Fascist is more than just authoritarian, there’s a lot of other components (fetishization of the military, an obsession with returning to the “good old days”, portraying scapegoats as simultaneously unbeatably strong and pathetically weak, etc)
The USSR was authoritarian, but not fascist.
EDIT: To clarify, I’m no fan of the USSR and their actions to put it mildly, but we shouldn’t dilute the word fascist by making it a synonym for authoritarianism.
I do not think so. There was no “return to the good old days” in USSR at all. The ideology, while was stressing the importance to defend itself, did not fetishized the military. Nationalism was also missing. And instead there was class fight, common means of production, etc. It was quite different. The only common part was the authoritarian government and the principle that the state is greater than individual.
There was the idea of bringing the revolution to others. While mostly after Stalin, the USSR heavily engaged in combat to exert its influence. The Korean and Vietnamese Civil Wars were proxy wars in which both the US and the USSR were engaged in. Then there was the soviet invasion of Afghanistan, too.
Their propaganda has a lot of hints of glorifying the military, sacrifice and fanaticism.
You do not do that for the sake of state. You do that for the collective. State is just bureaucratic representation of that. In fascist Germany you would do that for the Germany and German nation specifically. In USSR you do not do that for USSR or USSR nation (there was no such thing).
Generally that’s regarded as civic nationalism (“People are bound together by a common government”), whereas most people think of ethnic nationalism (“People are bound together by common descent or culture”) when they speak of nationalism. Though there is a strong argument to be made for the SovUnion being an extension of Russian domination over other ethnicities, just like the Russian Empire which preceded it.
I think the only thing the USSR didn’t do when it comes to that fascism checklist is “returning to the good old days”. Other than that, Soviets fetishized the military and used scapegoats, too.
For the scapegoats it was most often the capitalists. The propaganda they used is very similar to Nazi and Imperial Japanese propaganda.
The USSR’s political structure was more fascist and totalitarian than authoritarian.
China, with it s having a system of private capital solidly co-opted and kept under the thumb of the government, far more aligns with the definition of fascism than the Soviet Union did
fetishization of the military, an obsession with returning to the “good old days”, portraying scapegoats as simultaneously unbeatably strong and pathetically weak, etc
Hear me out. The terms don’t matter. Both the Nazis and the Soviets were/are fanatics. They used whatever *ism they aligned with to do the same exact thing. They tried to take over other nations to control the citizens of those countries to spread their ways of thinking. They used exactly the same techniques that led to the same kind of genocide on both sides.
You could even expand it to what the US did during the cold war, and you can definitely see that China is doing the same thing now. They even have their own genocide that they’ve committed just recently.
So, at this point there’s nothing wrong with using terms that combine Nazis, Soviets, and socialist regimes in general.
Since nobody else has posted it, here’s a common list of fascist traits:
Powerful and continuing nationalism
Disdain for human rights
Identification of enemies as a unifying cause
Rampant sexism
Controlled mass media
Obsession with national security
Religion and government intertwined
Corporate power protected
Labor power suppressed
Disdain for intellectual and the arts
Obsession with crime and punishment
Rampant cronyism and corruption
It’s not the be-all-end-all definition, but it’s a good guide. The USSR checked a lot of those boxes, but two big ones it didn’t were intertwining religion and government, and protecting corporate power. Arguably, those are because religion and corporations became part of the state, though. The USSR was also generally very keen on science and the arts, but only as long you didn’t do anything subversive.
I’d use the term authoritarian myself, but there’s enough meat on the bone that you could argue for fascism.
Pick only one
The Soviet Union was fascist–or authoritarian, if you prefer semantics.
Fascist is more than just authoritarian, there’s a lot of other components (fetishization of the military, an obsession with returning to the “good old days”, portraying scapegoats as simultaneously unbeatably strong and pathetically weak, etc)
The USSR was authoritarian, but not fascist.
EDIT: To clarify, I’m no fan of the USSR and their actions to put it mildly, but we shouldn’t dilute the word fascist by making it a synonym for authoritarianism.
The Soviet Union’s propaganda and culture tick all of those, though.
But fair, I typically use authoritarian anyway.
I do not think so. There was no “return to the good old days” in USSR at all. The ideology, while was stressing the importance to defend itself, did not fetishized the military. Nationalism was also missing. And instead there was class fight, common means of production, etc. It was quite different. The only common part was the authoritarian government and the principle that the state is greater than individual.
USSR didn’t fetishize the military? Are you high? Can I have some?
I lived there. No, military was not fetishized. Most of the people would not want to go and serve. The draft was something to avoid if you can.
You lived there? How old are you?
50+. Do not want to give personal information on internet more than needed.
There was the idea of bringing the revolution to others. While mostly after Stalin, the USSR heavily engaged in combat to exert its influence. The Korean and Vietnamese Civil Wars were proxy wars in which both the US and the USSR were engaged in. Then there was the soviet invasion of Afghanistan, too.
Their propaganda has a lot of hints of glorifying the military, sacrifice and fanaticism.
Isn’t doing things for the sake of the state nationalism?
You do not do that for the sake of state. You do that for the collective. State is just bureaucratic representation of that. In fascist Germany you would do that for the Germany and German nation specifically. In USSR you do not do that for USSR or USSR nation (there was no such thing).
Generally that’s regarded as civic nationalism (“People are bound together by a common government”), whereas most people think of ethnic nationalism (“People are bound together by common descent or culture”) when they speak of nationalism. Though there is a strong argument to be made for the SovUnion being an extension of Russian domination over other ethnicities, just like the Russian Empire which preceded it.
I think the only thing the USSR didn’t do when it comes to that fascism checklist is “returning to the good old days”. Other than that, Soviets fetishized the military and used scapegoats, too.
For the scapegoats it was most often the capitalists. The propaganda they used is very similar to Nazi and Imperial Japanese propaganda.
The USSR’s political structure was more fascist and totalitarian than authoritarian.
China, with it s having a system of private capital solidly co-opted and kept under the thumb of the government, far more aligns with the definition of fascism than the Soviet Union did
For when a distinction is needed, I’ve seen the term pseudo-fascist being used. It’s quite fitting and works in modern contexts as well
You’ve perfectly described Russia since WW2.
Hear me out. The terms don’t matter. Both the Nazis and the Soviets were/are fanatics. They used whatever *ism they aligned with to do the same exact thing. They tried to take over other nations to control the citizens of those countries to spread their ways of thinking. They used exactly the same techniques that led to the same kind of genocide on both sides.
You could even expand it to what the US did during the cold war, and you can definitely see that China is doing the same thing now. They even have their own genocide that they’ve committed just recently.
So, at this point there’s nothing wrong with using terms that combine Nazis, Soviets, and socialist regimes in general.
The USSR was fascist, by any modern definition.
Which one the two is misrepresented in a negative light when mentioned together
Neither.
Since nobody else has posted it, here’s a common list of fascist traits:
It’s not the be-all-end-all definition, but it’s a good guide. The USSR checked a lot of those boxes, but two big ones it didn’t were intertwining religion and government, and protecting corporate power. Arguably, those are because religion and corporations became part of the state, though. The USSR was also generally very keen on science and the arts, but only as long you didn’t do anything subversive.
I’d use the term authoritarian myself, but there’s enough meat on the bone that you could argue for fascism.