you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [S] 13 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

The Soviet Union's propaganda and culture tick all of those, though.

But fair, I typically use authoritarian anyway.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    I do not think so. There was no “return to the good old days” in USSR at all. The ideology, while was stressing the importance to defend itself, did not fetishized the military. Nationalism was also missing. And instead there was class fight, common means of production, etc. It was quite different. The only common part was the authoritarian government and the principle that the state is greater than individual.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    USSR didn't fetishize the military? Are you high? Can I have some?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    I lived there. No, military was not fetishized. Most of the people would not want to go and serve. The draft was something to avoid if you can.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] [S] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    You lived there? How old are you?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    50+. Do not want to give personal information on internet more than needed.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] [S] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    So you didn't actually experience life under the soviet gulags.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    I did not claimed I am. But Soviet ideology and fascist ideology are quite different. It is not like there must be just single ideology that can do bad things.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago

    There was the idea of bringing the revolution to others. While mostly after Stalin, the USSR heavily engaged in combat to exert its influence. The Korean and Vietnamese Civil Wars were proxy wars in which both the US and the USSR were engaged in. Then there was the soviet invasion of Afghanistan, too.

    Their propaganda has a lot of hints of glorifying the military, sacrifice and fanaticism.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] [S] 2 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Isn't doing things for the sake of the state nationalism?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago

    You do not do that for the sake of state. You do that for the collective. State is just bureaucratic representation of that. In fascist Germany you would do that for the Germany and German nation specifically. In USSR you do not do that for USSR or USSR nation (there was no such thing).

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago

    Generally that's regarded as civic nationalism ("People are bound together by a common government"), whereas most people think of ethnic nationalism ("People are bound together by common descent or culture") when they speak of nationalism. Though there is a strong argument to be made for the SovUnion being an extension of Russian domination over other ethnicities, just like the Russian Empire which preceded it.

  • source
  • parent