General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

Historia, Magistra Vitae
Timeline - World History Documentaries
comments

Comments by "Historia, Magistra Vitae" (@Historia.Magistra.Vitae.) on "Timeline - World History Documentaries" channel.

@Physeter macrocephalus: Indeed ... also it was the Italian philosopher Giovanni Gentile who formulated the fa sci st ideology for Mussolini to use.
8
Yup it was a dumb decision to use the AK instead of the MAB 38 but who knows, maybe the production team wasn't able to get a hold of the MAB 38 in time.
6
" It is a right wing phenomenon " Wrong. Fascism was a totalitarian far-left, socialist ideology based on National Syndicalism which they adapted from Georges Sorel. It cared about unity in a strong central government with society being brought together by syndicalist organizations obedient to the State. Nothing to do with right wing of any kind whatsoever.
4
@m.r4841 "They indeed extreme right wing" Wrong. Extreme right would be Anarcho-Capitalism. Nazism was a totalitarian far-left , socialist ideology based on ethonationalism. Nothing to do with right wing.
4
@m.r4841 "Being anti soci alist is one of the key characteristics of Naz ism." Wrong. Naz ism was never anti-soc ialist. They were against mar xism and bolshevism in general.
3
@m.r4841 : Nope. Nothing wrong with either. Cope harder.
3
@m.r4841 "Everyone who had soc ialist ideas was imprisoned, kill ed or sent to a con centration camp." Wrong. They had no problem with soci alist ideas in general. The entire Na zi regime consisted of former members of other le ftist movements.
3
@m.r4841 "Social ists were beside Je ws the very first group that the Naz is targeted." Both Le nin and S talin killed other socia lists and sent them into Gul ags so your point is moot.
3
@m.r4841 "So. What's your definition of so ciali sm? And how does it apply to Na zis m?" So ciali sm advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole i.e. colle ctive ownership / control. In na zis m, it was the na zi gove rnment which decided what was to be produced, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it was to be distributed, as well as what prices would be charged and what wages would be paid. Na zis had a cent ralized gover nment with a centr alized econo my (planned) similar to US SR.
3
@christophermarriott1681 "Nazis were right wing." Wrong. National Socialism was a totalitarian far-left, socialist ideology based on ethnonationalism.
3
@Mostly Peaceful Rowan : You are not making any sense.
3
" It is also interesting how many people hold to the misnomer “socialism” in the NSDAP name." It was in the name because that is what they advocated for; socialism on a national level.
3
Reminder that both fas ci sm and naz is m were tot alita rian fa r-le ft, so cia list ideolo gies.
3
@Crispr_CAS9 "The Naz is hated soci alist s. " Incorrect. They hated ma rxis ts/ma rxis m, not soc ialis ts/so cialis m.
3
@m.r4841 "Because this has nothing to do with sociali sm." Wrong. It does. You cannot be an advocate for centralized planning and strong government controls without being a socia list. That's what made Hi tler a soc ialist. He may have been right of the Bolsheviks, but he was still a sociali st leftist as he believed in strong central government control. Hitl er outright declared himself a soci alist in Mein Kampf, just not the Marxist international or full Soviet type. He struggled with HOW to distinguish his soci alism from the rest of the Marxist crowd.
3
@lucqq3792 "soc ialism is the transitionary period of com munism." True. However soci alism itself is an economic system where the collective, such as workers or the government own/control the buildings and tools that make goods and services like farms and factories. This can be achieved through decentralized and direct worker-ownership, or through centralized state-ownership/control of the means of production. Just because ma rxists wanted to use socia lism to usher comm unism, doesn't mean it cannot be used for something else or that it would be its only purpose.
2
@L H: A mer ican rig ht wi ng is at the opposite side of the political spectrum. Na z is were to talita rian soc ialis ts.
2
@thethirdman225 "Mussolini stopped being a socialist after WWI. " Wrong. He never stopped being a socialist.
2
@Crispr_CAS9 "Which is a demonstration that you don't know what fa sci sm is, since Na zis m is a form of fa scis m. " Incorrect. Again, na zis m and fa scis m were two compl etely separate so ciali st ideologies, practiced in two differ ent countri es during the W W2 era and also tho se ideo logies were formulated by co mpletely differ ent people, and they also wo rked compl etely differe ntly. Ag ain, go back to scho ol and rea d so me act ual W W2 his tory.
2
@Crispr_CAS9 "Says the guy w ho doe sn't even kno w wh at fa scis m is." We are n ot even talk ing about fa scis m. We are talk ing ab out naz is m, hun. Co pe har der.
2
@Jack Parker : Except Tru mp is not a so cia list.
2
@Crispr_CAS9 In both ideologies, it was the gover nme nt which decided what was to be produced, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it was to be distributed, as well as what prices would be charged and what wages would be paid. In both ideologies, the govern ment controlled the means of production, distribution, exchange and told businesses / industry in general what they were allowed to do on the basis of "com mon good". That is, by definition, so cialis m i.e. collec tive owner ship or control of the means of production.
2
@Crispr CAS9 "Neit her is soci alist, fasc ism is a reac tion A GAIN ST s oci alis m." Incorrect. Both were based on soc ialis m; where the st ate contro lled the me ans of prod uction, busin esses and econ omy in gene ral (pla nned), sim ilar to the U S SR . Both were reacti ons to ma rxism, not soci alism.
2
@Crispr_CAS9 "No, they aren't completely separate, one is a subset of the other." Incorrect. Naz ism and fasci sm are two completely different soci alist ideologies and have two com pletely different polit ical struc tures.
2
@Crispr_CAS9 "The sent soc iali sts to camps after they took power." They sent anyone who didn't agree with them or didn't want to work with them, but mostly Je ws and marx ists / comm unis ts. What you do not seem to understand that both Le nin and Sta lin also killed plenty of so ciali sts since so ciali sts rarely agree with each other.
2
@Pat Doyle "the Na zis did no thing "so ciali st"." They had a cent raliz ed gov ernment, centra lized econo my (planned) sim ilar to US SR un der Le nin and Sta lin, mass nationa lization / socializat ion of busines ses and industries which were then controlled by their respec tive Party appa ratus and they shar ed arou nd 90% of the sa me econ omic policies as the US SR.
2
@Pat Doyle "But every as pect of N azi sm fits the rig ht wi ng mo del per fectly." Incorrect. They had noth ing to do with any kind of righ t win g politics whatso ever. The fundam ental differ ences betw een le ft-win g and rig ht-w ing ideologies center around the the rights of individuals vs. the power of the govern ment. Le ft-wi ng beli efs are liberal in that they believe soci ety is best served with an expan ded role for the gover nment. People on the right believe that the best outcome for society is achieved when indiv idual rights and civil libertie s are para mount and the role — and es pecially the power — of the gov ernment is minimized.
2
@Crispr_CAS9 "Naz ism is a form of fas cism, and fasci sm is a move ment of the rig ht." Incorrect. Naz ism and fasci sm are two completely sepa rate soc iali st ideologies, and both were tot alitaria n fa r-le ft ideol ogies.
2
@wollymouse_1475 : True. Mussolini was heavily influenced by Sorelianism and by Georges Sorel in general. Both Fascism and Sorelianism were technically branches of what they used to call "Yellow socialism", an alternative to Marxist "Red socialism".
2
@Blue collar nobody : Na zism and fasc ism were two completely separate soci alist ideologies, how ever both of them were their own spin off from m arxism.
2
Mussolini never stopped being a socialist, and he was a marxist before creating his national syndicalist movement.
2
@m.r4841 "The fa r rig ht is just as tot ali taria n as the fa r le ft. The Na zis were extr eme ri ght wi ng" Incorrect. Na zis m was a totali tarian f ar-le ft, so cia list ideology and had nothing to do with rig ht-wi ng pol itics of any kind wha tsoe ver. The fundamental differences between left-wing and ri ght-win g ideologies center around the the rights of individuals vs. the power of the gover nment. L eft-w ing beliefs are libe ral in that they believe society is best served with an expanded role for the gove rnment. People on the right believe that the best outcome for society is achieved when indi vidual rights and civil libert ies are paramount and the role — and especially the power — of the governm ent is minimized.
2
@Crispr_CAS9 "I understand that you feel ideologically compelled to lie, but it isn't helping your case." You should read so me act ual W W2 history before you conti nue posti ng more no nse nse.
2
@phxcitystreets1764 : No.
2
@m.r4841 : Nothing nonsense about that. Co pe har der.
2
@christophermarriott1681 "They weren't about class like the Leftists" Only Marxists are about the "class", not all the Left.
2
@m.r4841 : Those have nothing to do with capitalism nor christianity.
2
@thethirdman225 "In the end Mussolini banned trade unions while all the time claiming to be a socialist himself." He only made independent, marxist etc. unions illegal (but so did Lenin and Stalin). The whole Fascist infrastructure was based on national trade unionism, better known as National Syndicalism. Also yes, Mussolini and his syndicalists were socialists. Fascism cared about unity in a strong central government with society being brought together by syndicalist organizations obedient to the State.
2
@footisman2059 "Mussolini was a corporatist, not a socialist, shut up." Wrong. Mussolini was a national (revolutionary) syndicalist. He was a socialist.
2
@PHX City Streets : Nope.
2
@Crispr_CAS9 "Naz is wer en't actua lly socia lists." Wrong. Th ey w ere a text book exa mple of soci alists.
2
@m.r4841 : Incorrect. Na zis m was a bran ch of so ciali sm.
1
@m.r4841 : Nope. You just have no clue what you are talking about.
1
@avigindratt7608 : I'm telling you. I don't need to tell myself anything, since I know.
1
@avigindratt7608 : It's not about what I say, it's about what the history teaches us.
1
@LastBref "Fasc ism is right-wing," Wrong. Fasci sm was a tota litarian far-left, socialist ideology based on National Syndi calism which they adapted from Georges Sorel. Nothing to do with right wing.
1
@LastBref "They're not sincerely committed to populist or left-wing economics." Wrong. They were, and they specifically developed Corporatism to manage their socialist economy.
1
@giuliom7428 "Fascism had no ideology... It was a way of being." Wrong. Fascism was a very specific political ideology based on National Syndicalism and Hegelian philosophy.
1
"based upon the fusion of industry/oligarch with government, " Wrong. There was no such fusion. Government ruled supreme. If anything, it was a fusion between classes since it was based on class collaboration, and unity under the supreme Government.
1
@m.r4841 "National Socialism is the exact opposite of socialism." Wrong. Nazism was a socialist ideology. You cannot be an advocate for centralized planning and strong government controls without being a socia list. That's what made Hi tler a soc ialist. He may have been right of the Bolsheviks, but he was still a sociali st leftist as he believed in strong central government control. Hitl er outright declared himself a soci alist in Mein Kampf, just not the Marxist international or full Soviet type. He struggled with HOW to distinguish his soci alism from the rest of the Marxist crowd.
1
@m.r4841 "This has nothing to do with soci alism" Wrong. It does. You cannot be an advocate for centralized planning and strong government controls without being a socia list. That's what made Hi tler a soc ialist. He may have been right of the Bolsheviks, but he was still a sociali st leftist as he believed in strong central government control. Hitl er outright declared himself a soci alist in Mein Kampf, just not the Marx ist international or full Soviet type. He struggled with HOW to distinguish his soci alism from the rest of the Marxist crowd.
1
@m.r4841 "This has nothing to do with soci alism" Wrong. N azi Ger many was a textbook example of socia lism.
1
@m.r4841 "They're not so cial ist. They hated so ciali sm" Incorrect. Na zis m was a totali tarian f ar-le ft, so cia list ideology. They ha ted m arxis m and capi talis m, not so ciali sm.
1
@m.r4841 : You ne ed to co pe har der tha n that, hun.
1
@jensen1901 : Well that didn't age well. It was proposed, but then discarded due to the backlash. "Bid en Establishes a Minis try of Tru th -- The Disinf ormation Govern ance Bo ard already looks like a pa rtisan instrument." by The Wall Street Journal
1
@m.r4841 : Certainly not the same thing. The ter m "sw asti ka" comes from hin duis m (sa nsk rit).
1
@Russophile30 : Yes, and so was Fascism. On the far-left actually.
1
@m.r4841 "The Na zis were f ar rig ht conserv atives and ca pital ists. Stea ling from an exter nal group is not red istrib ution within the eco nomy." Incorrect. Na tion al socia lis m was a tota litar ian f ar-le ft, soci ali st ideolo gy. They detest ed cap italis m and Hitl er hims elf thought that it was a "Je wish ploy" to take over Germany. They had a ce ntrali zed gov ernment and cen tralized (plann ed) econ omy similar to the US SR.
1
@m.r4841 : You ne ed to co pe har der th an th at.
1
@m.r4841 "Says the cra zy conspir acy theor ist" Nope.
1
@SubnormalEntertainment : They had s oci alis m in their policies hen ce the name, hun.
1
@m.r4841 "The Na zis were indeed ext reme rig ht win g. They also deeply hat ed so cialis m." Incorrect. They hated m arxis m and ca pitali sm, not so cialis m. Na zis m was a totali tarian f ar-le ft, so cia list ideology and had nothing to do with rig ht-wi ng pol itics of any kind wha tsoe ver. The fundamental differences between left-wing and ri ght-win g ideologies center around the the rights of individuals vs. the power of the gover nment. L eft-w ing beliefs are libe ral in that they believe society is best served with an expanded role for the gove rnment. People on the right believe that the best outcome for society is achieved when indi vidual rights and civil libert ies are paramount and the role — and especially the power — of the governm ent is minimized.
1
@ryanm3209 " That is why it is placed on the fa r-rig ht similar to the KK K in the U S." That is not how the po litical spect rum works. You cannot have two tot alitar ian so cialis ts regimes at the oppo site ends of the spe ctrum since then it's not a spect rum anymore. Libertarianism is a fa r-rig ht ide ology, and it advocates for the exa ct opposite of what the nati onal so cialis ts wanted.
1
@ryanm3209 : Was build for ma rxis ts, not so ci alis ts in general.
1
@m.r4841 : Wrong. They were a textbook example of socia lism.
1
@m.r4841 : Incorrect. Th ey are not the sa me. The ter m "sw asti ka" co mes from hin duis m (sa nsk rit).
1
@m.r4841 : Incorrect. Certa inly not the sam e thing. The ter m "sw asti ka" co mes from hin duis m (sa nsk rit).
1
@m.r4841 : "The Na z is wer e f ar rig ht. The fa r rig ht is ju st as tot alit aria n as th e f ar le ft." Incorrect. Na zis m was a totali tarian f ar-le ft, so cia list ideology and had nothing to do with rig ht-wi ng pol itics of any kind wha tsoe ver. The funda mental differ ences betw een le ft-wi ng and ri ght-win g ideol ogies center around the the rights of individuals vs. the power of the gover nment. L eft-w ing beliefs are libe ral in that they believe society is best served with an expan ded role for the gove rnment. People on the right be lieve that the best outco me for society is achieved when indi vidual rights and civil libert ies are para mount and the role — and especi ally the power — of the governm ent is mini mized.
1
@m.r4841 " The Na zis we re inde ed extre me rig ht win g. They hat ed so cia lis m" Incorrect. They ha ted m arxis m and ca pitali sm, not so cialis m. Na zis m was a totali tarian f ar-le ft, so cia list ideology and had nothing to do with rig ht-wi ng pol itics of any kind wha tsoe ver. The funda mental differ ences betw een le ft-wi ng and ri ght-win g ideol ogies center around the the rights of individuals vs. the power of the gover nment. L eft-w ing beliefs are libe ral in that they believe society is best served with an expan ded role for the gove rnment. People on the right believe that the best outcome for society is achieved when indi vidual rights and civil libert ies are para mount and the role — and especi ally the power — of the governm ent is minimized.
1
 @wendypollock8168 "No, they weren't." Incorrect. Na tional soc ialis m was ra ci al so ciali sm i.e. soci alis m based on race instead of class.
1
@isaac3140 "Were French monarchists le ft wi ng or rig ht wi ng?" They were on the side of so ciali sm i.e. centr alized po wer and eco nomy.
1
@isaac3140 "So ciali sm is when the workers control the me ans of pro duction, " Incorrect. That is the definition of m arxis m, not so ciali sm. So ciali sm is nothing more than an economic system which advo cates for the colle ctive ownership of the means of production, distrib ution and exch ange of goods.
1
@isaac3140 "Fre nch mo narchis ts were on the side of soci alis m?" Technically there is not much of a difference between mon arch ism and a tota litaria n soci ali st regi me. Both have the undis puted lead er, both have a centr alized form of government and planned econo my where the leader and his adju tants / advis ors tell what the busine sses / merc hants are allo wed to do. That is how Chi na used to work and still kinda does ... and that is how the fa sci st Italy worked.
1
@m.r4841 They are democratic in the sense that they allow people to vote and hold elections.
1
@Humanophage : It was economically on the le ft, since their economy was based on so ciali sm (centr alize d gove rnme nt and planne d econo my).
1
@m.r4841 Incorrect. Na zis were soc iali st and especially H itler himself, was proud of it. "After all, that’s exactly why we call ourselves Natio nal Soci alist s! We want to start by implementing soc iali sm in our nation among our Volk! It is not until the individual nations are so cialis t that they can address themselves to inter national so ciali sm.“ — A dolf H itler , Memoirs of a Confidant (1978)
1
@m.r4841 Because it is incorrect.
1
@m.r4841 "But this has nothing to do with soci alism." Wrong. This has everything to do with it, since Na zis were social ists.
1
@m.r4841 "The Na zis were f ar rig ht conser vatives and capit alist s." Incorrect. Na zis were tot alitari an fa r-lef t soc iali st and they det ested capit alis m, Hitl er especially since he saw both cap itali sm and bo lshevi sm as a "Jewi sh pl oy".
1
@m.r4841 "And yes, the Na zis were extre me ri ght wi ng. " Incorrect. Na zis had nothing to do with ri ght-wi ng whatsoever. Na zis m was a tota litari an f ar-le ft, so cialist ideo logy.
1
@Cass: "Ca pitali sm in cri sis." No such thing.
1
@m.r4841 "They hated so cialis m." Incorrect. Na zis we re tot alitari an fa r-lef t soc iali st a nd they det ested capit alis m.
1
@m.r4841 "The Na zis were fa r rig ht con servati ves and cap itali sts. " Na zis were tot alitari an fa r-lef t soc iali st and they det ested capit alis m, Hitl er espe cially since he sa w both cap itali sm and bo lshevi sm as a "Jewi sh pl oy".
1
@m.r4841 "Natio nal Socia lism is its own ideology and has abs olutely nothing to do with so cialis m" Incorrect. Their so cial ism was na tion al, in con trast to intern ational mar xist social ism.
1
@MrTaxiRob : Socialist. Their economy was centralized and planned, similar to the USSR under Stalin. As I said above.
1
@m.r4841 You have no cl ue wh at you are talki ng about. N atio nal so cia lis m certa inly was so ciali sm. It was a tot ali tari an fa r le ft, so ciali st ideo log y which opposed ca pitali sm. Go read some history, kiddo.
1
@m.r4841 "Don't you find it interesting that every historian, every history book, every piece of evidence and even the Naz is themselves disagree with you?" Pretty much only am uric an ideo logu es are disa greeing with historical facts. Na zis themselves were proud so cial ists, especially Hit ler himself.
1
@MrTaxiRob " It was in the name, but not in the practice." Wrong. It was in the name specifically because they advocated for soci alism on a national level. Na zi Germany had a centrali zed and planned economy similar to the US SR under Stalin. Government controlled the means of production and also decided what was to be produced, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it was to be distributed, as well as what prices would be charged and what wages would be paid.
1
@m.r4841 "Where did you get that nonsense from?" It's called history.
1
@m.r4841 "Don't you find it interesting that every history book, every historian, every definition and even the Na zis themselves disagree with you?" They don't. Only a mu rica n le ftist s and their sym pathiz ers are disagr eeing with the se histori cal fac ts.
1
@m.r4841 : Go read so me actual W W2 hist ory for once and stop wa sting your time here.
1
@m.r4841 : Incorrect. They were fa r-le ft soc ialis ts.
1
@MrTaxiRob "and privatization, "_ Wrong. Privatization wasn't a thing in Na zi Germany. On the contrary, they nationalized most if not all the German industry and later reorganized all industries into corporations run by members of the Na zi Party. They called this natio nalization as "Gleichschaltung".
1
@m.r4841 : You sti ll ne ed to co p e h ard er th an th at, hun.
1
@m.r4841 Nope.
1
@m.r4841 : You ne ed to co pe ha rder than th at, hun.
1
@apollohermano8501 : They are democratic in the sense that they allow people to vote and hold elections.
1
@m.r4841 "Natio nal So cialis m is its own ideology and has noth ing to do with soc ialis m." Incorrect. Th eir so cial ism was na tion al, in con trast to intern ational mar xist social ism.
1
@m.r4841 "In fact they hated soc ialis m. " Incorrect. They ha ted mar xis m, not soc ialis m. Hitl er was a proud so ciali st by his own adm ission.
1
@m.r4841 "So cia list s were beside Je ws the first group that the N az is targeted. " Incorrect. They targeted ma rxis ts and ca pita list since Hit ler saw both as a "Jew ish ploy" to tak e over Germ any.
1
@m.r4841 "The Na zi s were f ar rig ht cons ervative s and cap italis ts." Incorrect. Na zis were tot alitari an fa r-lef t soc iali st a nd they det ested capit alis m, Hitl er espe cially since he sa w both cap itali sm and bo lshevi sm as a "Jewi sh pl oy".
1
@loona_mew : Nope.
1
@cascadianapplications7124 "You're going to have to prove that the NS DAP was actu ally soci ali st " They had a cen tralize d gove rnm ent, centr alized eco nomy (planned) similar to US SR, the gove rnment control led the means of prod uction and busin esses in general and decided what was to be produced, in what quantity, by what met hods, and to whom it was to be distrib uted, as well as what pri ces would be charged and what wages would be paid. "To put it quite clearly: we have an econ omic prog ramme. Point No. 13 in that pr ogram me demands the nati onalisa tion of all public companies, in other words soc ialis ation, or what is known here as so ciali sm. … the basic principle of my Party’s economic programme should be made perfec tly clear and that is the prin ciple of authority… the good of the community takes prio rity over that of the individ ual. But the St ate should ret ain contr ol; every owner should feel himself to be an agent of the St ate; it is his duty not to misuse his possessions to the detriment of the St ate or the interests of his fellow coun trymen. That is the overri ding point. The Th ird Re ich will always retain the right to control property owners. If you say that the bourg eoisie is tea ring its hair over the question of priv ate prop erty, that does not affect me in the least. Does the bourgeoisie expect some consideration from me?… Today’s bourgeo isie is rott en to the core; it has no ideals any more; all it wants to do is earn money and so it does me what damage it can. The bourgeois press does me damage too and would like to consign me and my movement to the de vil.“ — Ad olf Hitl er, Hitl er's interview with Richard Breiting, 1931
1
@m.r4841 : He allows people to vote and they have elections in the first place ... so yes, they are democratic in that sense.
1
@thethirdman225 "The Fascists were not socialists." Wrong. Fascists were National Syndicalists. They were socialists.
1
@loona_mew "They're were rig ht win g and very anti co mmui nst" They were against m arxi sm yes, however they also were so cialis ts ... so it was a tota litaria n f ar-le ft ideol ogy.
1
@m.r4841 "That is not true. Fa scis m is exclu sively rig ht wi ng. They're on the opposite side" Incorrect. Fas cis m had nothing to do with ri ght-wi ng politics of any kind. It wa s a to talit aria n fa r-le ft, soc iali st ide ology.
1
@m.r4841 "The Naz is w ere inde ed ex trem e rig ht win g." Incorrect. Na zis m was a bran ch of far-left so ciali sm.
1
@apollohermano8501 : They are democratic. They don't have democracy.
1
@m.r4841 "The N az is were f ar ri ght cons ervati ves an d cap itali sts. They hate d soc ialis m." Incorrect. Na zis were tot alitari an fa r-lef t soc iali st a nd they det ested capit alis m. They hated ma rxis ts and ca pita list since Hit ler saw both as a "Jew ish ploy" to tak e over Germ any.
1
@m.r4841 "They're not so cialis ts. They hat ed socia lis m" Incorrect. They hat ed ma rxis m, not soc iali sm which was the economic basis of both n azis m and fa scis m.
1
@m.r4841 "Exactly. And now look up the definition of Nat ional Soc ialis m." Tota lita rian fa r-le ft, soc iali st ide ology. N ation al So ciali sm was a rac ial so cialis m.
1
@RiteMo LawBks : Both fa sci sm and na zis m were f ar-lef t soc iali st ideologies and had nothing to do wit h righ t wi ng politi cs of any kin d.
1
@Zino : "The f ar rig ht Na zi's " No such thing. The naz is were f ar-le ft soc iali sts.
1
@jjt1881 "Regarding the socialist component of either fascism or nazism there is basically none to be found." Wrong. Both Fascism and National Socialism were socialist 3rd position movements which opposed Capitalism and Marxism.
1
@MrTaxiRob "not workers' councils and guilds." Because they weren't marxists nor fascists. They were just racist socialists.
1
@Pat Doyle " comm and econ omy (still capitali st) " Incorrect. Com ma nd / plan ned econ omy is the pol ar oppo site of mar ket econo mies which ca pitali sm is based of.
1
@MrTaxiRob "Nazis were about state capitalism" Wrong. There is no such thing. Such a word is an oxymoron. Nazis were about racial socialism.
1
@MrTaxiRob "Which just goes to show that Nazism wasn't true fascism, because Nazism wasn't socialist." You are not making any sense whatsoever. Nazism was never Fascism. They were two fundamentally different ideologies, but both of them were socialist ideologies.
1
@litneyloxan : Nope. Fa sc is m has not been a thing since the ww2, hun.
1
@tyrezac600 "What are some instances of Mussolini remaining loyal to the socialist beliefs he previously had before becoming one of the most infamous Far-right leaders in history?" Mussolini had nothing to do with far-right nor right wing of any kind. Every element of Fascist doctrine can be traced to the belief system of revolutionary national syndicalism as that syndicalism emerged from the First World War. Mussolini committed himself to the realization of the original syndicalist and neo-idealist program of Fascism. His original intention was to call his new republic the Italian Socialist Republic—which nonetheless advertised itself as the vehicle of an Italian socialism, a national socialism.
1
@tyrezac600 "The Italian Fascist Party was also a national conservative party aside from being a fascist party." Actually Fascism was anti-conservative movement, and on the contrary, Mussolini accused the Italian Socialist party of being conservative.
1
@tyrezac600 "funny considering some of the victims of his war crimes aside from communists were also socialists." Almost all the victims of the Bolshevik regime were also rival socialists, so your point being?
1
@ramenbomberdeluxe4958 "Funny considering he wasnt a socialist at the end lol" Yes he was. Mussolini never stopped being a socialist.
1
@tyrezac600 "and anti-socialist and fascist." Mussolini was never anti-socialist.
1
@thethirdman225 "Trying to make the case that ‘fascism is really left wing’ (nudge, nudge, wink, wink) is an attempt to rewrite history for political purposes." Wrong. You are historically illiterate if anything. Fascism was a totalitarian far-left, socialist ideology based on National Syndicalism which they adapted from Georges Sorel. It rejected individualism, capitalism, liberalism/democracy, and marxism. The means of production was organized by national worker syndicals (i.e. trade unions), and the guiding philosophy of the state was Actual Idealism. Fascism, as created by Mussolini and Giovanni Gentile, comes from a belief that the "Stateless and Classless society" Communism calls for after its dictatorship cannot achieve Socialism, and that only the State can properly organize a Socialist Society.
1
@thethirdman225 "He stopped being a socialist when he fell out with the party, as much out of spite as anything else. " Wrong. Again, Mussolini never stopped being a socialist. He did stop being a Marxist.
1
@XS-03_Apollo : No, since it advocates for collectivism and socialism.
1
Stephen Kizlik "How is Na zis m not a f ar righ t ideology?" You cannot have 2 tot alitar ian soci al ist ideologies at the opposite sides of the spe ctru m (na zism - marx ism) since then it's not a spect rum anymore. Liber tariani sm is a f ar-rig ht ideology which advocates for the ex act opposite of what the na zis want ... and soc ialis m does not belong to the rig ht sid e of the political spectrum.
1
@m.r4841 : Incor rect. Natio nal s oci alis m w as a t o ta litari an f ar-le ft, so ciali st ideol ogy.
1
@Crispr_CAS9 "The Na zis were not soci alists." Wrong. They were a textbook example of soci alists.
1
@Crispr_CAS9 "Before they took power they attacked sociali sts in the str eets. After they took power socia lists were the first group they sent to ca mps." Ma rxists, comm unists and bolshe viks in general, not soci alists per se. However Le nin and Sta lin did the same thing so your point being?
1
@Crispr_CAS9 "They attac ked labor. They attac ked tra de uni ons." So did Len in. Hit ler however nation alized the unions and mer ged them into one single nation wide uni on, DAF.
1
@Crispr_CAS9 "They privat ized indus tries." Wrong. Never happened. They mass nation alized most of the German industry. "To put it quite clearly: we have an economic programme. Point No. 13 in that programme demands the nationa lisation of all public companies, in other words socia lisation, or what is known here as social ism. … the basic principle of my Party’s economic programme should be made perfectly clear and that is the principle of authority… the good of the community takes priority over that of the individual. But the Sta te should retain control; every owner should feel himself to be an agent of the State; it is his duty not to misuse his possessions to the detriment of the State or the interests of his fellow countrymen. That is the overriding point. The Third Reich will always retain the right to control property owners.“ — Ad olf Hit ler, Hit ler's interview with R ichard Breiting, 1931
1
@Crispr_CAS9 "They were not socia lists." Wrong. You cannot be an advocate for centr alized planning and strong government controls without being a soc ialist.
1
@m.r4841 : "Na zis m is an ex trem e rig ht wi ng ide olog y" Incor rect. Na tio nal s oci alis m w a s a to ta litari an f ar-le ft, so ciali st ideol ogy.
1
@Crispr_CAS9 "They privat ized things. " Wrong. N ever happene d. Na zis nationali zed most of the Ger man industry.
1
@Crispr_CAS9 "They HA TED soci alists." Wrong. They ha ted marxi sts, commun ists and bolsh eviks in general. They had no pro blems with so cialism.
1
@Crispr_CAS9 "The first pe ople they pers ecuted were the socia lists. Fi rst atta cking them on the streets before taki ng pow er, then send ing them to cam ps after ta king power." They persec uted mar xists, not socia lists in general. Howe ver what you said here were also done by Len in and St alin so your point be ing?
1
@Crispr_CAS9 "Fasci sm is a non-social ist totalitarian political philosophy." Wrong. Fas cism was a totali tarian socia list ideology based on natio nal syndic alism. It was an outgrowth of Sor ellian Syndica lism, which itself was an outgro wth from M arxist socialis m. The idea was that society would be consolid ated (i.e., incorporated) into syndi cates (in the Italian context, fascio/fasci) which would be regulated by and serve as organs for the state, or "embody" the state (corpus = body). The purpose wasn't the promotion of private interest, but the centraliz ation and synchronization of society under the state, as an end unto itself. To quote Mus solini's infamous aphorism: "All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state."
1
@Crispr_CAS9 "There are plenty of socialist countries: Nor way, Germ any, Fra nce, Ir eland, and Au stralia to name a few." None of them have soci alism.
1
@m.r4841 "Bec ause they're not social ists. They hated soc ialism" Wrong. They ha ted mar xism, comm unism and bolsh evism in general. Not soci alism. They were a textb ook example of soci alists.
1
@lucqq3792 "abo lishing trad e uni ons, extr emely so cialist. SIGH" Every single soci alist regime has done that more or less. Le nin and Sta lin included. While Hit ler abolished indepen dent unions, he did nation alize them and merged then into one singl e uni on, DAF.
1
@thethirdman225 "Once he took power, he oppressed them." He oppressed his political enemies i.e. Marxists ... but so did Lenin and Stalin to their socialist rivals.
1
@Russophile30 : Nope. That was a historical fact. Fascism was based on revolutionary syndicalism, derived from Georges Sorel's national syndicalism.
1
@m.r4841 "It was not socia list." Wrong. They were a textbook example of soci alists.
1
@m.r4841 "They hated socia lism." Wrong. They hated marx ism, commu nism and bolshev ism in general. Not social ism.
1
@m.r4841 "The Nati onal Sociali sts killed anyone who had social ist ideas. " So did Le nin and Sta lin. Your point being?
1
@m.r4841 "They were indeed extr eme righ t wi ng." Wrong. They were total itarian fa r-le ft social ists.
1
@Jim ofPalmSprings: Nope. Tru mp is not a so cial ist. Co pe harder.
1
@m.r4841 : North Korea is democratic to a degree since they allow people to vote and hold elections in the first place.
1
@m.r4841 : They are democratic to a degree, since they allow people to vote and hold elections in the first place.
1
@m.r4841 "It's not a secret that Na zis m is an ex treme rig ht wi ng ideol ogy." Incorrect. Natio nal s oci alis m was a t ota litari an f ar-le ft, so ciali st ideol ogy.
1
@m.r4841 "Because it is. Nazism is an extreme right wing ideology." Incorrect. Na tio nal s oci alis m w a s a to ta litari an f ar-le ft, so ciali st ideol ogy.
1
Wrong, soci alism did.
1
@MyName-pl7zn "the fasc ist used the soci alist name but they were far from soc ialist," Wrong. Fasc ism was an outgrowth of Sor ellian Syndi calism, which itself was an outgrowth from Ma rxist soci alism. The idea was that society would be consolidated (i.e., incorporated) into syndicates (in the Italian context, fascio/fasci) which would be regulated by and serve as organs for the state, or "embody" the state (corpus = body). The purpose wasn't the promotion of private interest, but the centralization and synchronization of society under the state, as an end unto itself. To quote Mus solini's infamous aphorism: "All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state."
1
@Preetvnd : What na zis?
1
@Preetvnd : Nope. I am literally the epitome of an an ti-soc ial ist in general, being it naz ism or fasc ism or ma rxism. Co pe ha rder.
1
@Preetvnd : No pe. Co pe ha rder.
1
@m.r4841 : There was no nonsense in that post. Naz ism was a totalitarian far-left , socialist ideology based on ethonationalism.
1
"Right extremist" party would advocate for Anarcho-Capitalism. You have no clue what you are talking about.
1
@wapple4240 : Wrong. It is a branch of socialism.
1
@Roy J Patterson : Nope, cope harder.
1
@Russophile30 : There is no Re publican party in my Scand inavian country, hun.
1
@m.r4841 : Incorrect. You have no clue what you are talking about. N atio nal so cia lis m certainly was so ciali sm. It was a tot ali tari an fa r le ft, so ciali st ideo log y which opposed ca pitali sm. Go read some history, kiddo.
1
@m.r4841 : You nee d to co pe har der than that.
1
@m.r4841 Inc orrect. You have no cl ue wh at you are talki ng about. N atio nal so cia lis m certainly was so ciali sm. It was a tot ali tari an fa r le ft, so ciali st ideo log y which opposed ca pitali sm. Go read some history, kiddo.
1
@m.r4841 : You need to cope harder than that.
1
@m.r4841 : Nope. Cope harder.
1
So called "extr eme rig ht w ing" i.e. Ana rcho-Capit alism hasn't even been a thing yet ... nor has commu nism for that matter. However the latter is certainly worse, since it's based on collectivism and soci alism, just like Naz ism was.
1