Fascism or Communism?

[Jacob]

We're having the Nth iteration of "is it Fasicsm or is it Communism" in the China thread right now.

It's an interesting intellectual exercise to identify the distinghishing characteristics of the different flavours of Fascism and Communism, and even more so to apply those definitions to existing or historical regimes. Those definitions, of course, are also important because the conclusions we draw from them are often used to argue for or against specific policies and parties in our liberal democracies. So the stakes are kind of high.

So here's a thread for that, as well as for the inevitable languish jokes and shitposts.

To get the thread started, here are some of the evergreens:

Is Fascism and Communism basically the same thing? And are they then left-wing or right-wing?

If Fascism and Communism are different, what are the salient differences?

Is Xi's China Fascist or Communist? Is it possible for a regime to transition from Fascism to Communism or vice versa?

Do the excesses of Fascist and Communist regimes provide any lessons to liberal democracies about political tendencies that should be fought back?

[Razgovory]

We're having the Nth iteration of "is it Fasicsm or is it Communism" in the China thread right now.

It's an interesting intellectual exercise to identify the distinghishing characteristics of the different flavours of Fascism and Communism, and even more so to apply those definitions to existing or historical regimes. Those definitions, of course, are also important because the conclusions we draw from them are often used to argue for or against specific policies and parties in our liberal democracies. So the stakes are kind of high.

So here's a thread for that, as well as for the inevitable languish jokes and shitposts.

To get the thread started, here are some of the evergreens:

Is Fascism and Communism basically the same thing? And are they then left-wing or right-wing?

If Fascism and Communism are different, what are the salient differences?

Is Xi's China Fascist or Communist? Is it possible for a regime to transition from Fascism to Communism or vice versa?

Do the excesses of Fascist and Communist regimes provide any lessons to liberal democracies about political tendencies that should be fought back?

1: No not the same thing.  Communism is left wing and Fascism right wing

2: Fascism in based on the idea that Hierarchy is natural and desirable and obedience to the state or at least leader is an end to itself.  Communism rejects the idea of hierarchy and obedience to the state is a temporary requirement as the end goal in the abolition of the state. Communists believe that the means of production should be in the hands of the people while fascism is... well all over the place in economics

3: The cat doesn't want me to type.

[The Brain]

Liberal democracies should think about what they are for, and fight that which opposes those things. They should not get into "no true Scotsman" arguments about different anti-democratic political ideologies.

[Valmy]

Well the problem is that fascism has always had a hell of time defining itself and Communism is, as far as I can tell, an impractical impossibility so the states that are supposed to be trying to create it don't seem to be acting in good faith. It is difficult with both the Nazis and other Euro Fascists to not start creating a bunch of nationalistic, mystical mumbo jumbo, race realism, and romantic love of hierarchy being in there someplace to define fascism. However, Communist regimes have not exactly steered clear of many of those things.

Liberal Democracy is based on the primacy of consent and individual rights. Those are such opposite things I am not sure what they have to learn from Fascist or Communistic ideas. Maybe just that you have to acknowledge the need to balance social issues and tribalism with the principles of Liberal Democracy in order to create a functioning state that can withstand those kind of authoritarian challenges.

[Sheilbh]

Is Fascism and Communism basically the same thing? And are they then left-wing or right-wing?

No. N/A.

If Fascism and Communism are different, what are the salient differences?

I think there's two useful approaches to fascism - one is sort of ontological: what are the defining features of fascism, but that only takes you so far. The other is based on circumstance: what are the conditions that created/allowed for the creation of fascism (and we tend to focus on the fascism that won - not the various fascist movements that failed). I am sort of the view that fascism is probably a historical phenomenon - like Stalinism - rather than a helpful term or way of understanding politics now.

Is Xi's China Fascist or Communist?

I think it's communist. But also Xi speaks about Marx and how the CCP are a Marxist party and what that means. It might not match your interpretation of Marxism - it is unlikely to be a theoretically interesting Marxist take, but I think that is relevant. If, say, Joe Biden gave a big speech talking about the importance of, say, Rawls or Hayek - I think that would be taken seriously as an important. But with Marxism - and religion (perhaps anything outside of Western liberalism) - we seem to struggle with the idea that maybe people consider it seriously and mean it.

And, you know, this isn't new. There were Westerners in the 50s who didn't think Mao was communist. They referred to Marx a lot but basically how could a peasant focused revolutionary movement fit within Marxism? How could a fundamentally anti-colonial, countryside based revolutionary movement have anything to do with the industrial proletariat? Later Eastern European writers noted that Chinese Communism was theoretically underpowered and "primitive" even in comparison with a brute like Stalin. I think there was a bit of racism about it - particularly with a (not uncommon) view that Mao was in the tradition of "Oriental despots" not communism. He was a new "red emperor" not a communist. All stuff we can recognise today

Again I think there's questions of how you approach working out what communism (in power) is, or isn't.

Is it possible for a regime to transition from Fascism to Communism or vice versa?

I'm not sure - that ideological journey was obviously possible and did happen through the interwar period. At a state level, I'm not sure.

Do the excesses of Fascist and Communist regimes provide any lessons to liberal democracies about political tendencies that should be fought back?

I'm not sure.

[Savonarola]

We're having the Nth iteration of "is it Fasicsm or is it Communism" in the China thread right now.

It's an interesting intellectual exercise to identify the distinghishing characteristics of the different flavours of Fascism and Communism, and even more so to apply those definitions to existing or historical regimes. Those definitions, of course, are also important because the conclusions we draw from them are often used to argue for or against specific policies and parties in our liberal democracies. So the stakes are kind of high.

So here's a thread for that, as well as for the inevitable languish jokes and shitposts.

To get the thread started, here are some of the evergreens:

Is Fascism and Communism basically the same thing? And are they then left-wing or right-wing?

They have similar political systems in that they are both bureaucracy heavy dictatorships; but I don't think they are identical.  I don't think left/right works here.  Both movements did see themselves as progressive and scientific on the other hand both really loved the military and hierarchy.

If Fascism and Communism are different, what are the salient differences?

As an economic system, in Communism the government owns the means of production; while Fascism is a partnership (sometimes coerced, of course) of private industry, unions and the government.  In their totalitarian forms both required an ever expanding list of internal enemies; but their enemies were different Communism based their enemies on class; Fascism on race or biology.  Communism (in theory) sees itself as part of an inevitable international movement, while Fascism is a nationalistic movement.

Is Xi's China Fascist or Communist? Is it possible for a regime to transition from Fascism to Communism or vice versa?

Based on what I've written before, I think Xi's China is more akin to Fascism.  Private industry is subordinate to the party, but government doesn't own all the means of production.  The Enemies of the State aren't based on class (in fact the owners of Huawei and Ali Baba are members of the party); but some are based on ethnicity.  China is clearly more nationalist than worldwide revolution.

In the context of the Cold War regimes could easily shift from Communist to Fascist depending on who was offering more money at the time.   

Do the excesses of Fascist and Communist regimes provide any lessons to liberal democracies about political tendencies that should be fought back?

Communism, no, it only ever emerged in mostly agrarian societies.  Fascism (or a dictatorship) I think does as it has emerged when the democratic process seems to take too long or government is seen as unable to meet the needs of its people.  This, I think, describes the worldview of both progressives and conservatives in the United States at this time.

[Razgovory]

I think it's communist. But also Xi speaks about Marx and how the CCP are a Marxist party and what that means. It might not match your interpretation of Marxism - it is unlikely to be a theoretically interesting Marxist take, but I think that is relevant. If, say, Joe Biden gave a big speech talking about the importance of, say, Rawls or Hayek - I think that would be taken seriously as an important. But with Marxism - and religion (perhaps anything outside of Western liberalism) - we seem to struggle with the idea that maybe people consider it seriously and mean it.

And, you know, this isn't new. There were Westerners in the 50s who didn't think Mao was communist. They referred to Marx a lot but basically how could a peasant focused revolutionary movement fit within Marxism? How could a fundamentally anti-colonial, countryside based revolutionary movement have anything to do with the industrial proletariat? Later Eastern European writers noted that Chinese Communism was theoretically underpowered and "primitive" even in comparison with a brute like Stalin. I think there was a bit of racism about it - particularly with a (not uncommon) view that Mao was in the tradition of "Oriental despots" not communism. He was a new "red emperor" not a communist. All stuff we can recognise today

This.  We have tendency to view governments and movements through the biographies of the leaders leaders of such governments and movements.  As if the horrors of the Soviet Union could be solely laid at the feat of the likes of Lenin and Stalin.  Lenin and Stalin did the things they did not just because they were bad people but because they were informed by an ideology that promised utopia.  A temporary period of injustice could be justified by a world of eternal freedom.  I don't doubt that President Xi sees his actions in the same light.

[grumbler]

Is Fascism and Communism basically the same thing? And are they then left-wing or right-wing?

They are not at all the same thing.  They are authoritarian, but only vaguely left or right wing.

If Fascism and Communism are different, what are the salient differences?

The salient differences between the two are the desired end-states, and the supposed beneficiaries of their success.  Communism's end-state is the elimination of the state.  Fascism's end-state is the elimination of everything except the state.    Communism promotes the welfare of each individual (through collective action for a time, to be sure), whereas fascism seeks to serve the nation/race, with the individuals important only in the degree to which they serve the nation or race.  The goal of Communism is social justice; the goal of Fascism is racial or national survival and glory.  In Communism the state serves the people; in Fascism the people serve the state.

Communism is based on human nature being cooperative; Fascism is based on human nature being predatory.

Both use authoritarian means (especially the Leninist and Maoist varieties of Communism but all varieties of fascism) to get the society moving towards the desired end-state, but for Communism the authoritarian phase is supposed to be limited in duration.  Fascism incorporates authoritarianism and cannot exist without it.

Is Xi's China Fascist or Communist? Is it possible for a regime to transition from Fascism to Communism or vice versa?

Xi's China is definitely not Communist (except in that his party name includes the word "Communist" like the name of the PDRK includes the word "Democratic"), but I wouldn't argue that it is fascist.  Fascism includes a lot of mythic elements that Xi's politics seem to lack.  Trump is more fascist than Xi, and Trump isn't particularly fascist.

Xi's China is authoritarian nationalist, like Putin's Russia or Erdogan's Turkey (and soon Modi's India).  There's no higher purpose or utopian end state for Xi and the CCP.  There's just the retention of power and the accumulation of goodies.

Do the excesses of Fascist and Communist regimes provide any lessons to liberal democracies about political tendencies that should be fought back?

Both Communist and fascist regimes depend on people being non-skeptical, and accepting the principals of the party as being true no matter what the experience of the people to the contrary.  People trained to ask questions and think for themselves don't fall prey to extremism.  The problem is when people have enough education to understand that things are fucked, but not enough to see that simple solutions won't unfuck things.  As Albert Einstein once wisely observed "we can't use the same thinking in solving our problems as we did in creating them."  Training people to change their thinking as conditions change is hard.

[Berkut]

Liberal democracies should think about what they are for, and fight that which opposes those things. They should not get into "no true Scotsman" arguments about different anti-democratic political ideologies.

Now that is something I can get behind.

But along with it is that they need to stop being so fucking afraid of actually SAYING what they are for, and asserting that it is better then the alternative.

[The Brain]

Liberal democracies should think about what they are for, and fight that which opposes those things. They should not get into "no true Scotsman" arguments about different anti-democratic political ideologies.

Now that is something I can get behind.

But along with it is that they need to stop being so fucking afraid of actually SAYING what they are for, and asserting that it is better then the alternative.

Definitely.

[DGuller]

I think a related question is:  what's the difference between garden-variety president-for-life authoritarianism, and an actual fascist government?  For example, did Russia transition from a communist country to a fascist one, or did it just transition to a banana republic type of government?

[Sheilbh]

Based on what I've written before, I think Xi's China is more akin to Fascism.  Private industry is subordinate to the party, but government doesn't own all the means of production.  The Enemies of the State aren't based on class (in fact the owners of Huawei and Ali Baba are members of the party); but some are based on ethnicity.

Although the Ant Group's IPO was cancelled by the state at the last minute and Jack Ma "diappeared" from the public eye for three months - it's unclear why - but is in the context of a wider state crackdown on the tech sector. Most interestingly, I think, is the crackdown on the private education industry because of its social impact - including just three days ago forcing private schools to come under state ownership. But private education and tutoring was an industry worth $120 billion in China and involved companies like TAL in the US have seen their stocks plummet by up to 70% (in NY) and financial analysts in the west are saying that this sector is going through the "worst-case scenario" of what they thought could happen.

I think the Economist has speculated that it's basically China's response to the same issues the West has with big tech and China's state/regulatory impact is just bigger - I could be wrong, but I think ideology matters and that's a large driver: re-assertion of party state control, an end to the Deng era of just building out a material base for socialism (China has reached its goal of a "moderately prosperous society"), making sure they are if not owner, then in control, of key sectors and focusing on sectors that have a wider social impact (which is an expanding definition).

China is clearly more nationalist than worldwide revolution.

Although at the CCP's 100th birthday party, Xi did note that the highest purpose of Marxism is the achievement of communism and communism is not narrow or regional. It is still socialism with Chinese characteristics - but apparently the strength of that is the strength of the party and the fact that "Marxism works". It is now, in his statement, a "new model for human advancement". My understanding is that previously it's been the approach to emphasise the Chinese characteristics and this not necessarily being an applicable model for other states, I think that may be shifting.

The highlights are all traditional nationalist high-points, but I think what Xi is choosing to say matters.

[DGuller]

Marxism worked in USSR as well at the beginning; productivity skyrocketed after introduction of NEP.

[Sheilbh]

I think a related question is:  what's the difference between garden-variety president-for-life authoritarianism, and an actual fascist government?  For example, did Russia transition from a communist country to a fascist one, or did it just transition to a banana republic type of government?

No it's something different. I mean there isn't much ideology in fascism - by definition it's about the expression of power and the nation so it will vary in what it looks like. So I think it's more about what are the distinguishing features rather than any "ideology".

I think Valmy's right about anti-communism, but I'd almost put it as fascism is a reaction against an ascendant left - this is linked to the acceptance or collaboration of a ruling class (the capitalist conservatives deciding they'd rather work - and manipulate - the Austrian corporal over the left). I think it's also at it's core anti-democracy or anti-parliamentary democracy (the failed liberal system) - which is quite different from the sort of post-modern authoritarian/managed democracy model where they use and stick with the forms of democracy.

I think it is totalitarian while I think Erdogan, Putin etc basically limit the areas in which politics interacts with an individual's life - if you don't cross them, you're generally okay. Linked to that I think, is that fascism is about mobilisation behind the state/leader - again I think Russia or Turkey are looking to de-mobilise people to almost nullify them and the risk of people - I think fascism relies on social ties that maybe just don't exist any more: a joining society (the opposite of Bowling Alone).

I think there's something to the argument that fascism is basicaly a youth movement and relies on youth in a lot of its presentation and self-image. Related to that is the squadristi or brownshirts and street violence. Again I don't think that applies. I think imperialism and geopolitical revisionism that cannot be resolved in the current international system are also important. And I think it probably only makes sense/arises in the context of an economic crisis (this may be linked to the youth movement - lots of young men with time on their hands).

Some current government might meet some of those criteria, but I don't think there's really a fascist regime out there. But that's partly why I think it is probably best understood as a historical phenomenon - I don't know that those factors and features have coincided in the world outside of interwar Europe or if they will again (I hope not - geopolitical grievance, economic crisis etc is not great).

[Tamas]

I agree with grumbler, Brain, and Berkut.

Thank you.