• MxM111@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

      • MxM111@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • goatOPM
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          You lived there? How old are you?

            • goatOPM
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

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

              • MxM111@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                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.

                  • MxM111@kbin.social
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    Yes. There are common elements too. Yet there were quite different. There are common elements between fascism and democracy (both allow private property, for example, both have idea of state), so what? The world is not binary.

    • goatOPM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

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

      • MxM111@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year 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).

      • PugJesus@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year 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.

    • Akagigahara@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year 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.