Fascism and Communism

[CosmosKramer]

Was fascism in Italy a reaction to the workers revolt in Russia?

Was authoritarian Stalinist communism a reaction to German fascism?

[Toon³]

Fascism in Italy started when Mussolini and other syndicalists broke with the Socialists over Italy's entry into WW1. Mussolini became more and more right wing and eventually in 1922 he became Prime Minister of Italy and the country gradually transformed into a Police, the Fascist state in 1932.

Stalinism is a style rather than a form of government. It is a interpretation of Marx and Lenin that emerged in the Soviet Union under Stalin. Since Stalin came to power in 1922 and at that time Hitler had not even been convicted of the Munich Putsch.

Both extreme forms of government were formed in this time period because of economic termoil and the collapse of several governments in these countries. Extreme forms of government offered hope for the people who had lost faith in the more central forms of government after WW1 and the Great Depression

[ratdog]

Stalinism is a style rather than a form of government. It is a perversion of Marx and Lenin that emerged in the Soviet Union under Stalin. Since Stalin came to power in 1922 and at that time Hitler had not even been convicted of the Munich Putsch.


A slight fix to an excellent post.

[CosmosKramer]

Thanks. What got me thinking about this was a 1943 Orwell essay, Who are the War Criminals? In it, he quotes from Winston Churchill in 1927:

If I had been an Italian I am sure I should have been whole-heartedly with you in your triumphant struggle against the bestial appetites and passions of Leninism... (Italy) has provided the necessary antidote to the Russian poison. Hereafter no great nation will be unprovided with an ultimate means of protection against the cancerous growth of Bolshevism.

Here Churchill, who I imagine is echoing the thoughts of capitalists everywhere, sees Mussolini's radical right, big business brand of fascism as an ally against the threat of "Leninism" and "Bolshevism".

Later, Orwell argued, the left would be guilty of the same sort of thing in overlooking the evils of Stalin's totalitarianism because the Russians were on the same side in the fight against fascism.

Now, I guess what I'm trying to work out is how (from the Russian Revolution/WWI to '30's) the competing ideologies of capitalism and socialism (and the threat perceived by one for the other), could perhaps have allowed for the rise of extreme versions of these ideologies and eventually tyrants like Mussolini, Stalin and Hitler.


Orwell's essay can be read here:

http://orwell.ru/library/articles/criminals/english/e_crime

[Toon³]

Thanks. What got me thinking about this was a 1943 Orwell essay, Who are the War Criminals? In it, he quotes from Winston Churchill in 1927:

If I had been an Italian I am sure I should have been whole-heartedly with you in your triumphant struggle against the bestial appetites and passions of Leninism... (Italy) has provided the necessary antidote to the Russian poison. Hereafter no great nation will be unprovided with an ultimate means of protection against the cancerous growth of Bolshevism.

Here Churchill, who I imagine is echoing the thoughts of capitalists everywhere, sees Mussolini's radical right, big business brand of fascism as an ally against the threat of "Leninism" and "Bolshevism".

You must remember that Italy did not become a dictaitorship until the signing of the doctrine of the 20th Century in 1932. However Italy had been moving further and further to the right since the early 20's but in 1927 the right was "accepted" by most of western europe because it kept the communist out of power, with France and Britain still being economic giants based around capitalism this was the last thing they would want in a country as close and important as Italy.

[Alex_K]

Toon² and ratdog already did a good job, so no need to write a lot on my own ;).

But I would say that Italy already became a dictatorship during the 1920s - if I remember correctly free elections were abolished in 1928, opposition parties had been banned for even longer.

[Smiley321]

A slight fix to an excellent post.

This stuff out of Ratdog always reminds me of the fundamentalists who say that Catholics aren't really Christians.

[Toon³]

Toon² and ratdog already did a good job, so no need to write a lot on my own ;).

But I would say that Italy already became a dictatorship during the 1920s - if I remember correctly free elections were abolished in 1928, opposition parties had been banned for even longer.

Agreed, it should have really said Fascist Dictatorship instead.

[Bob Morocco]

This stuff out of Ratdog always reminds me of the fundamentalists who say that Catholics aren't really Christians.

How about this:

Catholics are Christians, at sometime a Catholic has blown something up. But that doesn't mean that Christianity involves blowing things up.

[TrickyQ]

Was authoritarian Stalinist communism a reaction to German fascism?

No, Stalinist communism was established well before German facism.

[CosmosKramer]

No, Stalinist communism was established well before German facism.

It seems to me, now, that Mussolini, Hitler and Stalin all had the same goal of destroying the left and socialism. Mussolini and Hitler wanted to win (by destroying the increasing power of unionized workers) the support of big business capitalists (and they did, and not just from their respective countries), Stalin and communists saw socialists as moderates standing in the way of a capitalist implosion and revolution, which Fascism would hasten.

This all made for bizarre alliances in the years before and during WW2 (especially during the Spanish Civil War).

[Toon³]

It seems to me, now, that Mussolini, Hitler and Stalin all had the same goal of destroying the left and socialism. Mussolini and Hitler wanted to win (by destroying the increasing power of unionized workers) the support of big business capitalists (and they did, and not just from their respective countries), Stalin and communists saw socialists as moderates standing in the way of a capitalist implosion and revolution, which Fascism would hasten.

This all made for bizarre alliances in the years before and during WW2 (especially during the Spanish Civil War).

Ok, lets clear something up here. Socialism is basically and idology. Communism is a political movement that rose from Socialism. They are basically on the same wave length. Although Stalin did change the USSR into some kind of Left wing dictaitorship entity with a socialist base and tsarist upper ruling class.

So Stalin and the communist were the left and so they wouldn't want to destroy themselves. All the actions that could be concieved as anti-left by Stalin were only to secure his power base.

The Spanish civil war was basically left vs right. The Nazis supported Franco and Russians supported the Left wing government. Nothing strange there.

The Allies of WW2 were Allies of necessity because neither the Russians or British and Americans could win on their own.

[Calexico77]

Ok, lets clear something up here. Socialism is basically and idology. Communism is a political movement that rose from Socialism.


Not really. On any of those counts. I mean, they're both ideologies, and they are both political movements, and they both developed alongside, with, in intertwined with eachother. They are not mutually exclusive or easily broken up like that.

They are basically on the same wave length. Although Stalin did change the USSR into some kind of Left wing dictaitorship entity with a socialist base and tsarist upper ruling class.


Eh. . . again, your over-simplification of history ends up obscuring the truth of history. Depending on who you talk to, most socialists are communists that believe that communism isn't possible yet, and we need a strong centralized government to steer us toward that eventual goal. And to call what Stalin created a "Left wing dictaitorship entity" is bizarre. It was a totalitarian police state built on a cult of personality, fear, and violence. It was also built by destroying most of what the socialists, communists, and left-wing thinkers wanted. Stalinism is a twisted, dark, sickening form of what socialism hoped for.

Unfortunately, there were far too many here and around the world who didn't know what he was doing to his own people, and thought him a great leader.


So Stalin and the communist were the left and so they wouldn't want to destroy themselves. All the actions that could be concieved as anti-left by Stalin were only to secure his power base..

I'm not sure you though this line out too much. In modern "Red State/Blue State" political thinking, you could put Stalin "and the communists" on the Left. But that wouldn't really get you any closer to the truth. Also, your political thinking is far too linear Left/Right to comprehend what Stalin did to his own people and party. He murdered anyone and everyone. He murdered randomly because it kept everyone in fear of being next. That's not a Left/Right issue. Its a good/evil issue.

[Foosinho]

This stuff out of Ratdog always reminds me of the fundamentalists who say that Catholics aren't really Christians.
That's because you have a hard on for Joe McCarthy.

There are very real, very significant differences between Stalinism and Communism.

[KevTheGooner]

Authoritarian Stalinism is more a response to Russia's penchant for ruthless, iron-fisted dictators (to use a modern term) than a response to western influence. Its part of the Russian political heritage, unfortunately. Even the "good" leaders like Peter and Catherine, who had "good" intentions, were pretty ruthless. Stalin is just an absurdist extension of that lineage. I mean, purges are about as Russian as vodka..Stalin simply perfected them.

[Smiley321]

There are very real, very significant differences between Stalinism and Communism.

Brilliant deduction, Sherlock. That's like saying that there's significant differences between a refrigerator and a carnot engine. The latter is an idealized system existing only in textbooks, and the former is the practical application.

In technology, they can make a mountain of errors until they get it right or abandon it as impractical. How big must the mountain of dead bodies be before you goofballs abandon communism?

[sardus_pater]

Brilliant deduction, Sherlock. That's like saying that there's significant differences between a refrigerator and a carnot engine. The latter is an idealized system existing only in textbooks, and the former is the practical application.

In technology, they can make a mountain of errors until they get it right or abandon it as impractical. How big must the mountain of dead bodies be before you goofballs abandon communism?

Or imagine socialism as a benefic medicine who needs to be injected into your body (society) in carefully measured doses. If you try to do a complete transfusion it will act as a venom, the body will overdose. If you don't inject it the body will get sick.

Socialdemocracy was the biggest enemy of both fascism/capitalism and communism/socialism. Meaning the enemy they feared (and hit) the most.
It's still this way and I don't see many real socialdemocrat political figures around.

The body needs a bigger (or cleverer?) dose of the medicine but there's no doctor around.

[Smiley321]

Or imagine socialism as a benefic medicine who needs to be injected into your body (society) in carefully measured doses. If you try to do a complete transfusion it will act as a venom, the body will overdose. If you don't inject it the body will get sick.

Socialdemocracy was the biggest enemy of both fascism/capitalism and communism/socialism. Meaning the enemy they feared (and hit) the most.
It's still this way and I don't see many real socialdemocrat political figures around.

The body needs a bigger (or cleverer?) dose of the medicine but there's no doctor around.

You'll note that I didn't attribute the mountain of bodies to socialism. Socialism is simply a dubious (but arguable) economic theory - Communism is a political movement every bit as dangerous and discredited as the Nazis or the Fascists.

And socialists do themselves no favors by failing to recognize that commies are dangerous - it only helps to discredit socialism as a serious proposition.

[sardus_pater]

You'll note that I didn't attribute the mountain of bodies to socialism. Socialism is simply a dubious (but arguable) economic theory - Communism is a political movement every bit as dangerous and discredited as the Nazis or the Fascists.

And socialists do themselves no favors by failing to recognize that commies are dangerous - it only helps to discredit socialism as a serious proposition.

You'll note that I didn't object to your take at the issue (communism being an awful attempt to implement socialism, the Real Socialism as it was called, and the idea that any attempt to integral socialism would lead to unpleasant consequences).

I do think that Stalin contributed heavily to worsen the outcome with his paranoias and his total disregard of human life (except himself of course).
But I don't think that with, say, Lenin living and ruling a lot longer the outcome would have been heaven (except if rumours about him prefering the NEP to the collectivization are true).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Economic_Policy
On the other hand, Lenin is quoted to have said ""NEP is for real and for a long time" (НЭП - это всерьез и надолго ), which has been used to surmise that if Lenin were to stay alive longer, NEP would have continued beyond 1929, and the controversial collectivization would have never happened, or it would have been carried out differently.

Maybe if Bukharin had won the post-Lenin fight and the NEP had been kept.

Abandoning the NEP (New Economic Policy) has been a huge mistake. The Mistake IMHO.

[art]

How big must the mountain of dead bodies be before you goofballs abandon communism?

Sigh. "communism" is an ideology, and is not necessarily related in any particular way to Salinist violence and murder. "Communism", in itself, is an idea, "Stalinism", in itself, was essentially a policy of murder, as defined by Mr Stalin. Communism is no more inherantly murderous than capitalism, frankly, though many murders have been committed by governments espousing to be one or the other, certainly.