Communism & Fascism: Same Thing?

I am sick to death of all these idiots comparing Stalin to Hitler and Nazis to Marxist-Leninists. It is time to face facts: comparing Communists with Nazis is objectively pro-fascist. It is completely unrealistic and only helps out the other side, including the fascists, Nazis, reactionaries and monarchs. It only assists them in whitewashing and cheapening the crimes of the Nazis and turning Nazism into a mere insult, a cliché, rather than the true danger it is.

Not only that, it indirectly blames Communism, the force that destroyed fascism, for the rise of fascism, by placing them both in the same so-called “totalitarian” category. This succeeds only in removing the blame from the CAPITALIST CLASS, which are the true people to blame for the rise of Hitler, Mussolini, Pinochet and Franco, since fascism is the last resort of a desperate and violent bourgeoisie that is losing its power. Hitler may have risen to power by speaking out against the big capitalists, but that was only because socialism was very popular in Germany at the time, and once he was elected Chancellor he did everything he could to save big German capital. Not to mention the very first people he sent to the gas chambers, before even the Jews, were the German communists, as shown in the popular “first they came for the…” quote, in which the first thing he says is, “First they came for the communists…”

All the reactionary ivory tower intelligentsia are eager to put forward this analysis of the swastika and the hammer & sickle being comparable only because throughout history intellectuals have been the willing puppets of the ruling class, whether it be kings, slaveowners or automobile moguls.

Fascism and Communism are not the same thing; in fact, fascism is merely the logical conclusion to bourgeois democracy. This is elementary common sense. Capitalism leads to fascism. Every wise human being knows this. So do not doubt—those intellectual idiots who prance around saying “Stalin is worse than Hitler” are objectively on the Nazis’ side and are working on their behalf.

Published by Victor Vaughn

Anti-revisionist Marxist-Leninist, monarch of Latveria, owner, National Secretary of the American Party of Labor (APL).

2 thoughts on “Communism & Fascism: Same Thing?

  1. Dear Rory Foster,
    Thank you for comment. I will attempt to answer your questions as best I can. I hope you will respond in good time.

    “given that Marxism-Leninism, when applied, creates a secondary ruling class that replaces the relationship of bourgeoisie and proletariat with the relationship of Party official and citizen, one can hardly say that Marxism-Leninism is not created by the ruling class.”

    The relationship of Party official to citizen is not interchangeable with the relationship of proletariat and bourgeoisie. As Lenin put forward, a new bourgeoisie can arise within the Party, which brings the revolution back to capitalism, but that is not the same as what you are referring to. Even if you look at the bourgeois manifestations of capitalism that happened in the CPSU after the death of Lenin and Stalin, the economic base was not fully, totally capitalist until the 60s, though the politics had been imperialist since 1956.

    As for the idea of the proletarian Communist Party being a “new ruling class,” this is essentially an anarchist idea of power and authority. You have to look at what class the state power is being wielded by, and for—the imperialists, or the working class? The same goes with violence—not all violence is reactionary. IS the violence being used in the hands of oppressors, or oppressed? In order for the masses to unleash a revolution, we need organization and leadership, and for that we need a Party. I cannot be so optimistic as to think that the days of revolutions carried out by small minorities at the head of unconscious masses is at an end. I do not have that fortune.

    Your second sentence makes no sense. Let’s assume for the sake of argument that you are correct, and Marxism-Leninism does somehow create a “new ruling class”—if that were true, how exactly does it follow that Marxism is thus “created by” the ruling class? Are you suggesting the entire thing is some shadowy plot by some Illuminati-type council to fool us into putting some class back into power? Even if this theses were also true, it would not be the same class as before, since the bourgeoisie is not an amorphous whole.

    “Marxism; yes. Marxism-Leninism; no.”

    The two are absolutely inseparable. Leninism is Marxism in the era of imperialist capitalism. Marxism can be applied no other way. Marx was proven wrong on several points—the need for the mass of workers to form a party in order to attain mass consciousness, the place where the revolution would happen first and the continuing of class struggle under socialism. All of these theses were corrected and enriched by Vladimir Lenin and Joseph Stalin. The methods of continuing class struggle under socialism were later improved by Enver Hoxha.

    The idealist concept of the workers seizing control without organization was utterly disproved by the crushing of the Paris Commune. Your statement seems to be based on illusions that Marx and Engels were somehow “anti-authoritarian” or were some sort of “common liberals” that were sadly misinterpreted by the awful dictator Lenin. Simply put, nothing could be further from the truth. It is worth noting that Marx was the first one to write about the uses of revolutionary violence, and though he acknowledged that socialism could be possible peacefully (a thesis that has since been rejected in this era of reactionary violence), he said that in most cases a violent overthrow would be necessary. He also coined the phrase “dictatorship of the proletariat.”
    Here’s is Engels’ essay on the subject. I strongly encourage you to read this work:

    “Fascism is quite the interesting ideology when one takes into account the various ideas that it uses from the left and right end of the political spectrum;”

    You’re closer to the truth here than you think, but are not quite there. Fascism and Bolshevism are outside of the traditional liberal capitalist “right-left” spectrum, it is true, since both are outside of the dominant liberal ideology. That said, fascism is FAR more a phenomenon of the right-wing than the left. Fascism is the logical conclusion of bourgeois democracy, since it is a desperate and violent bourgeoisie that resorts to more openly terrorist military tactics in order to maintain the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.

    “it belongs wholly to no particular sect aside from authoritarianism.”

    Actually, fascism is capitalism, as I have said above.

  2. But may I ask, what do you consider to NOT be authoritarian socialism? I would put forward that if you measure science merely by to what degree a certain class holds “authority,” then by that standard ALL societies are authoritarian, since it is always ONE class that holds power over another.

    By that standard, there can BE no “anti-authoritarian state,” since a state is not class-neutral and cannot be by its very nature.

    I see no problem with authoritarianism. A revolution is very authoritarian. It’s a group of fighters taking guns and telling another class to step down from power.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: