Fascists very much hearken to the idea of an eternal conflict and a single national leader, while authoritarian leftists, in theory, are seeking an actual end goal of a stable society without a strongman.
The idea of “class struggle” (being an eternal conflict) and proletarian dictatorship (afaik always with a single national leader) sounds pretty fascist based on this definition. Of course intentions matter, but I’d say end results matter a bit more.
Class struggle isn’t meant to be eternal - it’s meant to showcase the balance of power in societies, and how societies form. Class struggle is a conception of societal interactions in materialist terms - ie the question (in orthodox Marxism) is not of “What ideology does the ruling class hold”, but rather, “Where do the ruling classes’ interests lie?” This struggle changes as societies change and ‘progress’ through various stages. Pretty invariably, according to orthodox Marxism, this results in the elite of each society acting in accordance (at least in aggregate, if not as individuals) with their interests - the struggle becomes bidirectional when the working class realizes that it too is capable of concerted action in its own interests. Theoretically, this class struggle then ends when true communism is achieved, as there is only one remaining, united class of significance.
Dictatorship of the proletariat is not, originally, meant as a literal dictatorship - for reference, capitalist democracies are referred to by Marx as dictatorships of the bourgeoisie. Dictatorship of the proletariat is just meant as “A government in which the working class and its interests dominate the actions of the government, to the effective exclusion of bourgeois interests”
But yes, Marxist-Leninists do tend to bring a rather fascist flavor to the table. Moreso, ironically, than Lenin himself (no saint) did.
The idea of “class struggle” (being an eternal conflict) and proletarian dictatorship (afaik always with a single national leader) sounds pretty fascist based on this definition. Of course intentions matter, but I’d say end results matter a bit more.
Class struggle isn’t meant to be eternal - it’s meant to showcase the balance of power in societies, and how societies form. Class struggle is a conception of societal interactions in materialist terms - ie the question (in orthodox Marxism) is not of “What ideology does the ruling class hold”, but rather, “Where do the ruling classes’ interests lie?” This struggle changes as societies change and ‘progress’ through various stages. Pretty invariably, according to orthodox Marxism, this results in the elite of each society acting in accordance (at least in aggregate, if not as individuals) with their interests - the struggle becomes bidirectional when the working class realizes that it too is capable of concerted action in its own interests. Theoretically, this class struggle then ends when true communism is achieved, as there is only one remaining, united class of significance.
Dictatorship of the proletariat is not, originally, meant as a literal dictatorship - for reference, capitalist democracies are referred to by Marx as dictatorships of the bourgeoisie. Dictatorship of the proletariat is just meant as “A government in which the working class and its interests dominate the actions of the government, to the effective exclusion of bourgeois interests”
But yes, Marxist-Leninists do tend to bring a rather fascist flavor to the table. Moreso, ironically, than Lenin himself (no saint) did.