Yes. And communist, fascist, and dictator mean 3 very different things. I used to think they were synonymous, too, but they’re not.

Communist and fascist are polar opposites. Authoritarian is the extremes of both sides. A dictator can exist at any point in the spectrum, and isn’t unique to any side.

It really does help if we can agree what words mean.

Authoritarian is not fascism. It is a component, but communism and fascism are not even close to synonymous.

There was one famine from mismanagement, and Stalin wasn’t a great guy but this shit is really overblown.

Authoritarian is the word you’re looking for, not fascist.

What on earth makes me a Tankie? I’m not a Stalinist. I’m pretty anti-Stalin even - I think the doctors probably did let him die and that was a great thing. I just think words mean things.

Let’s go with Eco, because it’s been fifteen years since I read Griffin. And I’ll pull the wiki summaries for quickness.

“The cult of tradition”, characterized by cultural syncretism, even at the risk of internal contradiction. When all truth has already been revealed by tradition, no new learning can occur, only further interpretation and refinement.

Not at all characteristic of the Stalin regime. Rejection of tradition - rejection of Eastern Orthodox religion, traditional serf structure.

“The rejection of modernism”, which views the rationalistic development of Western culture since the Enlightenment as a descent into depravity. Eco distinguishes this from a rejection of superficial technological advancement, as many fascist regimes cite their industrial potency as proof of the vitality of their system.

Also not accurate - Marxist-Stalinist thought saw time and modernism as progress.

“The cult of action for action’s sake”, which dictates that action is of value in itself and should be taken without intellectual reflection. This, says Eco, is connected with anti-intellectualism and irrationalism, and often manifests in attacks on modern culture and science.

Also just doesn’t quite fit. Action does have purpose, and isn’t motivated by the Freudian death drive in quite the same way.

“Disagreement is treason” – fascism devalues intellectual discourse and critical reasoning as barriers to action, as well as out of fear that such analysis will expose the contradictions embodied in a syncretistic faith.

This one is certainly true, the gulags undoubtedly qualify.

“Fear of difference”, which fascism seeks to exploit and exacerbate, often in the form of racism or an appeal against foreigners and immigrants.

Decidedly untrue. Stalin really loved showcasing different ethnic minority traditions. He was certainly antisemitic, but I’ve read too many accounts about Georgian dancing troops and linguistic revival to see this as accurate. Edit: I will be fair and bring up ethnic deportations and genocide which happened. But it’s not quite fascistic ethnic cleansing. There’s a difference in the way it’s presented to the public, in its motivations. It’s less the heroic struggle against Strangers, but more connected to historical conflicts. Evil and wrong, but not a fascistic “project.”

“Appeal to a frustrated middle class”, fearing economic pressure from the demands and aspirations of lower social groups.

No, the Bolsheviks explicitly appealed to a lower class.

“Obsession with a plot” and the hyping-up of an enemy threat. This often combines an appeal to xenophobia with a fear of disloyalty and sabotage from marginalized groups living within the society. Eco also cites Pat Robertson’s book The New World Order as a prominent example of a plot obsession.

This one counts, at least in the later years.

Fascist societies rhetorically cast their enemies as “at the same time too strong and too weak”. On the one hand, fascists play up the power of certain disfavored elites to encourage in their followers a sense of grievance and humiliation. On the other hand, fascist leaders point to the decadence of those elites as proof of their ultimate feebleness in the face of an overwhelming popular will.

No, propaganda tended to portray the battle against capitalism as being easy to win with solidarity.

“Pacifism is trafficking with the enemy” because “life is permanent warfare” – there must always be an enemy to fight. Both fascist Germany under Hitler and Italy under Mussolini worked first to organize and clean up their respective countries and then build the war machines that they later intended to and did use, despite Germany being under restrictions of the Versailles treaty to not build a military force. This principle leads to a fundamental contradiction within fascism: the incompatibility of ultimate triumph with perpetual war.

You don’t need perpetual war with the kulaks.

“Contempt for the weak”, which is uncomfortably married to a chauvinistic popular elitism, in which every member of society is superior to outsiders by virtue of belonging to the in-group. Eco sees in these attitudes the root of a deep tension in the fundamentally hierarchical structure of fascist polities, as they encourage leaders to despise their underlings, up to the ultimate leader, who holds the whole country in contempt for having allowed him to overtake it by force

Entirely incongruous with Soviet propaganda.

“Everybody is educated to become a hero”, which leads to the embrace of a cult of death. As Eco observes, “[t]he Ur-Fascist hero is impatient to die. In his impatience, he more frequently sends other people to death.”

No, they wanted engineers to build factories. Stakhanov is not consistent with the imagery of a fascist hero.

“Machismo”, which sublimates the difficult work of permanent war and heroism into the sexual sphere. Fascists thus hold “both disdain for women and intolerance and condemnation of nonstandard sexual habits, from chastity to homosexuality”.

Soviet state under Stalin was one of the first to decriminalize homosexuality. Iirc Stalin did a take backsie later. More women were doctors than men. (We seldom talk about women in the movement - lots of pushes for temperance, it was the woman who wanted bread for their children along with the men of the Potemkin right?)

“Selective populism” – the people, conceived monolithically, have a common will, distinct from and superior to the viewpoint of any individual. As no mass of people can ever be truly unanimous, the leader holds himself out as the interpreter of the popular will (though truly he alone dictates it). Fascists use this concept to delegitimize democratic institutions they accuse of “no longer represent[ing] the voice of the people”.

Also goes against the whole idea of “we want democratic control over our factories.”

“Newspeak” – fascism employs and promotes an impoverished vocabulary in order to limit critical reasoning.

I’d concede this element as present.

Again, I am not pro Stalin. I am not a tankie.

Stalin was an authoritarian leader (and terrible! bad! not good!), but his ideology lacked the characteristics that make an ideology fascist.

No, you’re right, I stand corrected. Although I don’t know how much that had to do with McCarthy himself or the Un-American Activities Committee - it was an FBI investigation trail that had already begun before McCarthy kicked off with all his nonsense.

Now Russia is nonstop greed and corruption, sabre-rattling with Nuclear Weapons under capitalism, so completely different!

But regardless what people are imprisoned for

That was sorta the specific topic here

In Nordic countries, they do have something along the line. Although it ended up being democratic socialism, which is left-center instead of far-left authoritarian.

they have a couple of hundred of thousands of them in each of their facilities

That’s our chicken, comrade.

So glad I’m regular and not like ‘the others’. Politicians should just be regular like us too and ignore the opinion of their constituencies. They should instead only represent ‘the better’ people. /s

Politicians are very much our problem.