Completely false. You can disagree with Marxism-Leninism with facts and logic, not by contorting it into something it isn’t. That’s a textbook strawman.
hmm, for the 3rd point I meant that communist authority will condemn any other party, ideology or political spectrum as part of the capitalist/imperialist masterplan, I’m pretty sure I’m not the only one to criticize Marxists with this
I mean, that was happening, though. The White Army, Nazi collaborators, and surrounding Capitalist nations during WWI all tried to overthrow the USSR.
hmm, in the same way I can say that “jews” served the purposes of the imperialist agenda inside and outside Germany, does that give the Nazis right to oppress an ethnicity and use that vulgar language against them? This is called political failure imo
The Orthodox church comemorates the thousands of clergy and laity who were killed or suffered gravely at the hands of the atheist revolutionaries. The commemoration is titled New Martyrs and Confessors of Russia.
Tankies are fascist in my book.
What’s a tankie? Any Marxist? How is Marxism “fascist?” What is fascism in your view, and how does it match up to Eco’s 14 points:
The cult of tradition. “One has only to look at the syllabus of every fascist movement to find the major traditionalist thinkers. The Nazi gnosis was nourished by traditionalist, syncretistic, occult elements.”
The rejection of modernism. “The Enlightenment, the Age of Reason, is seen as the beginning of modern depravity. In this sense, Ur-Fascism can be defined as irrationalism.”
The cult of action for action’s sale. “Action being beautiful in itself, it must be taken before, or without, any previous reflection. Thinking is a form of emasculation.”
Disagreement is treason. “The critical spirit makes distinctions, and to distinguish is a sign of modernism. In modern culture, the scientific community praises disagreement as a way to improve knowledge.”
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.”
Appeal to social frustration. “[…] one of the most typical features of the historical fascism was the appeal to a frustrated middle class, a class suffering from an economic crisis or feelings of political humiliation, and frightened by the pressure of lower social groups.
The obsession with a plot. “The followers must feel besieged. The easiest way to solve the plot is the appeal to xenophobia.”
The enemy is both weak and strong. “[…] the followers must be convinced that they can overwhelm the enemies. Thus, by a continuous shifting of rhetorical focus, the enemies are at the same time too strong and too weak.”
Pacifism is trafficking with the enemy. “For Ur-Fascism there is no struggle for life but, rather, life is lived for struggle.”
Contempt for the weak. “Elitism is a typical aspect of any reactionary ideology.”
Everybody is educated to become a hero. “in Ur-Fascist ideology, heroism is the norm. This cult of heroism is strictly linked with the cult of death.”
Machismo and Weaponry. “This is the origin of machismo (which implies both disdain for women and intolerance and condemnation of nonstandard sexual habits, from chastity to homosexuality). Since even sex is a difficult game to play, the Ur-Fascist hero tends to play with weapons—doing so becomes an ersatz phallic exercise.”
Selective Populism. “There is in our future a TV or Internet populism, in which the emotional response of a selected group of citizens can be presented and accepted as the Voice of the People.
Ur-Fascism speaks Newspeak. “All the Nazi or Fascist schoolbooks made use of an impoverished vocabulary, and an elementary syntax, in order to limit the instruments for complex and critical reasoning.”
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism–Leninism
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_fascism
None of that answers the question, I’m well aware of Marxism-Leninism and the term “red-fash,” I don’t see how linking wikipedia articles on both of those terms answers how ML applies to Eco’s 14 points on fascism.
https://theslowburningfuse.wordpress.com/2019/08/14/the-struggle-against-fascism-begins-with-the-struggle-against-bolshevism/
It doesn’t hit all 14, but it’s a good chunk of them. You don’t need to hit all 14 to be considered Fascist.
Those are not Eco’s 14 points, those are a brand new set of points, unsupported and uncited, from an Anarchist’s perspective. Marxism in general would be considered Right-Wing in the eyes of the author, who again just made 9 blanket, unsupported vibes-based claims. The USSR and Marxism-Leninism only really hit one or two points of the espoused 14 from Eco, much fewer than the vast majority of current states.
Additionally, Bernard Henri Lévy, the author cited by the author of your article as the basis for the article, is a Zionist, and is anti-palestine. He’s also pro-American, and pro-liberal, not a leftist.
“Bernard-Henri Lévy has used the term in arguing that some European intellectuals have been infatuated with anti-Enlightenment theories and embraced a new absolutist ideology, one that is anti-liberal, anti-American, anti-imperialist, antisemitic and pro-Islamofascist.”
It seems to me that being anti-anti-imperialism, and being a Zionist yet attacking Marxism might call into question Lévy’s motives.
Did you actually read Ur-fascism from Umberto Eco, or did you just google “Marxism fascism” and grab one of the first results? Neither your previous comment nor this one have answered my question.
Why do I need to write a 20-page thesis on why tankies are fascists? If you’re a Tankie, and it seems like you are because you are being very defensive, what could I write that could convince you that tankies are fascists?
Let’s try this another way.
Do you personally believe that democracies are good? That law should be decided by people?
Or do you believe that authoritarians are the best way to rule?
I’m a Marxist, and you’ve called Marxist-Leninists fascists. By your definition, I am both a Tankie and a Fascist for wanting a democratically run Worker State. If you want to convince me of Marxism being fascist, answer the question I originally asked: how does Marxism, Marxism-Leninism, or the USSR, satisfy Umberto Eco’s 14 points on fascism? You linked an article referencing a Zionist and Imperialist as a good authority on why Marxism is fascist, I wonder why you consider Zionists good company, but Marxists to be evil fascists?
Every Marxist believes democracy is good and that law should be decided by the people. Since you like Wikipedia, you might want to read about how Democracy was structured in the USSR.
Genuinely, what does this sentence even mean? Are you asking if I believe all important decisions should be made by unaccountable strong leaders? No, of course not, no Marxist does. If you mean I believe in having a government, then yes, I am a Marxist, not an Anarchist.
Apples and oranges. You can have fascism with any political system. The overuse of tankies is a indicator that the accusing party doesn’t really understand that.
No, you can’t. When a Marxist becomes a red fascist they stop being a Marxist and become a liar.
Either can be both fascists and liars.
Fascists are always liars obsessed with social heirarchy. Marxists are anti-racist and anti-heirarchy. You are not a Marxist if you’re a fascist. Cope.
Ah yes that purity of spirit that a the marxist tries to gaslight with. Grow up. People are people and trying to suggest what you suggest is as bigoted as any maga.
Just like a liberal can support an unrestrained dictatorship, right?
Or a piece of dogshit is a rose if you say it is?
Idiot.
Weak childish argument.
Idiot.
“Objective definitions mean things.” -Me
“Reee weak argument no u”- Some shitlib that can’t even define liberal.