Red fascism was a term coined by actual leftists (the original coining was by a Marxist) but largely co-opted by liberals and cryptofascists alike for their anti-communist rhetoric in the Cold War period.
There’s no particular reason to think this guy is against totalitarianism in general though, even if you acknowledge the term monarchists and fascists aren’t antifa for fighting red fascists.
There’s also no particular reason to think he wasn’t an anarchist. Or a liberal. Or literally anything besides a Ceausescu supporter.
He was an anti-communist living in Romania and being given quite a lot of reasons to be so, thus the near immediate 1989 Romanian Revolution when the Soviets fell, and that’s where our knowledge on his politics ends.
Hell, half the revolutionaries were communists themselves, nearly the entire military defected after the minister of defense was assumedly executed for refusing to give orders to fire on protestors.
After Lenin’s death they stopped trying. It failed because Lenin replace one bourgeoisie ruling class with another and expected that class to have the same interests as the working class for some reason. A vanguard party will never work due to different class interests.
The point I was trying to make is that rhetorically the USSR is in a superposition of Communist/Not Communist that collapses into whichever is most convenient for the commenter at the time
Actual antifa
Communism and fascism are not the same thing. They are opposite ends of the political spectrum.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_fascism
Red fascism was a term coined by actual leftists (the original coining was by a Marxist) but largely co-opted by liberals and cryptofascists alike for their anti-communist rhetoric in the Cold War period.
There’s no particular reason to think this guy is against totalitarianism in general though, even if you acknowledge the term monarchists and fascists aren’t antifa for fighting red fascists.
There’s also no particular reason to think he wasn’t an anarchist. Or a liberal. Or literally anything besides a Ceausescu supporter.
He was an anti-communist living in Romania and being given quite a lot of reasons to be so, thus the near immediate 1989 Romanian Revolution when the Soviets fell, and that’s where our knowledge on his politics ends.
Hell, half the revolutionaries were communists themselves, nearly the entire military defected after the minister of defense was assumedly executed for refusing to give orders to fire on protestors.
I thought the USSR wasn’t communist?
That simply shows a misunderstanding of dialectical materialism. They attempted communism, got close, but failed to achieve what defines it.
They failed due to under industrialism and external influences, but failed none the less.
Communism is the culmination of a process. Not just something a society does one day.
After Lenin’s death they stopped trying. It failed because Lenin replace one bourgeoisie ruling class with another and expected that class to have the same interests as the working class for some reason. A vanguard party will never work due to different class interests.
The point I was trying to make is that rhetorically the USSR is in a superposition of Communist/Not Communist that collapses into whichever is most convenient for the commenter at the time
In the same way the USA isn’t a democracy, but they were “doing the communism” still
It’s anti-Authoritarianism. Branding every awful dictatorship as facism helps no one.
How so?