4 ms·

Legitimate question : how does the Russian regime meet the definition of fascism?

warinukraine 4y ago
Let's see the definition of fascism, from Wikipedia > Fascism is a far-right, authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology and movement, characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation and race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy. So, except for "far right", the Russian regime meets ever point.
- AussieWog93 4y ago
  Definitions aside, there is definitely a qualitative difference between Putin and Mussolini/Hitler.
  - voltaireodactyl 4y ago
    That may be so, but I do not find this difference to be as obvious as it is to you, and would hesitate before assuming it’s self evident. For example, I see very little difference in terms of character; the variations between essentially boil down to respective levels of access to effective weaponry, geographical access to their enemies, and specific “enemy” groups.
  - simonh 4y ago
    Hitler maybe, but I don't see all that much to separate Mussolini from Putin. As others have pointed out Putin doesn't have a personal political movement the same way, but that's really the only significant difference IMHO. I personally wouldn't describe it a fascism, but there's not a big difference. I can see where people who do call it fascism are coming from so I'm not inclined to quibble with them on it.
  - poorlyknit 4y ago
    There sure is, however "fascism" as a concept can be seperated from its instances.
  - warinukraine 4y ago
    Putin isn't even in the same league as Mussolini and Hitler, and anyone who says otherwise is either ignorant or lying. However, there's a spectrum. And Putin is definitely farther along towards authoritarian than any present day liberal democracy.
- yetihehe 4y ago
  Let's see the definition of "far right" > [...] far-right politics now include neo-fascism, neo-Nazism, the Third Position, the alt-right, racial supremacism, National Bolshevism (culturally only) and other ideologies or organizations that feature aspects of authoritarian, ultra-nationalist, chauvinist, xenophobic, theocratic, racist, homophobic, transphobic, and/or reactionary views." Look like Russian regime meets that point too.
  - parineum 4y ago
    I think it makes a lot more sense to just categorize them as authoritarian. The rest of those qualifications certainly exist in Russia but I don't think it's to the extent where it's a characteristic of the regime. Fascism seems to be a "I know it when I see it" thing and I just don't see Putin as any more than a strong man ala Saddam Hussein. Somehow I feel like somewhat of a cult of personality is a key aspect of fascism and an much more oppressive suppression of subversive ideas, more like North Korea. In Russia, we hear about Pussy Riot rather than them dissapearing before we do.
    - yetihehe 4y ago
      > feel like somewhat of a cult of personality is a key aspect of fascism Hmm, there is definitely a cult of personality in Russia, but maybe not directly started by Putin, I think it's organic. Otherwise I fully agree with you, it's not really fascism because there is no "belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation and race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy." All those examples of "far-right politics" look very similar from my point of view, so I think it's normal for people to get confused to the detriment of discussion.
  - floor2 4y ago
    On the internet, it's impossible to know who is knowingly spreading propaganda and who actually believes what they're saying, but... does anyone actually believe that's a reasonable definition of "far right"? Like, this just reads like a "far left" person wrote a long list of negative slander to throw at their opponents. I don't think anyone on the right would agree with essentially any of it. The "ultra-nationalist" I guess maybe sort of works, if hyperbolic, in that I think you would get right-wing people to agree that they would prioritize their nation over others, but I think if you asked a random right-wing person on the street "do you support ____" for anything else on your list, they'd say no. I'm solidly on the left by contemporary American standards, but I just wish we'd actually have honest discussions about what people believe and want, rather than slinging insults that our opponents are evil, vile people who intentionally want bad things because they're bad.
- rvz 4y ago
  So just more 'authoritarian' then.
jonathanstrange 4y ago
Read Umberto Eco's seminal essay [1], it contains 14 characteristics of fascism. They are what you'd call soft criteria, which make sense because fascism has always been ideologically and theoretically weak. It's explained in the essay. If you check Putin's regime and public statements by government officials against these points, you will find that all 14 characteristics are matched quite well. The only difference is that Putin did not have to found a movement to seize power, but you can see the corresponding elements in Kremlin-supported pro-Russian groups and parties outside of Russia. [1] https://sites.evergreen.edu/politicalshakespeares/wp-content/uploads/sites/226/2015/12/Eco-urfascism.pdf https://sites.evergreen.edu/politicalshakespeares/wp-content...
DiogenesKynikos 4y ago
It doesn't. The word is being used as part of a general rhetorical escalation. That's why the word "genocide" is also being bandied about, as if Russian war crimes were comparable to the Holocaust. It's insane, but people with no historical knowledge fall for it.
- impendia 4y ago
  Here is an article laying out why some call Putin's actions a genocide (and why some don't). https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-61017352 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-61017352 No one is saying the situation is as bad as the Holocaust. However, among other war crimes, large numbers of Ukrainian children have allegedly been abducted and forcibly transported to Russia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_child_abductions_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_child_abduction... According to the United Nations, that is a form of genocide. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_Convention https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_Convention
  - DiogenesKynikos 4y ago
    This is a classic example of a Motte-and-Bailey argument. Everyone knows what "genocide" means. It means an attempt to murder an entire group of people. That's why the word ends in "-cide," like "homicide," "suicide," "regicide," "fratricide" and other words that have to do with killing. When you say that Russia is committing genocide, everyone thinks you're saying that Russia is attempting to kill every single person in Ukraine. That's what the word means in the English language, as understood by the gobal community of native speakers. The people using the word "genocide" are doing so precisely because the word has such a strong connotation. They want people to make the connection to the Holocaust, Rwanda, and other cases of mass murder of an entire people. However, that comparison is obviously absurd, because Russia isn't trying to wipe out the Ukrainian population. So when pressed, defenders of the use of the term "genocide" retreat to a much narrower argument. They argue that according to a particular reading of the Genocide Convention, Russian actions fall into some technical definition of "genocide" - a definition that has absolutely nothing to do with how normal people understand the term. Now, that reading of the Genocide Convention is an enormous stretch, but people who want to use the word "genocide" fall back to it. But of course, nobody is interested in a highly tendentious, dubious reading of the Genocide Convention. People are interested in whether Russia is committing "genocide" as the word is actually understood by real people. I'll also add that even going by the Genocide Convention, the claim that Russia is committing genocide is still absurd. I don't want to get into it in detail, because it's a technical argument that's unrelated to what people actually care about. However, I'll just point out that the Ukrainian government is claiming that literally every Ukrainian child in Russia is abducted. Anyone who knows anything about Ukraine and Russia knows how absurd that claim is. There are very tight familial connections between Russians and Ukrainians (they were part of the same country for most of the last 400 years, after all). Because of that, Russia is the #1 destination for Ukrainian refugees. A lot of people escaping the violence have gone to live with family in Russia. Using that to accuse Russia of genocide is a really bold rhetorical gambit.

Let's see the definition of fascism, from Wikipedia > Fascism is a far-right, authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology and movement, characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation and race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy. So, except for "far right", the Russian regime meets ever point.

AussieWog93 4y ago
Definitions aside, there is definitely a qualitative difference between Putin and Mussolini/Hitler.
- voltaireodactyl 4y ago
  That may be so, but I do not find this difference to be as obvious as it is to you, and would hesitate before assuming it’s self evident. For example, I see very little difference in terms of character; the variations between essentially boil down to respective levels of access to effective weaponry, geographical access to their enemies, and specific “enemy” groups.
- simonh 4y ago
  Hitler maybe, but I don't see all that much to separate Mussolini from Putin. As others have pointed out Putin doesn't have a personal political movement the same way, but that's really the only significant difference IMHO. I personally wouldn't describe it a fascism, but there's not a big difference. I can see where people who do call it fascism are coming from so I'm not inclined to quibble with them on it.
- poorlyknit 4y ago
  There sure is, however "fascism" as a concept can be seperated from its instances.
- warinukraine 4y ago
  Putin isn't even in the same league as Mussolini and Hitler, and anyone who says otherwise is either ignorant or lying. However, there's a spectrum. And Putin is definitely farther along towards authoritarian than any present day liberal democracy.
yetihehe 4y ago
Let's see the definition of "far right" > [...] far-right politics now include neo-fascism, neo-Nazism, the Third Position, the alt-right, racial supremacism, National Bolshevism (culturally only) and other ideologies or organizations that feature aspects of authoritarian, ultra-nationalist, chauvinist, xenophobic, theocratic, racist, homophobic, transphobic, and/or reactionary views." Look like Russian regime meets that point too.
- parineum 4y ago
  I think it makes a lot more sense to just categorize them as authoritarian. The rest of those qualifications certainly exist in Russia but I don't think it's to the extent where it's a characteristic of the regime. Fascism seems to be a "I know it when I see it" thing and I just don't see Putin as any more than a strong man ala Saddam Hussein. Somehow I feel like somewhat of a cult of personality is a key aspect of fascism and an much more oppressive suppression of subversive ideas, more like North Korea. In Russia, we hear about Pussy Riot rather than them dissapearing before we do.
  - yetihehe 4y ago
    > feel like somewhat of a cult of personality is a key aspect of fascism Hmm, there is definitely a cult of personality in Russia, but maybe not directly started by Putin, I think it's organic. Otherwise I fully agree with you, it's not really fascism because there is no "belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation and race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy." All those examples of "far-right politics" look very similar from my point of view, so I think it's normal for people to get confused to the detriment of discussion.
- floor2 4y ago
  On the internet, it's impossible to know who is knowingly spreading propaganda and who actually believes what they're saying, but... does anyone actually believe that's a reasonable definition of "far right"? Like, this just reads like a "far left" person wrote a long list of negative slander to throw at their opponents. I don't think anyone on the right would agree with essentially any of it. The "ultra-nationalist" I guess maybe sort of works, if hyperbolic, in that I think you would get right-wing people to agree that they would prioritize their nation over others, but I think if you asked a random right-wing person on the street "do you support ____" for anything else on your list, they'd say no. I'm solidly on the left by contemporary American standards, but I just wish we'd actually have honest discussions about what people believe and want, rather than slinging insults that our opponents are evil, vile people who intentionally want bad things because they're bad.
rvz 4y ago
So just more 'authoritarian' then.

jonathanstrange 4y ago

Read Umberto Eco's seminal essay [1], it contains 14 characteristics of fascism. They are what you'd call soft criteria, which make sense because fascism has always been ideologically and theoretically weak. It's explained in the essay. If you check Putin's regime and public statements by government officials against these points, you will find that all 14 characteristics are matched quite well. The only difference is that Putin did not have to found a movement to seize power, but you can see the corresponding elements in Kremlin-supported pro-Russian groups and parties outside of Russia. [1] https://sites.evergreen.edu/politicalshakespeares/wp-content/uploads/sites/226/2015/12/Eco-urfascism.pdf https://sites.evergreen.edu/politicalshakespeares/wp-content...

DiogenesKynikos 4y ago

It doesn't. The word is being used as part of a general rhetorical escalation. That's why the word "genocide" is also being bandied about, as if Russian war crimes were comparable to the Holocaust. It's insane, but people with no historical knowledge fall for it.

impendia 4y ago
Here is an article laying out why some call Putin's actions a genocide (and why some don't). https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-61017352 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-61017352 No one is saying the situation is as bad as the Holocaust. However, among other war crimes, large numbers of Ukrainian children have allegedly been abducted and forcibly transported to Russia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_child_abductions_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_child_abduction... According to the United Nations, that is a form of genocide. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_Convention https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_Convention
- DiogenesKynikos 4y ago
  This is a classic example of a Motte-and-Bailey argument. Everyone knows what "genocide" means. It means an attempt to murder an entire group of people. That's why the word ends in "-cide," like "homicide," "suicide," "regicide," "fratricide" and other words that have to do with killing. When you say that Russia is committing genocide, everyone thinks you're saying that Russia is attempting to kill every single person in Ukraine. That's what the word means in the English language, as understood by the gobal community of native speakers. The people using the word "genocide" are doing so precisely because the word has such a strong connotation. They want people to make the connection to the Holocaust, Rwanda, and other cases of mass murder of an entire people. However, that comparison is obviously absurd, because Russia isn't trying to wipe out the Ukrainian population. So when pressed, defenders of the use of the term "genocide" retreat to a much narrower argument. They argue that according to a particular reading of the Genocide Convention, Russian actions fall into some technical definition of "genocide" - a definition that has absolutely nothing to do with how normal people understand the term. Now, that reading of the Genocide Convention is an enormous stretch, but people who want to use the word "genocide" fall back to it. But of course, nobody is interested in a highly tendentious, dubious reading of the Genocide Convention. People are interested in whether Russia is committing "genocide" as the word is actually understood by real people. I'll also add that even going by the Genocide Convention, the claim that Russia is committing genocide is still absurd. I don't want to get into it in detail, because it's a technical argument that's unrelated to what people actually care about. However, I'll just point out that the Ukrainian government is claiming that literally every Ukrainian child in Russia is abducted. Anyone who knows anything about Ukraine and Russia knows how absurd that claim is. There are very tight familial connections between Russians and Ukrainians (they were part of the same country for most of the last 400 years, after all). Because of that, Russia is the #1 destination for Ukrainian refugees. A lot of people escaping the violence have gone to live with family in Russia. Using that to accuse Russia of genocide is a really bold rhetorical gambit.