Comment on Does Lemmy need a fork or a rewrite due to its maintainers views?
comfy@lemmy.ml 2 weeks agoNo, fascism and communism aren’t “opposites”
I don’t believe politics is simple enough to allow opposites, but if there were such a thing, those two ideologies would be pretty close. Fascists are ideologically anti-communist and communists are always among the first they mass murder. Communists (along with anarchists) are consistently the foundation of anti-fascist action.
while communism is a highly ideological philosophy that’s never existed
“Yes, and,”
This is where terminology plays tricks:
- A communist society is the ultimate goal of the ideology called ‘communism’.
- You’re absolutely correct that no country has a communist society; in fact, it’s a contradiction, since a communist society is stateless by definition.
- The countries that are labelled ‘communist’ (by themselves and others) are states with a communist government in power. This strategy of vanguardism is strongly debated among communists: many would agree with you that it’s a contradiction, while others consider it a necessary transitional phase in order to defend from capitalist counter-attack. If we assume that the vanguard government is not corrupt (and we shouldn’t assume that without evidence!), then it’s a government that aims to create the material conditions that would cause itself to wither away, piece by piece. Obviously none has succeeded in that goal, but it’s not wrong to call those governments ‘communist’, in the same way a person who supports socialism is called a ‘socialist’ - it’s about a school of thought, about ideology, rather than describing the current situation they govern over. And to characterize authoritarian communists as fascist is ignorant about how fascist systems develop - fascism works to kill socialism and liberalism with the backing of the owning-class. No matter how many similar characteristics one may try and find on the surface, the two concepts are foundationally incompatible and opposed, and will act very differently. It’s fine to hate them both, but they are not related.
MyMindIsLikeAnOcean@piefed.world 2 weeks ago
The “transitional phase” definitely isn’t communism, and I would argue the term was co-opted by people as a pretext to execute different ideologies…especially in the examples you’re using. The word communism is used as a weapon by too many. You can’t just say “The USSR was bad because of communism, end of story”, for example. It was never communist, and I would argue it eas never trying to get there.
It’s absolutely wrong to call those countries communist. Each example is different. When authoritarian states use labels…they’re generally meaningless. Is North Korea a republic? Was The Soviet Union?
You’re using all these fraught terms like “socialism” and “liberalism” incorrectly. You’d be far better off by defining your terms, rather than just throwing them around. I mean…you don’t really sound like you know what you’re talking about. The Nazis rose out of National Bolshevism, after all.
comfy@lemmy.ml 2 weeks ago
On one hand, I know you’re right that socialist rhetoric is abused. It’s vitally important to be alert to it, and fascists have a proven history of trying to exploit socialist sentiment, given their rise in response to a string of 1920s socialist uprisings in Europe.
On the other, I can’t look at the decades-worth of writings and actions of the RSDLP and Bolsheviks and conclude they weren’t honestly trying to build a vanguard party with the aim of building a communist society. I’m open to critique of whether or not Leninist theory has been shown to be right or wrong, but I struggle to see how Lenin could have been pretending to be a communist full-time for 20 years at extended self-sacrifice. An opportunist wouldn’t have chosen a path with such little opportunity. The Bolsheviks were evidently a vanguardist party trying to eventually achieve communism - a ‘communist party’.
I’m using them in a way consistent with political dictionaries.
Fascism is, openly, anti-liberal. This is not a contested fact, they say it openly. It’s one of the few consistent parts of fascism, along with being anti-socialist (‘socialist’, in this context, being social ownership of the means of production - a very standard and common definition in English dictionaries and encyclopedias alike).
*Summary of nine dictionaries all with similar primary definitions of 'socialism'*
Image
You accuse me of using those terms incorrectly, so what would you consider a correct usage?
No, they didn’t.
A cursory look at the Nazi Party’s history clearly shows their utter disdain and scapegoating of Bolshevism as a grave evil. The Nazi Party founder (Anton Drexler) was an anti-Marxist. Drexler emphasised the only thing ‘socialist’ about the party was social welfare for those deemed Aryan. The Nazi Party considered nazbols to be a strand of Bolshevism and therefore part of a Jewish conspiracy.