Lemdro.id

45 points

6 months ago

What makes Russia fascist?

When did it become fascist?

report

[ - ]

6 points

6 months ago

What makes Russia fascist?

The embrace of fascism by its ruling political party, the fascist political structure, the fact that it’s built in the image of another fascist state (Namely the US), its embrace of anti-communism, anti-minority (whether those be gender and sexual minorities or religious and ethnic minorities), all the fucking nazis and fascists involved with or connected to the ruling party. Is this place doing a bit right now?

When did it become fascist?

Somewhere around the time Yeltsin took power, did away with the soviet union and any communist project, suppressed left wing resistance to this. And I would say the fascist didn’t end when he then handed power over to the guy who is still in charge being a fascist and basically doing the exact same thing more competently.

report

[ - ]

48 points

6 months ago

I’m not going to hide the ball. My point is that fascism is more than just “country has a long-term ruler the U.S. doesn’t like.”

The embrace of fascism by its ruling political party, the fascist political structure, the fact that it’s built in the image of another fascist state

These are circular – “it’s fascist because it’s fascist” – and the last two are the same point. It’s not the formal structure of a government that makes it fascist, either; the actions of the government matter more than the words in the constitution.

its embrace of anti-communism

Getting closer, but this doesn’t fit the facts. Russia’s second-largest party is the Communist Party. While Russia, as a capitalist state, is hostile to communism, it’s less hostile than any Western European state, to say nothing of the U.S., and it’s nowhere close to your classic examples of fascism like Nazi Germany, Pinochet’s Chile, the ROC, the ROK, etc.

anti-minority (whether those be gender and sexual minorities or religious and ethnic minorities)

Painting with far too broad of brush. Every country on the planet has work to do on treating all minority populations fairly, and most have had explicitly anti-minority policies in the recent past. These are reactionary policies and bad, but there’s a far cry between that and fascism. Was Cuba fascist before its new Family Code was passed? Is the U.S. not fascist if a queer woman can become a drone pilot?

all the fucking nazis and fascists involved with or connected to the ruling party

There are Nazi elements present in every capitalist country. Is every non-AES state fascist? Seems reductive.

report

[ - ]

8 points

6 months ago

I’m not going to argue this unless you can provide me a definition of fascism (I.e. not "Must call their ruling party “The fascist party”) that is useful and doesn’t include the Russian government. Actually let me rephrase: Come up with a definition that includes Chile, the RoC under the KMT, South Korea, et al, but does not include Russia.

Such a definition does not exist, and cannot exist. Classic definitions of fascism promulgated by people like Robert Paxton fit Russia, definitions of fascism like a decaying capitalist state run by a bourgeois lashing promulgated by people like Clara Zetkin fit Russia, definitions like Dmitrov’s definition of fascism as the most reactionary forces of finance capitalism having control over the capitalist state fit Russia. But apparently Russia isn’t fascist because fascism is more than just being fascist.

report

[ - ]

25 points

6 months ago

The problem with most definitions of fascism is that they apply in one degree or another to virtually every capitalist country. This is especially true if one plays a little loose with the facts, or isn’t careful about what governmental actions are common vs. exceptional. And reducing it to fascism = capitalism is unhelpful for a half dozen ways.

I’d define fascism by two characteristics:

The state is ran nominally on behalf of capital, but capital is ultimately subject to the whims of the state. Contrast this with socialism, where capital is similarly under state control, but the state is ran on behalf of the people, and also with capitalism, where capital is both the main beneficiary and is completely running the show. Imagine a wealthy capitalist who displeases the state. Under fascism, the state is ultimately in charge: it can arrest or even execute the capitalist on any or no charges, seize property, etc. Under capitalism, capitalists have strong protections against the state – rich guy justice – and unhappy capitalists can and do depose unsatisfactory state actors. A capitalist state has to please its capitalist masters; a fascist state may play nice with capitalists, but the state is the master.
State repression is at an advanced, ubiquitous stage, where it’s more of an affirmative policy than a response against opponents. This is the “imperialism fully coming home to roost” part of fascism. Internal repressive institutions aren’t occasionally dipping into grotesque tactics; it’s now standard operating procedure. Seeking out and destroying (not merely harassing) internal enemies is an affirmative, constant mandate of these institutions, not something they kick into high gear during a crisis. The mandate to destroy (again, not merely harass) internal enemies far exceeds the legitimate police functions of the state (e.g., pursuing crimes that nearly any state would prosecute).

For 1, I think Russian capitalists still have plenty of power and control over the Russian state. For 2, I don’t think internal repression in Russia is anywhere near the scale and severity of, for instance, the White Terror under the ROC or the disappearing of prisoners in the Southern Cone regimes of the Cold War.

report

[ - ]

6 points

6 months ago

That would be an interesting definition of fascism, but it fails the test of including regimes that were listed as fascist. Pinochet’s Chile was very clearly in a situation where national and international capitalists were making decisions and where much of Pinochet’s power was reliant on the support of international (Particularly US) capital interests and national capitalists who could and did flaunt the laws of the state. I’m more shaky on the RoC but from my understanding there basically was no state power except sending in the military to knock heads occasionally, parts of that country were entirely run by corporations, parts of it were run by regional warlords, parts of it had functionally no government. Very few people were actually subject to the state, and the forces of capital in particular were not subject to much state power. Ownership of production, military power and state functionary tasks blended together and were often held by the same people who tended towards embracing profit motives. Although I will admit my knowledge of the RoC is limited and I might be misunderstanding.
As for the RoK, that was fully a subject state to US capital interests.

I’m also pretty sure the US is considered fascist in this particular discussion (Or at least that was my understanding), and I think the US capitalist class is kind of uniquely powerful.

If we are to set up a very restrictive definition of fascism, that one would be a worthy one to consider. But I don’t think it’s a correct or useful one for this particular discussion given our previous inclusions of other regimes that do not fit within it. It is certainly one that would fit for a lot of traditional 20th century fascist powers, and one with a very clear outlook on what is being discussed.

report

[ - ]

16 points

6 months ago

Pinochet’s Chile was very clearly in a situation where national and international capitalists were making decisions and where much of Pinochet’s power was reliant on the support of international (Particularly US) capital interests and national capitalists who could and did flaunt the laws of the state.

Do you know of any examples of capitalists having a genuine conflict with Pinochet and winning? I don’t, because I don’t think there were many conflicts between those two parties to begin with.

I suppose you could look at Chile, the ROC, and the ROK as neocolonies instead of relatively weak fascist states, but then you could describe a colony as a weaker fascist client of the metropole, too.

I’m also pretty sure the US is considered fascist

I’d say it’s capitalist (it would be a lot easier for Jeff Bezos to get rid of Joe Biden than the other way around, so it fails condition 1) but imperialist (comfortable doing fascism abroad). As bad as its internal repressive institutions are, they’re still far from the scale and severity of governments most would label fascist. Would fascist police bother with body cams and similar reforms?

Looking at this the other way: what definition of fascism includes Russia, but doesn’t also include almost every capitalist country?

report

AssortedBiscuits [they/them]@hexbear.net

Show more comments

[ - ]

14 points

6 months ago

I’m more shaky on the RoC but from my understanding there basically was no state power except sending in the military to knock heads occasionally, parts of that country were entirely run by corporations, parts of it were run by regional warlords, parts of it had functionally no government. Very few people were actually subject to the state, and the forces of capital in particular were not subject to much state power. Ownership of production, military power and state functionary tasks blended together and were often held by the same people who tended towards embracing profit motives. Although I will admit my knowledge of the RoC is limited and I might be misunderstanding.

I mean the ROC during the Warlord Era functionally wasn’t even a state, let along a capitalist state. Unless you want to give fascism a transhistorical character (ie you want to speak of “Carolingian fascism” or call Julius Caesar a fascist), it doesn’t make sense to call ROC fascist. The understanding of Chinese academia is that the particular mode of production that China had during the Century of Humiliation, of which the Warlord Era was a latter stage of it, was semi-feudal semi-colonial. Thus, it cannot be fascist by the vast majority of Marxist definitions which explicitly specifies that the mode of production has to be capitalist. Otherwise, we can spend an eternity arguing whether Kublai Khan was fascist or whether Cyrus the Great was fascist.

Now, if you’re talking about the ROC declaring martial law in Taiwan after getting kicked out of the Mainland by the PLA, eh. I think it’s more Bonapartist than fascist. Taiwanese finance capitalists didn’t exist at that time since Taiwan was previously a Japanese colony, and at any case, Chiang Kai-Shek wasn’t going to rely on a bunch of benshengren capitalists who collaborated with the Japanese when his power base was waishengren ex-landlords who fled with him. Chiang Kai-Shek also introduced “land reform” where he expropriated land from benshengren landlord collaborators and gave the land to waishengren landlords had their land expropriated by the the CPC.

report

rio [none/use name]@hexbear.net

Show more comments

[ - ]

23 points

6 months ago

wtf Paxton’s anatomy of fascism absolutely does not apply to Russia.

Sound off all you want but read the book before citing it you wanker.

report

[ - ]

1 point

6 months ago

It sure does though.

report

rio [none/use name]@hexbear.net

[ - ]

27 points

6 months ago

Of all the definitions of fascism, Paxton’s would fit Russia the least of them.

You haven’t read it. It’s really obvious. Fuck off.

report