You might think differently if you spend more time studying political philosophy but I believe most understand the limitations of binaries. Both states are authoritarian but at no point will the USSR have pursued fascism as fascism is inherently anti-Marxist.
The problem with political philosophy is that actual politicians are often very ignorant of it. They just do whatever keeps them in power or increases the amount of power they wield.
USSR gave up on proper Marxism relatively early. They could have made a fascist turn with someone like Beria in charge.
USSR already had a personality cult in Lenin, militarism, control of media, suppression of dissent, economic control and collectivism.
The only thing that USSR lacked to be considered a fascist regime was nationalism (although I would argue that their attempts to create a homo sovieticus should count) and private industry (maybe if a fascist regime lasted for long enough they would nationalise industry too).
The lands and the people around me were heavily scarred by both.
Both fascism and marxism emerge from an assumed conflict within the system: fascism from a conflict between nations and marxism from a conflict between classes.
A failing economy, capitalist or otherwise, is just used as a tool for these ideologies to come into power.
Saying that a movement that aims to change the social order so severely is conservative is also a bit silly.
Both ideologies thrive during periods of crisis, and when one emerges, another might appear nearby. In that case, they will act like one opposes another but the act of opposition to an ideology also reinforces it.
You might think differently if you spend more time studying political philosophy but I believe most understand the limitations of binaries. Both states are authoritarian but at no point will the USSR have pursued fascism as fascism is inherently anti-Marxist.
The problem with political philosophy is that actual politicians are often very ignorant of it. They just do whatever keeps them in power or increases the amount of power they wield.
USSR gave up on proper Marxism relatively early. They could have made a fascist turn with someone like Beria in charge.
USSR already had a personality cult in Lenin, militarism, control of media, suppression of dissent, economic control and collectivism.
The only thing that USSR lacked to be considered a fascist regime was nationalism (although I would argue that their attempts to create a homo sovieticus should count) and private industry (maybe if a fascist regime lasted for long enough they would nationalise industry too).
Beria’s politics weren’t fascist though and turning fascist would be very hard for a state built in bolshevism as fascism is anti-bolshevik.
We have reached the point of the discussion where it becomes a discussion in semantics: What is fascism?
An ultranationalistic authoritarian conservative government built around a failing capitalist economy.
If you know anything about the history of fascism you should know it arises as a response to Marxism.
The lands and the people around me were heavily scarred by both.
Both fascism and marxism emerge from an assumed conflict within the system: fascism from a conflict between nations and marxism from a conflict between classes.
A failing economy, capitalist or otherwise, is just used as a tool for these ideologies to come into power.
Saying that a movement that aims to change the social order so severely is conservative is also a bit silly.
Both ideologies thrive during periods of crisis, and when one emerges, another might appear nearby. In that case, they will act like one opposes another but the act of opposition to an ideology also reinforces it.