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.

Previous
2
Next
...
All

@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

Previous
2
Next
...
All