SGR

I get that's what they were 'trying' to do. Or at least that's what's generally accepted.

But did classism exist in the Soviet Union? For sure. Just look at how the average Soviet Citizen lived compared to guys like Stalin and Kruschchev. While the proletariat, long after the revolution, labored all day in factories during the summer, Stalin would be taking vacations to one of his many dachas. Do you think that high-ranking members of the politburo generally used their political power to benevolently help the Soviet citizens or do you think they used it to enrich themselves?

I don't know how familiar you are with Soviet history, but class and race most certainly played a consequential role. Antisemitism was most prominent under Stailn, who used the fact that Trotsky was a Jew to persecute other Jews. This wasn't always done openly, as the Soviets were aware of the bad optics internationally were this to become well-known, but they couched these policies under terms like "Anti-Zionism" (rather than antisemitism). They also appropriated words like "cosmopolitan" and "Bourgeoisie" as codes for Jews (these words did not always refer to Jews throughout Soviet history). For a concrete example of Jewish persecution in the Soviet Union, look up the Doctor's plot if you've never heard of it, in which the government accused some high level Jewish doctors of concocting a plot to assassinate Soviet leaders. The Soviet government used this bull**** story to persecute, torture, and put Jewish people through show trials.

As for class - during the early 30s, the Soviet process of collectivization contained a policy of 'dekulakization' in which the 'kulaks' (peasant owners) were targeted for liquidation as a class. These people weren't rich, they simply owned a few more acres of property and a few more cows than the average peasant. Some were sent to the gulags, others were relocated.

If the definition of fascism includes dictatorships that exercise extreme central authority to persecute people based on class or race, I'd say the Soviet Union was a textbook definition of a fascist regime. I'd certainly say that your definition of fascism would include the Soviet Union, and I'd be interested in your reasons if you disagree. That said, the Stalin-led USSR was much different from the Gorbachev-led USSR. I could easily see a case being made that while the Stalin-led USSR was fascist, the Gorbachev-led (or perhaps even the Krushchev-led or Brezhnev-led) one was not.

While you might be able to make the case that their initial revolution was based wholly or in-part on the teachings of Marx, which had specific outlines and goals which may not qualify as fascist, the reality of what the Soviet Union became, what actions the government took, and what policies they subscribed to was much, much different.

Likewise, I'd agree with jwb that your definition of fascism does not apply to the modern USA (yet).

This is true, but it is also true that early on, the original Antifa cooperated with the Nazi party and considered them allies. This is what happens when ideas and beliefs become radical - you inadvertently help other radicals that are even worse than the existing regime. The original Antifa went on to resist the Nazi government. Oddly enough, the modern day Antifa may also be a harbinger of a more authoritarian and oppressive government, again, albeit unwittingly.

Similar to the Soviet's process of collectivization, Marie Monday's process of moderation includes a policy of relocating posters. Textbook fascism (I jest, Marie).