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.
They definitely overlap.
They both tap into Tribalism, which is part of what Darwin called “the stamp of our lowly origin”
For 200,000 years we lived in tribal groups whose biggest threat was, very often, other tribes. That’s why “us-vs-them” thinking is so pervasive, visceral, and dangerous.
I asked the question because I got into kind of a dumb argument with my husband about the definition of fascism and if fascist behavior can only be carried out by somebody with a right wing ideology.
Even though fascism as a movement is tied to right wing ideology, I do think there may be some utility in viewing fascist behavior, as something that can go beyond the clear boundaries of left/right/center without over using the term. In particular it seems like there is something about the use of tribalism as a justification that could be a useful first red flag to be on the lookout for in any political movement.
For example, when you look at Stalin’s regime, his ideology definitely wasn’t right wing, but he did have some really odd overlaps with right wing fascists, like the belief that the Soviet Union should prioritize socialism within it’s own borders over other communist countries. He claimed to support class consciousness, yet he also justified starvation and labor camps for agrarian peasants, because he did hold the hierarchical belief that they were less than human compared to his working class base in cities.
Interestingly, the word fascism apparently comes from fascio, the Italian word for bundle, as in bundles of people.
Fascism is a movement that promotes the idea of a forcibly monolithic, regimented nation under the control of an autocratic ruler.
It’s odd that regardless of whether you’re talking about Stalin, or Hitler and Mussolini, there would be this overlap in that use of dangerous tribalism (bundling of a people) as justification for policies leading to the death of millions of innocents (who were expendable for simply not being part of that tribe/bundle) taking place under an autocratic ruler. On both the right and the left, the autocratic leader gained support by claiming their goal was simply to look out for the interests of the tribe/bundle above anything else at any cost.
It doesn’t really seem to matter if it’s called populism or class consciousness, and it’s not the ideas that are actually dangerous. The true danger is in their tribalistic use as a justification by any opportunistic leader who’s true goal is obtaining unchecked power and authority at any cost.
It’s particularly concerning to hear somebody like Nick Fuentes say that he admires Stalin. I feel like we should maybe question why somebody like Fuentes would admire what Stalin achieved, instead of just writing it off as an internet edgelord getting his ideologies mixed up. Maybe we should consider that there is something about Stalin that fits more broadly into the concerning aspects of human behavior and the increasing fascination with anti-democratic nationalism, fascism, and authoritarianism by younger generations that goes beyond any single (current political ideology) on the left or right. If you wouldn’t say it’s Stalin’s behavior that appeals to a self described fascist like Fuentes, then what is it?
Is Trump actually appealing to the “common interest” of the working class? No. Immigrants and other minorities are also members of the working class, who Trump and MAGA openly target.
Class consciousness extends far beyond this narrow focus, it recognizes a unity of interests across national boundaries, across race, religion, gender, etc. It recognizes the need for solidarity even when it may be disadvantageous in the short term, the idea being by standing up for the vulnerable consistently and on principle, people can have confidence that the movement will also protect their interests when threatened.
Chauvanism is the enemy of class consciousness, but is more than happy to wrap itself in the aesthetics of it. For example:
The Nazi’s calling themselves “National Socialists” is another example.
In some cases, the lack of education of the working class together with the influence of bourgeois ideologies and propaganda can make true, inclusive class consciousness unpopular, even deeply unpopular, while movements that are exclusionary, discriminatory, or more compatible with a national mythos are more popular, with the minor downside of being completely wrong. Another incorrect approach is recognizing this as being wrong, but insisting on following along and adopting such stances in order to appeal to the masses, which is sometimes called, “tailism.”
You can’t really call it class consciousness if it only extends as far as one nation’s borders, and only to a specific race and gender within those borders.
Is Trump actually appealing to the “common interest” of the working class? No. Immigrants and other minorities are also members of the working class, who Trump and MAGA openly target.
You can’t really call it class consciousness if it only extends as far as one nation’s borders, and only to a specific race and gender within those borders.
So this kind of gets to the heart of why I even ask this question.
In the case of somebody like Stalin, can you really say that his values truly represented class consciousness? He saw agrarian peasants as less human than the working class in cities, and was ok with letting them starve and be placed in labor camps. He also had a nationalist view regarding socialism.
I don’t ask as an attack of communism or socialism, but more as a question of if someone like Stalin should really even be considered in the same category as other socialists? Doing so seems to make about as much sense as placing Trump in that category because of populist claims he made on the campaign trail that directly conflict with his actual policy.
I honestly feel like he meets just about every criteria for a fascist, except for the party he claimed loyalty to, but much of his policy didn’t even seem to really align with the party values.
National socialists, similar to many “Christian nationalists,” weren’t opposed to socialist policy for the “right people.” As long as they’re other white “Christian” Nationalists willing to fall in line and also pledge their loyalty, the Trump administration is more than happy to (at least claim) they will be rewarded with very socialist policy. This is their justification for needing to get rid of everyone who doesn’t fit their view of who is and isn’t deserving. Again, it doesn’t seem all that different from Stalin’s values.
What to Know About the Origins of Fascism’s Brutal Ideology
What is fascism? Fascism is a movement that promotes the idea of a forcibly monolithic, regimented nation under the control of an autocratic ruler. The word fascism comes from fascio, the Italian word for bundle, which in this case represents bundles of people. Its origins go back to Ancient Rome, when the fasces was a bundle of wood with an ax head, carried by leaders.
On March 23, 1919, the Fasci Italiani di Combattimento — a group that grew out of a number of earlier movements that had also used the image of the fascio in their names — met for the first time in Piazza San Sepolcro in Milan. At this rally, Mussolini said that membership in the new group “commits all fascists to sabotaging the candidacies of the neutralists of all parties by any means necessary.”
Well, I don’t know that Stalin “saw agrarian peasants as less human.”
As for “a nationalist view of socialism,” it’s kind of a strange criticism people make, that often doesn’t seem to be thought through very far. The alternative to “socialism in one country” is “socialism in every country,” as in, supporting revolutions against every government in the world simultaneously. That’s a much more aggressive approach than “socialism in one country,” and if anything, Stalin could be criticized for being too willing to expand the Soviet project into other countries, whereas the USSR eventually adopted a formal policy of “peaceful coexistence” with the West. What critics of “socialism in one country” often don’t seem to understand is that what they’re asking for is for the USSR to essentially declare war with everyone on earth.
I don’t really have a strong opinion on Stalin, but I do believe in having a realistic assessment of him and of the USSR. He was certainly better than the fascists he fought, as he never attempted to exterminate an entire race of people.
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
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.
deleted by creator
