Empty stomachs breed political unrest. A human constant.
Even in middle school history class we were taught that the 1930's rise of fascism wouldn't be possible without the economic downturn that preceded it. And that the French Revolution never would've happened without huge inequalities.
Now this may have been socialist propaganda (middle school was ~6 years after Yugoslavia), but a lot of it rings true.
The rise of the today's Russian fascism has followed exactly the same path as in Germany back then - a lost war (Afghanistan and Cold War) resulting in the crash of empire followed by a decade of economic hardship resulting in the rise of a "strong man" regime with all the same trappings of revanchism, "master nation" ideology, total suppression of basic liberties and democratic institutions, etc. (even the triggers used by the regime to grab the total governmental power are very similar - Reichstag fire in Germany and the FSB bombing of apartment buildings in 1999.) And so far we've had annexation of Crimea being extremely similar to the annexation of Sudetenlend back then, and the current stage - Ukraine invasion - is the start of the actual implementation of Lebensraum (Polish invasion back then) - last time it led directly to WWII, and i don't see how we can cheat the historic logic this time.
Hitler was outsider to political power, building his party from bottom. Putin represents continuity with soviet era. He was insider whole time.
Reichstag fire in Germany and the FSB bombing of apartment are quite different also, among other things because it was not inside job as FSB bomving was.
I could continue, but this comparison just does not compute.
And it isn't always fascist authoritarianism either. 1910's Russia and 1930's China got the communist kind. 1940's Balkans got both kinds, but communists won the civil war.
You’re right that the Chinese communist revolution happened in 1948. For some reason I thought it was 10 years earlier.
Other than superficial rhetoric, there is not a lot of substantive difference between Lenin/Stalin/Maoism and the common factors set of things that are more commonly referred to as fascism (Italian Fascism, German Naziism, etc.)
Fascists usually collaborate with the rich whereas communists tend to strip their wealth. At least that’s my lay understanding.
Not as much as the rhetoric makes it seems.
> Fascists usually collaborate with the rich whereas communists tend to strip their wealth.
Fascists usually integrate the rich that the leadership doesn’t have some other reason to hate into the system, while liquidating those–and not always just their holdings–that don’t fit that description, even if wealthy, so long as they are willing to cooperate, retaining their nominal property but with their actual power and influence more determined by their degree of attachment to the regime, not their nominal ownership of property (that’s a consequence of the authoritarian corporatist–viewing all institutions of society as necessary subordinate to a single vision–aspect of fascism.)
Leninists (et al.)…do pretty much the same thing, except that they are more likely to not allow even nominal ownership of property. But since Leninism is (and its derivates are) also an authoritarian corporatist system, it is not ownership of property but position (formal or informal) in the ruling heirarchy that really allows you direct the use of property, just as in fascism.
Every society is 3 meals away from chaos. - Lenin
And similar goes with french revolution. The old regime was getting weak every day and unsustainable.
> In the four years following the First World War, the situation for German civilians remained dire. The severe food shortages improved little to none up until 1923.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinflation_in_the_Weimar_R...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weimar_Republic#Burden_from_th...
Hitler took power in 1933. And the stab in the back myth was more motivating thing for these groups then purely economic issues.
The yet other factors was Germany being heavily militaristic state, both ideologically and practically. Government employing primary military man on all levels, democracy not really functioning and being a mess. The whole country was violent mess.