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?
This was a good response. What about marxists that support council communism? I don’t know much marx theory but I feel that council communism is different than a traditional state
Thanks! Council Communism is a bit fringe among Marxists, and really is differentiated most by having a particular desire for organization structure. Most oppose the existing socialist states for not having the structure they believe is best. There are also just genuine flaws with the way they percieve labor unions and councils, which is why there has never been a successful council communist revolution thus far.
If you want to read a bit more into the basics of Marxist-Leninist theory, I made an intro reading list. It might be helpful, just to get more familiar with terms, if you check out some of the earlier works. Don’t worry, I’m not assigning homework, haha.
Tbh the only form of marxism at this point that feels legitimate is council communism. ML is just red fascism now
In what way? Marxism-Leninism is by far the largest branch of Marxism at this point, the most developed, and has seen the most success. How is it “fascist?”
The soviet union and north korea are the most obvious examples as both of them followed ML
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.