this post was submitted on 19 Jul 2024
764 points (90.8% liked)
Lefty Memes
4298 readers
1192 users here now
An international (English speaking) socialist Lemmy community free of the "ML" influence of instances like lemmy.ml and lemmygrad. This is a place for undogmatic shitposting and memes from a progressive, anti-capitalist and truly anti-imperialist perspective, regardless of specific ideology.
Serious posts, news, and discussion go in c/Socialism.
If you are new to socialism, you can ask questions and find resources over on c/Socialism101.
Please don't forget to help keep this community clean by reporting rule violations, updooting good contributions and downdooting those of low-quality!
Rules
0. Only post socialist memes
That refers to funny image macros and means that generally videos and screenshots are not allowed. Exceptions include explicitly humorous and short videos, as well as (social media) screenshots depicting a funny situation, joke, or joke picture relating to socialist movements, theory, societal issues, or political opponents. Examples would be the classic case of humorous Tumblr or Twitter posts/threads. (and no, agitprop text does not count as a meme)
1. Socialist Unity in the form of mutual respect and good faith interactions is enforced here
Try to keep an open mind, other schools of thought may offer points of view and analyses you haven't considered yet. Also: This is not a place for the Idealism vs. Materialism or rather Anarchism vs. Marxism debate(s), for that please visit c/AnarchismVsMarxism.
2. Anti-Imperialism means recognizing capitalist states like Russia and China as such
That means condemning (their) imperialism, even if it is of the "anti-USA" flavor.
3. No liberalism, (right-wing) revisionism or reactionaries.
That includes so called: Social Democracy, Democratic Socialism, Dengism, Market Socialism, Patriotic Socialism, National Bolshevism, Anarcho-Capitalism etc. . Anti-Socialist people and content have no place here, as well as the variety of "Marxist"-"Leninists" seen on lemmygrad and more specifically GenZedong (actual ML's are welcome as long as they agree to the rules and don't just copy paste/larp about stuff from a hundred years ago).
4. No Bigotry.
The only dangerous minority is the rich.
5. Don't demonize previous and current socialist experiments or (leading) individuals.
We must constructively learn from their mistakes, while acknowledging their achievements and recognizing when they have strayed away from socialist principles.
(if you are reading the rules to apply for modding this community, mention "Mantic Minotaur" when answering question 2)
6. Don't idolize/glorify previous and current socialist experiments or (leading) individuals.
Notable achievements in all spheres of society were made by various socialist/people's/democratic republics around the world. Mistakes, however, were made as well: bureaucratic castes of parasitic elites - as well as reactionary cults of personality - were established, many things were mismanaged and prejudice and bigotry sometimes replaced internationalism and progressiveness.
- Absolutely no posts or comments meant to relativize(/apologize for), advocate, promote or defend:
- Racism
- Sexism
- Queerphobia
- Ableism
- Classism
- Rape or assault
- Genocide/ethnic cleansing or (mass) deportations
- Fascism
- (National) chauvinism
- Orientalism
- Colonialism or Imperialism (and their neo- counterparts)
- Zionism
- Religious fundamentalism of any kind
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
hmm, does marxist/leninist/stalinist count as fascism ?
Tankies are fascist in my book.
What's a tankie? Any Marxist? How is Marxism "fascist?" What is fascism in your view, and how does it match up to Eco's 14 points:
The cult of tradition. “One has only to look at the syllabus of every fascist movement to find the major traditionalist thinkers. The Nazi gnosis was nourished by traditionalist, syncretistic, occult elements.”
The rejection of modernism. “The Enlightenment, the Age of Reason, is seen as the beginning of modern depravity. In this sense, Ur-Fascism can be defined as irrationalism.”
The cult of action for action’s sale. “Action being beautiful in itself, it must be taken before, or without, any previous reflection. Thinking is a form of emasculation.”
Disagreement is treason. “The critical spirit makes distinctions, and to distinguish is a sign of modernism. In modern culture, the scientific community praises disagreement as a way to improve knowledge.”
Fear of difference. “The first appeal of a fascist or prematurely fascist movement is an appeal against the intruders. Thus Ur-Fascism is racist by definition.”
Appeal to social frustration. “[…] one of the most typical features of the historical fascism was the appeal to a frustrated middle class, a class suffering from an economic crisis or feelings of political humiliation, and frightened by the pressure of lower social groups.
The obsession with a plot. “The followers must feel besieged. The easiest way to solve the plot is the appeal to xenophobia.”
The enemy is both weak and strong. “[…] the followers must be convinced that they can overwhelm the enemies. Thus, by a continuous shifting of rhetorical focus, the enemies are at the same time too strong and too weak.”
Pacifism is trafficking with the enemy. “For Ur-Fascism there is no struggle for life but, rather, life is lived for struggle.”
Contempt for the weak. “Elitism is a typical aspect of any reactionary ideology.”
Everybody is educated to become a hero. “in Ur-Fascist ideology, heroism is the norm. This cult of heroism is strictly linked with the cult of death.”
Machismo and Weaponry. “This is the origin of machismo (which implies both disdain for women and intolerance and condemnation of nonstandard sexual habits, from chastity to homosexuality). Since even sex is a difficult game to play, the Ur-Fascist hero tends to play with weapons—doing so becomes an ersatz phallic exercise.”
Selective Populism. “There is in our future a TV or Internet populism, in which the emotional response of a selected group of citizens can be presented and accepted as the Voice of the People.
Ur-Fascism speaks Newspeak. “All the Nazi or Fascist schoolbooks made use of an impoverished vocabulary, and an elementary syntax, in order to limit the instruments for complex and critical reasoning.”
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism%E2%80%93Leninism
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_fascism
None of that answers the question, I'm well aware of Marxism-Leninism and the term "red-fash," I don't see how linking wikipedia articles on both of those terms answers how ML applies to Eco's 14 points on fascism.
https://theslowburningfuse.wordpress.com/2019/08/14/the-struggle-against-fascism-begins-with-the-struggle-against-bolshevism/
It doesn't hit all 14, but it's a good chunk of them. You don't need to hit all 14 to be considered Fascist.
Those are not Eco's 14 points, those are a brand new set of points, unsupported and uncited, from an Anarchist's perspective. Marxism in general would be considered Right-Wing in the eyes of the author, who again just made 9 blanket, unsupported vibes-based claims. The USSR and Marxism-Leninism only really hit one or two points of the espoused 14 from Eco, much fewer than the vast majority of current states.
Additionally, Bernard Henri Lévy, the author cited by the author of your article as the basis for the article, is a Zionist, and is anti-palestine. He's also pro-American, and pro-liberal, not a leftist.
"Bernard-Henri Lévy has used the term in arguing that some European intellectuals have been infatuated with anti-Enlightenment theories and embraced a new absolutist ideology, one that is anti-liberal, anti-American, anti-imperialist, antisemitic and pro-Islamofascist."
It seems to me that being anti-anti-imperialism, and being a Zionist yet attacking Marxism might call into question Lévy's motives.
Did you actually read Ur-fascism from Umberto Eco, or did you just google "Marxism fascism" and grab one of the first results? Neither your previous comment nor this one have answered my question.
Why do I need to write a 20-page thesis on why tankies are fascists? If you're a Tankie, and it seems like you are because you are being very defensive, what could I write that could convince you that tankies are fascists?
Let's try this another way.
Do you personally believe that democracies are good? That law should be decided by people?
Or do you believe that authoritarians are the best way to rule?
I'm a Marxist, and you've called Marxist-Leninists fascists. By your definition, I am both a Tankie and a Fascist for wanting a democratically run Worker State. If you want to convince me of Marxism being fascist, answer the question I originally asked: how does Marxism, Marxism-Leninism, or the USSR, satisfy Umberto Eco's 14 points on fascism? You linked an article referencing a Zionist and Imperialist as a good authority on why Marxism is fascist, I wonder why you consider Zionists good company, but Marxists to be evil fascists?
Every Marxist believes democracy is good and that law should be decided by the people. Since you like Wikipedia, you might want to read about how Democracy was structured in the USSR.
Genuinely, what does this sentence even mean? Are you asking if I believe all important decisions should be made by unaccountable strong leaders? No, of course not, no Marxist does. If you mean I believe in having a government, then yes, I am a Marxist, not an Anarchist.
Great I was wrong, you are not a Marxist-Leninist.
No, a Marxist-Leninist is not the same thing as a Marxist. A Marxist is critical of capitalism. They don't say anything specific other than a socialist society is good. Which I generally agree with. A Marxist-Leninist goes into detail on top of that witch results in Fascist outcomes.
This whole "Marxist-Leninist are Marxists" thing is a fascist talking point. Of course fascists are going to co-opt the word "Marxist", especially when it gets popular, it's happened before and it will happen again. What is important is the outcomes of the ideology not the names.
I Agree. Glad you are pro-democracy. I don't think you are a fascist or a tankie anymore.
Sorry, trusted voice to text too much. You guessed the correct interpretation. I agree with your answer.
I accept Lenin's contributions to Marxism, so labels don't really matter.
Incorrect. Marxism is categorized by critique of Capitalism, an adherence to Dialectical and Historical Materialism, and advocacy for the establishment of a Socialist Worker-government via Revolutionary Methods. This came from Marx, not Lenin. Marx was a fascist according to you, even if you try to white-wash him.
No, it's a Marxist talking-point. Explain exactly where we jump from Marxism to fascism with respect to what Lenin added, like his analysis of Imperialism.
Great, then Marxists, Marxist-Leninists, and the USSR were not fascist, glad you could come around to sense, instead of relying on Zionist fascists for your information.
Marxist-Leninists want a worker-government surrounding worker Soviets, or whole-process People's Democracy. They do not want "authoritarianism." Please read Marx, and Lenin. You can see where Lenin drew from, Lenin was a Marxist.
Please, just go through Eco's points, you've been restating the same talking points espoused by Zionist fascists without engaging with Eco's well-establisbed criterion.
No, I have been entirely consistent.
It's pretty clear that I meant the label of "Marxist" vs "Marxist-Leninist" doesn't matter too much, the overwhelming majority of Marxists are Marxist-Leninists, because Lenin was an important Marxist. I am in no way a fascist, I want a democratic Worker-State.
As for the second bit, where you again repeat "Marxist-Leninists are fascists" without ever explaining why, despite this being several comments deep of you recommending Zionist articles, what's the point? Are you ever going to answer a single question, or are you going to just throw Zionist talking points?
Nice, you're homophobic because I said I "accept Lenin's contributions to Marxism." Not only do you recommend Zionists, you are also homophobic. The mask really did peal off of you, huh?
Would you mind explaining where Lenin diverges from Marxism to Fascism? Have you actually read any of Lenin?
Yeah, I would mind. It would be a waste of my time because you don't care. It really doesn't matter what I say. Because you'll just use your own personal definition for things instead of the commonly accepted definitions like you did with the Marxist-Leninist bit. We would literally need to agree on a dictionary before we could even begin a somewhat productive conversation.
Again what would I gain? You're asking me to play a game of chess with you, but you and I both know the moment it looks bad for you. You're going to flip the board and poop on the table. So why would I play at all?
As for the homophobic stuff. I'm a straight guy and I would happily throat Marx's sausage. So there I canceled out the homophobia.
No, I specifically asked you to use Umberto Eco's Ur-Fascism with the 14 points. That is the commonly accepted list of factors for fascism. Also entirely unaware of what you mean by the "Marxist-Leninist bit." The overwhelming majority of Marxists also accept Lenin's contributions to it, adding "-Leninist" is usually to distance from Maoists, MAGA Communists, and Pat-Socs, not to ensure Lenin's ideas are added.
Eco's 14 points, and Marx, Engels, and Lenin's own words. Simple.
We don't "both know that," I have asked you to explain which of Eco's 14 points applied to the USSR, Marxism, or Marxism-Leninism. You haven't done that, so we can't know. You would gain a productive conversation, I suppose, and I believe you would grow from it, but that's neither here nor there at this point, because you can't do what I have asked about a dozen times at this point.
Still homophobic, and you still haven't taken back the support for Zionists, makes me think you're okay with Zionism as well.
As for the Marx bit, Marx would agree with Lenin's contributions, such as Lenin's analysis of how Capitalism takes on an international, Imperialist character. Marx himself reached a bit upon it, but Capitalism had not yet advanced enough in Marx's time for him to observe it, merely predict it.
As it stands, I will personally be happy if you can either answer which of Eco's 14 points apply to Marxism, Marxism-Leninism, and/or the USSR.
I would also accept you specifically pointing to where Lenin diverged from Leftism to fascism in his analysis of Marxism and expansion upon it.
Both tasks should be easy for you if you're correct, but I have a feeling you've been dodging because you know you're wrong, and can't admit to it.
Why would I care about the personal happiness of a fascist? My dude, you want me dead. Nice touch on reporting my post.
Edit: on the 0.0001 percent chance your serious. Look at the Wikipedia entry for Marxist leninism that I linked you to and look at the general criticism section.
Why would I want you dead? I'm not a fascist, I'm a Marxist. I only wish death upon Nazis and fascists, supporters of genocide, and the like, and haven't expressed hostility towards you. You did link a post with Zionist ties, so that's at least approval of the opinions of fascists.
Plus, I reported homophobia, if you aren't homophobic there's nothing to report.
None of it had anything to do with fascism. Funnily enough, it did reference low unemployment rates, cheap goods, universal healthcare, and free education. Central Planning, Atheism, Political Repression of the Bourgeoisie, and collectivization are all straight from Marx. Which bits specifically marked where Lenin diverged from Marx?
Or, reference Eco's 14 points, and tell me which apply.
You tell me? Why are you so excited about Lenin if he didn't diverge from Marx?
Last time I checked, Lenin wasn't very Democratic. He put a lot of people in concentration camps. Seems like a very fascist thing to do. Seems like all he did was talk a big game and become an authoritarian. Why would you stand this guy?
Accepting his works as additions to Marxism, and expansions on them, does not mean he "diverted" from Marx. Again, his analysis of Imperialism, for example, was massive for Marxism, and was a continuation of Marx's original writings.
One of Lenin's contributions to Revolutionary Theory is the practice of Democratic Centralism, along with Soviet Democracy. Lenin expanded Democratic rights for the Proletariat.
Bourgeoisie, fascist collaboraters like the White Army, and people attempting to overthrow the new government were jailed, along with regular criminals. Anarchist Catalonia even had forced labor camps, revolution is messy. Calling prisons "concentration camps" is sensationalism.
Marx, Engels, and the actually existing Anarchist societies would be considered fascist by your criteria.
Maybe to non-Marxists, but in the field of Marxism he advanced knowledge of Capitalism along international lines via Imperialism, advanced revolutionary theory, and applied theory to practice, creating the first Socialist State. You may wish to read Engels' On Authority, Marx's Critique of the Gotha Programme, and The Manifesto of the Communist Party. Marx and Engels were also called authoritarian in their time, and defended themselves against such claims.
I haven't met him in person, doubt you have either. If you mean "stan," then no, I don't "stan" Lenin, he's a dead guy from 100 years ago. Marxists must continue to adopt what has worked and shed what has not worked, matching Theory to Practice. Much of the USSR did work, like free healthcare and education, and they were fairly efficient with central planning despite calculating by hand, before computers. They also faced problems internal and external, and those should also be learned from. They were not, by any definition, fascist.
Ok, I feel like my position is moving a bit. Do you have any information on the how Democratic this all is? It seems like Lenin was head of state, and couldn't be removed. Would Lenin have supported being voted out? I am not opposed to authority, but it needs to be tethered to the peoples will.
I understand that some action needed to be taken to force the bourgeoisie out of power. But it isn't clear to me that that power was returned to the people.
Great! Assuming you're being genuine, my goal is not to convince you to become a hard-line Marxist-Leninist or anything, my goal is to get you to rescind your statement that Marxism-Leninism is fascist. You can disagree with Lenin if you want, or think he could have done things far better with different methods, but calling him and Marxist-Leninists fascist is wrong.
Wikipedia has an article on Soviet Democracy, the democratic model followed by the USSR. If you want to hear Lenin describe everything, in his own words, The State and Revolution goes over Lenin's contributions to Revolutionary Theory.
Theoretically yes, though this never happened. Lenin was extremely popular until his death. The closest was the Bolsheviks losing to the SRs in the 1917 Constituent Assembly, but replacing the Liberal Capitalist Constituent Assembly with only the Soviet system. Previous to that election, both Soviets and the Liberal Provisional Government held dual-power, overturning it fully transitioned to a Dictatorship of the Proletariat.
Hence the need for Democratic Centralism, diversity in thought, unity in action. Later on, Mao added the concept of the Mass Line to draw a direct line from the top to the bottom, but this was well after the USSR had come into existence, this was Mao tweaking the Soviet system.
You can read what I have linked. If you want a book that tries to analyze the USSR, for both positives and negatives while working through Red-Scare Propaganda, Blackshirts and Reds goes over quite a lot of the overall system of the USSR.
Nope, I'm being completely genuine. I suspect the people I've talk to about the subject before did either a poor job explaining it or were too far in love with Lenin have a realistic perspective with on things. Guy was a human like the rest of us, not a saint.
I will need some time to process all this information. Thank you for taking the time to talk with me about this subject.
P.S. I am not a Zionist or Homophobic.
Glad to hear it, this conversation was worth it in the end then.
Bit of A, bit of B.
Overall, you absolutely did have an absolute resistance towards even considering that Lenin may not have been a fascist, that's difficult to engage with, and I imagine it would be hard to convince you in any other context as well.
As for the love Lenin himself gets, it's important to recognize 2 major factors.
Lenin is incredibly popular among Marxists for being the first major figure to fully study Marxism, apply it to the conditions of the world he lived in, expand on Marxism, put Theory to Practice, take down the Brutal Tsarist Regime, and create the first true Socialist State. This is on top of having an unapologetic and fiery writing style. He is very easy to like, as a Marxist. As an example, see the opening to The State and Revolution:
Secondly, liking Lenin does not mean Marxists deny missteps, errors, or believe him to be a "Great Man." Marxists explicitly reject Great Man Theory, which posits that history is guided by unique individuals and their ideas, rather than the material conditions of society. If Lenin had never been born, someone else would have eventually come to similar conclusions, and revolution would have likely happend without him. Lenin was not a saint, he was just the person who filled up a historical role that someone else could have just as easily filled.
No worries, there's a lot to dig through, and it deserves to be thoroughly looked at. I do think reading Marx and Engels first, at least Critique of the Gotha Programme, Wage Labor and Capital, and Socialism: Utopian and Scientific from Marx and Engels before jumping into Lenin's works can better allow you to personally judge if Lenin was a departure from Marx, or an expander upon Marx.
For Lenin himself, Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism and The State and Revolution are his essential works, and what really matters when it comes to Marxism itself. If you go through Marx and Engels, then compare Lenin's works to theirs, you can come to your own conclusions, free from outside bias.
I hoped you weren't. I do still believe the bit on Lenin and Marx was homophobic, even if unintentionally. The root of the "humor" in those jokes is just naked homophobia.