Ukraine and the Russian invasion, 2022-24
- Thread starter kebabking
- Start date
The39thStep
Urban critical thinker
When did Russia become fascist ?
LDC
On est tous des pangolins
Oh shit I keep meaning to try and come back to that after you asked. Been listening to a few discussions that have argued both ways and I'm less sure, although think the categorisation of it is much less important than its actual activity. Synder goes on about schizo-fascism which is interesting.
Last edited:
The39thStep
Urban critical thinker
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
mojo pixy
...שלא נמצא בשמאל
When Putin passed his law in 2021 that let him run for president again and again and gave him lifetime immunity from prosecution. OK 'Fascism' may not quite be the right word for his shtick, but 'autocracy' fits just fine. Stalin is a better comparison than Hitler IMO but it's dancing on a pinhead really.
LDC
On est tous des pangolins
I’m with Cid!
Splitter!
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
Autocracy very different from fascism. Do you think eg Nicholas ii, the famous autocrat, similar to putin?
Artaxerxes
Look out, he's got a gnu!
There's an awful lot of blood and soil and one people rhetoric as well
mojo pixy
...שלא נמצא בשמאל
No, I tried to be clear I don't think fascism is the right word for this regime. There are many flavours of autocracy, and fascism doesn't have to be autocratic. Putin is an autocrat, indisputably, but a lot of people use 'fascist' when they really mean autocrat / dictator.
I don’t know about fascist but he’s doing his best to create totalitarianism. He’s not yet managed it (by quite a large margin) but all the classic elements are certainly there by intent. He’s created narrative myths around being hard done by and racist themes. He’s created a series of increasingly close circles, all of which have ever closer access to the thoughts of the leader. The leader is trying to make himself indistinguishable from the people. There is the use of “scientific” prediction to create a sense of inevitability. And, almost most tellingly of all, any sense of reality and truth is completely undermined, with reality being whatever the leader says it is, subject to change at the drop of a hat and the use of show trials to reinforce the new reality.
Kevbad the Bad
Amiable Bowel Syndrome
People use the term fascism in varying ways. Partly because there was no one pan-European political movement with one definable ideology or praxis. The things which united them included the symbolism and trappings of flags, banners, uniforms and anthems, the belief in strong leadership and uses of violence, patriotism and nationalism and concurrent racism and discrimination against linguistic minorities, authoritarianism, patriarchy, anti-communism. But there were big differences too. The 'scientific racism' of the Nazis was a minority trend until they came to dominate the continent. An extreme right wing Catholicism was prevalent in Spanish, Croatian, Slovakian fascism but not the same even in Italy and obviously not where Catholicism was not strong.
A lot of that applied to Stalin in his heyday too. Not so very different. Which is why it's so easy to conflate Hitler and Stalin.
If fascism back in the early 20th century is hard to define exactly then how much more difficult today when societies, economies, technology and national borders have all changed so much? Plus, the historical baggage of the 2nd world war and the Holocaust mean that many (not all) fascist leaning movements distance themselves from some of the symbolism and slogans of the past.
So, for my money, a person/party/state that is militaristic, authoritarian, nationalistic, totalitarian might as well be called fascist as anything else. Not compulsory, but an option. You could call Putin a fascist or you could just call him a fucking, murderous bastard. The choice is yours.
A lot of that applied to Stalin in his heyday too. Not so very different. Which is why it's so easy to conflate Hitler and Stalin.
If fascism back in the early 20th century is hard to define exactly then how much more difficult today when societies, economies, technology and national borders have all changed so much? Plus, the historical baggage of the 2nd world war and the Holocaust mean that many (not all) fascist leaning movements distance themselves from some of the symbolism and slogans of the past.
So, for my money, a person/party/state that is militaristic, authoritarian, nationalistic, totalitarian might as well be called fascist as anything else. Not compulsory, but an option. You could call Putin a fascist or you could just call him a fucking, murderous bastard. The choice is yours.
spitfire
Walty McWaltface
So yesterday Kadyrov was going to take over in Bakhmut and last night Herr Wagner publicly said this was the plan and confirmed this morning that WG were leaving. 25 minutes later Herr Wagner announces that the Ru Gov are going to give him everything he wants and WG are staying in Bakhmut.
Crazy guy.
Crazy guy.
The39thStep
Urban critical thinker
So when did Russia reach the stage when, by your definition, we might as well call it fascist anyway?
Kevbad the Bad
Amiable Bowel Syndrome
Dunno. Under Stalin you might as well have done, save that fascists and Nazis were all so anti-Bolshevik. The USSR retreated from some of that after Stalin died, but left in place the authoritarianism, nationalism, militarism. Then perestroika, Gorbachev and Yeltsin, break-up of the USSR. Putin comes along and it's been a gradual movement towards a variant of fascism. There was not the same need to seize power that the Nazis, or Mussolini or Franco had, because Putin was already in power, so the change was more gradual. Russia today is not as authoritarian as it was under communism, but the direction of travel is obvious.
What is this obsession with labelling as fascism? Like it crosses some threshold and becomes more easily understood? It doesn’t actually help anyone’s understanding other than supplying some preconceived notions of what Russia is like. Russia is not a totalitarian regime. It is an autocratic nationalistic authoritarian one for my money.
Kevbad the Bad
Amiable Bowel Syndrome
True, but Hitler was not fascism either. He was the leader of a German variant, atypically came to power through democratic means, only came to be seen as a fascist archetype in retrospect after WW2. He was also not as totalitarian as he would have liked either.
Russia is not a totalitarian regime, but that’s not for want of Putin’s trying to make it so. He has pulled everything from the playbook. And totalitarianism does matter, not least because baked into it is the need to create enemies out of everyone that isn’t you.
Last edited:
A380
How do I change this 'custom title' thing then?
The simplistic issue and problem is that the label of 'fascism' has come to have (at least three) different usages. It is often used as shorthand for any autocratic and dictatorial government (that doesn't have a fig leaf of redistribution about it.) So regimes such as Putin's Russia or Iran are described as fascist. Then the, closer to 'true fascism' definition that sees a degree of exultation to 'nation' and or 'race' above the individual and uses that philosophy to drive economic and social control. Then there is the tendency for people on the left and in the centre to use it as a label for any far right ideology wether that be truly fascist or indeed authoritarian or not.
(Plus of course the fourth 'Student Grant' school of politics to label anyone with a different political approach to the speaker , or any state or public servant as facist!).
On the the one hand it is useful shorthand, but on the other can lead to the kind of issues we see on this thread and elsewhere.
A thread might be interesting to unpick it from this thread on the war.
My Personal view, worth no more and no less than anyone else's, is that the Putin regime doesn't fit 'my' definition of fascism, instead its a kleptocratic authoritarian regime, lead by a man who is trying to make it a dictatorship.
(Plus of course the fourth 'Student Grant' school of politics to label anyone with a different political approach to the speaker , or any state or public servant as facist!).
On the the one hand it is useful shorthand, but on the other can lead to the kind of issues we see on this thread and elsewhere.
A thread might be interesting to unpick it from this thread on the war.
My Personal view, worth no more and no less than anyone else's, is that the Putin regime doesn't fit 'my' definition of fascism, instead its a kleptocratic authoritarian regime, lead by a man who is trying to make it a dictatorship.
Last edited:
teqniq
DisMembered
This doesn't sound too good:
Ukraine war: 'Mad panic' as Russia evacuates town near Zaporizhzhia plant
UN watchdog warns of "threat of a severe nuclear accident" at the Zaporizhzhia plant in Ukraine.
www.bbc.com
gosub
~#
That sounds more like Hitler than Mussolini
tim
EXPLODED TIM! (Help me!!!)
Most of the last page or so sounds like something that should be on a different thread.
Neither armchair generals, not armchair political analysts!
it could go that way but see the interesting article LDC posted and Bluescreen linked to prev page. Some descent, criticism is allowed, as long as it's the patriotic kind. Acting a bit as a safety valve. He's trying to balance or has been, the existing competing interests in Russia. May well end up being over taken by more hardline interests who want a tighter regeme. But the business interest elites do not for various reasons. Commercial, fearing further world isolation and where they would fit in such a totalarian regeme. (soz spelling all over the place.)
Last edited:
Similar threads
