Rather than a claim based upon the definition, it's based
upon empiricism, ie, history of socialist regimes.
Communism is just socialism on steroids.
All have been without exception authoritarian.
Interesting that you allow yourself claims based upon empiricism, while insisting that everyone else follow the dictionary definition to the letter.
Here's a tip: Dictionaries are woefully insufficient in defining or clarifying any word ending in "-ism."
Also, defining terms like "authoritarian" can be problematic. You seem to be making it into a synonym for "fascism," but the two are not synonymous with each other. "Authoritarian" relates to a style or attitude of or towards government, not any specific ideology or set of policies.
Authoritarian is a matter of degree. All governments are authoritarian to some degree. They have to be, or else they wouldn't be governments. Even the U.S. government could be considered authoritarian, at least at certain times in our history. But not all the time. The same could be said for the socialist countries you might mention. They had their good times and bad times, just as we have had. They've had their successes and failures, just as we have had.
I guess that makes us all human, doesn't it?
I know. But it fits so well.
Normally, I use the broader, less baggage laden,
"authoritarianism". But in the context of your post,
I took a wee bit'o license. Consider the term,
"red fascism".
Okay, just as long as you don't get cross with me if I ever take "a wee bit'o license."
Nationalism is truly the core component of fascism. Without nationalism, then fascism would be generic authoritarianism (which can happen under any form of government, even a democratic one). "Fascism" is really just a term that Mussolini coined anyway, when it would be more accurately called "malignant nationalism," at least to differentiate it from forms of nationalism which may be more benign or defensive in nature. National Socialism could be said to be a vulgar distortion of German nationalism.
I would also suggest that imperialism is another offshoot of nationalism, and it shares many commonalities with fascism.
Another point I would make here is that Nazism, Fascism, or their various offshoots are/were decidedly anti-internationalist, which is why they strongly opposed the Comintern - which the Communists supported.
Socialist / communist countries have all nonetheless
been quite nationalistic. Commies have indeed been
very predatory, but then, so have non-socialist &
non-communist countries, eg, USA, Belgium, England.
I never really got that impression from them. Sure, they were patriotic for the Soviet Union, just in the same way Americans are patriotic for America - so I couldn't really hold that against them. For the most part, their focus seemed to be on defensive strategies. After all, they were not only dealing with the U.S. and NATO, but also China, which was considered an enemy. Frankly, they seemed more worried about China than they were about us.
Officially, all nationalities and all citizens were considered equal under Soviet law. They were operating under the expectation that socialist revolutions would arise in other countries (just like it had in 1848), so to press an overtly nationalistic ideology would be counterproductive to that goal. They supported the German Communists attempting to gain power in Germany - and openly fighting Nazis in the streets. They didn't care about a person's race or nation of origin, as long as they were Communists. That's not nationalism; it may ideological internationalism of a sort.
Nationalism is a completely different kettle of fish.
Capitalist...socialist....communist....all have been the system of
countries that have sought international expansion by violent
means. "Internationalist" seems a useless term for them.
"Predatory expansionist"? "Conquering thugs"?
Well, as I said, they sought world revolution, believing that the working classes would overthrow their capitalist overlords and form a Communist state. Not because they were being forced to do so by an outside power, but by popular revolts among the masses within the country. Ultimately, their goal was a world socialist government, where all people would be considered equal. Of course, this would require a level of selflessness, collective thinking, and cooperation that some have argued go against human nature, which tends to be selfish, individualistic, and competitive more than cooperative.
Capitalism can also be internationalist, as there are those who talk about the global economy, which would still suggest a unified world government, only capitalist instead of socialist. I remember when NAFTA was a hot topic, some of its advocates were suggesting it could eventually become AFTA, where all of the Americas would be a single economic zone, similar to the EU. They thought the currency could be the "Amero" instead of dollars or pesos. Think of something like that on a world scale. Do you think it could work? It would still be capitalist, democratic, and with the same guaranteed rights as we currently have.
The USSR simply collapsed under the weight of its own
system trying to compete with Ameristan. It was their
system's failure. Good for them.
They were competing with China, too. We always leave that part out in our chest-thumping over how "we won the Cold War." Just like "we" won WW2 - all by ourselves.
But nevertheless, the fact remained that the any of the 15 Soviet Republics had the right to secede from the USSR at any time. Maybe they didn't dare to try prior to the time they did, but the government in Moscow appeared to be more tolerant of the idea. Likewise for the countries of the Warsaw Pact, who also felt the easing of Soviet hegemony over their countries and governments. There was no longer any need for it, as the war with Germany had long passed. They withdrew their troops not out of defeat or collapse, but because they no longer had any need to be there. They did the right thing.
Apart from a disorganized attempted coup in 1991, all these processes transpired relatively peacefully and in keeping with the laws and the Constitution they had established.
It wasn't like they just woke up one morning and said "Oh no, our system just collapsed."
Granted, it didn't go quite as smoothly in Romania with Ceausescu. And Yugoslavia fell apart into disarray rather quickly. Now that was a true collapse, but then again, that whole region has had a long and complicated history.
Their culture was still very nationalistic....great pride in country,
culture, & achievements in space, arts, athletics, & military.
When I was there, WW2 was still in living memory, so I think that monumental struggle they went through may have contributed to a certain quasi-nationalistic sentiment. As a nation, they do have a lot to be proud of, so I'll give them that. They seem to be even more nationalistic, now that they're capitalist.
Nationalism just seems pretty toxic overall. Even in its benign form, it can always grow into something malignant, especially by crafty politicians who know just the right things to say to manipulate public opinion.