Again, I get why you want to stay on the symbol but its a very minor point here. The nazis weren’t Hindus, yet they used the swastika.
Thats great and all but the conversation is about how the USSR was a fascist country which it was. Them declaring to mot be fascist doesn’t change that, neither does their choice of symbolism or trim.
Again, I get why you want to stay on the symbol but its a very minor point here. The nazis weren’t Hindus, yet they used the swastika.
The Nazis did not create the Swastika, they adopted the Swastika. The Bolsheviks created the Hammer & Sickle. The Swastika has centuries of usage outside the context of the Nazis, the Hammer & Sickle has never existed without the context of its creation by the Bolsheviks.
Thats great and all but the conversation is about how the USSR was a fascist country which it was. Them declaring to mot be fascist doesn’t change that, neither does their choice of symbolism or trim.
The USSR was not fascist, they were Marxist-Leninist. Measuring the USSR against the 14 points listed by Umberto Eco in Ur-Fascism, the USSR only fulfills 2 or 3 points (points 4 and 13, possible 9), while the Nazis covered all 14, as did fascist Italy, Israel currently fulfills no less than 9 of these points, while the US fulfills 13 of them (with respect to the GOP and its relative influence). Something can be “bad” without being fascist, fascism is not a buzzword, but a reaction to declining Capitalism as a form of Class-Collaborationism between the Bourgeoisie and Petite Bourgeoisie against the Proletariat, to “turn the clock back” to when Capitalism was not as decayed. The USSR fulfilled none of those, it was State Socialist along Marxist-Leninist lines.
Even still, this conversation is about symbols, and the stances of those who adopt them. There are no groups that adopt the Hammer & Sickle without intending on calling back to Marxism-Leninism. The Hammer and Sickle was founded as a symbol of the USSR, it was not a pre-existing symbol the USSR latched onto. There are no contexts the Hammer and Sickle exists in that are not intended on drawing those associations.
Again, I get why you want to stay on the symbol but its a very minor point here. The nazis weren’t Hindus, yet they used the swastika.
Thats great and all but the conversation is about how the USSR was a fascist country which it was. Them declaring to mot be fascist doesn’t change that, neither does their choice of symbolism or trim.
The Nazis did not create the Swastika, they adopted the Swastika. The Bolsheviks created the Hammer & Sickle. The Swastika has centuries of usage outside the context of the Nazis, the Hammer & Sickle has never existed without the context of its creation by the Bolsheviks.
The USSR was not fascist, they were Marxist-Leninist. Measuring the USSR against the 14 points listed by Umberto Eco in Ur-Fascism, the USSR only fulfills 2 or 3 points (points 4 and 13, possible 9), while the Nazis covered all 14, as did fascist Italy, Israel currently fulfills no less than 9 of these points, while the US fulfills 13 of them (with respect to the GOP and its relative influence). Something can be “bad” without being fascist, fascism is not a buzzword, but a reaction to declining Capitalism as a form of Class-Collaborationism between the Bourgeoisie and Petite Bourgeoisie against the Proletariat, to “turn the clock back” to when Capitalism was not as decayed. The USSR fulfilled none of those, it was State Socialist along Marxist-Leninist lines.
Even still, this conversation is about symbols, and the stances of those who adopt them. There are no groups that adopt the Hammer & Sickle without intending on calling back to Marxism-Leninism. The Hammer and Sickle was founded as a symbol of the USSR, it was not a pre-existing symbol the USSR latched onto. There are no contexts the Hammer and Sickle exists in that are not intended on drawing those associations.