Tankie in 1956: Getting into your T-90 and driving across the Hungarian border to brutally suppress an uprising of (coughnationalcough) socialists protesting Soviet occupation
Tankie in 2024: Getting into your PSA Bronto and doing donuts in your neighborhood cul de sac blaring “Don’t Vote for Joe Biden” out of a megaphone, until police show up and drag you off to prison for violating a noise ordinance.
Wish the people emulating (knowingly or unknowingly) the ideology of Ernst Thälmann would look a little harder at how that worked out for both Germany and him.
Wishing the people emulating (knowingly or unknowingly) the ideology of the SDP would look a little harder at how backing Hindenburg instead of Thälmann worked out for both Germany and them.
Ok, first of all it’s the SPD, the SDP is the UK. Oh yeah, obviously it was the moderate democratic socialists who supported democracy that were to blame and not the stalinists who openly allied with Nazis to dismantle the democratic government. And guess what, most of the KPD that made it to the Soviet Union were killed by Stalin or handed back to the Gestapo anyways, what great people they followed.
The KPD declared the SPD their greatest enemy, not the other way around.
I will concede the KPD responded more appropriately to Hitler taking power, but it was too fucking late then anyways. Even the KPD internal resistance had pretty limited effect. At least the SPD operated the government in exile.
The SPD was more than happy to paint the KPD as their enemies as well, the rift between them started with the SPD’s unconditional support of WWI and violent suppression of antiwar efforts. The KPD did not ever “openly ally with the Nazis,” that’s just a bold faced lie.
Somehow, the only people who tried to stop both world wars, and the only people running an anti-Hitler candidate in 1932 get painted as the bad guys. It’s absurd the kinds of mental gymnastics you have to go through to get there.
“In August 1931, to capitalise on their growing popularity, the Nazi Party launched a referendum to overthrow the Social Democratic government of Prussia. At first the KPD correctly attacked it. Then, three weeks before the vote, under orders from Stalin’s Comintern, they joined forces with the fascists to bring down the main enemy, the Social Democrats. They changed the name of the plebiscite to a ‘Red Referendum’ and referred to the fascists and the members of the SA as ‘working people’s comrades’!”
http://www.marxist.com/germany-sewell-chapter-7.htm
My dude, they absolutely did, the KPD enabled Stalin to facilitate the rise to power of the Nazis by allying with them to fight the SPD. Fuck Tankies.
The SPD were just as happy to equate the KPD with the Nazis as the KPD was to call the SPD social fascists.
Voting alongside the Nazis on a referendum is not the same thing as “openly allying with the Nazis.” The status quo at the time was austerity in the middle of a massive economic crisis, it was fundamentally unsustainable. The KPD didn’t want the Nazis to be able to dominate opposition to that. It’s true that they underestimated them, but the answer was not (as the SPD did) throwing their weight behind austerity measures for the sake of stability, it wouldn’t have changed a single thing if they had.
It still remains the fact that the person who put Hitler into power was Hindenburg, who was backed by the SPD.
The thing is, i promised my mom and my history teacher id never vote for a genocider, so my hands are tied. If dems want to run someone who isnt the literal definition of evil, i wouldnt have to vote for trump. Its insane how dems love to use the lesser evil argument right up until theyre convincing us to vote for a genocider.
They’ll actually cheer on for those death squads. If they had their way, they would have their own death squads. Marxists are infamous for their tyranny, genocide, forced deportations, engineered famines, purges, labor camps, hate, and secret police death squads.
Marxism and fascism are sister ideologies because they ultimately want the same things but just from slightly different angles.
Marxism: History is defined by material conditions and value comes from appropriated labour which workers are entitled to. Thus society should be oriented around collective ownership of the means of production in order to elevate the material conditions of the worker and usher in a new age of history. It is inevitable that the owning class will resort to violence to maintain their position and so this change will be a violent struggle. Eventually the state itself should be abolished once the transition is complete. Also this is inevitable because umm science wand wave.
Fascism: Power should be centralised on strong men wiling to make hard choices, everyone else should live subservient to the state. Military power, an ethnonational identity, and autarchy are the highest pursuits. Concession and concensus are weakness, might is the ultimate expression of power and violence for the glory of the nation is beautiful. Modernity is degenerate and we should idolise a mythologised past based around an ethnic group we claim the mantle of.
That’s stupid, that’s not what I implied. I said that they’re sister ideologies that desire the same things just with different approaches, and that’s objectively true.
Fascism was started by Mussolini, who was an infamous Marxist for most of his early life. He used to write for Marxist papers, be an avid Marxist activist, attend Marxist meetings, and even got arrested for rioting for Marxist causes. He, like many other socialists at the time, was against war. However, over time he came to the conclusion that war might not be a bad thing. If wars happened more frequently, it could bring about the social climate necessary for revolutions to happen that would end European monarchies and replace them with socialist systems. However, his ideas were rejected by the other socialists and he was shunned by them.
Mussolini started shifting away from other socialists over what unites men. Socialists believe it’s class, but Mussolini started shifting towards the nation. He and his supporters starting gravitating towards revolutionary nationalism… Professor Anthony Gregor from UC Berkely described Mussolini’s nationalism as the following:
Mussolini’s revolutionary nationalism, while it distinguished itself from the traditional patriotism and nationalism of the bourgeoisie, displayed many of those features we today identify with the nationalism of underdeveloped peoples. It was an anticonservative nationalism that anticipated vast social changes; it was directed against both foreign and domestic oppressors; it conjured up an image of a renewed and regenerated nation that would perform a historical mission; it invoked a moral ideal of selfless sacrifice and commitment in the service of collective goals; and it recalled ancient glories and anticipated a shared and greater glory
Mussolini’s Fascism was very clearly heavily influenced by Marxism. He used a lot of the same ideals, a lot of the same terminology, similar rhetoric, and similar types of analytical lenses. In fact professor Gregor notes that Mussolini’s viewed Fascism as a type of socialism, or rather as the successor of socialism:
“Fascism was the only form of ‘socialism’ appropriate to the proletarian nations of the twentieth century”
Even though Mussolini eventually parted ways with Marxism all together. His opposition to them wasn’t because they were socialists but because they were anti-nationalist. Despite declaring Marxism a failure and socialists as opposition, he still thought and constantly talked about how Fascism was about poor nations rising up against the plutocrats.
When I say they’re sister ideologies, they literally are.
It’s almost like someone who was a Marxist made a new ideology that was not Marxism, had separate goals to Marxism, aligned itself against Marxists, didn’t adopt the social or economic policies of Marxism, but clothed itself in the language of Marxism.
Did you know that Marx was once just a random journalist? Does that mean Marxism is a sister ideology to newspaper businesses? Marxists do write stuff afterall!
It’s almost like someone who was a Marxist made a new ideology that was not Marxism, had separate goals to Marxism, aligned itself against Marxists, didn’t adopt the social or economic policies of Marxism, but clothed itself in the language of Marxism.
Yeah no shit, they’re different ideologies. I’m just pointing out that they’re similar, I’m not saying they’re exactly the same.
Did you know that Marx was once just a random journalist? Does that mean Marxism is a sister ideology to newspaper businesses? Marxists do write stuff afterall!
They’re not at all similar… Like… wtf. All you can say is one violent thug followed Marxism and then stopped follow Marxism, did something completely different, while saying stuff that sounded like Marxism because he knew it sounded good.
Just dot point me, pick idk 5 core areas and just write what fascists proposed vs what Marxists proposed.
I legit cannot thing of anything with overlap except
violence is sometimes good (literally even pacifists believe this)
and
people united in purpose can wield power (again not at all at unique hypothesis)
Authoritarianism is not only acceptable but is encouraged. In fascism this comes in the form of a totalitarian dictatorship and in Marxism it comes in the form of an tyrannical transitional government that rules with an iron fist to establish socialism and bring about the social climate necessary to realize communism (dictatorship of the proletariat).
Ideology revolves around common enemies - In fascism this comes in the form certain ethnicities or nationalities while in Marxism it comes in the form of classes.
Bitterly oppose materialism - Fascism opposes materialism because it is deemed to lack acknowledgement of the role of the spirit, while Marxism opposes materialism because it is deem to be a key engine in class warfare.
Bitterly oppose individualism - Both ideologies revolve around the concepts communality and unity, and so they see individualism as a threat to their core ideological views.
Explicit support of political violence - You’re trying to water it down, but both support widescale poltical violence. Marxism calls for a violent revolution that overthrows capitalism by burning down the capitalist system and institutions (literally and metaphorically) as well as killing the entirety of the bourgeoisie (democide). Fascism calls for political violence as legitimate way to gain power and achieve aims, which includes getting rid of undesirable national, ethnic, racial, or religious groups (genocide).
Authoritarianism is not only acceptable but is encouraged. In fascism this comes in the form of a totalitarian dictatorship and in Marxism it comes in the form of an tyrannical transitional government that rules with an iron fist to establish socialism and bring about the social climate necessary to realize communism (dictatorship of the proletariat).
Marx proposed a temporary state wherein proles, collectively, use the apparatus of the state in an authoritarian manner to manage a transition to a non authoritarian non state. The vanguard party stuff is all Lenin. If you want to compare ML to fascism that’s a separate discussion, iirc Marx is actually pretty vague on what precisely the DotP would actually look like. Fascism proposes an indefinite centralisation of power with the goal of ultimate preservation of the state.
The significant debate and purging around the formation of, for instance, the USSR should be a hint that endorsement of authoritarianism is not really something everyone takes away from a reading of Marx. Incidentally, have you? read marx?
Everything except the most radical anarchist ideologies makes some use of authority in certain circumstances, I think it’s somewhat farcical to draw parallels between crisis and the proposed status quo.
Ideology revolves around common enemies - In fascism this comes in the form certain ethnicities or nationalities while in Marxism it comes in the form of classes.
Wat? This is so ludicrously broad as to apply to everything. Westminster democracy aligns itself against a common enemy of absolute monarchy, republics unite themselves against a nobility, tribes unite themselves against non kin outsiders… Is there an ideology that doesn’t declare itself against some enemy which is protects against?
Bitterly oppose materialism - Fascism opposes materialism because it is deemed to lack acknowledgement of the role of the spirit, while Marxism opposes materialism because it is deem to be a key engine in class warfare.
Sure I guess. Again this is hardly unique to the two. I mean Buddhism does this along with monastic Christianity and new age smoothie cults /shrug
Bitterly oppose individualism - Both ideologies revolve around the concepts communality and unity, and so they see individualism as a threat to their core ideological views.
Ah, you have not read Marx! I can see how you might get this stance but no. This is just false. Marx imagined a utopia where people, regardless of the circumstances of their birth, could pursue individual fulfilment. If I may pretentiously quote:
“For as soon as the distribution of labour comes into being, each man has a particular, exclusive sphere of activity, which is forced upon him and from which he cannot escape. He is a hunter, a fisherman, a herdsman, or a critical critic, and must remain so if he does not want to lose his means of livelihood; while in communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic.”
Seems pretty clearly individualistic to me!
Explicit support of political violence - You’re trying to water it down, but both support widescale poltical violence. Marxism calls for a violent revolution that overthrows capitalism by burning down the capitalist system and institutions (literally and metaphorically) as well as killing the entirety of the bourgeoisie (democide). Fascism calls for political violence as legitimate way to gain power and achieve aims, which includes getting rid of undesirable national, ethnic, racial, or religious groups (genocide).
Actually Marx said it was magically scientifically inevitable that capitalism would collapse in violence. Not that people should set out to do it. Also Marx didn’t want to “burn down the capitalist system and institutions” actually in a straight reading of Marx capitalism is a necessary step to communism. Marx didn’t think it was good, he thought the bourgeoisie would never willingingly surrender power because of their material interest and thus the only way for proles to avoid mass death was instead to unify and take power through violence.
This sounds a lot like “Both involve violence therefore the same” but that’s extraordinarily reductive. I mean literally all governments make themselves governments through control of violence.
So in summary I think you have as similarities:
Don’t like materialism, authority features, has an enemy, and violence features. Which ok, if that makes stuff sister ideologies then it’s a broad tent with literally everything from Liberation Theology Christianity, to westminster democracy, to Peelan Policing sharing sisterhood with Marxism and Fascism.
I think someone with a violent streak a mile long even as a child who became fascinated with populist revolutionary ideologies creating a new populist revolutionary ideology does not really make it inherently twinsies with previous populist revolutionary ideologies other than that they are both exactly that. I think it’s pretty clear in hindsight that what Mussolini was really interested in was gaining power in a populist revolution, no matter the cost or method.
Obviously, with the power of hindsight, we can see that Mussolini didn’t end up being the socialist that he was in his early days. However, it’s still interesting to the influences of Marxism on Fascism as an ideology. They do share a lot of characteristics despite their many differences. This is why the claim that these two ideologies are polar opposites isn’t true. They’re different? Sure. Polar opposites? Not exactly.
There have been a lot of killings and deaths that were intentionally to further goals that were claimed to be Marxist; Lenin and Stalin both had a lot of blood on their hands, as did Mao Zedong, Pol Pot, Fidel Castro (after the revolution, I mean), and so on.
Authoritarian communism ends up being pretty bad for people that communist in the wrong way, along with everyone that isn’t communist.
Feels like colonialist capitalism has been pretty bad for an awful lot of people that aren’t the owning class too… What with the MANY genocides and the CIA
Sure, it absolutely has, and the CIA and American foreign policy has done some truly awful things. But there’s scale and scope as well; the American gov’t, by and large, hasn’t been jailing political dissidents solely for political dissent since the 30s or so. Political dissidents don’t tend to end up committing suicide by falling out of 1st floor windows, or drowning in bathtubs. We don’t arrest or dissappear anyone running against the president. We haven’t had concentration camps for our own citizens since the 40s (and hoo boy, those were pretty fucking awful, and we should be ashamed of them).
Not true at all, I have zero issues with people who think differently. However, I do take big issues with these two failed authoritarian ideologies that ended killing tens of millions each and brought nothing but misery everywhere they went. As it turns there’s more to politics than these two shitty ideologies
So naturally you realize that, despite authoritarian “communism” as practiced by the Soviet Union and China, inspired by Marxist-Leninist thinking and then by Stalin and Mao are just one interpretation of Marxism (which is one interpretation of communism/socialist theory) that diverged significantly in embracing something more resembling state capitalism and enduring dictatorship, whereas Marx viewed the dictatorship of the proletariat as simply describing the revolutionary transition to a classless society.
Actually, not true. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels were both notorious authoritarians, and it reflects pretty heavily in their ideology. They were both well known for being very pro violence and pro power grabs, so much so that they were infamous for it. They’re pretty well documented for the ways they used to mock pacifist socialists at the time for not being as extreme and violent as they are. Socialism as a concept has a lot of different interpretations, but Marxism? Not so much.
Potentially violent revolution =/= authoritarian. Also Marx believed that in more democratic and free nations that nonviolent ways of achieving communism was actually plausible, he just didn’t believe so for most of the world. He just had very little faith in existing power structures allowing the proletariat majority to take power away from them nonviolently, especially outside of a few already very “left” leaning democracies.
Damn dude, stop making me argue in favor of pure Marxism, I’m not even a communist, I’m just a bit left of social Democrats personally.
Marxism didn’t stop at the revolution though. Marxism can be simplified to 3 overarching steps:
A violent revolution that overthrows capitalism where the economy is seized, capitalists are eliminated, and capitalist institutions are burned down (literally and metaphorically).
The dictatorship of the proletariat is established. This is where a transitional authoritarian socialist government takes hold of the states and rules with an iron fist to establish socialism and bring about the social climate necessary to achieve communism by any means necessary.
Actually realize communism
Since step 3 is a utopia that won’t ever happen, the ideology will always end up at step two. That’s why every single Marxist attempt that hasn’t failed during the revolution phase will inevitably hit a brick wall when a the tyrannical transitional government gets hold and never leaves. All the tyrannical regimes we’ve seen aren’t coincidences, they’re an integral part of the Marxist ideology. Maoist China is what Marxism looks like when it’s implemented down to the letter… and it ain’t pretty. Again, both Marx and Engels were both very vocal and notorious authoritarians who specifically advocated for this stuff. They went out of their way to mock and criticize pacifist socialists who wanted to make progress without bloodshed via things like reform. This isn’t some secret, it’s pretty well documented.
A violent revolution that overthrows capitalism where the economy is seized, capitalists are eliminated, and capitalist institutions are burned down (literally and metaphorically).
Marxists believe revolution is inevitable as long as Capitalism is not transitioned from willingly, as a consequence of Capitalism itself. Secondly, killing the bourgeoisie is not a necessary step, removing the apparatus that entails their positions, ie private property rights, is necessary. Thirdly, “Capitalist Institutions” being burned down is vague and likely not what Marxists believe. Replacing, or reconfiguring them along collectivized lines, sure, burning for the sake of burning, no.
The dictatorship of the proletariat is established. This is where a transitional authoritarian socialist government takes hold of the states and rules with an iron fist to establish socialism and bring about the social climate necessary to achieve communism by any means necessary.
The Dictatorship of the Proletariat is simply democracy with the proletariat in control, and the Bourgeoisie suppressed. This is a direct counter to the modern Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie, such as what is found in America. The idea of it being “authoritarian” is only true with respect to Capitalists, it is a more democratic state for more people. The phrase “iron fist” is also loaded, in reality it means Capitalists cannot be allowed to take back control. Same with the phrase “by any means necessary,” it’s just fearmongering.
Actually realize communism
Sure, this is correct.
Since step 3 is a utopia that won’t ever happen, the ideology will always end up at step two.
That’s unfounded. Reading Critique of the Gotha Programme gives an idea of what Marxists actually believe can be done to achieve Communism, it isn’t an impossibility but it also isn’t a utopia like you claim. It’s certainly a better society, but not one with infinite replicators or anything.
That’s why every single Marxist attempt that hasn’t failed during the revolution phase will inevitably hit a brick wall when a the tyrannical transitional government gets hold and never leaves.
Marx himself never believed Communism was about government “deciding” to leave, but the State as defined by Marx would wither. Government as we commonly understand it would still exist in Communism!
All the tyrannical regimes we’ve seen aren’t coincidences, they’re an integral part of the Marxist ideology. Maoist China is what Marxism looks like when it’s implemented down to the letter… and it ain’t pretty.
More vibes based, generally. What metric is the distinction between “tyrannical” and “fair and democratic?” Are there any non-tyrannical states, in your eyes?
Again, both Marx and Engels were both very vocal and notorious authoritarians who specifically advocated for this stuff. They went out of their way to mock and criticize pacifist socialists who wanted to make progress without bloodshed via things like reform. This isn’t some secret, it’s pretty well documented.
They ended up being correct, reform has never once worked in the favor of the Proletariat in establishing Socialism. The closest was Allende in Chile, and he was couped by the US within 2 years of democratically taking office.
probably getting shot for not wearing enough religious flair. Any half decent strategist knows you only choose the quick path when you have overwhelming power.
There’s a 100% chance that I know more about than you… You know since I’ve actually studied both in college. But I’m sure an armchair professor such yourself with a PhD from Lemmy’s echo chambers knows better than my professors.
Nope, a respected public University in New England.
If you did, you’d actually sound as if you knew anything about the subject matter at hand.
Your entire argument here boils down to “nuh-uh”, which is absolutely meaningless. If you have actual criticisms then stop beating around the bush and get on with it. Otherwise, I have no interest in whatever this is.
Well it’s quite simple really, you have three choices:
Fascism: A failed murderous ideology in both theory and practice that has killed tens of million and has done nothing but bring tyranny, poverty, famine, hate, and genocide everywhere it went.
Marxism: A failed murderous ideology in both theory and practice that has killed tens of million and has done nothing but bring tyranny, poverty, famine, hate, and genocide everywhere it went.
Neoliberalism: A very flawed ideology that takes economic freedom to an extreme and puts too much faith in unregulated free markets.
You can’t argue, period. Marxism can’t be argued for on its own merits. It needs fallacies, enemies, violence, and censorship to keep itself from collapsing.
If you want to see Marxism in China then look no further than Maoist China. That was true socialism implemented down to the letter… And it was one of the biggest disasters in human history.
powerful “leopards eating faces” energy from the tankies. I wish them luck with the anti-communist death squads outlined in project 2025
They’re Tankies, their entire ideology is feline face eating based. Russia SO KNOWN for how well it treats minorities and LGBT people!
Tankie in 1956: Getting into your T-90 and driving across the Hungarian border to brutally suppress an uprising of (coughnationalcough) socialists protesting Soviet occupation
Tankie in 2024: Getting into your PSA Bronto and doing donuts in your neighborhood cul de sac blaring “Don’t Vote for Joe Biden” out of a megaphone, until police show up and drag you off to prison for violating a noise ordinance.
This is historically incorrect. The T-90 didn’t enter service until 1992. They would have gotten into T-54/55s or T-44. Possibly even T-34s?
Wish the people emulating (knowingly or unknowingly) the ideology of Ernst Thälmann would look a little harder at how that worked out for both Germany and him.
Wishing the people emulating (knowingly or unknowingly) the ideology of the SDP would look a little harder at how backing Hindenburg instead of Thälmann worked out for both Germany and them.
Ok, first of all it’s the SPD, the SDP is the UK. Oh yeah, obviously it was the moderate democratic socialists who supported democracy that were to blame and not the stalinists who openly allied with Nazis to dismantle the democratic government. And guess what, most of the KPD that made it to the Soviet Union were killed by Stalin or handed back to the Gestapo anyways, what great people they followed.
The KPD declared the SPD their greatest enemy, not the other way around.
I will concede the KPD responded more appropriately to Hitler taking power, but it was too fucking late then anyways. Even the KPD internal resistance had pretty limited effect. At least the SPD operated the government in exile.
The SPD was more than happy to paint the KPD as their enemies as well, the rift between them started with the SPD’s unconditional support of WWI and violent suppression of antiwar efforts. The KPD did not ever “openly ally with the Nazis,” that’s just a bold faced lie.
Somehow, the only people who tried to stop both world wars, and the only people running an anti-Hitler candidate in 1932 get painted as the bad guys. It’s absurd the kinds of mental gymnastics you have to go through to get there.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Period It was pretty easy to paint them as the bad guys when they fully aligned with Stalin, before then, yeah, totally.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_Germany#The_Third_Period_and_"social_fascism"
“In August 1931, to capitalise on their growing popularity, the Nazi Party launched a referendum to overthrow the Social Democratic government of Prussia. At first the KPD correctly attacked it. Then, three weeks before the vote, under orders from Stalin’s Comintern, they joined forces with the fascists to bring down the main enemy, the Social Democrats. They changed the name of the plebiscite to a ‘Red Referendum’ and referred to the fascists and the members of the SA as ‘working people’s comrades’!” http://www.marxist.com/germany-sewell-chapter-7.htm
My dude, they absolutely did, the KPD enabled Stalin to facilitate the rise to power of the Nazis by allying with them to fight the SPD. Fuck Tankies.
Are you basing your comment on the idea that stalin is as bad as hitler? Cause thats some ig’nant ass shit to see on lemmy.
The SPD were just as happy to equate the KPD with the Nazis as the KPD was to call the SPD social fascists.
Voting alongside the Nazis on a referendum is not the same thing as “openly allying with the Nazis.” The status quo at the time was austerity in the middle of a massive economic crisis, it was fundamentally unsustainable. The KPD didn’t want the Nazis to be able to dominate opposition to that. It’s true that they underestimated them, but the answer was not (as the SPD did) throwing their weight behind austerity measures for the sake of stability, it wouldn’t have changed a single thing if they had.
It still remains the fact that the person who put Hitler into power was Hindenburg, who was backed by the SPD.
The thing is, i promised my mom and my history teacher id never vote for a genocider, so my hands are tied. If dems want to run someone who isnt the literal definition of evil, i wouldnt have to vote for trump. Its insane how dems love to use the lesser evil argument right up until theyre convincing us to vote for a genocider.
I thought tankies live in countries like China and Russia.
Can you define US tankies please?
They’ll actually cheer on for those death squads. If they had their way, they would have their own death squads. Marxists are infamous for their tyranny, genocide, forced deportations, engineered famines, purges, labor camps, hate, and secret police death squads.
Marxism and fascism are sister ideologies because they ultimately want the same things but just from slightly different angles.
Marxism: History is defined by material conditions and value comes from appropriated labour which workers are entitled to. Thus society should be oriented around collective ownership of the means of production in order to elevate the material conditions of the worker and usher in a new age of history. It is inevitable that the owning class will resort to violence to maintain their position and so this change will be a violent struggle. Eventually the state itself should be abolished once the transition is complete. Also this is inevitable because umm science wand wave.
Fascism: Power should be centralised on strong men wiling to make hard choices, everyone else should live subservient to the state. Military power, an ethnonational identity, and autarchy are the highest pursuits. Concession and concensus are weakness, might is the ultimate expression of power and violence for the glory of the nation is beautiful. Modernity is degenerate and we should idolise a mythologised past based around an ethnic group we claim the mantle of.
SleezyDizasta: Could these be the same? 🧐
That’s stupid, that’s not what I implied. I said that they’re sister ideologies that desire the same things just with different approaches, and that’s objectively true.
Fascism was started by Mussolini, who was an infamous Marxist for most of his early life. He used to write for Marxist papers, be an avid Marxist activist, attend Marxist meetings, and even got arrested for rioting for Marxist causes. He, like many other socialists at the time, was against war. However, over time he came to the conclusion that war might not be a bad thing. If wars happened more frequently, it could bring about the social climate necessary for revolutions to happen that would end European monarchies and replace them with socialist systems. However, his ideas were rejected by the other socialists and he was shunned by them.
Mussolini started shifting away from other socialists over what unites men. Socialists believe it’s class, but Mussolini started shifting towards the nation. He and his supporters starting gravitating towards revolutionary nationalism… Professor Anthony Gregor from UC Berkely described Mussolini’s nationalism as the following:
Mussolini’s Fascism was very clearly heavily influenced by Marxism. He used a lot of the same ideals, a lot of the same terminology, similar rhetoric, and similar types of analytical lenses. In fact professor Gregor notes that Mussolini’s viewed Fascism as a type of socialism, or rather as the successor of socialism:
Even though Mussolini eventually parted ways with Marxism all together. His opposition to them wasn’t because they were socialists but because they were anti-nationalist. Despite declaring Marxism a failure and socialists as opposition, he still thought and constantly talked about how Fascism was about poor nations rising up against the plutocrats.
When I say they’re sister ideologies, they literally are.
Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_fascism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benito_Mussolini https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_nationalism
It’s almost like someone who was a Marxist made a new ideology that was not Marxism, had separate goals to Marxism, aligned itself against Marxists, didn’t adopt the social or economic policies of Marxism, but clothed itself in the language of Marxism.
Did you know that Marx was once just a random journalist? Does that mean Marxism is a sister ideology to newspaper businesses? Marxists do write stuff afterall!
Yeah no shit, they’re different ideologies. I’m just pointing out that they’re similar, I’m not saying they’re exactly the same.
This isn’t even logically coherent.
They’re not at all similar… Like… wtf. All you can say is one violent thug followed Marxism and then stopped follow Marxism, did something completely different, while saying stuff that sounded like Marxism because he knew it sounded good.
Just dot point me, pick idk 5 core areas and just write what fascists proposed vs what Marxists proposed.
I legit cannot thing of anything with overlap except
and
What have you got?
Okay here you go:
Authoritarianism is not only acceptable but is encouraged. In fascism this comes in the form of a totalitarian dictatorship and in Marxism it comes in the form of an tyrannical transitional government that rules with an iron fist to establish socialism and bring about the social climate necessary to realize communism (dictatorship of the proletariat).
Ideology revolves around common enemies - In fascism this comes in the form certain ethnicities or nationalities while in Marxism it comes in the form of classes.
Bitterly oppose materialism - Fascism opposes materialism because it is deemed to lack acknowledgement of the role of the spirit, while Marxism opposes materialism because it is deem to be a key engine in class warfare.
Bitterly oppose individualism - Both ideologies revolve around the concepts communality and unity, and so they see individualism as a threat to their core ideological views.
Explicit support of political violence - You’re trying to water it down, but both support widescale poltical violence. Marxism calls for a violent revolution that overthrows capitalism by burning down the capitalist system and institutions (literally and metaphorically) as well as killing the entirety of the bourgeoisie (democide). Fascism calls for political violence as legitimate way to gain power and achieve aims, which includes getting rid of undesirable national, ethnic, racial, or religious groups (genocide).
There’s more, but you asked for 5.
Dialectical Materialism is literally a product of Marx and Engels. Granted they didn’t call it that, but they very much called it Materialism.
And everyone who took after M&E used D.M. Lenin wrote Materialism and Empirio-criticism. Stalin wrote Dialectical and Historical Materialism. Mao wrote On contradiction. George Pulitzer, a teacher at the Workers’ University (which taught marxism), had a student write up notes from his class into a book: https://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/Library:Elementary_principles_of_philosophy
Quibbles:
Marx proposed a temporary state wherein proles, collectively, use the apparatus of the state in an authoritarian manner to manage a transition to a non authoritarian non state. The vanguard party stuff is all Lenin. If you want to compare ML to fascism that’s a separate discussion, iirc Marx is actually pretty vague on what precisely the DotP would actually look like. Fascism proposes an indefinite centralisation of power with the goal of ultimate preservation of the state.
The significant debate and purging around the formation of, for instance, the USSR should be a hint that endorsement of authoritarianism is not really something everyone takes away from a reading of Marx. Incidentally, have you? read marx?
Everything except the most radical anarchist ideologies makes some use of authority in certain circumstances, I think it’s somewhat farcical to draw parallels between crisis and the proposed status quo.
Wat? This is so ludicrously broad as to apply to everything. Westminster democracy aligns itself against a common enemy of absolute monarchy, republics unite themselves against a nobility, tribes unite themselves against non kin outsiders… Is there an ideology that doesn’t declare itself against some enemy which is protects against?
Sure I guess. Again this is hardly unique to the two. I mean Buddhism does this along with monastic Christianity and new age smoothie cults /shrug
Ah, you have not read Marx! I can see how you might get this stance but no. This is just false. Marx imagined a utopia where people, regardless of the circumstances of their birth, could pursue individual fulfilment. If I may pretentiously quote:
“For as soon as the distribution of labour comes into being, each man has a particular, exclusive sphere of activity, which is forced upon him and from which he cannot escape. He is a hunter, a fisherman, a herdsman, or a critical critic, and must remain so if he does not want to lose his means of livelihood; while in communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic.”
Seems pretty clearly individualistic to me!
Actually Marx said it was magically scientifically inevitable that capitalism would collapse in violence. Not that people should set out to do it. Also Marx didn’t want to “burn down the capitalist system and institutions” actually in a straight reading of Marx capitalism is a necessary step to communism. Marx didn’t think it was good, he thought the bourgeoisie would never willingingly surrender power because of their material interest and thus the only way for proles to avoid mass death was instead to unify and take power through violence.
This sounds a lot like “Both involve violence therefore the same” but that’s extraordinarily reductive. I mean literally all governments make themselves governments through control of violence.
So in summary I think you have as similarities:
Don’t like materialism, authority features, has an enemy, and violence features. Which ok, if that makes stuff sister ideologies then it’s a broad tent with literally everything from Liberation Theology Christianity, to westminster democracy, to Peelan Policing sharing sisterhood with Marxism and Fascism.
I think someone with a violent streak a mile long even as a child who became fascinated with populist revolutionary ideologies creating a new populist revolutionary ideology does not really make it inherently twinsies with previous populist revolutionary ideologies other than that they are both exactly that. I think it’s pretty clear in hindsight that what Mussolini was really interested in was gaining power in a populist revolution, no matter the cost or method.
Obviously, with the power of hindsight, we can see that Mussolini didn’t end up being the socialist that he was in his early days. However, it’s still interesting to the influences of Marxism on Fascism as an ideology. They do share a lot of characteristics despite their many differences. This is why the claim that these two ideologies are polar opposites isn’t true. They’re different? Sure. Polar opposites? Not exactly.
I’m not sure you know what Marxism or Fascism are… I think you just think everyone who doesn’t think like you is pure evil.
There have been a lot of killings and deaths that were intentionally to further goals that were claimed to be Marxist; Lenin and Stalin both had a lot of blood on their hands, as did Mao Zedong, Pol Pot, Fidel Castro (after the revolution, I mean), and so on.
Authoritarian communism ends up being pretty bad for people that communist in the wrong way, along with everyone that isn’t communist.
Feels like colonialist capitalism has been pretty bad for an awful lot of people that aren’t the owning class too… What with the MANY genocides and the CIA
Sure, it absolutely has, and the CIA and American foreign policy has done some truly awful things. But there’s scale and scope as well; the American gov’t, by and large, hasn’t been jailing political dissidents solely for political dissent since the 30s or so. Political dissidents don’t tend to end up committing suicide by falling out of 1st floor windows, or drowning in bathtubs. We don’t arrest or dissappear anyone running against the president. We haven’t had concentration camps for our own citizens since the 40s (and hoo boy, those were pretty fucking awful, and we should be ashamed of them).
Yes… No argument with that part.
Not true at all, I have zero issues with people who think differently. However, I do take big issues with these two failed authoritarian ideologies that ended killing tens of millions each and brought nothing but misery everywhere they went. As it turns there’s more to politics than these two shitty ideologies
So naturally you realize that, despite authoritarian “communism” as practiced by the Soviet Union and China, inspired by Marxist-Leninist thinking and then by Stalin and Mao are just one interpretation of Marxism (which is one interpretation of communism/socialist theory) that diverged significantly in embracing something more resembling state capitalism and enduring dictatorship, whereas Marx viewed the dictatorship of the proletariat as simply describing the revolutionary transition to a classless society.
Actually, not true. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels were both notorious authoritarians, and it reflects pretty heavily in their ideology. They were both well known for being very pro violence and pro power grabs, so much so that they were infamous for it. They’re pretty well documented for the ways they used to mock pacifist socialists at the time for not being as extreme and violent as they are. Socialism as a concept has a lot of different interpretations, but Marxism? Not so much.
Potentially violent revolution =/= authoritarian. Also Marx believed that in more democratic and free nations that nonviolent ways of achieving communism was actually plausible, he just didn’t believe so for most of the world. He just had very little faith in existing power structures allowing the proletariat majority to take power away from them nonviolently, especially outside of a few already very “left” leaning democracies.
Damn dude, stop making me argue in favor of pure Marxism, I’m not even a communist, I’m just a bit left of social Democrats personally.
Marxism didn’t stop at the revolution though. Marxism can be simplified to 3 overarching steps:
A violent revolution that overthrows capitalism where the economy is seized, capitalists are eliminated, and capitalist institutions are burned down (literally and metaphorically).
The dictatorship of the proletariat is established. This is where a transitional authoritarian socialist government takes hold of the states and rules with an iron fist to establish socialism and bring about the social climate necessary to achieve communism by any means necessary.
Actually realize communism
Since step 3 is a utopia that won’t ever happen, the ideology will always end up at step two. That’s why every single Marxist attempt that hasn’t failed during the revolution phase will inevitably hit a brick wall when a the tyrannical transitional government gets hold and never leaves. All the tyrannical regimes we’ve seen aren’t coincidences, they’re an integral part of the Marxist ideology. Maoist China is what Marxism looks like when it’s implemented down to the letter… and it ain’t pretty. Again, both Marx and Engels were both very vocal and notorious authoritarians who specifically advocated for this stuff. They went out of their way to mock and criticize pacifist socialists who wanted to make progress without bloodshed via things like reform. This isn’t some secret, it’s pretty well documented.
It’s painfully obvious you’ve never really engaged with Marx’s writings.
Marxists believe revolution is inevitable as long as Capitalism is not transitioned from willingly, as a consequence of Capitalism itself. Secondly, killing the bourgeoisie is not a necessary step, removing the apparatus that entails their positions, ie private property rights, is necessary. Thirdly, “Capitalist Institutions” being burned down is vague and likely not what Marxists believe. Replacing, or reconfiguring them along collectivized lines, sure, burning for the sake of burning, no.
The Dictatorship of the Proletariat is simply democracy with the proletariat in control, and the Bourgeoisie suppressed. This is a direct counter to the modern Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie, such as what is found in America. The idea of it being “authoritarian” is only true with respect to Capitalists, it is a more democratic state for more people. The phrase “iron fist” is also loaded, in reality it means Capitalists cannot be allowed to take back control. Same with the phrase “by any means necessary,” it’s just fearmongering.
Sure, this is correct.
That’s unfounded. Reading Critique of the Gotha Programme gives an idea of what Marxists actually believe can be done to achieve Communism, it isn’t an impossibility but it also isn’t a utopia like you claim. It’s certainly a better society, but not one with infinite replicators or anything.
Marx himself never believed Communism was about government “deciding” to leave, but the State as defined by Marx would wither. Government as we commonly understand it would still exist in Communism!
More vibes based, generally. What metric is the distinction between “tyrannical” and “fair and democratic?” Are there any non-tyrannical states, in your eyes?
They ended up being correct, reform has never once worked in the favor of the Proletariat in establishing Socialism. The closest was Allende in Chile, and he was couped by the US within 2 years of democratically taking office.
And where will you be? Standing on the sidelines letting it happen, or will you be the one to pull the trigger?
probably getting shot for not wearing enough religious flair. Any half decent strategist knows you only choose the quick path when you have overwhelming power.
Countries that aren’t the US of A exist.
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
I would encourage Fascists and Marxist to destroy each other so the world can finally be free of these two parasitic ideologies.
I know right, neoliberalism is utopia. /s
Sure beats Marxism and Fascism
Rich… considering it’s coming from somebody who understands neither.
There’s a 100% chance that I know more about than you… You know since I’ve actually studied both in college. But I’m sure an armchair professor such yourself with a PhD from Lemmy’s echo chambers knows better than my professors.
Which college was that? Prager U, maybe?
If you did, you’d actually sound as if you knew anything about the subject matter at hand.
But you don’t - which means you didn’t.
Nope, a respected public University in New England.
Your entire argument here boils down to “nuh-uh”, which is absolutely meaningless. If you have actual criticisms then stop beating around the bush and get on with it. Otherwise, I have no interest in whatever this is.
How?
It’s killing us slower?
Well it’s quite simple really, you have three choices:
Fascism: A failed murderous ideology in both theory and practice that has killed tens of million and has done nothing but bring tyranny, poverty, famine, hate, and genocide everywhere it went.
Marxism: A failed murderous ideology in both theory and practice that has killed tens of million and has done nothing but bring tyranny, poverty, famine, hate, and genocide everywhere it went.
Neoliberalism: A very flawed ideology that takes economic freedom to an extreme and puts too much faith in unregulated free markets.
Sounds like a no brainer choice to me.
Broad generalizations, I can’t argue against that. Defeated by vaguery again.
You can’t argue, period. Marxism can’t be argued for on its own merits. It needs fallacies, enemies, violence, and censorship to keep itself from collapsing.
Your biases are showing, honey.
Good, I’m very biased against failed tyrannical ideologies.
Is that so?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_economic_reform
If you want to see Marxism in China then look no further than Maoist China. That was true socialism implemented down to the letter… And it was one of the biggest disasters in human history.