Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Why is communism not as socially stigmatised as fascism? watch

    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bagration)
    Well ok, but a Communist is somebody who advocates the creation of the stateless society after the transition state, no? And a Communist [state] can be either a transition state aiming for the stateless society or the stateless society itself.
    Not all communists believe in the dictatorship of the proletariat as a transition state (see anarcho-communists). A Communist state is an oxymoron theoretically. The transitional state is not communism. Even Stalin said they were building towards communism, he did not call the USSR a communist society.

    btw - vanguardism is a Leninist term, not a Marxist term. The mainstream Marxists of the day (remember the Bolsheviks were a very small group before 1917) regarded Lenin (correctly imo) as a rightist deviation from what was understoof to be Marxism at the time.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JakePearson)
    Yep.

    The only difference between fascism and communism is that the former wants total power to be given to one person, and the latter wants total power to be given to a committee.
    The Nazi regime was far more of a polyarchy than you are implying. Hitler did not control every aspect of the state, far from it.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stalin)
    How is fascism utopia if followed perfectly...
    Whoops good point sorry that was exceedingly stupid, applies to communism at least.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mr_K_Dilkington)
    This is all incorrect. Marx never advocated anything like Soviet Union or the GDR as the model of the dictatorship of the proletariat. What did he base his model on? The Paris Commune. The features of this included grassroots democracy, federalism, accountable representatives who were subject to quick recall by their constituents if they were not happy with their performance. He never advocated a "totalitarian" transition state at all. His opposition to parliaments was not an opposition to democracy, it was an opposition to democracy for the bourgeois, which is what parliaments were at the time.
    Marxism is incredibly totalitarian. It advocates the annihalation of anything except the proletarian classes, for whom all society is organised and everybody not a member of the proletarian classes is a class enemy. Eventually, it says, the entire world must follow this ideology because ... well, because it has to, because that's what history says.

    As you know, Marx set out a rough ten point plan that would be required to establish the transitional state. All ten of them were implemented by the USSR. The USSR followed by the word the practice laid out in the Communist Manifesto to achieve Communism.

    Sure, he may have preferred grasroots democracy. There's no reason why he may not have found a dictatorial communist state that nonetheless aggressively pursued all other elements of communist ideology a good thing.

    (Original post by Mr_K_Dilkington)
    Now you might very well argue that totalitarianism and terror are inherent in societies which try to implement this change, but if you think Marx would be happy with the USSR or the GDR then you need to read more Marx.
    Or maybe you need to remove that halo from Marx's head. The USSR and the GDR achieved many aims of Marxism, most notably the annihalation of bourgeoise elements of society and the political and economic rule of the proletariat. Communism is necessarily totalitarian as it gives total power to one authority, i.e. the proletariat.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by God of War)
    There is a lot of ignorance in this thread. :rolleyes:

    Fascism and Communism are simply two sides of the same coin. That is the simple truth. Think about it.
    Not really.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JakePearson)
    Unless you're rich or oppose any policy, drilled-in opinion or propaganda.

    Oh, and in the case of Stalin, Jewish.

    its already been said in this thread that this is due to practice not ideology
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mr_K_Dilkington)
    Not all communists believe in the dictatorship of the proletariat as a transition state (see anarcho-communists). A Communist state is an oxymoron theoretically. The transitional state is not communism. Even Stalin said they were building towards communism, he did not call the USSR a communist society.
    Ok, but since I previously acknowledge the existence of other forms of Communism, I think it was pretty clear I was talking about Marxists.

    (Original post by Mr_K_Dilkington)
    btw - vanguardism is a Leninist term, not a Marxist term. The mainstream Marxists of the day (remember the Bolsheviks were a very small group before 1917) regarded Lenin (correctly imo) as a rightist deviation from what was understoof to be Marxism at the time.
    Oh Lenin, that naughty capitalist...

    I don't see Marxism and Communism ought to be synonymous. Kropotkin disagreed with Marx on so many issues but he can still rightfully be called a Communist (just like Marx might conceivably be called an Anarchist for his idea of the stateless society.)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bagration)
    Well ok, but a Communist is somebody who advocates the creation of the stateless society after the transition state, no? And a Communist [state] can be either a transition state aiming for the stateless society or the stateless society itself.
    I agree with your definition of a communist, but not with your definition of what counts as a communist state. A state run by communists is not necessarily under communism: communism, technically speaking at least, is a term referring to the stateless society after the transition. The Soviet Union hadn't abolished property, nor had it dismantled the state. If you want to use the general definition of communism, though, then it was.

    Wikipedia briefly describes "Reactionary (also reactionist) refers to any political or social movement or ideology that seeks a return to a previous state"; I mean, ok, using wiki isn't always a particularly great idea but it demonstrates the point here. Fascist regimes hark back to the glory of the nation, or the glory of institutions that have been or are being attacked. Revolutionary states seek to impose new institutions and to move a country in a new direction, often one radically against those that Fascists seek to preserve. It depends, I think. Race based fascism is often more revolutionary than reactionary (i.e. Nazism) but simple authoritarian fascism is usually largely reactionary. Communism is always looking for the overthrow of the capitalist system everywhere and so it is still always revolutionary.
    OK, I mis-spoke in calling the late Soviet Union a reactionary state. But neither was it revolutionary, at least within it's own borders: instead, it sought to maintain the status quo. I agree that it's efforts to spread communism were hampered more by lack of money than lack of will, but internally the state was not moving the country in a new direction (except towards rapprochement with the United States, but that was a case of political and economic necessity).
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JakePearson)
    Yep.

    The only difference between fascism and communism is that the former wants total power to be given to one person, and the latter wants total power to be given to a committee.

    what is our parliament if it isn't a (big) committee?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Cap'n)
    OK, I mis-spoke in calling the late Soviet Union a reactionary state. But neither was it revolutionary, at least within it's own borders: instead, it sought to maintain the status quo. I agree that it's efforts to spread communism were hampered more by lack of money than lack of will, but internally the state was not moving the country in a new direction (except towards rapprochement with the United States, but that was a case of political and economic necessity).
    The Soviet Union was definitely a revolutionary state. The revolutions are normally the giveaways.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Cap'n)
    I agree with your definition of a communist, but not with your definition of what counts as a communist state. A state run by communists is not necessarily under communism: communism, technically speaking at least, is a term referring to the stateless society after the transition. The Soviet Union hadn't abolished property, nor had it dismantled the state. If you want to use the general definition of communism, though, then it was
    Well, what's the problem with the general definition? I will concede then that the USSR wasn't a Communist State but it was a Socialist State ostensibly aiming for Communism.

    (Original post by The Cap'n)
    OK, I mis-spoke in calling the late Soviet Union a reactionary state. But neither was it revolutionary, at least within it's own borders: instead, it sought to maintain the status quo. I agree that it's efforts to spread communism were hampered more by lack of money than lack of will, but internally the state was not moving the country in a new direction (except towards rapprochement with the United States, but that was a case of political and economic necessity).
    I would like to agree with you on this issue and let it to rest, but I really can't. I still think the USSR was a revolutionary state who's primary aim was world revolution. Socialism in one country was more of a Stalinist thing. Dialectics led Soviet authorities to believe that if progress was being made then they didn't need to do anything; history would let the rest work for them. The Soviets were very concerned with this word progress; % increases in output, education, etc etc. Lying was systemic in every bureau of the USSR but this wasn't because they didn't want Communism, it was because each element was scared of the repercussions if it was seen to be that they weren't working hard enough to achieve it.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bagration)
    Marxism is incredibly totalitarian. It advocates the annihalation of anything except the proletarian classes, for whom all society is organised and everybody not a member of the proletarian classes is a class enemy. Eventually, it says, the entire world must follow this ideology because ... well, because it has to, because that's what history says.

    As you know, Marx set out a rough ten point plan that would be required to establish the transitional state. All ten of them were implemented by the USSR. The USSR followed by the word the practice laid out in the Communist Manifesto to achieve Communism.

    Sure, he may have preferred grasroots democracy. There's no reason why he may not have found a dictatorial communist state that nonetheless aggressively pursued all other elements of communist ideology a good thing.
    Who wrote this? Three guesses!

    “From Blanqui’s assumption, that any revolution may be made by the outbreak of a small revolutionary minority, follows of itself the necessity of a dictatorship after the success of the venture. This is, of course, a dictatorship, not of the entire revolutionary class, the proletariat, but of the small minority that has made the revolution and who are themselves previously organized under the dictatorship of one or several individuals.”

    Oh wait, this smashes your idea that Marx would have supported the October Revolution (a vanguardist, 'Blanquist' seizure of power by a 'small revolutionary minority.') He certainly would not have approved of the Bolsheviks closing down of the Soviets, the suppression of the SRs, Mensheviks and other groups etc etc.

    (Original post by Bagration)
    Or maybe you need to remove that halo from Marx's head. The USSR and the GDR achieved many aims of Marxism, most notably the annihalation of bourgeoise elements of society and the political and economic rule of the proletariat. Communism is necessarily totalitarian as it gives total power to one authority, i.e. the proletariat.
    The USSR and the GDR gave power to the proletariat now did they? I don't think so some how... They gave power to the small revolutionary minority detailed above, NOT the proletariat.

    I'm under no illusions about Marx and Engels advocation of force. What I am contesting is your ridiculous notion that Marx was basically a Stalinist.

    Calling the GDR what Marx would have wanted is just astounding - the country was invaded and subjected to a Stalinist revolution from above. Hardly the working class emancipating itself as Marx and Engles wished.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Octopus)
    The Soviet Union was definitely a revolutionary state. The revolutions are normally the giveaways.
    Try re-reading what I said instead of trying to patronise me. I was talking about the late Soviet Union. Yes, obviously the early Soviet Union was a revolutionary state. But sometime after Stalin, it stopped being revolutionary and began to maintain itself as it was.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bagration)
    Oh Lenin, that naughty capitalist...
    Sigh. That's clearly not what I am saying.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    You are completely wrong as many have already pointed out.

    Communism is not just about economics, although they point a lot of emphasis on that.

    Fascism is not the same thing as oppression which is what you are basically implying.

    Here is a wikipedia article which discusses what fascism is.

    Most of the confusion is due to the left using the word "fascist" against anyone who disagrees with them, including social democrats.
    It's easy to ride on other people's comments without providing your own argument by saying 'as others have pointed out', but never the less, I'll engage with what you're saying.

    The core of communism is economic determinism, which you know just as well as I do, the basic idea of an entirely socialist state.

    I'm not saying 'Fascism = Oppression'. If that's what I said, point to where I said that? I said fascism is a form of extreme authoritarianism, which leads to oppression.

    I'm not using 'fascist' in the wrong term and I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make about social democracy. Another far-rightwinger I see.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Cap'n)
    Try re-reading what I said instead of trying to patronise me. I was talking about the late Soviet Union. Yes, obviously the early Soviet Union was a revolutionary state. But sometime after Stalin, it stopped being revolutionary and began to maintain itself as it was.
    You said "OK, I mis-spoke in calling the late Soviet Union a reactionary state. But neither was it revolutionary, at least within it's own borders: instead, it sought to maintain the status quo."

    It is hardly clear you are talking specifically about the late Soviet Union.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mr_K_Dilkington)
    Who wrote this? Three guesses!

    “From Blanqui’s assumption, that any revolution may be made by the outbreak of a small revolutionary minority, follows of itself the necessity of a dictatorship after the success of the venture. This is, of course, a dictatorship, not of the entire revolutionary class, the proletariat, but of the small minority that has made the revolution and who are themselves previously organized under the dictatorship of one or several individuals.”

    Oh wait, this smashes your idea that Marx would have supported the October Revolution (a vanguardist, 'Blanquist' seizure of power by a 'small revolutionary minority.') He certainly would not have approved of the Bolsheviks closing down of the Soviets, the suppression of the SRs, Mensheviks and other groups etc etc.
    I don't think so. He doesn't make any reference to the class of the "small minority that has made the revolution..." should they be proletariats, why not? Why not have Vanguardism if it is being led by the proletariat? I don't think that quote at all shows that Marx only wanted the sort of revolution that involved the great mass of the people (which, remember, the Russian revolution was; as far as I remember, the Bolsheviks didn't take over until they forcibly took power from the Parliament as they declared it bourgeoise and anti-marxist...) because it doesn't specify the class or status of the small minority leading the revolution.

    The USSR and the GDR gave power to the proletariat now did they? I don't think so some how... They gave power to the small revolutionary minority detailed above, NOT the proletariat.

    (Original post by Mr_K_Dilkington)
    I'm under no illusions about Marx and Engels advocation of force. What I am contesting is your ridiculous notion that Marx was basically a Stalinist.

    Calling the GDR what Marx would have wanted is just astounding - the country was invaded and subjected to a Stalinist revolution from above. Hardly the working class emancipating itself as Marx and Engles wished.
    I'm not saying that at all. My previous point about design illustrated this. If Marx or Engels, or any other Communist were to have seen the design of the USSR, I don't think that there is much evidence that they would have seen it as a fascist entity! It is the results that the USSR produced that make people think that, not it's design. My point wasn't that Marx was a Stalinist or that if he had a choice he would lead a revolution to create a Stalinist state, just that the Soviet Union was in fact a Socialist entity because it followed sufficient tenets of pre-existing Socialist ideology as well as its own formative ideology to make it so.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jumpingjesusholycow)
    It's easy to ride on other people's comments without providing your own argument by saying 'as others have pointed out', but never the less, I'll engage with what you're saying.

    The core of communism is economic determinism, which you know just as well as I do, the basic idea of an entirely socialist state.

    I'm not saying 'Fascism = Oppression'. If that's what I said, point to where I said that? I said fascism is a form of extreme authoritarianism, which leads to oppression.

    I'm not using 'fascist' in the wrong term and I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make about social democracy. Another far-rightwinger I see.
    Do I need to repeat my statement for the fourth time...? Or are you just outright ignoring me now?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Octopus)
    You are confusing authoritarianism and fascism. A fascist state is necessarily authoritarian, but an authoritarian state is not necessarily a fascist state.
    The Soviet Union was authoritarian and communist - the combination of these aspects characterise Stalinism. Nazi Germany was authoritarian, but not communist - it mixed state control of industry with big business.

    It seems like you are thinking of a 2-D political map, and thinking that since communism and what is traditionally called fascism, are both socially authoritarian they are both fascist states.
    This is just a misunderstanding of the word fascist.

    Not to mention there are other differences between Stalinism and true Fascism, which are not represented simply as economic left-right and social/personal freedom, such as the reactionary/revolutionary differences pointed out above.
    I never said Nazi Germany was communist? When did I say that?

    'An authoritarian state is not necessarily a fascist state'. I'm aware of that, but lets be specific here. What wasn't facist about the USSR?

    You're applying social principals to an economic infrastructure by stating communism is intrinsically authoritarian. But now we're just nitpicking with definitions now.

    To answer the OP, the communist state of the USSR WAS fascist. The fascist nature of Nazi Germany being so bold as to wage war and kill 3,000,000 jews is why fascism in that sense is so strongly stigmatised.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bagration)
    I've told you why you're wrong twice but you have totally ignored me. I'll repeat it: Communism is a revolutionary ideology. The Soviet Union was a revolutionary body. Fascism is a reactionary ideology. Almost all fascist states, regardless of how they've come to power, have been reactionary.

    Again, your definition of Communism is wrong. Communism isn't just about "spreading the wealth around", it's about removing class hierarchies in society.

    Your definition of fascism is wrong. Fascism is an ideology that places the nation or the people above the individual. So it applies to society, economics, everything, it is entirely all-encompassing.

    The bold text: No, that's marxism. And that's where you've gone wrong.

    As for your definition of Fascism, you're right to a degree. But then, communism specifically refers to the economic side politics.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.