so

lol

Stalinism is more a centralized authoritarian.

Fascism is not exclusively seeking power by garnering upper class support

or even middle class

it is supposed to captivate support irrespective of economic category

As such it does include the proletariat

Strasserism and Peronism may arguably, but fascism does not seek the support of the proletariat but of the volk, the nation, etc

the proletariat are apart of the volk

and National Socialism did try to aid the working class

Stalin does not adhere to traditional Marxism, Marxism was international and closer to Trotsky's ideals of permanent revolution than the nationalist, isolationism of Stalin

through its heavy social policy

Right but it did not define its success or failure by the workers as workers, but as the workers as a part of the people. The fact that fascism also seeks to include the middle class and even upper class demonstrates the difference here

people are stupid

revolutions have happened with 1% of 1% of the population

fascism is the uniting of classes rather than the communist dividing of classes.

"the proletariat" or whatever will follow the rules/social norms as set by the rulers

or leaders

whatever title you give them

This is Lenin’s concept of the vanguard. Not sure what your getting at

people are too readily influenced to make decisions for themselves

Lenin had some ok ideas

the idea of a "vanguard class" isn't really new

that a small group of people should watch out for a larger one?

how ancient is that idea?

oligarchy has existed forever

Also, ally, stalins socialism in one state still sought to achieve the internationale and continued the Comintern but sought to achieve a revolution more fully before spreading, not really a significant difference to draw a total distinction

@Friend of Greatest Ally it depends on whether you consider it oligarchy

were tribal leaders oligarchs?

Stalin post 1941 employed nationalist rhetoric

@Cyboman I’m not saying its new or effective, I’m saying the opposite. It is the thought process though

but he flip flopped on everything, so

@CronoSaturn so you're saying a population, half of whose IQ lies below 100, should decide for itself what to do?

a small group of people deciding for the wider group is oligarchy, so yes it would be if ir is a tribe of elders or something similar

if you define it so broadly then the world has always been lead by oligarchs

I know ying, but he did not seek to break down the classes like marxism but instead made an elitist state with the communist party as the elite

@Cyboman I have no idea how you’ve drawn that from what I’ve said.

That's my point cyber, it always has

yes, I believe it is better that the world is lead by leaders, not by followers

Always was, always will

True democracy has never been tried