hmm if you are condemning these acts from comrade Stalin, I think Marx encouraged dictatorship of proletariat, Karl Marx believed in a transitional period in the road to total communism this being a socialist state under a dictatorship authority of “the people’s party”, even the acts of purge that Stalin carried I think were mentioned by Marx, I personally don’t think that Stalin betrayed Marxism, but if Marxism is a totalitarian system, and we’re here calling totalitarians “fascists” then Marxism is a form of fascism
To be clear I am not a leninist or a marxist anymore. From what I understand something called democratic centralism is used. In democratic centralism there are elections for individual politicians instead of political parties. So while you can argue it’s only one party, you can actually elect whoever you want to your local seat, and presumably whoever you want for the president. That or the elected MPs select a leader as president, I am not really clear on this bit. Either way it’s not that different to how UK elections are run currently with individual MPs, just without that party bit. A bit like if every candidate was an independent.
The problem in the USSR and China being they restricted party membership and persecuted political enemies well beyond landlords and fascists, so that “anyone can be elected” bit simply did not happen.
Democratic Centralism is “diversity of thought, unity in action.” It essentially means that open discussion and election on where to go is key, but that members should not act against the decisions made, ie the results of elections are binding.
Anarchists criticize this because they argue it disregards minority opinions, though this is where the Soviet System came in and had “tiers,” so there were local elections and local decisions allowed, kinda like a local, state, federal split.
MLs argue that it gets far more done and that’s important when combatting something as strong as Imperialism and Capitalism.
The Dictatorship of the Proletariat is in contrast to Capitalist Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie. The DotP is a Democratic Worker State run by and for workers that suppresses the bourgeoisie in the same manner that Liberal Democracy is run by and for the Bourgeoisie and suppresses workers. It does not refer to a literal totalitarian dictator.
Fascism is not simply “when the government is big and does a lot of mean stuff.” It’s focused on Bourgeois class colaboration, entrenchment of Capitalism, and extreme Nationalism and Anticommunism, as a reaction against the rise of Socialism amidst Capitalist decline. The USSR cannot be considered “fascist” even by those who would condemn it, unless you redefine fascism itself.
Stalin was a very mixed bag. In some manners, he did continue Marxism-Leninism, but at the same time he did recriminalize homosexuality. He was very socially reactionary, yet did attempt to keep Marxism continuing past Lenin. In some ways, he did betray Marxism, but in other ways, he preserved it.
You might want to read Blackshirts and Reds: Rational Fascism and the Fall of Communism in the USSR. It talks about the antagonistic relationship between Socialism and Fascism, the weaknesses in the USSR that resulted in collapse, and how fascists plundered the disected state.
hmm if you are condemning these acts from comrade Stalin, I think Marx encouraged dictatorship of proletariat, Karl Marx believed in a transitional period in the road to total communism this being a socialist state under a dictatorship authority of “the people’s party”, even the acts of purge that Stalin carried I think were mentioned by Marx, I personally don’t think that Stalin betrayed Marxism, but if Marxism is a totalitarian system, and we’re here calling totalitarians “fascists” then Marxism is a form of fascism
You don’t actually know what the dictatorship of the proletariat is. I would suggest you read up on that first.
how informative -__-. At least I know that it involves one political spectrum and most of the time one governing party,
To be clear I am not a leninist or a marxist anymore. From what I understand something called democratic centralism is used. In democratic centralism there are elections for individual politicians instead of political parties. So while you can argue it’s only one party, you can actually elect whoever you want to your local seat, and presumably whoever you want for the president. That or the elected MPs select a leader as president, I am not really clear on this bit. Either way it’s not that different to how UK elections are run currently with individual MPs, just without that party bit. A bit like if every candidate was an independent.
The problem in the USSR and China being they restricted party membership and persecuted political enemies well beyond landlords and fascists, so that “anyone can be elected” bit simply did not happen.
I was talking more about the theory than the practice. I imagine that under Stalin in particular the democratic process was not followed properly.
Sure, any political system is only as good as the society enforcing its rules.
Democratic Centralism is “diversity of thought, unity in action.” It essentially means that open discussion and election on where to go is key, but that members should not act against the decisions made, ie the results of elections are binding.
Anarchists criticize this because they argue it disregards minority opinions, though this is where the Soviet System came in and had “tiers,” so there were local elections and local decisions allowed, kinda like a local, state, federal split.
MLs argue that it gets far more done and that’s important when combatting something as strong as Imperialism and Capitalism.
You’re confused on a few fronts, here.
The Dictatorship of the Proletariat is in contrast to Capitalist Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie. The DotP is a Democratic Worker State run by and for workers that suppresses the bourgeoisie in the same manner that Liberal Democracy is run by and for the Bourgeoisie and suppresses workers. It does not refer to a literal totalitarian dictator.
Fascism is not simply “when the government is big and does a lot of mean stuff.” It’s focused on Bourgeois class colaboration, entrenchment of Capitalism, and extreme Nationalism and Anticommunism, as a reaction against the rise of Socialism amidst Capitalist decline. The USSR cannot be considered “fascist” even by those who would condemn it, unless you redefine fascism itself.
Stalin was a very mixed bag. In some manners, he did continue Marxism-Leninism, but at the same time he did recriminalize homosexuality. He was very socially reactionary, yet did attempt to keep Marxism continuing past Lenin. In some ways, he did betray Marxism, but in other ways, he preserved it.
You might want to read Blackshirts and Reds: Rational Fascism and the Fall of Communism in the USSR. It talks about the antagonistic relationship between Socialism and Fascism, the weaknesses in the USSR that resulted in collapse, and how fascists plundered the disected state.
Enter the term “red fascist,” which does indeed redefine some core aspects of fascism to acknowledge the differences in breed of authoritarianism.