Correcting Establishment Left Voters On The Difference Between Communism And Fascism.

There's widespread confusion about political and economic systems, with many jumping between contradictory positions while demonstrating fundamental misunderstandings of fascism, communism, and socialism. These contradictions often involve claiming Stalin was both socialist and fascist, misunderstanding what these terms mean, and creating false equivalencies. Let's clarify the core issues.

First, fascism and communism are not the same thing. They are fundamentally opposed ideologies. Fascism is a right wing ultranationalist ideology that emerged in the early 20th century, characterized by extreme nationalism, support for private property and class collaboration, militant anti-communism, and authoritarian rule. Communism is a left wing ideology advocating for the abolition of private property, a classless society, and the end of the capitalist system. Stalin was not a fascist. He was a communist who led the Soviet Union as a totalitarian state. The fact that both systems were authoritarian and murderous does not make them the same ideology. Authoritarianism is a governing style that can exist across the political spectrum, not an ideology itself.

Even the CIA's own intelligence assessments from the period recognized that Stalin operated within a framework of collective leadership rather than absolute personal dictatorship, noting in a 1952 report that "even in Stalin's time there was collective leadership" and that the Western idea of a dictatorial setup was exaggerated. The report stated that Stalin, while holding veto powers, had to operate through Party structures and that it was naive to think opponents would simply follow his directives unless aligned with what was called collective leadership. This doesn't absolve Stalin of his crimes, but it contextualizes that he was working within communist institutional structures, not fascist ones.

A common error is calling Stalin fascist because he was nationalist and authoritarian. This conflates methods of rule with ideological content. Stalin promoted Soviet patriotism and used nationalist appeals during World War II, but Soviet ideology remained fundamentally about class struggle, state ownership of the means of production, and opposition to capitalism. Fascism explicitly rejects class struggle in favor of national unity across classes, defends private property, and positions itself as the bulwark against communism. These are opposite worldviews. Mussolini created fascism specifically as a response against socialism after being expelled from the Italian Socialist Party. Hitler's Nazi party, despite its name, purged actual socialists and communists, sent them to concentration camps, and aligned with conservative elites and industrialists who wanted to destroy the left.

Stalin's policies, while brutal and murderous (primarily justifiable), were rooted in Marxist ideology about building socialism through rapid industrialization, collectivization, and elimination of class enemies. The kulak liquidation was justified by Stalin through Marxist class analysis, seeing wealthy peasants as counterrevolutionaries. This was ideological mass murder rooted in communist theory, not fascism. Fascists would never target people for being wealthy landowners on principle. They celebrated hierarchy and property ownership.

(See my blog defending some of the actions of Stalin from anti-communist attacks: http://yaunti3.blogspot.com/2025/09/countering-anti-communist-and-western.html )

Understanding the dictatorship of the proletariat is essential to grasping communist ideology. This concept, central to Marx, Engels, and Lenin's thought, refers not to a single dictator but to the organized rule of the working class over the former ruling classes during the transition from capitalism to communism. It explicitly involves the suppression of opposition, the defeat of resistors, and the elimination of what communists term "opportunists" who might corrupt, hinder, or halt the revolutionary process. Marx, Engels, and Lenin all advocated proportional force up to and including death to defend the revolution against counterrevolutionaries. This is not an aberration or perversion of communist theory. It is fundamental to how communism conceptualizes the revolutionary transition period.

Lenin was explicit that the dictatorship of the proletariat means "power based directly on force, and unrestricted by any laws." The violence Stalin deployed was theoretically grounded in this framework, even as Stalin took it to extremes or used Ultra methods that shocked even other communists. This framework of justified revolutionary violence predates and is distinct from fascist violence, which is justified through nationalist and racial ideologies rather than class struggle. This is a far cry from the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie that humanity currently lives under.

Some acknowledge Hitler was not a socialist, which is correct, but then insist Stalin was both socialist and fascist, which is incoherent. You cannot be both. They are mutually exclusive ideologies. Stalin was a communist who implemented socialism as understood in Marxist terms, meaning state control of the economy, elimination of private ownership of productive property, and rule by a vanguard party claiming to represent the proletariat. This system was totalitarian and resulted in millions of deaths, the exact number is contested by scholars and historians, but that does not transform it into fascism. Totalitarianism describes how power is exercised. Fascism and communism describe what that power is used for, and they pursue opposite goals.

There's also widespread confusion about socialism versus communism, and particularly about what democratic socialism actually means. Democratic socialism is not the same as social democracy, though many Americans conflate them. Democratic socialism genuinely seeks to replace capitalism with full socialism, meaning workers would collectively own the means of production, but through democratic electoral processes rather than violent revolution. Democratic socialists aim to gradually transition from capitalism to socialism through reforms, nationalizations, and expanding worker cooperatives, all while maintaining democratic institutions. This is fundamentally different from social democracy.

Social democrats support capitalism with strong welfare states, regulations, and social programs. This is what Nordic countries practice. They are capitalist economies with robust social safety nets, not socialist economies. Social democrats have no intention of abolishing capitalism or private ownership of productive property. They simply want to regulate capitalism and redistribute wealth through taxation and social programs.

Many who claim to be democratic socialists while supporting private property and mixed economies are actually describing social democracy, not democratic socialism. Democratic socialism still involves collective ownership of the means of production. It still opposes private ownership of factories, corporations, and major productive enterprises. The difference from revolutionary socialism is the method of getting there, not the end goal. If someone supports private property rights indefinitely, they are not a democratic socialist. They are a social democrat or perhaps a progressive liberal.

The confusion is understandable given American political discourse, where "socialism" often just means government programs and welfare, which is an American colloquialism with no relation to the actual definition used in political theory and history.

Some have labeled social democrats, democratic socialists, and establishment left parties as "social fascists" or "liberal fascists." This terminology emerged most notably during the Comintern's Third Period in the late 1920s and early 1930s when Stalin directed communist parties to treat social democrats as the primary enemy. This "social fascism" theory claimed that social democrats were objectively fascist because they preserved capitalism and thereby enabled fascism's rise. While this strategy failed to prevent Hitler's rise in Germany and was subsequently abandoned by the Comintern, the underlying analysis about reformist parties enabling fascism through capitalist preservation has renewed relevance.

The contemporary case for this framing is more substantive than historical Cold War positioning. Capitalism structurally requires oppression, exploitation, coercion, manipulation, and violations of human and planetary rights to function. These are not reformable features but foundational requirements of the system. Democratic socialists, social democrats, progressives, and liberals in practice repeatedly block genuinely left policy, compromise away anti-capitalist positions, and make sacrifices of leftist ideological principles to preserve capitalist frameworks and state power. This pattern is observable across Western democracies: in the US Democratic Party, UK Labour, Canadian Liberals, and throughout NATO countries. This creates what critics call a "ratchet effect" where the political center continuously shifts rightward, with the establishment left serving as controlled opposition that moves the Overton window while preventing systemic challenge to capitalism.

In this analysis, these parties function as the "moderate wing of fascism" not because they embrace ultranationalism or leader cults, but because they perpetuate and legitimize a system fundamentally built on violence, domination, and ecological destruction while co-opting leftist rhetoric and movements that might otherwise challenge capitalism. They create false consciousness or Stockholm syndrome among their base, channeling discontent into reformist dead ends rather than revolutionary transformation. Their role is to absorb and neutralize anti-capitalist energy, making them objectively servants of the capitalist system even when their stated rhetoric opposes its worst excesses.

Right-wing figures like Jonah Goldberg have attempted to paint progressivism as fascism through works like "Liberal Fascism," but this analysis is categorically different and historically dishonest. Goldberg conflates any government intervention with fascism, ignoring fascism's actual characteristics of ultranationalism, militarism, racial supremacy ideology, and totalitarian subordination of individuals to the nation. His argument serves to defend capitalism by smearing its critics.

H.G. Wells wrote about "liberal fascism" or technocratic planned society in the 1920s before fascism's full nature became apparent, and his views evolved. Using Wells anachronistically to characterize modern politics ignores historical context.

The leftist critique of social democracy as social fascism is fundamentally different: it argues that parties claiming to oppose capitalism while perpetually compromising to preserve it serve the same structural function as fascism's more openly violent defense of capital, just through different methods. They maintain the system that generates fascism rather than dismantling it, making them complicit in capitalism's ongoing violence even when they oppose fascism's most extreme manifestations.

Confusion extends to Hitler and Nazism. While it's correct that Hitler was not a socialist despite the party name, claiming he "owned the means of production" and was therefore capitalist oversimplifies. Nazi Germany had a complex economy that cannot be reduced to pure capitalism or socialism. The Nazi state intervened heavily in the economy, directed production for war aims, and subordinated economic activity to political goals, but it maintained private property and worked with industrialists. This was neither free market capitalism nor socialism. It was a third position economy serving fascist ideology, where private ownership existed but was directed by the totalitarian state for nationalist objectives.

While dictionaries define fascism as right wing, which is generally true in contemporary scholarship, trying to force Stalin into this category because he shared some surface traits like authoritarianism and nationalism is like saying a hammer and a screwdriver are the same tool because both are handheld and made of metal. The functional purpose matters. Fascism uses nationalism to unite classes in service of the nation or race. Communism uses internationalism and class struggle to eliminate class distinctions. Stalin's Soviet Union remained ideologically committed to eventual world revolution and the triumph of the working class, even if this was alleged propaganda masking Russian imperialism. Fascist regimes explicitly rejected this worldview.

It's worth noting that communal sharing and collective resource distribution have existed in many societies throughout history, including among Indigenous peoples. The Mohawk poet and performer Tekahionwake (E. Pauline Johnson) observed that "All red races are born Socialists, and most tribes carry out the communistic ideas to the letter. Amongst the Iroquois, it is considered disgraceful to have food if your neighbor has none." She noted that to be creditable among her people, one must divide possessions with less fortunate fellows, and that Indigenous peoples preserved legends likening avarice to a slimy sea serpent, showing their rejection of hoarding wealth. This illustrates that collective economic organization and opposition to extreme wealth accumulation are not inherently European or Marxist concepts, but have emerged independently in many cultures. However, these traditional communal practices differ significantly from Marxist communism in their foundations, structures, and methods, which is why they're known as primitive, tribal, and clan communism.

Nazism was a form of fascism adapted to German conditions, incorporating biological racism and antisemitism more centrally than Italian fascism did initially. The Nazi party removed socialists, banned trade unions, privatized state industries, and allied with traditional conservative institutions like the military and churches to gain power. The Enabling Act that gave Hitler dictatorial powers was passed with support from the Catholic Centre Party and other conservative parties after the Nazis promised to uphold private property and traditional values. German communists and socialists opposed the Nazis and were among the first groups sent to concentration camps.

There's also confusion about Marxism and historical materialism. Marx argued that capitalism was a necessary stage in historical development that created the industrial productive forces and working class conditions that would make socialist revolution possible. He believed advanced capitalist countries would be where socialist revolutions occurred, not that revolutionaries should first implement capitalism. This analysis is why many Marxists viewed the Russian Revolution with skepticism, since Russia was not an advanced industrial society. Lenin adapted Marxist theory to argue that a vanguard party could shortcut this process, and Stalin later developed the theory of socialism in one country, contradicting Marx's internationalism.

Stalin's policies caused or led to millions of deaths, necessity is debated among scholars and historians. These deaths resulted from communist ideology applied with totalitarian ruthlessness, not from fascism. Labeling Stalin fascist to distance oneself from his alleged crimes while still identifying as socialist is intellectually dishonest. Stalin was a socialist implementing communism. His interpretation of socialism led to catastrophic human suffering. One can oppose Stalin's version of socialism without pretending he represented something else entirely.

The comparison to Hitler's genocide is relevant but distinct. Hitler's extermination programs were rooted in racial ideology seeking to purify the Aryan race and eliminate Jews, Roma, disabled people, and Slavs considered racially inferior. This was central to Nazi fascist ideology. Stalin's mass murders or justified mass killings, were rooted in class ideology, viewing kulaks, political dissidents, ethnic groups deemed disloyal, and anyone threatening his vanguard's power as enemies to be liquidated. Both were allegedly monstrous, but they stemmed from different ideological motivations. Equating them obscures what made each system dangerous.

The insistence that genocide is inherently fascist is wrong. Genocide is a crime that can be committed under any ideology when humans decide certain groups must be eliminated. Communist regimes have committed genocide, as in Cambodia under Pol Pot against educated urbanites and ethnic Vietnamese. Fascist regimes committed genocide, as in Nazi Germany against Jews and others. Capitalist colonial powers committed genocide against indigenous peoples. Theocratic regimes have committed genocide against religious minorities. Genocide is about the intentional destruction of a group, not about what economic system you prefer.

There's also confusion about nationalism in communist states. Stalin promoted Soviet nationalism, especially during World War II when he appealed to Russian patriotic sentiment against the German invasion. However, this was a pragmatic adaptation of ideology, not abandonment of communism for fascism. Stalin used nationalism as a tool to mobilize the population, but the Soviet system remained organized around Marxist principles of state ownership, central planning, and one party rule claiming to represent the working class. Stalin and the USSR continued to attempt to expand and unite the world under communism. Fascist nationalism is organic to the ideology, celebrating the nation or race as the highest good. Communist nationalism is theoretically contradictory, since Marxism preaches internationalism, but practical communist leaders have often used nationalist appeals when convenient.

Claims that Stalin attended confession monthly are absurd. Stalin studied for the priesthood as a young man but became a committed atheist revolutionary. The Soviet Union under Stalin was officially atheist, persecuted religious institutions, destroyed churches, and murdered clergy. Millions of Christians, Muslims, Jews, and others faced repression for their faith. Mao's China similarly persecuted religion systematically during the Cultural Revolution. Pol Pot's Cambodia tried to eliminate Buddhism along with all traditional culture. Claims that only Kim Il Sung opposed religion are completely false. State atheism was standard in communist regimes because Marxist theory views religion as the "opium of the masses" that must be eliminated. Communism is Antitheist, antireligion, secular humanism. 

Attempts to distinguish Stalinism from socialism by saying Stalinism mixed in Lenin's ideology make no sense. Leninism is the foundation of Soviet communism. Stalin was Lenin's successor and built on Leninist principles of vanguard party rule, democratic centralism, and dictatorship of the proletariat. Stalin radicalized and brutalized these concepts, but he did not invent a new ideology separate from socialism. Stalinism is a term for Stalin's particular implementation of Marxist communism, not a different system. Lenin did express concerns about Stalin's rudeness and concentration of power in his final years, suggesting Stalin be removed as General Secretary. However, Lenin still saw Stalin as a fellow Bolshevik, not as an ideological opponent. Lenin's own regime had already established the one party state, secret police, labor camps, and political terror that Stalin expanded. And one more thing about Stalin, he attempted to resign on four separate occasions but was denied by the people; proving even more about his alignment with Lenin's teachings.

Claims that fascism can be left or right wing with Mussolini far left and Hitler far right are historically ignorant. Mussolini was a socialist before World War I but broke with socialism, formed fascism as an explicitly anti-socialist movement, and led fascist Italy as a right wing dictator allied with the Catholic Church, monarchists, and industrialists against communists and socialists. Hitler and Mussolini were both right wing fascist dictators. There is no credible scholarship placing either on the left. This confusion arises from thinking authoritarianism equals left wing, which is false. The political spectrum is complex, but fascism is categorized as right wing based on its embrace of hierarchy, nationalism, traditional values, private property, and anti-communism.

Hitler's rise to power involved conservative elites believing they could control him to destroy the left wing movements threatening their power after World War I and the Depression. German conservatives, industrialists, and military leaders supported Hitler because he promised to crush communists, restore order, rebuild the military, and protect property rights. They made a catastrophic miscalculation about their ability to control him, but their choice reveals that Nazis were seen as the right wing alternative to the left, not as leftists themselves.

In summary, fascism and communism are distinct, opposed ideologies that both can produce totalitarian regimes and mass death, but through different ideological mechanisms and goals. Stalin was a communist dictator whose alleged crimes flowed from communist ideology implemented brutally. Hitler was a fascist dictator whose crimes flowed from fascist racial ideology implemented with industrial efficiency. Both were evil. Both murdered millions. They were not the same thing. Authoritarianism is not an ideology itself but a method of rule. You can have authoritarian communism, authoritarian fascism, authoritarian monarchy, or authoritarian theocracy. The ideology tells you what goals the authoritarian pursues. Stalin pursued communist goals of eliminating class enemies and building socialism. Hitler pursued fascist goals of racial purity and national expansion. These are different nightmares, and understanding the difference matters for preventing future atrocities.

People need to clarify what they actually believe. If they support capitalism with strong social programs, they are social democrats, not socialists. If they truly support workers collectively owning the means of production achieved through democratic means, they are democratic socialists, but this still means eventual elimination of private ownership of productive property. Many seem to want the label "socialist" for its association with caring about inequality and workers, but without accepting what socialism actually entails. This is intellectually lazy. People should study political economy seriously, understand what different systems actually propose, and then honestly identify their position. Calling Stalin a fascist to avoid reckoning with socialism's bloody history is evasion, not analysis.

The confusion displayed throughout these arguments reflects a refusal to engage seriously with political theory and history, revealing deep anti-communist indoctrination. Those who conflate fascism and communism, who call Stalin a fascist to avoid understanding how socialism was actually implemented, who claim socialist identity while defending indefinite private property rights, engage in intellectual dishonesty.

Stalin operated within collective party leadership structures implementing Marxist-Leninist ideology. The violence deployed against class enemies was grounded in the dictatorship of the proletariat: the organized suppression of counter-revolutionary forces during revolutionary transition. When property owners sabotaged production and destroyed resources rather than participate in collective farming during periods of agricultural crisis, they were treated as criminals threatening population survival. Democratic centralism involved collective debate and decision-making within party structures before implementing policies. This wasn't the Western caricature of one-man dictatorship but rather strictly enforced collective decision-making, making it what could be termed uncompromisingly authoritarian democracy. Understanding democratic centralism properly is essential to understanding how Soviet governance actually functioned.

To those who recognized the Democratic Party's complicity in genocide, who acknowledged their fascist foreign policies, who watched them bankroll the mass killing of Palestinians in Gaza, yet still voted for them fearing worse domestic outcomes, you engaged in both defeatism and complicity with fascism. You cannot claim to oppose fascism while empowering a party you yourself identified as fascist. Choosing the "lesser evil" that funds genocide is still choosing genocide. Rejecting third-party alternatives as "improbable" or "impossible" while voting for a party actively participating in ethnic cleansing makes you complicit in that ethnic cleansing. Your vote empowered the very fascism you claim to oppose. That is not pragmatism, that is moral bankruptcy disguised as strategic thinking. That crosses ethical redlines and reveals complicity with fascist policies, if not fascist ideology itself.

My blog is a response to many Twitter posts of acquaintances going back to 2020.