Define "Left".

[Tahuti]

The whole point of Fascism was that "you" don't exist. You're just a part of Italy, or wherever. (And since Fascism itself didn't really gain a whole lot of popularity outside of Italy...) The Soviet Union, on the other hand, began at least theoretically with explicitly anti-nationalistic goals and structure and retained that structure for its entire existence before it helped bring the whole country down. The cynical employment of nationalistic propaganda in times of military extremity doesn't really affect that. Kazakhs, for instance, were not urged to consider themselves as part of "Russia". Neither were, say, Azeris.

Theoretically, the USSR was anti-nationalist, but then again, theoretically, the USSR was far-left and dedicated to absolute equality of its citizens. However, nothing could be further from the truth than saying USSR fulfilled Marx' theories and predictions. In practice, the USSR was staunchly nationalistic, particularly after the rise of Stalin. And while the USSR indeed didn't try to assimilate or destroy minorities in the fashion Nazi-Germany did, neither did Fascist Italy, who instead sent ethnic Italian colonists to such exotic far-away paradises like Libya, Albania or Abyssinia with the intention to make the indigenious ethnic groups minorities in their own native country. And guess what, that's exactly what the USSR did in the Baltics and Kazakhstan! This combined with the totalitarianism and militarism of the Soviet state, made it not at all unlike Fascist Italy. If the Third Reich was Fascist, than the USSR was as well.

 

[Traitorfish]

That seems to me evidence that none of those factors are what define "fascism", rather than it being the case that the USSR was crypto-fascist.

 

[Tahuti]

That seems to me evidence that none of those factors are what define "fascism", rather than it being the case that the USSR was crypto-fascist.

Well how do you define fascism? If fascism isn't an ideology that seeks totalitarianism, palingenetic ultra-nationalism, militarism, merger of the economy with state control over religion, as the USSR, Saddam's Iraq, Assad's Syria, Nazi-Germany and Fascist Italy all did, then what is it otherwise?

 

[Crezth]

If the Third Reich was Fascist, than the USSR was as well.

The Third Reich wasn't fascist, so...

And we have defined fascism multiple times in this thread already.

 

[salty mud]

1.a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism

This is the definition of fascism. There is no need to argue over it; it is written above.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I agree with the honourable mr. Mud.

And I see little overlap with left- or right-wing policies people here subscribe to.

 

[Crezth]

1.a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism

This is the definition of fascism. There is no need to argue over it; it is written above.

What a terrible definition.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Parade cancelled

 

[Ajidica]

Theoretically, the USSR was anti-nationalist, but then again, theoretically, the USSR was far-left and dedicated to absolute equality of its citizens. However, nothing could be further from the truth than saying USSR fulfilled Marx' theories and predictions. In practice, the USSR was staunchly nationalistic, particularly after the rise of Stalin. And while the USSR indeed didn't try to assimilate or destroy minorities in the fashion Nazi-Germany did, neither did Fascist Italy, who instead sent ethnic Italian colonists to such exotic far-away paradises like Libya, Albania or Abyssinia with the intention to make the indigenious ethnic groups minorities in their own native country. And guess what, that's exactly what the USSR did in the Baltics and Kazakhstan!

Stalin's treatment of minorities and Russian nationalism is hardly a good baseline to measure the rest of the USSR. Lenin, Kruschev, Brezhnev, Andropov, Chernenko, and Gorbachev all went out of their way to castigate Russian nationalism. The Soviets were big on fostering nationalism among ethnic minorities because of their whole historical inevitability thing. Countries first have to experiance nationalism before they can be communist, plus it was a useful unifying agent that was separate from Tsars. Lenin went to great lengths to try and demonstrate to the Central Asian minorities that the Soviet Union was not simply the Russian Empire with a new paint job. To that end he established a large number of new and theoreticaly independant SFRs in those areas taking territory away from the RSFSR.
In fact, the Soviet's support for independant national movement was a major factor in the collapse of the Soviet Union as a political entity (their economy was already long gone).

This combined with the totalitarianism and militarism of the Soviet state, made it not at all unlike Fascist Italy. If the Third Reich was Fascist, than the USSR was as well.

Firstly, totalitarianism does a piss poor job of describing the Soviet Union except under the worst excesses of Stalinism and suggests a North Korean sort of affairs which clashes greatly with the increased social liberties gained under Kruschev and Gorbachev (which Brezhnev didn't really do much about besides general conservatism). Secondly, while the government of the USSR under Stalin shared some physical elements with Fascist governments, the whole ideology of the Soviet Union, but official and unofficial, was at distinct odds with the ideology promoted by Fascism. Under the later Soviet premiers the difference becomes even more apparent.

 

[salty mud]

What a terrible definition.

If you think your definition is better than the dictionary's, then by all means take it up with them.

 

[Crezth]

If you think your definition is better than the dictionary's, then by all means take it up with them.

I don't see why I should have to. The dictionary is written by linguists, not historians, so their opinions on political theory should be taken with a grain of salt.

 

[salty mud]

Do you take issue with every word in the dictionary?

And why would a historian have a more accurate view of fascism? Depending on their political views it would surely be biased, no? If anything, a linguist would have a more unbiased approach.

 

[Ajidica]

If anything, a linguist would have a more unbiased approach.

Or the linguist knows jack about a given topic, which means their definition is pretty useless no matter how unbiased it is.

 

[Crezth]

Do you take issue with every word in the dictionary?

Just that one.

And why would a historian have a more accurate view of fascism? Depending on their political views it would surely be biased, no? If anything, a linguist would have a more unbiased approach.

What the hell do you think historians do? Sit around being political all day? It's about understanding context and history. Someone who knows the time period and understands the political machinations and evolutions of the day is more likely to have a useful, critical insight on a political science concept than someone who looks at how people use words (in politics, no less). Christ, we throw around the word "fascist" to describe people like George Bush and Barack Obama. That's hardly paying useful credence to the substance of the actual concept of fascism.

 

[IdiotsOpposite]

Do you take issue with every word in the dictionary?

And why would a historian have a more accurate view of fascism? Depending on their political views it would surely be biased, no? If anything, a linguist would have a more unbiased approach.

That's kind of like saying we should have a biologist decide which theory at the quantum level is best, because he's more unbiased.

 

[innonimatu]

Totalitarianism was a stupid political category to start with. It was never realized anywhere as Arendt and later propagandists of the concept described it. As with most political propaganda one does well to suspect the reasons why this idea was promoted. The italian fascists stated it as a goal because it was beyond their ability to achieve - all the fascist shows and new organizations were necessary because their hold over Italy was tenuous. The idea of totalitarianism was part of the propaganda necessary to put up a facade of control.
The inner conflicts and fragmentation of power in nazi germany is also well acknowledged now. And the idea that the USSR was "totalitarian" falls on its face when it is confronted with the evidence that this so-called totalitarian regime dismantled itself - so much for totalitarianism! The "boot stamping on a man's face, forever", as Orwell (much more eloquently that that academic hack Arendt) described it, really hasn't ever worked. There are always boots, always people being stepped upon, but all political systems have been unstable.

 

[Ailedhoo]

Do you take issue with every word in the dictionary?

And why would a historian have a more accurate view of fascism? Depending on their political views it would surely be biased, no? If anything, a linguist would have a more unbiased approach.

Biases may be found but a more... political scientific definion is required, especilly as your verse on industry and commerce is not... sceintificly clear.

 

[Dachs]

And the idea that the USSR was "totalitarian" falls on its face when it is confronted with the evidence that this so-called totalitarian regime dismantled itself - so much for totalitarianism!

I don't see how that disproves the claim that the Soviet Union had a "totalitarian" government at all.

 

[Traitorfish]

Well how do you define fascism? If fascism isn't an ideology that seeks totalitarianism, palingenetic ultra-nationalism, militarism, merger of the economy with state control over religion, as the USSR, Saddam's Iraq, Assad's Syria, Nazi-Germany and Fascist Italy all did, then what is it otherwise?

The problem isn't whether or not this is an accurate definition of "fascism" (it's a little broad, but that's another discussion), but that this isn't an accurate description of the Soviet Union at any point in its history.

I don't see how that disproves the claim that the Soviet Union had a "totalitarian" government at all.

If a totalitarian regime permits no political dissent, then it should be structurally near-incapable of dismantling itself, because it would not be possible for any pro-dissolution clique to emerge. The only way it would be possible is if the entire ruling stratum gradually came around to the opinion that it would be preferable to do so, and the actual history of the breakup of the USSR would seem to prove that this stratum was anything but homogeneous in its opinion.

 

[Cutlass]

If a totalitarian regime permits no political dissent, then it should be structurally near-incapable of dismantling itself, because it would not be possible for any pro-dissolution clique to emerge. The only way it would be possible is if the entire ruling stratum gradually came around to the opinion that it would be preferable to do so, and the actual history of the breakup of the USSR would seem to prove that this stratum was anything but homogeneous in its opinion.

That makes some assumptions about the hypothetical totalitarian regime that I don't think are supportable. Primarily that despite every effort to be totalitarian, there may be any number of circumstances where they fall short of the intended mark.