I know that anarchism, specifically anarcho-communism and marxism are very different. People always talk about their main difference being that they have a different means of achieving their goals but the same end goal , but that’s definitely not true. So what are some of the ways they are different?
Neither of them are/were fascist. Taking the soviet union, as an example, the working class siezed control of the semi-feudal Tsarist system, and proceded to implement strong improvements. Healthcare and education were made free to the highest level. Housing was limited to 3% of incomes, and tons of housing was built and modernized. Massive literacy programs were implemented so people could better connect with each other, turning literacy rates from the low 30s to 99.9%. Life expectancy went from the mid 30s to low 70s in record time. Democratization dramatically increased, giving people more of a direct input on economic planning. Public ownership became the basis of society, and wealth disparity fell dramatically while economic growth was very high.
Marxism-Leninism is Marxism adapted to the age of imperialism. Marx was mistaken in thinking revolution would come to the developed countries first. Instead, these countries adapted and exported their harshest conditions to the global south. This meant revolution came first and foremost to the global south, not the global north, which means you have less developed industry. This came with a whole slew of questions about how to organize, how to run society, etc.
I don’t expect you to agree with me, but I certainly don’t see how socialism can be considered “fascist.” Fascism is capitalism in crisis, from the petite bourgeoisie facing proletarianization and instead ganging up on the proletariat and other social groups. Essentially, creating footsoldiers to weed out labor organizers, leftists of all stripes, etc. so that private property rights are upheld and small business owners aren’t thrust into the ranks of the working class.
How was the gulag system not fascist? Along with it’s heavy surveillance and censorship state?
Having prisons isn’t fascism, nor is surveillance, nor is censorship. As I explained, fascism is intrinsically tied to private property rights, and affirms capitalism’s existence by violent means.
If, by gulags, you mean the portion of them that employed forced labor, then the Spanish Anarchists in Catalonia were fascists too, as they also had forced labor camps. If you mean prisons in general, then the USSR was actually fairly progressive compared to contemporary prisons, with some allowing visitation, or even allowing the prisoners to leave on certain days. The forced labor aspect, and the GULAG administration entirely, was dissolved midway through the Soviet Union’s existence to begin with when prison reform went through.
The USSR was not especially a surveillance state, not moreso than other countries at the time, and certainly less so than contemporary states, be they capitalist or socialist. Again, also not something that is tied to fascism.
As for censorship, the USSR did employ a good deal of censorship against anything deemed critical of socialism. The USSR spent its existence under constant siege, and as such there were insurrectionary elements that opposed the socialist system actively working against it. This also isn’t fascism, even if you disagree with the extent to which they employed censorshio, but it’s undeniable that in socialism the speech of capitalists, fascists, and other insurrectionary elements should be restricted so as to prevent bourgeois elements from taking power.
All in all, a good book on the subject directly comparing fascism and socialism in theory, origins, and practice is Dr. Michael Parenti’s Blackshirts and Reds (EPUB) (Audiobook) (Online).
Fascism is about power not private property. Not sure where you got that Spanish anarchists operated labor camps as I can’t see any evidence for that online but even if that was true, a system can’t be said not to be fascist because someone else did it. Having forced labor camps is fascist regardless. Also you say that they sought to repress those critical of socialism or communism, but it was usually used to repress basic forms of expression and those critical of the leaders.
I’m not sure where you’re getting that idea of fascism. From Italy to Germany to the US Empire, fascism has always risen as a violent means by which the capitalist class maintains control. Notably, the small business owners, the “middle class,” becomes at risk of becoming working class, and thus becomes its most dutiful footsoldiers. If you live in the US Empire, you can see this quite clearly with the MAGA crowd and their class character.
Labor camps were not a good thing, no, but they aren’t fascism. As for the spanish anarchists, you can find information here, but as I understand records are a bit murky in that area in general.
No, censorship was not used against basic expression. George Lucas famously spoke about how he was jealous of the soviet filmmakers for having more freedom overall, as long as they didn’t critique the government. Overall, the USSR was no utopia, but it was tremendously progressive in its time, and was by no means “fascist.”
“Fascism is 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 interest of the nation” this describes the USSR pretty well. The US is also bordering on fascism, but that has little to do with the USSR. Those weren’t really labor camps so much as they were POW camps for fascist opponents. Also what’s your opinion on north korea?
That doesn’t describe the USSR well at all, though. That’s a very surface-level analysis of fascism and the USSR. I can give good references as to why (in addition to the book I already linked), but I think we’ve gone far beyond the initial scope of the question, which is about the differences between Marxism and anarchism in end-goal, which is best described as the question of collectivization vs communalization of production and distribution. Similarly, I don’t think discussing the DPRK would be very productive in this context either, this is an anarchist community and I’ve already said what I think is valuable in the discussion of how Marxists and anarchists disagree and agree on “end stages.”
If you want to learn more about Marxist perspectives on the DPRK, you can ask over on Hexbear.net or Lemmy.ml, those will usually have far more people than just me.
ML is goo difficult for me to engage in because there’s too much defense of stalin I find tbh. Maybe I’ll check out hexbear though
Are you trying to gain a perspective on Marxism-Leninism, or debate it? I think you’ll find more success by keeping a non-confrontational stance and an open-mind, even if you don’t end up agreeing. That applies to Lemmy.ml and Hexbear, and I say that because views on both are similar.