Comments by "Historia, Magistra Vitae" (@Historia.Magistra.Vitae.) on "Richard J Murphy" channel.

  1.  @reallymakesyouthink  "You realise there are different categories of liberalism?" And I'm talking about the original, i.e. just Liberalism or what people incorrectly call "classical liberalism".
    1
  2.  @reallymakesyouthink  "Libertarianism is not a socialist ideology. " The ideology and the word itself was coined by a French Communist known as Joseph Déjacque.
    1
  3.  @reallymakesyouthink  "Libertarianism is about freedom for the individual," That is Liberalism, as it was put forth by John Locke. There is no reason to use the word "libertarianism" at all.
    1
  4.  @akastewart  : Really depends how you define those words you mentioned. Essentially Liberalism was all about maximizing the freedom of the individual, where the sole purpose of the govenrment was to protect people's lives, liberty and property. That's about it. In practice it advocates for Minarchism / a Night-watchman State.
    1
  5.  @akastewart  "Liberalism on the far right? Nonsense. Utter nonsense." If socialism is on the Far-Left, then logic dictates that Liberalism is on the Far-Right.
    1
  6.  @akastewart  "all value that are incompatible with far-right ideology." Wrong. People on the Far-Right believe that the best outcome for society is achieved when individual rights and civil liberties are paramount (individualism) and the role — and especially the power — of the government is minimized.
    1
  7.  @akastewart  "Do you know why the term ‘classical liberalism’ has become popular again? To distinguish it from modern Liberalism, which is the de facto Liberalism of our age." Because people are ignorant and do not read history. Classical Liberalism is a synonym actual Liberalism founded by John Locke, and the only reason there are words such as "classical liberalism" and "American Right Libertarianism" is because people on the Left are using words wrong. There is no "modern Liberalism", that is Neo-Liberalism i.e. not Liberalism at all essentially. This semantic confusion was started by Americans of course, as the term Liberalism after the New Deal and especially in the 1960s became widely used in the United States to refer to a centre-left politics that supports degrees of government intervention, which has nothing to do with Liberalism.
    1
  8.  @akastewart  "Go tell the far right then, bc they seem to think it’s about national and ethnic identity. " I'm from the Far-Right, and national and ethnic identity are forms of collectivism and not advocated by the Right in general.
    1
  9.  @akastewart  "Your assertion that they value civil liberties is somewhat incompatible with far right practices, such as Jim Crow, KKK." They have nothing to do with with Far-Right nor Right wing in general.
    1
  10.  @akastewart  "Where would you position Jim Crow and KKK on the left-right axis?" To the Left.
    1
  11.  @akastewart  "You think civil rights are antithetical to socialism?" Depends how you define civil rights but generally they are. For example socialism doesn't allow economic freedom as it goes against private property ownership. It also doesn't allow individual freedom either as you are supposed to work for the collective good.
    1
  12.  @akastewart  "I’ll ask again, where would you situate Jim Crow and KKK on the left-right axis? " Again, on the Left.
    1
  13.  @akastewart  "Additionally, if you believe Liberalism is far-right, where do you believe Fascism sits relative to that?" Fascism was adjacent to Marxism, on its right side, since it was a totalitarian far-left, socialist 3rd position ideology based on National Syndicalism which they adapted from a French Marxist, known as 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 was an outgrowth of Sorelian Syndicalism, which itself was an outgrowth from Marxist socialism. 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 was the centralization and synchronization of society under the state, as an end unto itself. To quote Mussolini's infamous aphorism: "All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state." As created by Mussolini and Giovanni Gentile, Fascism 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. It cared about unity in a strong central government with society being brought together by syndicalist organizations obedient to the State. [01] "La Dottrina Del Fascismo / the Doctrine of Fascism", by Mussolini and Giovanni Gentile [02] "Che cosa è il Fascismo: Discorsi e polemiche / Origins and Doctrine of Fascism", by Giovanni Gentile [03] "the Philosophy of Fascism", by Mario Palmieri [04] "Fascism: An Informal Introduction to Its Theory and Practice", by Renzo De Felice [05] "Mussolini's Intellectuals", by A. James Gregor [06] "La Camera dei Fasci e delle Corporazioni", by Rabaglietti Giuseppe & Sergio Panunzio [07] "Teoria generale dello Stato Fascista", by Sergio Panunzio [08] Any work from Emilio Gentile
    1
  14.  @akastewart  "that it doesn’t provide clarity between the Economic components of a political ideology and its Social components." There is no need to. When you have individual freedom it also results in economic freedom as you are free to trade and generate wealth as you please. When you have collectivism it results in a controlled social and economic environment.
    1
  15.  @musiqtee  "Fascism has indeed existed on both sides of the typical left-right spectrum. " No, it hasn't. Fascism was a totalitarian Far-Left, socialist 3rd position ideology. Nothing to do with Right wing of any kind.
    1
  16.  @reallymakesyouthink  "Examples of civil rights the right to government services, the right to a public education, the right to gainful employment, the right to housing, the right to use public facilities." Technically they are not rights as nobody is obligated to provide you those things. You have no right to force people to educate you. You have no right to force people to employ you. You have no right to force people to build houses for you. They are services and commodities provided by people, which wouldn't be a problem if they wouldn't be funded with stolen money.
    1
  17.  @akastewart  "But as you point out elsewhere a completely free market in practice often comes into conflict with individual freedoms, such as civil rights. e.g. " It doesn't conflict with individual freedoms. However it can conflict with "civil rights" depending on what the government decides those "rights" to be.
    1
  18.  @akastewart  "Right wing Christian Conservatism is broadly in favour of economic free market liberty, but against certain civil rights, such as LGBT+ rights, women’s rights, etc. This demonstrates how economic freedom is not a good proxy for all freedom, and shows why a single axis is insufficient." Christian Conservatism is not a Right wing thing though. The single axis is sufficient when it is about individualism vs. collectivism which I have tried to convey. When you have individual freedom it also results in economic freedom.
    1
  19.  @akastewart  "Do you believe socialist figures like Jeremy Corbyn or Bernie Sanders are against private property? Do you think they would force people into collectivist structures and roles?" If they are socialists then yes, by definition they would be against property rights in general. If they also advocate for socialism on a nation / government level, then yes, it would logically follow that they would force people into collectivist structures and roles unless they make everything related to the government voluntary.
    1
  20.  @akastewart  "You’d place Jim Crow and KKK — i.e. Christian ultra-Conservatism and ethno-Nationalism — on the left? " Yes. For me there is no difference between "Christian ultra-Conservatism" and "modern Left wing progressivism" and nationalism. Both want to use the government as a tool to enforce their own subset of beliefs which they think are more moral and just than the other beliefs. All of them are collectivists who do not like individual rights, freedoms and civil liberties, unless its about their own in-group.
    1
  21.  @WarrenPeaceOG  "Far Right = Authoritarianism + Neoliberalism + Bigotry." Wrong. People on the Far-Right believe that the best outcome for society is achieved when individual rights and civil liberties are paramount (individualism) and the role — and especially the power — of the government is minimized. The epitome of Far-Right is Liberalism.
    1
  22.  @WarrenPeaceOG  " In fact, it contradicts the conventional understanding of political ideologies. " Ah yes, the "conventional understanding" where both the Far-Left and the Far-Right advocate for a totalitarian and economically centralized society based on socialism.
    1
  23. There is no Fascism anywhere.
    1
  24.  @heartofatum  : Not really.
    1
  25. " Fascism exists to PRESERVE Neoliberalism by shifting its failures away from aristocrats and billionaires and onto outsider groups." You are not making any sense. Fascism and Neoliberalism are more or less the polar opposite of ideologies.
    1
  26. Neoliberalism and Fascism are more or less the complete opposites, as Fascism was a socialist Far-Left ideology.
    1
  27. "This is what brought the n@zis to power in 1933 and it is helping to bring a new generation of far-right into power in the 21st century." Except there was no Far-Right in Germany during that time, nor anywhere in Europe for that matter. Also National Socialists were on the Far-Left, and also socialists by definition.
    1
  28.  @gerardpeterbrennan  "The National Socialists were Leftist in name only, not in actuality. " Wrong. They were by definition, on the Far-Left.
    1
  29. ​ @gerardpeterbrennan  " They called themselves Socialists because that was quite popular and they thought they could use that, but none of their policies were actually Socialist." Wrong. They called themselves socialists because by definition they were. You cannot be an advocate for centralized planning and strong government controls without being a socialist. That's what made Hitler a socialist. He may have been to the right from the Bolsheviks, but he was still a socialist leftist as he believed in strong central government control. Hitler outright declared himself a socialist in Mein Kampf, just not the Marxist international or full Soviet type. He struggled with HOW to distinguish his socialism from the rest of the Marxist crowd.
    1
  30.  @rohanharridge5579  "If the Nazis were socialist they wouldn't have violently suppressed organised labour they did." Wrong. Every single socialist regime suppressed independent unions, including the Bolsheviks. In fact, Hitler was simply imitating Lenin, who had earlier closed down all independent labor associations, factory committees and worker cooperatives, banned strikes, walkouts, and lockouts. Lenin even forced workers to work a slavish 80-hour week. After the Bolsheviks banned all labor unions, one unionist “described the unions as ‘living corpses.’” Any Russian worker who participated in general strikes was arrested, imprisoned or shot. Under Lenin’s regime, workers had no real representation or bargaining rights and were treated like industrial serfs who were chained to their factories. Although Hitler followed Lenin’s nationalizing craze, his treatment of workers did not mimic their Russian counterparts.
    1
  31.  @rohanharridge5579  " The Nazis hated socialism in their own words." Wrong. They never hated socialism and you will never find a single quote from any of them hating on socialism. They hated Marxism and Communism specifically, as National Socialism came from the 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
  32.  @rohanharridge5579  "Maybe try reading a few books." Take your own advice, hun. You can start from these; [01] "Mein Kampf" by Hitler [02] "Hitler's National Socialism" by Rainer Zitelmann [03] "the Vampire Economy" by Günter Reimann [04] "Omnipotent Government: The Rise of the Total State and Total War" by Ludwig Von Mises [05] "Hitler's True Believers" by Robert Gellately [06] "The Cause of Hitler's Germany" by Leonard Peikoff
    1
  33.  @avs4365  "They also denied any opposition. Employed slave labour. Denied workers the right to strike (working hours increased dramatically under the regime) while the leaders hoarded wealth and property theft throughout their time in power," Just like the Bolsheviks essentially.
    1
  34.  @Chris-wz5yd  "No, it was a right wing dictator who pretended to be left wing, j" They were by definition, Left wing, Far-Left wing in fact. If you want to see a "right wing dictator" then I suggest you check out Augusto Pinochet.
    1
  35.  @fburton8  "classical fascism is a right-wing phenomenon ... but equating them with fascism overlooks the distinct historical and ideological foundations of fascism as a far-right ideology." Wrong. Fascism had nothing to do with Right wing of any kind whatsoever. Again, Fascism was a totalitarian far-left, socialist 3rd position 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 was an outgrowth of Sorellian Syndicalism, which itself was an outgrowth from Marxist socialism. 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 was the centralization and synchronization of society under the state, as an end unto itself. To quote Mussolini's infamous aphorism: "All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state." As created by Mussolini and Giovanni Gentile, Fascism 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. It cared about unity in a strong central government with society being brought together by syndicalist organizations obedient to the State.
    1
  36.  @oneoflokis  "You can't have left-wing fascists. Fascism came out if right-wing politics in Italy." Wrong. Fascism specifically was a totalitarian Far-Left, socialist 3rd position ideology based on National Syndicalism which they adapted from a French Marxist known as Georges Sorel. It literally came from the 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
  37.  @gerardpeterbrennan  "Any system advocating cventral control is not Socialist." Wrong. It is by definition.
    1
  38.  @gerardpeterbrennan  " And Hitler's Government had nothing at all Socialist about it." Wrong. It had, by definition.
    1
  39.  @gerardpeterbrennan  "State-owned is Communist, not Socialist. " Wrong. There is no state under Communism. State ownership of the means of production is a form of socialism.
    1
  40.  @gerardpeterbrennan  "They are different systems although Capitalists like to equate the two. " Wrong. We do not.
    1
  41.  @gerardpeterbrennan  "Communism is a bad system, that leads to the sort of crap that the USSR descended into. " There was no Communism in the USSR. They had Marxist-Leninism and later Stalinism, which were spinoffs from Marxism. None of them achieved Communism.
    1
  42.  @gerardpeterbrennan  "Socialism is worker-owned, entirely different. " Wrong. Again, Socialism is an economic system where the collective (such as workers, guilds, the government etc.) either directly own or 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 or control of the means of production.
    1
  43.  @gerardpeterbrennan  "Nazis were a State-controlled system, they had nothing to do with Socialism. " Wrong. Again, State control over the means of production and economy in general is a form of socialism.
    1
  44.  @gerardpeterbrennan  "They had nothing to do with Communism either." They were rival ideology, as both National Socialism and Fascism came from the 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
  45.  @gerardpeterbrennan  "Fascism is a Company-controlled Economic system," Wrong. That is Corporatocracy. Nothing to do with Fascism, where the State controlled and directed the economy.
    1
  46.  @gerardpeterbrennan  "Actually not much different to what Capitalism has descended into now." Both Hitler and Mussolini were devout socialists and their ideologies were strictly anti-capitalist.
    1
  47. Nothing civilized about theft.
    1
  48.  @Incognito-jf1dr  "One of the groups they murdered were Trade Union members, left wing groups, Communists etc. " All they did was mimic the Bolsheviks.
    1
  49.  @Incognito-jf1dr  "No they were most definitely NOT socialists or Left Wing. " Wrong. By definition, National Socialism was a totalitarian Far-Left, socialist 3rd position ideology based on ethnonationalism.
    1
  50.  @l3eatalphal3eatalpha  : ... and that is why everybody wants to be a politician, instead of a private business owner.
    1