This legitimately isn’t meant to be a gotcha question or an attack on any political ideology. I just want to get a better understanding of why class consciousness is only applicable to the left, and the concept of populism (while it does seem to be increasingly applied to both sides of the political spectrum in certain cases) seems to be reserved as a term used for the right.

Regardless of historical ties (like class consciousness originating from Marxism) from my understanding (which admittedly is very basic for both concepts), populism doesn’t have to necessarily focus on class issues or class solidarity. However, when you look at the way somebody like Trump uses populism to target a voting base, it very clearly is doing this by promising the working class a way to “pull themselves up by their bootstraps.” Or, by attacking the “educated elites” on the left (who he, and many on the right, also accuse of being “cultural Marxists”).

My very basic understanding of class consciousness, is the awareness individuals have regarding their place within a hierarchy of social classes and their common shared interests.

Again, I understand that populism doesn’t have to be used this way, but in Trump’s case, regardless of why and how a billionaire would need to define the “elite” to reach his voter base, Trump’s form of populism very much seems to rely on defining a class, and an “us vs them,” strategy that he promises will allow members of the working class to achieve a common interest.

  • Basic Glitch@sh.itjust.worksOPEnglish
    1·
    7 months ago

    Sorry, I have to disagree with you there. When you’re willing to allow millions to starve, be sent to labor camps or be executed under your rule to maintain your power, you’re no better than any other fascist. As far as not trying to exterminate a race of people, many Ukrainians would disagree with you.

    I’m not a Marxist or socialist (I do agree with certain aspects such as social safety nets, just not necessarily how to achieve them or the responsibility of every citizen to work for the collective if they choose not to participate), but I do feel like it’s very unfair that all Marxists and socialists often get lumped in with Stalin.

    Socialism in one country wasn’t just an idea of peace, it was a way for Stalin to put his own nation first and strengthen the economy before any other communist country. It’s not an unreasonable thing to do, but even if you reasonably believe it’s a bad idea to be constantly forcing war and revolutions, prioritizing the creation and stabilization of a soviet socialism above helping others in the collective, does implicitly require one to view borders as boundaries and other nations outside of those borders in a hierarchical way, not as a single collective. Also, Stalin did try to expand into Finland during the winter war, as a way to gain territory and expand the borders of his own nation.

    1930s Famine Still Mars Russia-Ukraine Relations

    Socialism in one country: how Stalin abandoned Marxism

    Joseph Stalin: The Fascist Dictator Who Betrayed Communism

    Winter War

    • OBJECTION!@lemmy.mlEnglish
      1·
      7 months ago

      I don’t think you’re being reasonable here.

      Socialism in one country wasn’t just an idea of peace, it was a way for Stalin to put his own nation first and strengthen the economy before any other communist country. It’s not an unreasonable thing to do, but even if you reasonably believe it’s a bad idea to be constantly forcing war and revolutions, prioritizing the creation and stabilization of a soviet socialism above helping others in the collective, does implicitly require one to view borders as boundaries and other nations outside of those borders in a hierarchical way, not as a single collective. Also, Stalin did try to expand into Finland during the winter war, as a way to gain territory and expand the borders of his own nation.

      Help me out here. Finland was not socialist. How does the USSR cause Finland to become socialist, without violating their sovereignty? Literally how?

      You’re simultaneously criticizing the USSR for “socialism in one country” and for trying to expand the revolution to other countries. It’s completely incoherent. If Stalin had not attacked Finland, then it would prove that he was “implicitly viewing those across the border in a heirarchical way,” by your standards, would it not? How can he sit idly by while those Finns don’t get to appreciate the wonders of living under socialism, that’s what you’re saying. While also saying that it was bad to invade Finland and try to force them into socialism from the outside (the correct, reasonable position).

      As far as not trying to exterminate a race of people, many Ukrainians would disagree with you.

      This is Double Genocide Theory which has been condemned by many scholars on the Holocaust as a form of Holocaust trivialization.

      We can talk about the causes of the famine and whatnot but it’s not on the same level of the Holocaust. The Nazis were a special kind of evil that went above and beyond anyone else. Churchill also was responsible for massive famines and starvation in India, which he treated with extreme callousness. Still not on the same level as Hitler.

      I do feel like it’s very unfair that all Marxists and socialists often get lumped in with Stalin.

      Well, get used to it:

      For decades, many left-leaning writers and speakers in the United States have felt obliged to establish their credibility by indulging in anticommunist and anti-Soviet genuflection, seemingly unable to give a talk or write an article or book review on whatever political subject without injecting some anti-Red sideswipe. The intent was, and still is, to distance themselves from the Marxist-Leninist Left.

      Adam Hochschild, a liberal writer and publisher, warned those on the Left who might be lackadaisical about condemning existing communist societies that they “weaken their credibility” (Guardian, 5/23/84). In other words, to be credible opponents of the cold war, we first had to join in cold war condemnations of communist societies. Ronald Radosh urged that the peace movement purge itself of communists so that it not be accused of being communist (Guardian, 3/16/83). If I understand Radosh: To save ourselves from anticommunist witchhunts, we should ourselves become witchhunters.

      Purging the Left of communists became a longstanding practice, having injurious effects on various progressive causes. For instance, in 1949 some twelve unions were ousted from the CIO because they had Reds in their leadership. The purge reduced CIO membership by some 1.7 million and seriously weakened its recruitment drives and political clout. In the late 1940s, to avoid being “smeared” as Reds, Americans for Democratic Action (ADA), a supposedly progressive group, became one of the most vocally anticommunist organizations.

      The strategy did not work. ADA and others on the Left were still attacked for being communist or soft on communism by those on the Right. Then and now, many on the Left have failed to realize that those who fight for social change on behalf of the less-privileged elements of society will be Red-baited by conservative elites whether they are communists or not. For ruling interests, it makes little difference whether their wealth and power is challenged by “communist subversives” or “loyal American liberals.” All are lumped together as more or less equally abhorrent.

      Michael Parenti, Blackshirts and Reds, 1997.