Comments by "" (@Cloud_Seeker) on "FASCISM DEFINED | The Difference between Fascism and National Socialism" video.

Tell me you never tried to understand an ideology without telling me.
4
@zyanego3170 Ofc conservatism isn't pro-monarchy. Conservatism is about conserving. That is why we called canning food is called conserving. If you look at Germany in the 1920-30 you had the new Weimar Republic that replaced the old monarchy that was removed after the German revolution and loss of World War 1. If you were a conservative in Germany in early 1930, you most likely was not about trying to preserve the new Weimar Republic. You most likely wanted a return to what used to be Germany before WW1. This should not be surprising if you know about history at that time. Europe was ruled by Kings and queens before World War 1. It was after that world war most monarchies were thrown out and replaced with republics. Europe was not democratic before WW1.
2
Now that is grade A stupid from you. No. Fascism is not corporatism. "Everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state" - Benito Mussolini That just screams corporatism to me doesn't it. It is all about giving power to private individuals and let the state stay out of there way. No. Fascism isn't corporatism. Fascism is a branch of Socialism. It wants to control everything within society and own the means of production.
2
When were these established? Benito Mussolini had to establish some due to German pressure. Also. That camp was actively managed by Nazi Germany from 1943 to 1945. Most camps were built from 1939. Meaning when the invasion of Poland and the war actually started. Most camps were deportation camps and not actual death camps. The killing was actually done by the Germans (deported to death camps), but ofc I guess Italians did some of it as well. However lets not forget that it was the Germans pushing for this and not Benito Mussolini. If he wanted death camps. He should have established them earlier. Remember that the Holocaust only started in 1941. Before then they tried to remove them in other ways. Like deportation or forced sterilization. - So we got camps built from 1939 to 1943. - The Holocaust started in 1941. - Germany took control over Italian camps from 1943. That means the Italian only had control over the killing from 2 years. Doesn't really show a clear dedication to it if you ask me. Also. Russian POW's in Italy? What why? Why are there Russian POWs in Italy? There is no front there. The Russians only reached Italy when they had stomped Germany. Why take prisoners and spend resources on sending them literally FROM Russia to Italy? That means you literally passed ALL death camps in Poland along the way. Also. It was Germany that had the front so they most likely dealt with most POWs. You just don't send POW's all that way when you can spend those resources to send supplies instead. That should be like sending POWs in Iraq to the USA in the Gulf War instead of having a POW camp in Saudi Arabia. You must be thinking of Allied POWs from North Africa. There were however Italian POW's in Russian camps however.
2
@Lazy949 No they are not equivocal. They have differences and they do not believe the same things. To say they are the same is like saying the US believe the same things as the UK does.
2
I wonder that as well. He is clearly against socialism. Eric Arthur Blair (George Orwell) died at the age of 46 years old. When he was younger he was a socialist and even fought in the Spanish civil war for the socialist side until he was forced to flee as the socialist side comletely imploded on itself after all the infighting it had. So my guess is that Eric was a socialist in his youth as he gained his socialist perspective from his time in Burma, which made him strongly against imperialism. He was later disillusioned by revolutionism in the Spanish civil war. It is rather had to say if he was or wasn't. The best you can say is that he was a social democrat and against all forms of authoritarianism. I do wonder how much of a social democrat he should be if he was alive today however. If I should place my bets, I should place them against it.
1
@cryostatis3018 Depends on what you look at. If they really wanted consevatism, they should had wanted a return to monarchy. In reality however, they only paid lipservice to the idea and rejected everything about it when not in public view. Fact is that they might have held some conservative views, but they did not advocate to return to what was since they wanted to reshape society from the ground up. There is nothing conservative about that stance. EDIT: I shouldn't have to say this, but just because they advocated for things the conservatives of today say, does not mean they are conservative of their time. You can not compare morals and views from the 1930's with the morals of the 2020's.
1
@zyanego3170 Yeah really. It was WW1 that broke them. Who ruled over the British Empire? George V. Who ruled over Prussia? Wilhelm II. Who ruled over Austria and Hungary? Franz Joseph I and Charles I. Who ruled over Russia? Tsar Nicholas II. All of these were monarchs, and their actions caused WW1. Regular people didn't even have the right to vote. In the UK men were only allowed to vote in 1918. Democracy is in itself a pretty new thing. The USA was the first modern democracy in the world for a reason. Ofc it didn't stop the Conservatives from allying with the Nazis. Everyone did. The nazis gained support from all groups in the German society. If you wanted to vote for the communists you had to pick those that created the unpopular Weimar Republic. However it is completely ilogical to say "the conservatives voted for them so they are conservatives". It just doesn't work like that.
1
@zyanego3170 Yet people did not have the right to vote to any widespread degree. As I said. Men were not allowed to vote in the British Empire until 1918. WW1 ended in 1918.
1
@zyanego3170 Yes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representation_of_the_People_Act_1918
1
@zyanego3170 So? We are talking about Europe here and not the Americas.
1
@zyanego3170 Which is still true. The US founded the first modern democracy in 1776. Before then most of the world was ruled by kings and queens. Women's right to vote is not what dictate what a modern democracy is. Equal voting rights is not actually part of the definition. You have so far tried to claim that a constitutional monarchy is means democracy when it doesn't. It only means it is a country that has a monarchy and follows a constitution. Such a nation is not democratic unless the constitution demands it to be. In fact. Most constitution monarchies today have given away their power simply because they should have been thrown out if they did not. No one voted Wilhelm II into office, he was born into office. Why do you think his inactions allowed WW1 to escalate as it did if he wasn't in control?
1
"I am a political scientist economist/activist" - Wow. I am not completely sure in exactly how many ways you managed to destroy your own credibility there. Go away and spread your own propaganda and BS somewhere else.
1
@lalad0 Dude. He litreally define himself as an activist. All other titles are just there to obfuscate his activism. What he say is literal propaganda. He has a bias he is advocating for. That is why he is an activist.
1
TIK No. A Republic means they do not have a Monarchy. A Republic has nothing to do with Democracy. The USA is a Representative Democracy that is also a Republic. The USA does not have a hereditary head of state, which is why it is a Republic. Why do people have a issue with this? This is literally in the dictionary.
1
Yes. National Socialism was socialists that wanted to focus on the nation instead of the international. Just ask breadtube (a collective of socialist content creators on Youtube) today. I believe it was Vaush that said something akin to: "If you do not want to say you are a socialist, just say you are a internationalist. It means the same thing to a socialist, but normal people don't understand it and will not think socialist"
1
Mao Zedong murdered 45 million people. We are not talking about hundreds of millions of deaths because Hitler didn't even manage to get above 12 million if you include the holocaust and all civilians killed in the war. And Mao killed several times over him. World War 1 killed 20 million people in total worldwide. If you had entire war around the Mediterranean it will not reach hundreds of millions of deaths because there simply isn't that many people that is of fighting age to kill. I also want to point out that in the 60's the world population was 3 billion people. YOU CAN NOT TAKE HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF LIVES WHEN THERE ISN'T EVEN THAT MANY PEOPLE LIVING IN THAT REGION OF THE WORLD No. Marxism is multiple times worse than fascism simply because they are the same exact thing but more popular. Even East Germany noticed this. The brown colors were replaced with red overnight and nothing else changed. The Soviets just like the Nazis forced people to do things against their will, and if anyone refused they were "removed". I also find it sickening that you think a imaginary hypochetical number you just made up can brush away 100 million of lives. Dude. Do you have any idea how many 100 million people are? You are literally brushing away the worst mass murderers in history with a number you made up. Especially since Mussolini can not even be called a mass murderer. It was the Germans that killed people, not Italians.
1
They are not retarded at all. They know very well what is going on. They just figured out that they will become and called a fascist if people figure the correct terms out. That is why a fascist is always far-right. It simply can not be far-left because that is to close to comfort.
1
snowy the snowman I believe there is a rule that say "accuse other people of what you are doing yourself". Just because they are acting retarded does not mean they are. Things like deflection and lying exist.
1
Where in the video does TIK say that? I can't remember. Can you provide a timestamp?
1
Those people have no idea what fasicsm even is. They are just using the old classic Soviet tactic of calling everyone that disagree with them a fascist to make the public look at their opponent with a sceptical eye instead of looking at them.
1
stuie999 Just shows that teachers have no idea what they are talking about.
1
Incorrect. You are skipping a step. The word "Fascism" does not derived from the Latin word "Fasces". It is derived from the Italian word "Fascio" meaning "a bundle of sticks". Fasico is in turn derived from the Latin word Fasces that means "bundle". You can't skip a step and make a point about that when that wasn't the word Benito used. The "bundle of sticks" concept is the classic: "A single stick can be easily broken. But a bunch of sticks together can not be broken easily". This concept is a fundamental principle of socialism. It emphasis teamwork, cooperation and everyone doing their part to withstand hardship and achieving a shared goal. I think you are also forgetting Benito said about Fascism. "Everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state" - Benito Mussolini He wanted the state to be connected in everything. In the doctrine of fascism he said he wanted people to treat service to their state like their religion. You did your duty to state without question, and you did it every day without complaining. You go to church you do your religious duty. You go do what the state wants you and you do your civic duty. Also. That link you gave is nothing but nonsense and full of shit. From the very start it creates strawmen of Fascism and Socialism. Like defining that Fascism is always authoritarian and Socialism is not and can not be authoritarian. It define Socialism as system where there is no social division as if Fascism can not do the very same thing. Fact is. Pretty much ANY socialist country in the world is authoritarian. And before you point to Scandinavia I want to say I am Swedish and Scandinavia are not Socialistic. Scandinavia are Social Democratic Capitalistic nations. We lean more toward Socialism the for example the USA, but that does not make us Socialistic. Scandinavia is about as Socialistic as Canadians and Mexians are Americans. Kind of alike, but there is a clear separation between them. They also define Socialism as Communism. Just read the definition. It is so naive it is insane. It will remove all differences between classes so everything will be own by everyone? Fact is that in reality everything isn't worth the same. Cleaning the toilets is not worth the same as the efforts it takes to become a heart surgeon. Lets go through the points: 1. Loaded answer and dishonest. This writer have a clear bias toward socialism. Fact is that the writer ignores leaders like Stalin, Lenin, Mao Zedong and Fidel Castro. I guess this is only about making Fascism stand in a bad light while ignoring the skeleton everywhere else for the "socialism" side. Also. China today is authoritarian. North Korea is authoritarian. USSR was authoritarian. Vietnam today is authoritarian. 2. This is not even true. What the hell does "where state or public ownership of means of production can be seen" even mean? It does not point out what Fascism or Socialism stand for. Fact is. Both Fascism and Socialism say "the means of production belong to the state". There is no difference here. Just a mangled mess to avoid actually answering the question. 3. ..... Right. So the means of production belongs to the public, but I as part of the public can't take my share and cash it out right? No. In Socialism the means of production will still belong to minority of the society which was the wealthy few. Because in Socialism everyone are equal, but some are more equal then others and deserves different treatment. This is how reality looks like. This argument ignores reality and lives in a idealistic world outside of pragmatic facts. The only thing shown here is that fascism unlike socialism are just honest in the outcome. 4. This might actually be correct. However. This shows that this writer is not honest about what Socialism is. Class Conflict is not a concept within Socialism. This is taken from Karl Marx himself. Class Conflict is central to Communism and not Socialism. I believe this writer is making a "difference between Fascism and Communism". 5. Now I know this is about Communism and not Socialism. It also show the writer is subjective about what to bring up from both sides. Are we going to ignore the fact Hitler tried to reform Christianity into "Positive Christianity"? Both Fascism and Communism were opposed to organized religions for the same reason. They offered a separate power structure that took people out of the control of state. Fascism just made Christianity bow to it and step in line. 6. WTF! What even is this? The writer clearly got bored here and just wanted to finish up this strawman of a comparison. Opposite in what way? What does relationship even means? 7. Wow. I am surprised. In a list about differences between Fascism and Communism. They bring up something both share in common. A one party systems. Why even bring something both share in common when you are supposed to show the differences? Bloody nonsense. However. This show one interesting thing. Since Fascism is defined as authoritarian while Socialism is defined "control by the people". How exactly does "the people" control the "public" means of production when there is only one party that controls everything. Doesn't that mean that the "leader" or "leaders" have all power so "they" can say who gets what? No. This is authoritarianism on both sides. The author thinks that when "Socialism" has been complete, the one party system will not be needed anymore. But that will never happen. It does not work in reality because the world is not equal and some people have to work harder then others. There is only one place where everyone is equal and that is at the bottom. This is why you will never have a one party system going away because they will never lower themselves to the bottom when they hold all power in society. They will become dictators and rule through authoritarianism. So. This point is correct. Both sides are authoritarian.
1
@zyanego3170 No. You are putting the cart before horse and you contradict yourself. If Syndicalism is a branch of Socialism. Fascism is also a branch of Socialism. A branch of a branch still belong to the same tree. Communism is a different branch from Syndicalism, but they are all connected to the same trunk called Socialism. What I am doing is making fun over that OP basically said that Baptists and Christianity are two branches of Lutheranism. They are not. Both belong to Christianity, just like Communism and Fascism both belong to Socialism. They are two different branches, but from the same tree.
1
@HairusBag I never once talked about the camps in Poland. I was only talking about camps that Italy stood for. 1. First you must understand what a concentration camp is. A concentration camp is not a death camp. It is a camp where you concentrate people into. The word concentration camp is kind of a catchall term and you can't imply all of them are like Auschwitz. 2. In Italy these camps were mostly deportation camps for people that was going to be deported to other camps which were not Italian. They were then sent to the really bad camps in German control where they were worked to death or just outright killed. 3. Most camps in Italy was not extermination camps, and later in the war Italians were not operating them. This is official Italian history that was pretty easy to look up. Does this mean that Italy didn't take part? Ofc not, they took part. Did they do it because their ideology demanded it? No, their ideology did not demand it. It was most likely a demand from someone else. Someone that had a larger army, someone the Italian was depending on, someone that was close by and a ally. Someone like Germany that DID demand it. "Italians were ethnic cleansing and the violence committed against the Slovene civilian population easily matched that of the Germans." - From what I can see. You base this claim the camp Rab. The Rab camp killed around 3,500 – 4,641 inmates according to your source. It is in the source compared to the Buchenwald camp that killed 56,545 people. Sure it was a hell of a lot bigger, but you are not making a case for that they killed a lot of people. Especially when we take camps like Auschwitz (minimum 1.1 million) and Treblinka (700k - 900k) into account. Just so you know. Buchenwald was not a death camp but a work camp. No. You are just saying BS at this point. No. The Italians were NOT killing people at the same rate as the German was. That is just facts. Even if Rab is the worst camp (which it isn't) you should know that 3500-4641 death does not end an entire ethnic group. It will be devastating to small towns, but will not effect that much over all. If this was meant to cleanse the whole "race" out of existence. They are kind of doing a poor job of it.
1
Not really. Communism and Fascism are different branches of Socialism.
1
@Iraqi-Kurdish Fascist No it is not. If we look at National Socialism (which does not represent Fascism as a whole unless you listen to Allied wartime propaganda) they did want corporations to create corperate Syndicates. However. You must understand that Fascism will only allow these Syndicates to opperate IF and ONLY IF they work for the interest of the government. You will not find a totalitarian government allowing itself to be exploited by private actors so they can get rich on the governments (which means them) behalf. To assume that is idiotic. The only people that will exploit a totalitarian government is the totalitarian government itself. They wanted their corporate Syndicates to work as labor unions that worked for the benefit of the state. Not for someone else. Corporatism is not Fascism at all. In Corporatism you also have Syndicates, but in Corporatism it is them that run the government for their own interest and not some leader or politician. Meaning that in Corporatism, they will make the decision that suit their Corporation best, and not what suit the country or the politicans best. A Hippo and a dog may both be animals, but don't for a second think they are the same animal just because they are A animal. You are making that mistake.
1
@skinhead5 No. I have heard of him. You are just wrong.
1