On the other, tankies are fascists. They just happen to prefer their slaves to be communal, rather than spread out amongst corpos.
Stalin was a fascist. Being a Stalinist means you’re a fascist. Ergo, tankies are fascists.
Centralization of power is always bad. Because fascism is always bad. We need to stop looking at bygone eras of centralized power structures and move towards a more federational (federated) power/governance structure.
Then we need to get rid of the power balance for good. Until then, be weary of communists masquerading under the same flag but pushing for power centralization.
Communism isn’t a form of governance, our first step should be to mold our democratic republic around it instead of capitalism. Then change it as our needs demand.
Easier said than done, I realize, but change is possible. Fingers crossed it happens soon. Sorry about the rant.
Sta·lin·ism
/ˈstäləˌniz(ə)m/
noun
the ideology and policies adopted by Stalin, based on centralization, totalitarianism, and the pursuit of communism.
Sorry, but it’s true, Stalin was a fascist. Democratic centralization is still power centralization, and runs counter to all of communism’s economic ideologies.
You’ve said nothing that actually fits Stalin into any of the many definitions of fascism.
No reference to Eco, no mention of palingenetic ultranationalism, you could maybe use Gregor to fit your view even though other scholars discount his positions and ideas, but you don’t.
Even if you used the definition from a man killed as a result of Stalin, Trotsky, you still wouldn’t have a definition that found Stalin to be a fascist.
Dislike him if you want but use words that actually fit him and what he did. Fascist isn’t it.
Yeah, I didn’t mention them because they’re literal set dressing used by a dictator to convince people he wasn’t one. It’s worse if the man truly thought creating a centralized power structure would be beneficial to Marxist principles, because he himself proved that it can’t work.
Here’s why: once you establish a centralized power structure, it doesn’t matter how kind or charismatic the person (or small group) in charge is, it is the literal definition of fascism.
I don’t know how to more clearly put this. Even if I give you the benefit of the doubt, he created a centralized power structure that was immediately corrupted and abused. You’re saying “but look at all this other stuff” like it takes away from the fact that this is fascism.
What I don’t get how you reconcile communism with totalitarianism (literally fascism with extra steps).
The reason fascism continues to exists is because of people like you giving everything to charismatic conmen. Stalin is dead and you continue to defend him as if he didn’t do what he did. He’s directly responsible for the state of Russia today, and you think that’s somehow a good thing.
A power vaccum, like the one Stalin created as a result of his own death, ALWAYS gets filled by a greedy, power hungry asshole. It may take a few iterations, but the outcome is inevitable.
I find your (and the literal) definition of fascism to be lacking if it doesnt include Stalin. The charlatan dictator.
On the one hand, yes, absolutely.
On the other, tankies are fascists. They just happen to prefer their slaves to be communal, rather than spread out amongst corpos.
Stalin was a fascist. Being a Stalinist means you’re a fascist. Ergo, tankies are fascists.
Centralization of power is always bad. Because fascism is always bad. We need to stop looking at bygone eras of centralized power structures and move towards a more federational (federated) power/governance structure.
Then we need to get rid of the power balance for good. Until then, be weary of communists masquerading under the same flag but pushing for power centralization.
Communism isn’t a form of governance, our first step should be to mold our democratic republic around it instead of capitalism. Then change it as our needs demand.
Easier said than done, I realize, but change is possible. Fingers crossed it happens soon. Sorry about the rant.
This is very incorrect. Hate Stalin if you want but he wasn’t a fascist.
Sta·lin·ism /ˈstäləˌniz(ə)m/ noun the ideology and policies adopted by Stalin, based on centralization, totalitarianism, and the pursuit of communism.
Sorry, but it’s true, Stalin was a fascist. Democratic centralization is still power centralization, and runs counter to all of communism’s economic ideologies.
You’ve said nothing that actually fits Stalin into any of the many definitions of fascism.
No reference to Eco, no mention of palingenetic ultranationalism, you could maybe use Gregor to fit your view even though other scholars discount his positions and ideas, but you don’t.
Even if you used the definition from a man killed as a result of Stalin, Trotsky, you still wouldn’t have a definition that found Stalin to be a fascist.
Dislike him if you want but use words that actually fit him and what he did. Fascist isn’t it.
Yeah, I didn’t mention them because they’re literal set dressing used by a dictator to convince people he wasn’t one. It’s worse if the man truly thought creating a centralized power structure would be beneficial to Marxist principles, because he himself proved that it can’t work.
Here’s why: once you establish a centralized power structure, it doesn’t matter how kind or charismatic the person (or small group) in charge is, it is the literal definition of fascism.
I don’t know how to more clearly put this. Even if I give you the benefit of the doubt, he created a centralized power structure that was immediately corrupted and abused. You’re saying “but look at all this other stuff” like it takes away from the fact that this is fascism.
What I don’t get how you reconcile communism with totalitarianism (literally fascism with extra steps).
By your definition almost any form of government is fascist. It that’s your opinion, fine, but it’s not the ‘literal definition’.
The reason fascism continues to exists is because of people like you giving everything to charismatic conmen. Stalin is dead and you continue to defend him as if he didn’t do what he did. He’s directly responsible for the state of Russia today, and you think that’s somehow a good thing.
A power vaccum, like the one Stalin created as a result of his own death, ALWAYS gets filled by a greedy, power hungry asshole. It may take a few iterations, but the outcome is inevitable.
I find your (and the literal) definition of fascism to be lacking if it doesnt include Stalin. The charlatan dictator.
Yup, the poster is passionate but very very wrong.