Comments by "Historia, Magistra Vitae" (@Historia.Magistra.Vitae.) on "The Power Of A Slogan: Hitler's Secret Messaging | Hitler's Propaganda Machine | Timeline" video.

@m.r4841 : Nothing nonsense about that. Co pe har der.
2
@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
@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