I’m of two minds on the matter. On one hand, one can very seriously argue that fascism and authoritarian ‘left’ groups are distinct in their proclaimed thought processes. Fascists very much hearken to the idea of an eternal conflict and a single national leader, while authoritarian leftists, in theory, are seeking an actual end goal of a stable society without a strongman.
On the other hand, in practice, there’s very little difference not only in policy, but also little difference in justification by actual pracititioners. Tankies go all-in for the same cultural chauvinist and hegemonic arguments that fascists do, they just call it ‘anti-imperialism’ instead of ‘national vitality’ or whatever the newspeak neonazi euphemism of the day is. Tankies proclaim that they aren’t in it for eternal conflict, and then break out the death-cult-of-heroism eternal ultra-martyrdom common to fascists and religious fanatics anyway. Tankies talk a big game about making a united front, but then immediately shut down all opposition, no matter how minor the disagreement, as ‘reactionary’ and call for them to be shipped off to re-education camps.
Insofar as there is a difference, it’s like paint of chartruese and bile-green. Side by side you might be able to differentiate them, but seeing either one spilled onto a perfectly good table, you probably aren’t going to care all that much about the distinction; they’re both pretty vile, and both in nearly the exact same way. In that vein, I prefer to emphasize that tankies and fascists are really not that differently, fundamentally and practically, than to emphasize the minutiae of theory that differentiates them.
Their approach to government is fairly similar, though fascism seems to be a bit more strictly totalitarian on average. They also focused their violence towards different groups which makes a difference, although the murder of dissidents is a prominent element of both.
However, they have quite different economic policies with fascists being generally pro-capitalism and tankies being anti-capitalism, at least to a degree.
But I mean I get it, it’s a meme. This kind of nuance doesn’t fit in 10 words or whatever.
Fascists very much hearken to the idea of an eternal conflict and a single national leader, while authoritarian leftists, in theory, are seeking an actual end goal of a stable society without a strongman.
The idea of “class struggle” (being an eternal conflict) and proletarian dictatorship (afaik always with a single national leader) sounds pretty fascist based on this definition. Of course intentions matter, but I’d say end results matter a bit more.
Class struggle isn’t meant to be eternal - it’s meant to showcase the balance of power in societies, and how societies form. Class struggle is a conception of societal interactions in materialist terms - ie the question (in orthodox Marxism) is not of “What ideology does the ruling class hold”, but rather, “Where do the ruling classes’ interests lie?” This struggle changes as societies change and ‘progress’ through various stages. Pretty invariably, according to orthodox Marxism, this results in the elite of each society acting in accordance (at least in aggregate, if not as individuals) with their interests - the struggle becomes bidirectional when the working class realizes that it too is capable of concerted action in its own interests. Theoretically, this class struggle then ends when true communism is achieved, as there is only one remaining, united class of significance.
Dictatorship of the proletariat is not, originally, meant as a literal dictatorship - for reference, capitalist democracies are referred to by Marx as dictatorships of the bourgeoisie. Dictatorship of the proletariat is just meant as “A government in which the working class and its interests dominate the actions of the government, to the effective exclusion of bourgeois interests”
But yes, Marxist-Leninists do tend to bring a rather fascist flavor to the table. Moreso, ironically, than Lenin himself (no saint) did.
I’m of two minds on the matter. On one hand, one can very seriously argue that fascism and authoritarian ‘left’ groups are distinct in their proclaimed thought processes. Fascists very much hearken to the idea of an eternal conflict and a single national leader, while authoritarian leftists, in theory, are seeking an actual end goal of a stable society without a strongman.
On the other hand, in practice, there’s very little difference not only in policy, but also little difference in justification by actual pracititioners. Tankies go all-in for the same cultural chauvinist and hegemonic arguments that fascists do, they just call it ‘anti-imperialism’ instead of ‘national vitality’ or whatever the newspeak neonazi euphemism of the day is. Tankies proclaim that they aren’t in it for eternal conflict, and then break out the death-cult-of-heroism eternal ultra-martyrdom common to fascists and religious fanatics anyway. Tankies talk a big game about making a united front, but then immediately shut down all opposition, no matter how minor the disagreement, as ‘reactionary’ and call for them to be shipped off to re-education camps.
Insofar as there is a difference, it’s like paint of chartruese and bile-green. Side by side you might be able to differentiate them, but seeing either one spilled onto a perfectly good table, you probably aren’t going to care all that much about the distinction; they’re both pretty vile, and both in nearly the exact same way. In that vein, I prefer to emphasize that tankies and fascists are really not that differently, fundamentally and practically, than to emphasize the minutiae of theory that differentiates them.
Their approach to government is fairly similar, though fascism seems to be a bit more strictly totalitarian on average. They also focused their violence towards different groups which makes a difference, although the murder of dissidents is a prominent element of both.
However, they have quite different economic policies with fascists being generally pro-capitalism and tankies being anti-capitalism, at least to a degree.
But I mean I get it, it’s a meme. This kind of nuance doesn’t fit in 10 words or whatever.
Sure. And tankies champion russsia and China. Both ultra-capitalist states.
The idea of “class struggle” (being an eternal conflict) and proletarian dictatorship (afaik always with a single national leader) sounds pretty fascist based on this definition. Of course intentions matter, but I’d say end results matter a bit more.
Class struggle isn’t meant to be eternal - it’s meant to showcase the balance of power in societies, and how societies form. Class struggle is a conception of societal interactions in materialist terms - ie the question (in orthodox Marxism) is not of “What ideology does the ruling class hold”, but rather, “Where do the ruling classes’ interests lie?” This struggle changes as societies change and ‘progress’ through various stages. Pretty invariably, according to orthodox Marxism, this results in the elite of each society acting in accordance (at least in aggregate, if not as individuals) with their interests - the struggle becomes bidirectional when the working class realizes that it too is capable of concerted action in its own interests. Theoretically, this class struggle then ends when true communism is achieved, as there is only one remaining, united class of significance.
Dictatorship of the proletariat is not, originally, meant as a literal dictatorship - for reference, capitalist democracies are referred to by Marx as dictatorships of the bourgeoisie. Dictatorship of the proletariat is just meant as “A government in which the working class and its interests dominate the actions of the government, to the effective exclusion of bourgeois interests”
But yes, Marxist-Leninists do tend to bring a rather fascist flavor to the table. Moreso, ironically, than Lenin himself (no saint) did.