Hacker News Reader

Comment by fbn79 | Hacker News Reader

According to the dictionary definition of fascism (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/fascism), Stalin's Russia was also "fascist", and won many wars, invading and occupying free democracies (Poland) for years.

View on HN

A dictionary definition is not necessarily the correct definition. Almost all dictionaries these days have a "descriptive, not prescriptive" policy - they tell you what a word is likely mean in common usage, rather than tell you how to use a word correctly.

This is an especially big problem with a badly defined word like this,

It's usually better to look at Umberto Eco's "Ur-Fascism". Yes, it's a set of vague aesthetic criteria, but aesthetics is a big part of Fascism and the thing that distinguishes it from other forms of totalitarianism. The aesthetics helped drive public support, which is also crucial to distinguishing Fascism from, say, feudalism: it's inherently a post-democratic politics.

Edit: I wrote this comment, clicked through, and of course Eco is the first writer referenced.

Far right totalitarianism and far left totalitarianism have a lot in common.

The definition you linked calls almost any dictatorship as a fascism. The article makes difference between "random dictatorship, monarchy, what have you" and "fascism specifically". That being said, even by your definition Stalins Russia did not had that much of a racial component, so it might just be one of those that fall out.

The original article also does not really fit the Socialist Russia that much. It was seeking world domination and did not minded to start a war, but that is the thing - it was concerned more with reality of winning then with appearance of strength for aesthetic purposes. It had own machismo, it had disdain to intellectualism, but both did in fact limited its capabilities.

Some of the features of Marxism Leninism may look like fascism when you step back and squint, but it's f-cked up in its own way. It's not even a far right versus far left thing. That's one of those neat symmetries that doesn't really apply.

The soviet empire collapsed, even in the same lifetimes of many who saw its rise.

Lasted longer than the Nazi empire, I'll admit, but both were weak

Stalin's Russia didn't have a cult of machismo quite like Germany or Italy did, they measured themselves by industrial and intellectual might, rather than how manly they were. Yes there are quite a few similarities I'll grant you, but they didn't have that particular weakness.

fascist as in common parlance, e.g. brutal authoritarian dictators

but fascist in the original sense -- as created by mussolini -- was aggressive nationalism combined with corporatism, and a reclaiming of lost glory (revanchism)

george w bush's america is closer to classical fascism than stalin would ever be

Reply on news.ycombinator.com