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

Historia, Magistra Vitae
VisualEconomik EN
comments

Comments by "Historia, Magistra Vitae" (@Historia.Magistra.Vitae.) on "VisualEconomik EN" channel.

@badluck5647 "Did you not watch the video? Private businessmen were getting rich on the war economy and stealing the assets of je wish businesses." Yes, and it was a bit wrong. Only the government and NSDAP officials were getting rich. You had to be a government employee / party member to even be a "business manager" in the first place. How Nazis run the government was almost identical to Stalin's USSR.
6
And Regan was wrong, and had no clue what either Fascism nor Liberalism means.
6
@Feefa99 "Amazing how you can ignore what actully Karl Marx wrote, when he was massively critical towards government and how whole economy was managed. "Mean of production in hands of workers" Does not mean government do everything for you, he wanted to maximaze individual freedom of workers definitely not to centralize power to hands the rich businessmen, the politicians and other privileged people" I'm not even talking about Marxism or to be more specific, Communism. National Socialism, just like 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.
5
 @gabrielmenezes2761 "not socialism , state capitalism" By definition it was socialism, and "state capitalism" is an oxymoron and doesn't exist.
5
@Feefa99 "Workers had no say how things were run. Not actually socialism at all ... Workers have no say in economy, no socialism." Wrong. It was socialism, it just wasn't Marxism. 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. Nazis had the latter.
4
@badluck5647 "That isn't socialism because the government didn't own or run the factory. " They did run the factories, the DAF specifically, who had their officers in manager position for the very reason, that the production was done how the NSDAP told it to be. The idea was to let the state control and direct the economy from the top-down without itself owning the means of production. As Hitler himself said: "A strong State will see that production is carried on in the national interests, and, if these interests are contravened, can proceed to expropriate the enterprise concerned and take over its administration. " - Hitler and I, quotes from unspecified earlier dates per Otto Strasser, Boston, MA, Houghton Mifflin Company (1940) "Germany's economic policy is conducted exclusively in accordance with the interests of the German people. In this respect I am a fanatical socialist, one who has ever in mind the interests of all his people." - Speech on the 21st Anniversary of the National Socialist Party (24 February 1941)
4
@murdelabop and Lewis was wrong also. Fascism was strictly anti-clerical movement, and had nothing to do with Christianity. Mussolini was a fan of Friedrich Nietzsche after all.
4
@Darkphilips-i1y "Fascism is controlled capitalism. " Wrong. There is no such thing. Capitalism by definition is uncontrolled and operates under Markets, by the supply/demand principle. Meanwhile Fascism used Corporatism ("corporativismo" in Italian) , which was one of the cornerstone principles in Mussolini's fascism, and had to do with the way society and the economy would be organized, with state power at the head of a system of syndicates ("corporazione") representing each major industry. Mussolini's corporatist view stressed total state power over businesses as much as over individuals, via these governing industry bodies controlled by the Fascist party, in which businesses retained the responsibilities of property, but few if any of the freedoms.
4
Fascism most certainly was Far-Left, politically and economically. It 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.
3
It was just socialism. Nothing to do with Capitalism of any kind.
3
@Darkphilips-i1y "Where the government has a heavy hand in the economy." That is known as socialism, which 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.
3
" in short state capitalism.." Doesn't exist and is an oxymoron. It was textbook socialism.
3
"They were pretty capitalist as private property was never abolished" Wrong and Wrong. They were strictly anti-capitalist and private property rights were abolished and made conditional. Individual ownership rights were understood to be strictly subordinate to collective discipline. It was not the individual ownership of property that concerned Fascists, but its subordination to collective control. Property was understood to perform social functions rather than to manifest individual rights. It was clear that the conception of property as a social function was broad enough to include socialization of the means of production, should that be required by the national interests as interpreted by the state.
2
"corporativism is a form of capitalism not an alternative to it. " Wrong. Corporatism has absolutely nothing to do with Capitalism whatsoever. Common English linguistics mistake. Corporatism has nothing to do with businesses. Corporatism ("corporativismo" in Italian) was one of the cornerstone principles in Mussolini's fascism, and had to do with the way society and the economy would be organized, with state power at the head of a system of syndicates ("corporazione") representing each major industry. Mussolini's corporatist view stressed total state power over businesses as much as over individuals, via these governing industry bodies controlled by the Fascist party, in which businesses retained the responsibilities of property, but few if any of the freedoms.
2
"They wanted companies to obey the state and be loyal but that is not anti capitalist" That is by definition, anti-capitalist. Also when the government has total control and can legally seize your property if it's used in a manner they dislike, it is not private property ownership. You are not the arbiter of what to do with your own stuff. You are merely a manager of your property, and merely so long as the Fascist state permits it.
2
@Feefa99 "Nazis were socialist same way as North Korea called themselves democratic." Both are true. Nazis were socialists by definition, and North Korea is democratic to a degree since they allow people to vote and hold elections in the first place. Meanwhile in some socialist countries like Cuba, neither voting nor elections are a thing.
2
@ArawnOfAnnwn : It hasn't been a thing since corrupt people, known as politicians, won't let it be a thing... so much free money and power when being on a government payroll. Luckily some countries are taking baby steps towards a functional society, like Argentina thanks to Javier Milei. I guess countries need to start hitting triple digit inflation numbers before they start to understand basic economics and applying them in practice.
2
Fascism was a socialist ideology and it strictly opposed Capitalism.
2
@larryc1616 : Nothing to do with Capitalism. It was textbook socialism.
2
@jessynixx Wrong. Left/Right dichotomy doesn't work that way.
2
They never defended Capitalism. Fascism was strictly a socialist and anti-capitalist ideology.
2
Need to point out, that Mussolini was always a socialist. However he was a former Marxist, and then embraced National Syndicalism which he then used as the basis of Fascism.
2
@peeledonion991 "and helped corporations?" He most certainly didn't. On the contrary, he subjugated businesses under the goals set by the State. Also throughout the 1930s, Mussolini managed to nationalize over 75% of the Italian industry. Ah, the classic, "I'm from the government and I'm here to help".
2
@peeledonion991 " Socialism is not when government does things." 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. Fascists had the latter.
2
@peeledonion991 "Italian Fascism wasn’t socialism since workers never owned the means of production, the state did and its supporters did." Socialism doesn't necessitate workers specifically owning the means of production. That is what Marxism is about.
2
@murdelabop "And yet the radical religious right in the United States hits all the characteristics of fascism." No. They have nothing to do with Fascism nor the Right. If anything, they are collectivists and advocating for Theocracy.
2
It was Far-Left. Nothing to do with Right wing of any kind.
2
Reminder that neither Hitler nor Franco were Fascists, as they had their own ideologies. Only Mussolini was. All of them were devout socialists, anti-capitalists and part of the 3rd position movement.
2
Nothing to do with some random "Right Wing Authoritarian leaning". National Socialism being a Far-Left ideology is a historical fact. It was a socialist 3rd position movement based on ethnonationalism. 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. However Nazism had nothing to do with Fascism. They were two fundamentally different ideologies.
2
@msdm83 "right wing authorizations has 50 years of research behind it." It has existed only once within the last 50 years. The last time it was done by Augusto Pinochet in Chile, to prevent the country becoming a Cuba 2.0.
2
@msdm83 "Hitler is on record saying that he used socialist rhethoric to attract the working class but was not socialist in any meaningful way. " Wrong. Hitler has never said such a thing. On the contrary, he has said multiple times that he and his movement are "proper socialism".
2
@msdm83 "And that there was no need to greatly change the economic systems so long as the national goals were served." and nationalizing and collectivizing the economy was the only way to ensure, that the national goals were served. This is where their "Gleichschaltung" principle comes in. "Germany's economic policy is conducted exclusively in accordance with the interests of the German people. In this respect I am a fanatical socialist, one who has ever in mind the interests of all his people." - Speech on the 21st Anniversary of the National Socialist Party (24 February 1941) "A strong State will see that production is carried on in the national interests, and, if these interests are contravened, can proceed to expropriate the enterprise concerned and take over its administration. " - Hitler and I, quotes from unspecified earlier dates per Otto Strasser, Boston, MA, Houghton Mifflin Company (1940)
2
@msdm83 "They weren't anti capital they were anti Jewish or globalist capital." Hitler was both Capitalism as a whole and Bolshevism / Marxism as a "Jewish ploy". He didn't differentiate between capital and "global capital".
2
@msdm83 "They weren't anti capital they were anti Jewish or globalist capital." Hitler saw both Capitalism as a whole and Bolshevism / Marxism as a "Jewish ploy". He didn't differentiate between capital and "global capital".
2
@msdm83 "Nazism is a firm of fascism" Wrong. National Socialism and Fascism were two fundamentally different, socialist 3rd position ideologies.
2
@msdm83 ". I've never heard anyone claim otherwise." Then you should go and read some actual history. For example Goebbels himself claimed that. "One might say that Fascism has reacted upon the creative life of the Italian people somewhat like sterilization. It is, after all, nothing like National Socialism. While the latter goes down to the roots, Fascism is only a superficial thing. That is regrettable, but one must recognize it clearly. National Socialism is really a way of life." - Dr. Joseph Goebbels, The Goebbels Diaries Then I also suggest reading some Italian historians, such as Renzo De Felice and his book "Fascism: An Informal Introduction to Its Theory and Practice".
2
@msdm83 "Look at who modern fascist and Nazis ... Those were mostly parties that had roots in neo fascist parties." So called "modern fascism" is properly known as Neo-Fascism, and there is only one country where it still exist in the mainstream politics. That would be Peronism, in Argentina. Regarding Neo-Nazism, it doesn't exist in mainstream politics but there are few such movements still out there... still advocating for socialism though.
2
@msdm83 "with. the far right parties that did well the the European elections. " There are no Far-Right parties in Europe. There are only Right leaning parties. The only Far-Right person in the mainstream politics right now, is the latest Argentinian president, Javier Milei.
2
It wasn't Capitalism of any kind, nor was it privately owned per se. Individual ownership rights were understood to be strictly subordinate to collective discipline. It was not the individual ownership of property that concerned Fascists, but its subordination to collective control. Property was understood to perform social functions rather than to manifest individual rights. It was clear that the conception of property as a social function was broad enough to include socialization of the means of production, should that be required by the national interests as interpreted by the state. What Fascism had was called Corporatism ("corporativismo" in Italian), a socialist economic model. It was one of the cornerstone principles in Mussolini's fascism, and had to do with the way society and the economy would be organized, with state power at the head of a system of syndicates ("corporazione") representing each major industry. Mussolini's corporatist view stressed total state power over businesses as much as over individuals, via these governing industry bodies controlled by the Fascist party, in which businesses retained the responsibilities of property, but few if any of the freedoms.
2
Actually no. Nothing to do with hierarchies or such oligarchies per se. People on the 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.
2
@Gingerphile00 "fasicsm is authoritarian centrism." No. It had nothing to do with centrism whatsoever. Fascism was based on National Syndicalism which is one of the branches of socialism. Social-Democracy is closer to centrism than Fascism.
2
@ilesalmo7724 " left-right spectrum is different from authoritarian-libertarian spectrum (and conservative-progressive). " The fundamental differences between left-wing and right-wing ideologies center around the the rights of individuals vs. the power of the collective. Left-wing beliefs are based on the idea that society is best served with an expanded role for the group, for the benefit of it (collectivism). People on the 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. All that which limits individual power and increases collective power is on the left. All that which limits collective power and gives freedoms and civil liberties to individuals is on the right.
2
@lukemurray4950 " National socialism is not socialism. " Wrong. By definition it was. 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.
2
@monkusaugustus4017 "he never claimed that national socialism is socialism," Hitler himself did though. In fact, he thought National Socialism was "proper socialism", and Marxism wasn't.
2
@monkusaugustus4017 "Also socialism requires the abolition of private property, " Wrong. 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. National Socialists had the latter. However, NSDAP did abolish private property rights with the Reichstag fire decree on February 28, 1933.
2
"fascism is free market capitalism with a command economy, not socialism at all" You are not making any sense. Free market Capitalism and Command economy are mutually exclusive, while Command economy being part of the Socialist economic system. Fascism had nothing to do with Capitalism whatsoever and as a socialist ideology it strictly opposed it. Fascism utilized Corporatism ("corporativismo" in Italian), which was one of the cornerstone principles in Mussolini's fascism, and had to do with the way society and the economy would be organized, with state power at the head of a system of syndicates ("corporazione") representing each major industry. Mussolini's corporatist view stressed total state power over businesses as much as over individuals, via these governing industry bodies controlled by the Fascist party, in which businesses retained the responsibilities of property, but few if any of the freedoms.
2
@thetruedemocraticnorth "central planning is socialism" By definition it is. 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.
2
@thetruedemocraticnorth " and that Hitler was not capitalist." By definition he wasn't, and even according to his own very words. He specifically despised Capitalism and thought it was a "Jewish ploy". At the end of the day, 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.
2
@thetruedemocraticnorth "I won't waist my time ..." Good. Stop commenting and go read some actual WW2 era history.
2
It wasn't a Market economy at all. In fact, it was a command economy.
2
@Phil-D83 : No. Command economies are the polar opposite of Market economies. They are two completely different and opposite economic systems. In a Market economy, interactions between consumers and businesses determine what is available and at what price. This is in contrast to a Command economy, in which a central government sets production levels and costs.
2
That is not how Capitalism works, and Fascism had a socialist Command economy.
2
"The same system used in the “socialist” Scandinavian countries." No. Scandinavian countries use Social-Democracy. Completely different thing. Corporatism ("corporativismo" in Italian) had to do with the way society and the economy would be organized, with state power at the head of a system of syndicates ("corporazione") representing each major industry. Mussolini's corporatist view stressed total state power over businesses as much as over individuals, via these governing industry bodies controlled by the Fascist party, in which businesses retained the responsibilities of property, but few if any of the freedoms.
1
"Corporatism was popular in Europe at the time among right-wing regimes like Francisco Franco and Salazar," Wrong. None of them were Right wing. All of them were part of the Far-Left, 3rd position movement. Corporatism ("corporativismo" in Italian) was also a thing only in Italy, as it was one of the cornerstone principles in Mussolini's fascism, and had to do with the way society and the economy would be organized, with state power at the head of a system of syndicates ("corporazione") representing each major industry. Mussolini's corporatist view stressed total state power over businesses as much as over individuals, via these governing industry bodies controlled by the Fascist party, in which businesses retained the responsibilities of property, but few if any of the freedoms.
1
"At the time in Europe, the right-wing wasn't yet associated with capitalism and preferred government controlled economies that protected the power of the elite." Wrong. The only time when Capitalism wasn't associated with the Right was before and during the French Revolution. After than, when socialists claimed being on the Left instead, Capitalism has always been seen as being on the Right. Govenrment controlled economies are known as Socialist economies. After all, 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
@larryc1616 : Corporatism is always regulated. What are you talking about? Corporatism in Fascism was literally State organized, since they advocated the total integration of divergent interests into the State for the common good.
1
@Feefa99 "Nazis did heavy privatisation of Germany a" Wrong. They did no such thing. Privatization was never a thing in Nazi Germany. On the contrary, they nationalized most if not all of the German industries and later reorganized all industries into corporations run by members of the Nazi Party. They called this nationalization as "Gleichschaltung", a system of totalitarian control and coordination over all aspects of German society from the economy and trade associations to the media, culture and education.
1
@badluck5647 "I bet you don't even know what socialism is because you have been brainwashed to use it as a buzzword for things you don't like." As I said above, 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. Nazis had the latter.
1
@badluck5647 "Being a party member to get lucrative government contracts is textbook crony capitalism. " There is nothing Capitalistic about being a government subsidiary. That is part of a Mixed economy system and completely antithetical to Market based economies, such as Capitalism.
1
@JoshuaMcCoy-t6n : Actually I do.
1
" Instead of nationalizing the works, the state sort of forced Junkers back to run his own company" Actually they did nationalize Junkers, and pretty much the whole German industry. When Hugo Junkers declined to help the Government, the Nazis placed him under house arrest in 1934 (he died during 1935) and eventually seized control of his patents and company. Later they reorganized all industries into corporations run by members of the Nazi Party.
1
@peeledonion991 "Fascist economics is explained by Corporatism: the merging of state and capital, not the abolishment of capital. " That is not what Corporatism meant. What you are describing there is called Corporatocracy. There was no such merging in Fascism. Corporatism ("corporativismo" in Italian) was one of the cornerstone principles in Mussolini's fascism, and had to do with the way society and the economy would be organized, with state power at the head of a system of syndicates ("corporazione") representing each major industry. Mussolini's corporatist view stressed total state power over businesses as much as over individuals, via these governing industry bodies controlled by the Fascist party, in which businesses retained the responsibilities of property, but few if any of the freedoms.
1
@peeledonion991 "There was still a powerful capitalist class which owned and profited from cooperations controlled by the state." That is not what happened under Fascism, as explained by Mussolini himself. "The Fascist State directs and controls the entrepreneurs, whether it be in our fisheries or in our heavy industry in the Val d'Aosta. There the State actually owns the mines and carries on transport, for the railways are state property. So are many of the factories… We term it state intervention… If anything fails to work properly, the State intervenes. The capitalists will go on doing what they are told, down to the very end. They have no option and cannot put up any fight. Capital is not God; it is only a means to an end.” — Benito Mussolini, As quoted in Talks with Mussolini, Emil Ludwig, Boston, MA, Little, Brown and Company (1933)
1
Franco had his own reformed Falangism. Hitler had his National Socialism. Neither had anything to do with Fascism. All of them were part of the 3rd position movement though.
1
@Darkphilips-i1y "Liberalism on the other hand, is a movement that seeks to tax the rich and make workers the owners of production." Wrong. That is called Marxism and that is antithetical to Liberalism.
1
"The rising of Europe far-right politics inspired by Fascism... " Doesn't exist. There is no Far-Right in Europe and Fascism was a Far-Left, socialist ideology.
1
@ShubhamMishrabro " it was socially far right " There is no left/right for social values. They do not exist on the political spectrum.
1
@ShubhamMishrabro "that's why they were extreme nationalist while far left the communist were internationalist." Both are forms of collectivism.
1
@ShubhamMishrabro "You seem one of them who would think far right was good and all bad things were left wing only." The fundamental differences between left-wing and right-wing ideologies center around the the rights of individuals vs. the power of the collective. Left-wing beliefs are based on the idea that society is best served with an expanded role for the group, for the benefit of all (collectivism). People on the 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
@ShubhamMishrabro "yes they exist.We are not going by your definition. " Wrong. They do not, since by definition they are social values and have nothing to do with either politics nor economics. There is no my definition.
1
@ShubhamMishrabro "That's why liberals are centrist or centre right where communist were left wing. " Wrong. Liberals are by definition on the Right. Liberalism (by Jochn Locke) is a Right wing view. People on the 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. Meanwhile Communism is an extreme left ideology (due to its anarchistic tendencies), or at the end of the Leftist spectrum.
1
@ShubhamMishrabro "Fascist were extremely nationalist and communist internationalists but according to you they're same lol?" Both nationalism and globalism are part of collectivism. Fascism, as created by Mussolini and Giovanni Gentile, 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
@ShubhamMishrabro "I know you're one of them who want to call fascist left wing socialist while talking about their economic system when social system exist too in which fascist were far right." Again, there is no left/right for social values. They have nothing to do with the political spectrum. Social values exist on the conservative and progressive scale.
1
@ShubhamMishrabro " Why are all your comments denying everything and pretentious like you know all when you can be easily debunked?" You can try to debunk historical facts, but good luck with that. I'm here to educate people like you, who have no clue what they are talking about. Simple as that.
1
@ShubhamMishrabro "Why calling fascist far right triggers you. " It doesn't trigger me at all. It's just historically false, just like calling the earth flat. For example, Mussolini himself said that their movement was from the Left.
1
@A-Big-Beautiful-Wall "Fascism always forms coalitions with establishment conservatives" Wrong. It didn't. Fascism was a revolutionary and anti-conservative movement at the time. Mussolini specifically blamed his political rivals of being conservative, such as the Italian Socialist Party.
1
@A-Big-Beautiful-Wall "and right-wing nationalists against the left-wing, " No such thing as "right wing nationalists", and Fascism was from the Left. Nationalism in general is a Leftist trait, by being a form of collectivism. Nationalism is devotion to the State which sees all other states as inferior and in competition. Right wing ideologies do not embrace Nationalism, but rather Patriotism. In all Right wing ideologies, the Individual is superior to the State. In socialist ideologies the collective (such as the State) is superior to the individual.
1
@A-Big-Beautiful-Wall "Fascism was supposed to be neither left nor right , but it always gravitated towards the right-wing for these purposes." Wrong. It had nothing to do with Right wing of any kind, and it specifically gravitated toward the Far-Left, thanks to collectivism and socialism. Fascism opposed liberalism and capitalism, but also international socialism, hence the concept of a “third way,” the same position that would be held by Argentine Peronism years later. Their centralized economic policies obeyed collectivist and socialist principles, openly opposing capitalism and the free market, favoring nationalism and autarchy.
1
@A-Big-Beautiful-Wall "It's also important to remember at the time in Europe the right-wing wasn't associated with capitalism but preferred systems like Corporatism that used top down control , making the analysis more complicated.." Wrong. The only time when Capitalism wasn't associated with the Right was before and during the French Revolution. After than, when socialists claimed being on the Left instead, Capitalism has always been seen as being on the Right. Also a system like Fascist corporatism was a socialist economic model. Corporatism ("corporativismo" in Italian) was one of the cornerstone principles in Mussolini's fascism, and had to do with the way society and the economy would be organized, with state power at the head of a system of syndicates ("corporazione") representing each major industry. Mussolini's corporatist view stressed total state power over businesses as much as over individuals, via these governing industry bodies controlled by the Fascist party, in which businesses retained the responsibilities of property, but few if any of the freedoms.
1
Not at all.
1
@PhilosophicalZombieHunter : Nothing to do with Fascist Corporatism ("corporativismo" in Italian) however, which was one of the cornerstone principles in Mussolini's fascism, and had to do with the way society and the economy would be organized, with state power at the head of a system of syndicates ("corporazione") representing each major industry. Mussolini's corporatist view stressed total state power over businesses as much as over individuals, via these governing industry bodies controlled by the Fascist party, in which businesses retained the responsibilities of property, but few if any of the freedoms.
1
@PhilosophicalZombieHunter : Nothing to do with Fascist corporatism.
1
@PhilosophicalZombieHunter : Depends what you mean by "social corporatism".
1
@sH-ed5yf : 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. All of them had the latter.
1
@sH-ed5yf "And neither gitler nor Franco or Mussolini did any of that in relevant quantities. " They nationalized their industry and brought it under Government control.
1
@sH-ed5yf "Almost the entire german economy Was private ... Even the military industrial complex was private." Wrong. There was nothing private in Nazi Germany. Everything was nationalized according to their "Gleichschaltung" principle, and later reorganized into corporations run by members of the Nazi Party. Junker Airplanes was a good example of this.
1
@sH-ed5yf "Nazi germany left the entire heavy industry in private hands." I.G. Farben, Junkers, Porsche etc ... every single heavy industry was either owned by NSDAP members or the party itself directly. Everything was controlled by the party. "The party is all-embracing. It rules our lives in all their breadth and depth... There will be no license, no free space, in which the individual belongs to himself. This is Socialism... Let them then own land or factories as much as they please. The decisive factor is that the State, through the party, is supreme over them, regardless whether they are owners or workers." - Hitler Speaks (1940) "Germany's economic policy is conducted exclusively in accordance with the interests of the German people. In this respect I am a fanatical socialist, one who has ever in mind the interests of all his people." - Speech on the 21st Anniversary of the National Socialist Party (24 February 1941) "A strong State will see that production is carried on in the national interests, and, if these interests are contravened, can proceed to expropriate the enterprise concerned and take over its administration." - Hitler and I, quotes from unspecified earlier dates per Otto Strasser, Boston, MA, Houghton Mifflin Company (1940)
1
@sH-ed5yf "The owners of VW and porsche became insanly rich with sales to the german army. " Are you serious right know? As a German you should certainly known already, that Ferdinand Porsche was a Government official, an NSDAP member which is why he was allowed to have a business to begin with. Also Volkswagen was directly owned by the NSDAP itself (DAF via Kraft durch Freude) , and the famous VW Beetle was Hitler's own concept.
1
@sH-ed5yf : Is the topic of National Socialism banned in German schools or did you just skip the history classes?
1
@sH-ed5yf : "None of these compenies ever where owned by the government. " Again, they were owned by NSDAP members or the party directly. Junkers (expropriated) and Volkswagen for example were directly owned by NSDAP.
1
@sH-ed5yf : When the government has total control and can legally seize your property if it's used in a manner they dislike, it is not private property ownership. You are not the arbiter of what to do with your own stuff. You are merely a manager of government property, and merely so long as the government permits it. Notably, one of the very first things Hitler did when he came to power was to abolish the constitutional right to private property (Reichstag fire decree, Article 115 and Article 153, February 28, 1933).
1
@sH-ed5yf "The head of a company beeing in the ruling Party doesnt make the company state owned." I said it was controlled by the State. Also known as nationalization. Only some were directly owned by the State. Everything was in accordance with the "Gleichschaltung" principle, which was a system of totalitarian control and coordination over all aspects of German society from the economy and trade associations to the media, culture and education.
1
There is no freedom in Fascism.
1
No. Corporatism is the complete of Neo-Liberalism. The word you are looking for is Corporatocracy.
1
@Gingerphile00 : Nothing to do with races whatsoever. The end goal is elimination of price controls, deregulation of capital markets, lowering trade barriers and reducing, especially through privatization and austerity, state influence in the economy.
1
Peronism was a Neo-Fascist movement indeed, and was influenced by Mussolini's Fascism.
1
@ilesalmo7724 However the French Revolution doesn't resemble our modern day political spectrum at all. The left/right dichotomy is useless if you base it on Monarchy, which could essentially be anything. It could exert socialist goals better than any socialist democracy and it could be a better free capitalist economy than any Anarcho-Capitalist could ever do. That all would depend on the monarch. Also those Left Liberal revolutionaries are closer to modern day Right wingers. Anarcho-Capitalism would also be left wing by that definition. In fact, Capitalism, completely opposed to any authoritarian control over the economy would one of the most left wing systems.
1
@lamontkhoza2856 : If Reagan was pro establishment and big Government, then yes, anyone advocating for such would be left leaning at the very least. You tell me, I'm not American so no clue about his policies. However I'm pretty sure Reagan wasn't in favor of a big government nor statism for that matter.
1
@krakken- "But that doesn't make them any more socialist than it makes them any less fascist." By definition they were socialist, and most certainly they were not Fascist.
1
@monkusaugustus4017 "I wasn't talking about that but is the DPRK democratic because it says so in the name?" They certainly are more democratic than various socialist countries. After all, at least DPRK allows people to vote and hold elections in the first place. Meanwhile in places like Cuba, neither voting nor elections are a thing.
1
@monkusaugustus4017 " if there are private businesses in the country, " There weren't. Businesses were nationalized and later reorganized into corporations run by members of the Nazi Party.
1
@monkusaugustus4017 " if the prices are controlled through markets " There were no markets of any kind. NSDAP had a Command economy similar to the USSR under Stalin.
1
@monkusaugustus4017 "and if the economy isn't planned by government bodies then it's not socialism," It was. Under NSDAP, the economy was centralized and planned. It was the Government 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.
1
@lukemurray4950 "So you clearly acknowledge and in Hitler's own words said there was clear differences. " I have never said that there wasn't a difference. National Socialism wasn't Marxism. They were two competing and rival socialist ideologies.
1
@lukemurray4950 "Socialism you are thinking of for one wants to destory the nation state today. " Depends on the socialist ideology.
1
@lukemurray4950 "National socialism wanted to build and strengthen the nation state." True, since it came 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
@lukemurray4950 "National socialism is in favour of private property ownership and private competitive business." Wrong. It was in favor of neither. It was in favor of nationalization and Government controlled subsidiaries. Neither private property ownership nor competitiveness were a thing.
1
@lukemurray4950 " This is completely different to socialism which says that only the state should own property and their be no private business. " The idea of National Socialism was to let the state control and direct the economy from the top-down. Again, socialism says nothing. It's not an ideology. It's an economic system advocating for collective ownership or control of the means of production, distribution and exchange of goods.
1
@lukemurray4950 "They say Hitler was an authoritarian capitalist when in fact National Socialism is literally in the middle of of Communism and Capitalism." That middle is still known as socialism. Where National Socialism and Communism differs, is the implementation of socialism.
1
@lukemurray4950 " Capitalism is being ruled by bankers, " No it isn't. There can be various different currencies under Capitalism, like BitCoin. If anything, Capitalism opposes central banks.
1
@lukemurray4950 "Marxism isn't even socialism. " Marxism is one of the many socialist ideologies.
1
@lukemurray4950 "National Socialism isn't socialism." Wrong. By definition it was. Instead of focusing on the class like Marxism, it focused on the mythical race and the "Volksgemeinschaft".
1
@lukemurray4950 "National socialism is an ideology that combines elements of Capitalism and Socialism to create the perfect system by counter balancing them between eachother." Wrong. National Socialism had nothing to do with Capitalism whatsoever. It strictly opposed it. Hitler himself thought that both the Marxist version of socialism and Capitalism were "Jewish ploys".
1
@lukemurray4950 "Like I said in Capitalism, capital rules." Capitalism is more than just the capital itself. Essentially it's just the result of free humans making voluntary exchanges with one another in the absence of outside coercion.
1
@lukemurray4950 "but gives people private property " No. It didn't. Again, private property rights were abolished with the Reichstag fire decree on February 28, 1933. They made owning property conditional and dependent on bending the knee to the Government. When the government has total control and can legally seize your property if it's used in a manner they dislike, it is not private property ownership. You are not the arbiter of what to do with your own stuff. You are merely a manager of your property, and merely so long as the Government permits it.
1
@lukemurray4950 "and ability to set up corporations to create a competitive market. " Nobody weren't allowed to set up anything, unless they were part of the NSDAP and even then, everything was still controlled by the Government via DAF. There were no markets, since National Socialism was based on a Command economy.
1
@lukemurray4950 "National Socialism can only be achieved by a democratic vote." But it wasn't achieved like that. National Socialism wasn't voted in. It was achieved via coalition, when Hindenburg appointed Hitler Chancellor in the coalition government.
1
@krakken- "Were the Nazis socialists? No, not in any meaningful way, and certainly not after 1933. " Again, 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
@krakken- "Any remaining traces of socialist thought in the Nazi Party had been extinguished." Wrong. The whole party was socialist and the entire regime consisted of former members of other leftist movements. For example, Goebbels was one of the most vocal proponents of socialism. Also the Night of the Long Knives had nothing to do with socialism nor socialists in the first place. It was strictly about the internal power struggle between the German army leaders, Hitler and Röhm.
1
@krakken- "OK, apparently you call central planning, regardless if it controlled by workers or business, and regardless of the state or those businesses owned the means of production." A centrally planned economy, also known as a command economy, is an economic system where a government body makes economic decisions regarding the production and distribution of goods. Centrally planned economies are different from market economies, where these decisions are the result of thousands of choices by producers and consumers. The production of goods and services in planned economies is often done by state-owned enterprises, although independent companies may sometimes be incorporated into economic planning. Prices, wages, and production schedules are typically set by a centralized bureaucracy.
1
@krakken- "Because I have never heard anybody else call business controlled central planning socialism. " Such a thing doesn't exist. In no country has private businesses ever controlled the government or the country itself.
1
@krakken- "Socialism, at least by every definition I have ever seen, a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole. That is in no way what Nazis were. " 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. National Socialists had the latter.
1
@krakken- "The socialists and people on the left, at least by the definition used by everyone but you, were in concentration camps. " Not all socialists. Mainly their political opponents such as the Marxists... however this is nothing new. The same was done by the Bolshevik regime to their political rivals, after the October Revolution.
1
@krakken- "And the government was thoroughly right wing fascist (at least by the definitions used by everyone else, anyway)." Such definition has no basis in history nor in reality. Not only are National Socialism and Fascism two fundamentally different ideologies, but also both of them were on the Far-Left, adjacent to Marxism.
1
@krakken- " Use your definitions instead of the ones accepted by everyone else, " They are not my definitions. They are historical definitions. It is not my concern if everyone else uses incorrect definitions based on propaganda, however that is why I'm here after all, to educate people.
1
@krakken- "Redefining words obviously works on some people, " That is what many people on the Left have been doing since the end of the WW2.
1
... and for obvious reasons, they don't mention the simple fact that Mussolini was a socialist and his Fascism was still on the Far-Left side of the spectrum. Being a competing and rival socialist movement to Marxism, doesn't magically make someone Right wing.
1
@pinotpinotpinot "Yep, a common socialist movement that is.... hyper ethnic-nationalist, firmly traditionalist and reactionary on family values, against the emancipation of the working class, actively dismisses class conflicts alltogether, " Depends. Certainly most of them were common in Russia (Stalinism) and China (Maoism). However maybe you should remember, that socialism is not an ideology and represents no values. It's an economic system which advocates for collective direct ownership or control, of the means of production, distribution and exchange of goods.
1
@pinotpinotpinot " closely involved with the church." Neither Fascism nor National Socialism were. Both Hitler and Mussolini were fans of Friedrich Nietzsche and didn't believe in religions.
1
@pinotpinotpinot "If you are to uneducated to comment on something, how about you don't comment at all?" Sound like an advice you should take.
1
@ShubhamMishrabro "State capitalism is different from socialism. " Again, "state capitalism" doesn't exist. It's an oxymoron.
1
@ShubhamMishrabro "China is state capitalist but not socialist. " Wrong. China still has a socialist economy, because the government still has a tremendous amount of control over private enterprises. There are private companies that operate in China, and not everything is owned by the government; however, with a single party in power, the government is able to change the direction of the economy significantly with the stroke of a pen. Therefore, there are a lot of companies that are unsure of exactly what will happen in the future because they are at the mercy of the government.
1