Communism or Fascism - which is the lesser of two evils?

Post Reply New Topic

In terms of how we use the terms, I don't see much of a difference. I mean, Stalinism and Fascism were both totalitarian and killed loads of people.

oh, well, not really. there were various forms of utopian socialism - workers cooperatives within capitalist economy etc etc and I'm not sure Marx ever actually used the term socialism - this rose to prominence mainly with the Social Democratic parties of the 1890-1917 period so far as I understand. Marx did develop the clearest (and only effective) method of actually achieving socialism though - dialectical materialism, historical materialism etc etc. of course there are plenty on the left who would contend this.

As evidenced by the astounding success of Marxist/Communist revolutions all around the world.

In theory, the stateless, humane form of communism sounds nice, but a Marxist-Leninist, Stalinist, or Maoist state is very unappealing. Nazism and fascism are about as bad. Really, all the totalitarian ideologies that developed in the first half of the 20th century share many commonalities.

Although communism has acquired an evil connotation through a total misunderstanding of its reputation in totalitarian countries which claimed to be communist, the probable intent of this thread is to question which forms of totalitarianism is preferred. Why should anybody but a nut admire totalitarianism with its accompanying brutality?

compared to Bakunin, Proudhon, Blanqui et al?

also there has probably been only two revolutionary action carried out with any fidelity to the Marxist method - Russia in 1917 and Germany the following year - and that brought about the world's first workers state, though at every turn Lenin was clear that the success of the Russian revolution was contingent on the success of the revolution in Europe, particularly Germany were the equivocation of the KPD and the betrayal of the SPD led to the defeat of the workers. That the Allies then decided to try and drown the new Soviets in blood is hardly the fault of the Bolsheviks.

Marxism isn't about totalitarianism, as I see it. He "propheced" the directorship of the workers as a replacement to the current one, and a stage before real eutopia. Obviously it didn't quite work.

I believe the internet is vitals for free-speech and for free-thinking, and I honestly believe that unless Google hijacks our brains, the internet era is a step towards fair anarchy. I think that as time goes on, people realise that they need the state less and less. It should only support us, not the opposite, I think. For me, money that goes to the government is money that should go back to the people. I guess those shall be replaced by local communities.

Of course, this all be ruined be one scam in the end

How many people ended up dead because of Bakunin?


Typical socialist cop-out, "It's just because it's never been properly implemented!"

Lenin used the excuse of a predicted European revolution (which failed to ever materialize) as a way to get around the fact that, by Marxist reasoning, Russia was not ready for a communist revolution. He later implemented a pseudo-capitalist market system when it became apparent that socialism was an abysmal failure, and his successors dragged the USSR even further into a totalitarian nightmare than Lenin had already taken it.

the implication being, what, exactly?

Russian civil war? started by the white armies
Red terror? only implemented because of the civil war
october revolution itself? more people died filming the movie - and was carried out to prevent the installment of a dictator (that is defend democracy), to take action to prevent the famine brought about both by the archaic mode of agriculture and WW1 (a famine which the provisional government had done absolute zero to prevent, had in fact raised the price of the ration and had permitted the landlords to hoard tons of grain while the people around them starved - the train station in the Tambov gubernia was literally swamped by grain when the landowners in the region tried to sell it before the peasants in the region caught up with them when they revolted), to finally bring an end to Russia's participation in a war that killed 15-16 million because of the secret treaties drawn up between Moscow, Paris and London to carve up markets between them.



incorrect on numerous counts.
1. that is a vulgar economicist reading of Marx - the Stalinists would be proud of you. It was this very reasoning that led them to advise the Chinese communists to enter the Kuomintang in the 20's. they were slaughtered of course. the same again in the iranian revolution of '79. had the Iranian communist party not stood aside waving that kind argument then they probably would still be alive today and we wouldn't have an Islamic state.
The distinction has to be drawn here between communism (a mode of production/economy) and revolution - there wasn't a country in the world at that point ready for communism. there isn't a country in the world today ready for communism. However, both then and today there were many countries ready for socialism. The point was that it is absolutely incorrect to think of each of these countries as completely isolated units. Large parts of the Russian economy was owned by British, French and American capitalists - with equally large amounts of debt worked up with the same by the Tsars. Ultimatley the point is that all these 'seperate' countries were connected together economically on a global scale but at differing levels of development and Russia, because of the war, became the weakest link in the chain - and broke. The Bolsheviks were under no illusions - Lenin was clear at the All Russian Congress of Soviets on the night of the revolution and well before this that the capacity for Russia to achieve socialism - never mind communism - was dependent on being joined by one or more of the more advanced capitalist countries.
What is more, if accordin to Marxism Russia of 1917 was not ready for revolution then why did Marx support the Paris Commune of 1871, who were decades behind Lenin's Russia in terms of economic development??
2. The German revolution of 1918 which removed the Kaiser and left the power with the working class. The Hungarian soviet. The Bavarian Soviet. The Biennio Rosso in Italy. The Triple alliance and British General Strike .
- the german revolution failed, despite the workers holding power, because the German SDP decided that they ought to hand power back to the bourgeoisie - who were supported by the Freikorps of course. Revolution, counterrevolution.
-If i remember correctly the Hungarian soviet was smashed by Romanian troops.
-In the years before the General Strike the Triple Alliance of trade unions were actually offered power by the prime minister - taken from Aneurin Bevan's "In place of fear" (1961, p.40) In 1919 Lloyd George asked for a meeting with the heads of the unions forming the triple alliance and said -
"Gentlemen, you have fashioned, in the Triple Alliance of the unions represented by you, a most powerful instrument. I feel bound to tell you that in our opinion we are at your mercy. The Army is disaffected and cannot be relied upon. Trouble has occurred already in a number of camps. We have just emerged from a great war and the people are eager for the reward of their sacrifices, and we are in no position to satisfy them. In these circumstances, if you carry out your threat and strike, then you will defeat us.
But if you do so, have you weighed the consequences? The strike will be in defiance of the government of the country and by its very success will precipitate a constitutional crisis of the first importance. For, if a force arises in the state which is stronger than the state itself, then it must be ready to take on the functions of the state, or withdraw and accept the authority of the state. Gentlemen, have you considered, and if you have, are you ready?"
being who they are of course they refused, which, as in the german revolution is a question of the leadership of the working class.
3. socialism was never achieved in Russia - in no small part becuase of the intervention butchering its way through the Russian proletariat and peasantry. As for the NEP Lenin had no choice, the country was in ruins and socialism needs a minimum level of organisation before it can even be contemplated - there's a speech that i can't find know somewhere wherein Lenin compares it to clibing a mountain, finding way your forward blocked half way up and halving to return to the bottom before you can carry on again, which captures the situation fairly well.
4. can you actually put forward some concrete examples of 'totalitarianism' during Lenin's time in order that we can move forward in a reasonable manner?

you are correct in how you characterise the period after Lenin though - take note of the number of Bolsheviks killed by Stalin when the bureaucracy secured itself. a river of blood seperates the two men.

Titus, my initial sarcastic comment holds- you claimed that Marx offered an effective method for achieving socialism. Yet in the 150+ years since Marxism has been around, nowhere has socialism been achieved or even really approached. If he offered an effective method for achieving socialism, where are these socialist societies?

To the rest of your post, I'll just respond to one point.

The Red Terror, which was directed not just at the Whites but also at left socialist revolutionaries and some Mensheviks.
War communism, especially as it targeted peasants (including the Kulaks, who Lenin branded as class enemies).
The institution of the Cheka, restrictions placed on the press.
The brutal suppression of the Kronstadt rebels (once fanatical Bolsheviks) when they demanded an end to war communism (this was after the war was over, so it was completely reasonable to want an end to war communism).
The stricter and stricter party control within the Bolsheviks, including banning factions such as the Worker's Opposition.

So yeah, Lenin was a totalitarian and the historical record is completely unambiguous on that point. I know you're going to respond and say those measures were necessary to deal with the problems facing the Soviet Union, but at that point you don't sound any different from a Stalinist.

Good evening Orwell. I'm sorry I missed your initial sarcasm. Unortunately I may have a cognitive disorder which impacts particularly on my understanding of social situations and human interaction. Hence I failed to detect your sarcasm. This 'disorder' is known as "Asperger's Syndrome" or Higher Functioning Autism, whatever you prefer.

incorrect.

there was a workers state in the USSR upto around the time of Lenin's death, expulsion of the left opposition/ the Stalinists began their seizure of the state apparatus. So Marxists have actually achieved a workers state (but not socialism, that is true), however, for reasons beyons the control of the Russian Marxists (failure of German revolution, Civil War, intervention therein, economic and social devestation caused by this) they were unable to achieve their economic aims before the rise of the bureaucracy.

I'm fully aware you do not accept socialism as a legitimate aim so I'll restrict myself to asking you to compare Marxism to the work of Bakunin, Proudhon and the rest.




The Mensheviks fought for the whites so nothing surprising there.
The only time the left SR's became the target of anything was after their leadership reneged on the alliance with the Bolsheviks and attempted a coup against their former comrades with the aim of restarting the war with Germany. After the defeat of this the rank and file left SR's become politically inactive, had little influence in the masses or joined the Bolshevik party.



?

war communism didn't target anyone. the requisition squads did though, in a sense. they seized grain from the Kulaks (I'm assuming I don't need to tell you what the material basis of the Kulak was, as compared to the Muzhik? if you do know this you'll understand why Lenin considered them enemies of the Muzhik and the proletariat) because the cities were near starvation.



the Cheka was founded to bring democratic control over those workers who carried out the work of policing, intelligence, arrests, etc etc because there were not a few of these groups which had become very corrupt and had begun to assert themselves a little vigorously, shall we say. So the Cheka was actually a positive in restraining these activities even if we address it from what appears to be your political position. What is more, do you forget Robespierre? "Do nto shake the tyrants bloody robe in my face" - without the Jacobins and Robespierre we wouldn't have the societies and freedom we do today. I'm fairly certain I remember reading of Cheka-esque groups in the US war of Indpendence also. I'm curious as to just how important these were to the ends aimed at?



during the civil war yes. what exactly is your problem with that? what group in history has permitted it's enemy to propagandise amongst its population?
again, the whites started the civil war. prior to this the only politcal grouping banned were the black hundreds who were a deeply racist organisation. the rest the Bolsheviks and Left SR's bothered little with.



again incorrect. the men garrisoning the kronstadt fortress at the time of hte rebellion were entirely different to those during the revolution who had been deployed to the front during the civil war. Those during the rebellion were peasants drawn form the Ukraine. Though I doubt you'll read it I can't offer a better repsonse than that contained in this link and that in Hue and cry over Kronstadt - Kronstadt - Trotsky was right



you're going to have to tell me what you're referring to here because so far as I recall several of the demands of the workers opposition were enacted and some of their leaders elected to the central committee - which is sort of different to being expelled, you know?



you are yet to demonstrate this 'lack of ambiguity'.



not when some of the measures you speak of never took place.

Titus, I'm a history major focusing primarily on Russian/Soviet history, I promise you my facts are correct.

How are you defining a worker's state? I would say that whether they attained even this depends on how loose a definition you are willing to accept.

Anyways, I'm not entirely certain that all those reasons were completely beyond the control of the Russian Marxists. They could have intervened on the side of the German revolution, for instance. Trotsky was a brilliant military leader and I doubt the freikorps would have been able to beat the Red Army.


Saying that other people failed worse, does not excuse the fact that Marx failed. No viable method of attaining socialism has yet been formulated.


The Bolsheviks grew increasingly dogmatic and, let's face it, psychotic. That's why the Mensheviks and the SRs split from them. You think left socialist revolutionaries and Mensheviks wanted to be on the side of the whites? They only joined up with the whites (when they did) in an attempt at self-preservation.

And this "coup" of which you speak is a bit more complex. Remember the Bolsheviks staged coups of their own, and the SRs wanted to continue the war as a revolutionary struggle to liberate Germany. Why would the Bolsheviks block this if Lenin knew that the success of the Russian revolution was contingent on a broader European revolution? The disastrous Brest-Litovsk treaty was unacceptable to the SRs, or to anyone who really wanted the revolution to succeed.


War communism was, essentially, the policy of looting the countryside to pay for a civil war. And the Kulaks were not exactly high-rolling capitalists, they were small farmers.

You're defending the Cheka? I'm going to leave that alone; it's not necessary to even argue against such a stance.

Are you just completely ignorant of history? The excesses of the Jacobins and Robespierre are a large part of why the French Revolution failed and Europe swung into extreme reaction for the next century. The failure of the French Revolution resulted in Enlightenment liberalism being discredited, putting the cause of freedom back decades. The Concert of Europe worked to keep monarchism intact and stifle any moves towards democracy or other Enlightenment ideals.


US history is not my thing, but I'm pretty sure we did not have anything quite on the scale of the Cheka. If so, I denounce them just as strongly.


The restrictions continued after the civil war. If censorship is not totalitarianism, what is?


Um... no, not really. It was the Bolsheviks more than anyone else who have to be blamed for the civil war. They seized power in an illegitimate coup, remember that. You can't just unilaterally declare yourself supreme leader and then refer to anyone who opposes you as a rebel. That's absurd.


I read your link and was unimpressed. I won't spend time debunking a fairly lengthy outside source, though.


The Bolsheviks became more rigid as time went on, especially during the period of war communism. The Bolsheviks worked to consolidate their power and eliminate rival leftist parties, including other socialists. They did incorporate some worker's opposition proposals, but only when they saw that their support was starting to erode and they needed to change their policies or face another coup. War Communism was hugely unpopular, and if they didn't abandon it the Bolsheviks would have been overthrown.


All of them did, and you have not seriously addressed even the ones that you do admit. At least, not in any different a way than I predicted you would.

It entirely depends. Both result in totalitarian states.
When communism takes away economic freedom, social freedom is lost too.
When fascism takes away social freedom, economic freedom is lost too.

It depends how brutal the dictatorship is. There have been worse communist states than fascist states and there have been worse fascist states than communist states.

Therefor, I support true communism, which is voluntary, and not dictatorship.

I don't want to restrict people from being pigs, just as don't want to restrict them from being murderers.
I want them to not want to be pigs, and to not want to be murderers.

Right, but both restrictions are necessary. How can you expect all people to agree?

I don't want to get into a row about historical revisionism, but I will take you up on this fallacy



Marx stipulated that Socialism could only come about by revolution, he demonstrated how using dialetcial materialism, we can understand the nature of social interaction through the understanding of class antagonisms and in this he was accurate. That to date no such revolution has succeeded does not disprove Marx. He predicted very accurately the effect of petty bourgeois radicals, and utopian socialists upon revolutionary movements. in this letter, written in 1877, he talks about just such influences in Germany "In Germany a corrupt spirit is asserting itself in our party, not so much among the masses as among the leaders (upper class and workers). The compromise with the Lassalleans has led to further compromise with other waverers; in Berlin (via Most) with Durhring and his admirers not to mention a whole swarm of immature undergraduates and over wise graduates who want to give socialism a "higher idealistic" orientation, ie substitute for the materialistic basis (which calls for serious , objective study if one is to operate there-on) a modern mythology with its goddesses of Justice, Equality and Fraternite........." Marx contiued to warn about these tendencies which ultimatley lead to the revisionism of Eduard Bernstein and then ultimately to the betrayal of the German working class.

Rather than representing a repudiation of Marxist theory, the intervening years since his death have shown just how right he was. His theories have been used by Marxists to predict and explain with great accuracy, the unfolding events of the continued sruggles of capitalism with itself and the class antagonisms that it creates. As well as laying bare the role played by trade unions, leftist radicals and other social democratic forces that have continuously betrayed the working class, again something that Marx himself, warned of.

The fact of the matter is that we came very close to having a socialist Europe, and Marx predicted quite clearly and accurately how reactionary forces could wreck havoc upon any revolution and return power to the bourgeoisie. to quote David North

"a revolutionary party remains "Marxist" only to the extent that it is fighting to overcome the pervasive political influence of the bourgeoisie and its agents over the working class. The Marxist approach to every significant event entails a reworking of the historical experiences of the international working class movement. Only by relentlessly confronting the fresh problems posed by the objective development of the class struggle with all the theoretical resources at its disposal can a Marxist party replenish and add to its theoretical capital"

There is no socialist 'blue print' within Marxism, just a method by which we can understand the nature of class antagonisms and by doing so raise political consciousness and guide future revolutions.