5 ms·

> pro-Russian ones are considered pro-fascist If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck (even if that duck

> pro-Russian ones are considered pro-fascist If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck (even if that duck claims that it's an elephant and keeps saying that everyone else is a duck). I mean... objectively Russia ticks pretty much all of the boxes, just compare it with Mussolini's Italy.

skissane 2y ago
> I mean... objectively Russia ticks pretty much all of the boxes, just compare it with Mussolini's Italy. Is Putin's ideology a form of "fascism"? Some scholars say "yes", others say "no". Since you already seem to have a good awareness of the "yes" case, let me share with you some of the "no" case [0]: > “Snyder is wrong,” Nikolay Mitrokhin, a Russia researcher with Germany’s Bremen University, told Al Jazeera. > Russia doesn’t meet the criteria of a fascist state – there is no ideological party, no hysterical cult of the leader, and no revolutionary new regime juxtaposed to the old one. > Instead, in Russia, “there is an aggressive, imperialist, authoritarian state with a ruling junta”, Mitrokhin said. I'm not a fan of Putin – I have always been cheering for Ukraine in the present war, and I think it is disappointing it has not gone better for the Ukrainians, but I suppose hope springs eternal – but I also think the word "fascism" is overused nowadays, and I prefer narrower definitions like that of Mitrokhin – the broader definitions miss significant aspects of what Mussolini was actually on about. [0] https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/10/26/how-fascist-are-putins-views https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/10/26/how-fascist-are-pu...
- lostmsu 2y ago
  It ticks all the boxes from the Wikipedia definition: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism Authoritarian+, and ultranationalist+, ... dictatorial leader+, centralized autocracy+, militarism+, forcible suppression of opposition+, belief in a natural social hierarchy (+ as far as regime goes), subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation+ or race, and strong regimentation of society+ and the economy+
  - skissane 2y ago
    The same article also says: > Historian Ian Kershaw once wrote that "trying to define 'fascism' is like trying to nail jelly to the wall."[28] Each group described as "fascist" has at least some unique elements, and frequently definitions of "fascism" have been criticized as either too broad or too narrow. According to many scholars, fascists—especially when they're in power—have historically attacked communism, conservatism, and parliamentary liberalism, attracting support primarily from the far-right.[30] So, rather than purporting to define "fascism", the article acknowledges it has many definitions and it is contested which one is right. Read in the context of the whole section "Definitions", I don't think the opening sentence should be read as a definition, except in a very vague ballpark sense, which isn't meant to be used in decisively answering the question of whether any particular thing is an instance of it. Furthermore, it mentions key elements of historical fascism – anti-communism, anti-conservatism, and anti-liberalism – whose presence in Putin's Russia is debatable. Putin has criticised communism, but he tends to go for nuanced and qualified criticism rather than the demonisation of it which was historically found in Mussolini's Italy, Hitler's Germany or Franco's Spain. He isn't anti-conservative either. Nor is he rhetorically opposed to parliamentary liberalism – he is accused of undermining the substance of it, but he pays it lip service, unlike Mussolini and Hitler who demonised it. The first actual definition it gives in the "Definition" section is this: > Historian Stanley G. Payne's definition is frequently cited as standard by notable scholars,[31] such as Roger Griffin,[32] Randall Schweller,[33] Bo Rothstein,[34] Federico Finchelstein,[35] and Stephen D. Shenfield,[36] [37] His definition of fascism focuses on three concepts: And the first of those three concepts is: > "Fascist negations" – anti-liberalism, anti-communism, and anti-conservatism. I say Putin lacks all three – he isn't anti-liberal (you can say he is in a contemporary sense, but not in the historical sense that Mussolini was, which is I believe the sense Payne means), he isn't anti-communist (again, not in the sense Mussolini/etc were), and he isn't anti-conservative.
    - freen 2y ago
      You are trying to align a governance type with a political spectrum. It’s a category error. Fascism has nothing to do with the policies, and everything to do with whatever is necessary to retain power, given the society fascists intends to rule. He can’t be a monarchist, he doesn’t advocate for mercantilism! https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ur-Fascism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ur-Fascism
- markhahn 2y ago
  that's pretty funny! maybe a political-science researcher, not from Germany would give a less tone-based definition.

skissane 2y ago

> I mean... objectively Russia ticks pretty much all of the boxes, just compare it with Mussolini's Italy. Is Putin's ideology a form of "fascism"? Some scholars say "yes", others say "no". Since you already seem to have a good awareness of the "yes" case, let me share with you some of the "no" case [0]: > “Snyder is wrong,” Nikolay Mitrokhin, a Russia researcher with Germany’s Bremen University, told Al Jazeera. > Russia doesn’t meet the criteria of a fascist state – there is no ideological party, no hysterical cult of the leader, and no revolutionary new regime juxtaposed to the old one. > Instead, in Russia, “there is an aggressive, imperialist, authoritarian state with a ruling junta”, Mitrokhin said. I'm not a fan of Putin – I have always been cheering for Ukraine in the present war, and I think it is disappointing it has not gone better for the Ukrainians, but I suppose hope springs eternal – but I also think the word "fascism" is overused nowadays, and I prefer narrower definitions like that of Mitrokhin – the broader definitions miss significant aspects of what Mussolini was actually on about. [0] https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/10/26/how-fascist-are-putins-views https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/10/26/how-fascist-are-pu...

lostmsu 2y ago
It ticks all the boxes from the Wikipedia definition: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism Authoritarian+, and ultranationalist+, ... dictatorial leader+, centralized autocracy+, militarism+, forcible suppression of opposition+, belief in a natural social hierarchy (+ as far as regime goes), subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation+ or race, and strong regimentation of society+ and the economy+
- skissane 2y ago
  The same article also says: > Historian Ian Kershaw once wrote that "trying to define 'fascism' is like trying to nail jelly to the wall."[28] Each group described as "fascist" has at least some unique elements, and frequently definitions of "fascism" have been criticized as either too broad or too narrow. According to many scholars, fascists—especially when they're in power—have historically attacked communism, conservatism, and parliamentary liberalism, attracting support primarily from the far-right.[30] So, rather than purporting to define "fascism", the article acknowledges it has many definitions and it is contested which one is right. Read in the context of the whole section "Definitions", I don't think the opening sentence should be read as a definition, except in a very vague ballpark sense, which isn't meant to be used in decisively answering the question of whether any particular thing is an instance of it. Furthermore, it mentions key elements of historical fascism – anti-communism, anti-conservatism, and anti-liberalism – whose presence in Putin's Russia is debatable. Putin has criticised communism, but he tends to go for nuanced and qualified criticism rather than the demonisation of it which was historically found in Mussolini's Italy, Hitler's Germany or Franco's Spain. He isn't anti-conservative either. Nor is he rhetorically opposed to parliamentary liberalism – he is accused of undermining the substance of it, but he pays it lip service, unlike Mussolini and Hitler who demonised it. The first actual definition it gives in the "Definition" section is this: > Historian Stanley G. Payne's definition is frequently cited as standard by notable scholars,[31] such as Roger Griffin,[32] Randall Schweller,[33] Bo Rothstein,[34] Federico Finchelstein,[35] and Stephen D. Shenfield,[36] [37] His definition of fascism focuses on three concepts: And the first of those three concepts is: > "Fascist negations" – anti-liberalism, anti-communism, and anti-conservatism. I say Putin lacks all three – he isn't anti-liberal (you can say he is in a contemporary sense, but not in the historical sense that Mussolini was, which is I believe the sense Payne means), he isn't anti-communist (again, not in the sense Mussolini/etc were), and he isn't anti-conservative.
  - freen 2y ago
    You are trying to align a governance type with a political spectrum. It’s a category error. Fascism has nothing to do with the policies, and everything to do with whatever is necessary to retain power, given the society fascists intends to rule. He can’t be a monarchist, he doesn’t advocate for mercantilism! https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ur-Fascism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ur-Fascism
markhahn 2y ago
that's pretty funny! maybe a political-science researcher, not from Germany would give a less tone-based definition.