How exactly do Marxist-Leninists rationalize and justify their support for Stalin and Mao in comparison to supporting someone like Mussolini? In terms of scope both Stalin and Mao did more to harm people, and the working class by extension. They both enacted class collaborationist policies, they both enacted racial laws, they were both nationalistic, they were both imperialists, they both crippled independent labor unions. Stalin and Mao were just as, if not more draconian in terms of their treatment of opposition, and they arguably did far more damage to the working class than Mussolini ever did. So how is Mussolini a traitor to the working class, but Stalin and Mao aren't? Is it really as simple as they waved the correctly colored flag and used the correct lingo?
>>18553194Fascism pursued agressive nationalism and invading other nations in order to bulid an Empire>but so did Stalin/MaoOfficially, invading other nations for the glory of Russians/Chinese wasn't part of the state ideology>b-but what's the difference? A big one also, he allied with Hitler>but so did Stalin!it was a temporary truce for both Hitler and Stalin, Mussolini meanwhile wanted an Italian Empire in a nazi dominated Europe as his long term goal
>>18553194Bordiga supported Mussolini, he wss hidden from normies and sold faggots like gramsci instead.
The Bolshevik is the natural predator of a fascist dog
>>18553194Because Communism has a defined ideology, then you can agree or disagree on how it's applied on a case by case basis. Fascism and Nazism were opportunistic far-right power-grab and ideologically they were largely nonsensical and outright insane. They are (non)ideologies that sprang out of the minds of clearly mentally ill lunatic individuals like Shitler and Shitolini
Mussolini was a bourgeo-fascist
