Comments by "Aidan B" (@aidanb58) on "A Short History of Mussolini and Fascism | TIKhistory WW2 Q&A 18" video.
-
3
-
2
-
@theowlfromduolingo7982
The definition of collectivism is, again, something that is fluidly used and rarely correctly applied by those that use it most frequently. The word collectivism is used to equate all things that the right dislikes into one large group. What, for example, is collectivist about feminism? How are right wing ideologies, which deal with groups, collectives, organizations and abstractions over the individual not collectivist nd thus equated with these ideologies? It's hypocritical to an extreme. I don't much care about your opinion on fascism given the redefinition and association fallacies of the term you're actively defending at the moment. And yes, saying they are all part of the same ideological grouping is clearly equating them, saying they are bad while this person's equally (though unadmitted) collectivist ideology is somehow better. He gives examples of ideologies he wants to equate without considering if his examples are true or if he falls in right next to them. I don't presume the worst intention, I just actually read what people write. Nothing emotional about it, i'm just spreading cold hard facts.
2
-
@DrCruel A conservative friend the conservative movement came up with Fascism. It was embraced by no socialists at the time, but was widely accepted by conservatives like Von Papen Eventually radical conservatives in Germany and elsewhere were won over by it. The alliance between far-right anti-socialist National Socialists and Bolshevik socialists - Known as Brown Communists and Red Fascists at the time - is what initiated the Second World War, as well as the inaction from more conservative institutions who felt threatened by daring to have to act.
What is Fascism then? Why, end-stage capitalism of course. And Bolshevism, once it failed, is suddenly discovered to be state capitalism. Really?
Yes, really. Lenin literally attested to the second thing himself.
What's shocking to me is that you expect rational people to believe in your obnoxious self-serving horseshit. Even after a century of genocide, atrocities, institutionalized slavery, thievery and general betrayal of working people, you still actually expect us to help you screw us over. You think we're all gullible idiots, and really expect us to fall for it all over again. And sometimes, as in Bengal and the Congo, you rotten dirty fascist criminals are show those true desires to the world.
2
-
2
-
@DrCruel You haven't heard it here either. Mussolini was an ex-socialist reactionay, and never an anarchist when he devised right wing Fascism. That's a simple fact. Likewise, are you arguing that the governments of the UK and America were "anarchist and socialist" when the far-right National Socialists began to build up their military?
"Schmitt has become an important influence on Chinese political theory in the 21st century, particularly since Xi Jinping became Party general secretary in 2012. Sinologist Flora Sapio has highlighted the friend–enemy distinction as a particular topic of interest in China, commenting, "Since Xi Jinping became China’s top leader in November 2012, the friend-enemy distinction so crucial to Carl Schmitt’s philosophy has found even wider applications in China, in both ‘Party theory’ and academic life." Leading Chinese Schmittians include the theologian Liu Xiaofeng, the public policy scholar Wang Shaoguang,[55] and the legal theorist and government adviser Jiang Shigong."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Schmitt
Interesting "left" you got there. Wonder why you seem to think that those who would later take his ideology and apply them sparingly somehow change the fact that this man was an open and fervent conservative, like you.
"Most notably the legal opinions offered by Alberto Gonzales, John Yoo et al. by invoking the unitary executive theory to justify highly controversial policies in the war on terror—such as introducing unlawful combatant status which purportedly would eliminate protection by the Geneva Conventions, torture, NSA electronic surveillance program—mimic his writings. Professor David Luban said in 2011 that "[a] Lexis search reveals five law review references to Schmitt between 1980 and 1990; 114 between 1990 and 2000; and 420 since 2000, with almost twice as many in the last five years as the previous five".
Don't tell me. Let me guess. He's not a conservative because years after his death, a corporatist party found use in his authoritarian application of law. No doubt so are any leaders of conservative movements that have been found out for what they really are - and so therefore aren't REALLY conservative and never were, per that Orwellian rightspeak memory-hole trick. Is that it? Is he not a conservative because someone adapted his teachings later? Well then, Smith must be a communist.
2
-
@DrCruel Umm ... to be an ex-socialist, you have abandon socialism. Thanks for the confirmation. Though by your logic, you must consider TIK a socialist? As for right-wing Fascism, I assume you're trying to deflect from all fascism being inherently right wing.
Note also that the Germans were building up their military before the National Socialists, under von Seeckt. The western world was absolutely fine with this.
"Corradini spoke of Italy as being a "proletarian nation" that needed to pursue imperialism in order to challenge the "plutocratic" French and British.[103] Corradini's views were part of a wider set of perceptions within the right-wing Italian Nationalist Association (ANI), which claimed that Italy's economic backwardness was caused by corruption in its political class, liberalism, and division caused by "ignoble socialism".[103] The ANI held ties and influence among conservatives, Catholics and the business community."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism#:~:text=Fascism%20(%2F%CB%88f%C3%A6%CA%83,in%20early%2020th%2Dcentury%20Europe.
Now I can only assume this man must be a socialist as well, right?
Carl Schmitt supported the National Socialists fervently, and would go on to in part influence other leftist groups, who took mostly his views on authoritarian law, and not the far-right views the nazis held in high regard. In my own cite. Don't you notice a pattern here? Didn't you bother to read it before you posted it? Seriously?
Or will you continue to claim the explicitly conservative die-hard supporter of the far-right anti-socialist nazis was somehow secretly a leftist, because some authoritarian corporatists took inspiration from him. Is this another one of those "fake conservatives?" This is too easy.
2
-
@DrCruel Oh, you're back. Amazing. Still trying to lessen the horrors of fascism by denying the very definition of right wing, left wing, fascist, socialist, ect? At this point you've shown unwavering admiration for the actual views of the fascists, you just attempt to pretend they never held them. How ironic. At this point you've run away from history entirely, as you've lost every point you tried to bring up relating to it, so all you have are insults and propaganda. Fascism is about as leftist/socialist as you are, as you've admitted.
Fascism was devised by an Italian anti-socialist who was a friend of conservatism. The capitalists were allies of the National Socialists at the beginning of the Second World War. These are not "narratives." They are objective historical facts.
I do not know who "they" are. The scholars I've read associate the rise of Fascism with the rise of the right. But if you'd prefer something more subjective as opposed to the empirical evidence, that's your prerogative.
In all the right wing anti-socialist iterations, to include the Fascist variant, the "people" mean the state, and the state means a hereditary totalitarian oligarchy made up of Party elite. Thus, for example, why Mussolini's son-in-law headed the Italian Foreign Ministry.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@thomassenbart
I don't care if you reject the truth, it remains true. The "market" under capitalism encompasses all of your life. You work for it to participate in it to work for it to participate in it and so on. In practice, it has never been "free" or "willing" for the vast majority of the participants, which is why I correctly label you a utopian.
And this is just hilariously false and proves your utopian thinking yet again. How do those who own not constitute a class? Come now. While they may compete against eachother for more profit, each has the same interests and same desires, and if a movement or policy threatens those desires, they all work against it.
The fact that you consider paying for something to be work is absurd. They were not the ones that organized or took risks, the majority of the owning class is in their position as a result of the organization or risk-taking of others, including their workers. Borrowing money isn't work. They paid people to make the factories, they paid people to labor, they paid other to train those laborers, they paid others to advertise and sell, they paid others to innovate and so on. The only way to act as though they work is to pretend that paying someone is labor.
The government is quite literally the only think that allows a capitalist market to exist. Without it, the market as it stands would get less free as individuals use capital to accrue statelike power. The market by its nature removes freedom from all but the vast minority of individuals, and the fact that you try to deflect onto government proves as much. The market is law and bureaucracy.
Capitalism cannot exist without a state. Statism is defined as "...the doctrine that the political authority of the state is legitimate to some degree." Capitalists did not exist in the time of city states, capitalism is a product of the industrial revolution and the enlightenment era of thought specifically. This is the problem, you define capitalism so broadly that it includes everything and yet so specifically that no bad results of capitalists systems are "True capitalism." In any case, capitalism is statist because without the state there is no way to enforce private property on any sort of larger level.
And I hate to break it to you but anecdotal evidence isn't evidence. When you have people working like machines, treated like mass produced goods, and only considered as far as their use to a bottom line, where is the individualism? Where is the individual cared for and protected in a system where they are raised from birth with the expectation of selling their labor to one of a handful of entities, or those directly ruled by said entities?
People sign a contract and agree to their labor because they have no other rational choice. There is no other option, and if there is we see people almost always taking it. I think there is something very wrong with a system that tells you to work under it, under others and for them, with no other option.
And your only point here is literally "oh well sometimes the houses are slightly different, and fancier houses exist elsewhere?" Bud, why can't I make that argument for the massive brutalist housing complexes of the soviet union? Well, people decorated the inside so really it isn't depersonalizing at all! No, the simple fact is that people live in a sprawl of near identical living quarters, either packed into massive steel protrusions or covering the landscape in identical white houses. Where is the individual?
The majority of individuals work in conditions which require them to surrender their individuality for profit. Either conditions like the cubicle or warehouse where you are nothing but one in a million, or through the necessary dehumanization that is required to serve as a face of a company, as a cashier or a waiter or a fast food employee. Oh sure there are a few small businesses, but most of them work the same way and few if any will ever rise to a level to be able to even compete with the modern giants. Do you not see the disconnect? "31.7 million startups" and only a handful of corporate giants, and they both employ somehow similar amounts. Where is the individual there? Utterly lost.
Any sort of dream of freedom or individuality must be seen as post-capitalist. That's why so many only actually truly indulge in their hobbies, their interests, their self expression when they finally retire, if they are even able to. That's why people are only able to be true to themselves when they're off the clock, because their work stifles them as individuals. The vast majority of talents and skills are unprofitable, so those with them are thrown to the side if their individuality isn't profitable. Capitalism is not a system where you can be free or control your own life.
And capitalism isn't individualist, nor does it ever manifest in reality in a particularly "free" way. It is a collectivist system, just as all-encompassing as the others.
Modern society is capitalist, and modern society is a machine that wrings the individuality out of you whenever possible.
Capitalism fits the definition of collectivism perfectly, as we've been over.
Under capitalism, you have a controlling group authority and identity, the owners, the capitalists, who subordinate the individual for the purpose of profit.
Marxists have never claimed that class is static, what? Most marxist analysis is on the shifting nature of class relations. However, it's a simple fact that groups like the owners under capitalism have shared interests and needs. They are a class. Individual rights aren't actually defended or encouraged unless they're rights that the individuals at the top of society can profit off of claiming. Individual rights don't actually apply to the vast majority of individuals. No, they aren't individual rights, but ownership rights. There is no such thing as a "Freely entered" contract with no other option, that's like saying a rape is "Freely entered sex," because the rapist told you it was either that or you could try to escape out of the third story window. Even according to your analysis, capitalism would still fit the definition of collectivist. You don't know what capitalism is, don't know how the real world works, and don't see how clearly collectivist it is.
Not all collectivism is capitalism. But capitalism is collectivist.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@thomassenbart I'm sorry you feel the need to lie. Capitalism is collectivism. You've shown as much here, admitted it, proven it, and set it down. Capitalism. IS. Collectivist. Prove me wrong.
The problem of course is that it is impossible to deal with ideologues such as yourself, your entire ideology revolves around your own utopia. The society you're describing by necessity cannot be free, as one cannot exist within a capitalist market and also claim to live in a free society. Capitalism is something that will always permeate far further than simple economics. Your system is a utopia, you literally said everyone benefits and thrives. Your naturalist argument fallacies are utterly false, capitalism is not the nature of man and is not free. The nature of human beings is something that capitalism rejects and warps to fit its own needs. Capitalism is neither a free nor a willing system, which is why it has to be forced upon individuals with state force. Your reasoning again has a core leap in logic, if one defines the modern system as capitalist we must conclude that capitalism is not free or willing, and if one defines capitalism as free and willing you cannot call the current system capitalist. You evidently consider this system capitalist, and yet are willing to lie about it. There is no such thing as a "free" market of "voluntary" participants when all are forced and coerced into that position, and there is no such thing as a "mutual agreement" when one party holds the vast majority of the power nearly all of the time. You somehow manage to define capitalism as broadly and specifically as possible, and your definition is historically useless.
If I was a capitalist who found themselves alone on an island, I would claim the entire island as mine and if anyone tried to take anything off of it, I would force them to work for me to make up for it and to get what they needed from the island. Why bother with cooperation when capitalism teaches that the strong survive, and that competition is natural and good? Why not just take what nobody else can claim?
The option you claim was "proto-capitalism" is literally a system praised and suggested by marx.
I hate to break it to you but all groups are made up of "mere individuals," however owners have needs and desires distinct from non-owning groups. There is no conspiracy necessary, they are simply acting in accordance with the preservation of their current authority, which naturally leads to them being a cohesive social class. Owners compete with eachother when they can because they all want to profit, but when anything threatens the very systems they rely upon for profit, they are more than willing to band together as one group in order to make sure that their desires that remain in common are met. Just because you don't understand an idea doesn't mean it's dated, and the vessels workers have t go through for profit are much different from the vessels owners do. Owners have interests in common, that other groups do not have. And yes, if a movement or policy threatens their basic common desires, they all work against it. Sorry you don't like that fact.
You didn't though, you gave me a list of "work" that primarily included owners paying people to do work, or paying people to pay people to do work. Again, unless you consider payment to be a form of labor, they aren't working. I'm sure they want you to think otherwise but that doesn't make it true. Also, do you know who takes the biggest risks? The workers. Those who have to pack up their life and put their faith in the owner of a company, but their livelihood in their hands. And if they fail, then it's the workers who tend to get the worst of it. And your studies leave out a couple of crucial details. For one, you say "around 68% of those with a net worth of $30 million or more made it themselves." This is false, the study pointed to them being "self made," meaning they didn't explicitly inherit their fortune, the other study finds something similar. But, as even successful "self made" types will tell you, their success was not just because of them but because of a variety of factors, priveledges, and sometimes luck. Plus, most family connections aren't just inheritance, but result in investments, loans, ect. Things people without a history of wealth do not have access to.
https://medium.com/tech-diversity-files/the-real-reason-my-startup-was-successful-privilege-3859b14f4560
https://hbr.org/2010/06/the-false-theory-of-meritocracy
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/oct/19/the-myth-of-meritocracy-who-really-gets-what-they-deserve
https://press.princeton.edu/ideas/a-belief-in-meritocracy-is-not-only-false-its-bad-for-you
https://thecorrespondent.com/712/theres-no-such-thing-as-a-self-made-billionaire/901152214776-cf03048a
https://www.bschools.org/blog/myth-of-self-made-billionaire
https://medium.com/discourse/billionaires-are-not-self-made-803b0d0a4a48
As we've been over previously, this isn't true. For one, god no, borrowing isn't the biggest part of risk taking. Many of those with substantial investments are easily able to take out loans with good credit against said investments. Even discounting that, again, it is the risk taking of others that got them into their position. What did they do with their loan money? Did they build a business of thousands? And if so, is it not those people who did the physical work, and just the owner who paid them? Is it not the people he pays to organize and run the day-to-day of his business that organize it? If nobody took a risk on accepting his employment offer, if nobody stepped up to organize the running's of a business that the owner could not personally attend to, the loan means nothing since it went nowhere. Without the risk of those individuals, what does the owner have? Nothing.
Again, as we've been over, paying people to do work isn't actually labor. While there are many employers that are more hands-on in the initial stages, this quickly becomes a bad idea as business starts to grow and they need a closer eye on the management side of things. That's why the majority of small business may result in the owners having the ability to meet those needs, but more often than not delegating them to other groups or employees for ease. Most smaller businesses cannot afford to have managers involved with daily life rather than managing. That isn't just a factor of big business, but of all business that seeks to grow, which is why capitalism as a system disincentivizes individuality. I mean even given your statements, it is the small business owners who encourage and participate in individuality the most, and yet they get the least of the profit and have the most individual competition that they cannot hope to surmount. On the flipside, big business with their handful of corporations owns half of the laborers in the country and gets millions if not billions more of profit yearly, and utterly squash the individual. Seriously, listen to your own assertion. Capitalism is a system in which those who fight to be an individual are doomed to fail, constantly competing among eachother for small profits divided among huge numbers while big faceless business collectives make huge amounts. Small, individual-friendly business is discouraged under capitalism.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@DrCruel Again, the person who created Fascism was famous for utterly rejection socialist teachings. You've admitted as much. Fascism came from the right, and is a "last gasp of corporate capitalists," not "leftist" or some similar nonsense. It's actually an attempt at resolving the existence Bolshevism, leftism, socialism, ect, that realized the conservatism of the modern day was failing, so they instead must go back to preserve tradition. Now I'm aware that you are fully in support of such a policy, but that does nothing to remove the nature of its basis in fascism.
The irony is that my Carl Schmitt example pretty clearly proved the right's love for Nazism, but you continue to deny that as long as you want, it's a good look for me.
Are you saying that countries like the USA weren't fine with the secret German military buildup that the british, french, europen in general was ignoring? You know, before Hitler. Because the Germans were building up their military before Hitler's far right anti-socialist regime came to power. Just to remind you again.
"Don't you notice a pattern here?"
Yes, of course I do. The fascists of various factions were all conspiring to loot Europe, and did so with the full backing of the conservative right, even with the praise of figures like churchill. All of thes right wing fascist factions - FSA, Fascist, National Socialist - assumed that they would be the benefactors of the "fall of socialism, liberalism, and democracy" as predicted by figures like Spengler and Evola. All believed that capitalism was not nearly effective enough, and that some fascist faction would remedy that, and that a violent confrontation would be necessary to make their respective faction into the rulers of Europe. They all defended the idea of a strong, totalitarian state that would be ruled by their respective party hierarchy, and all conspired to betray their rivals on the Left, while ppropping up and allying with other conservatives. Notice also that there is a common recognition, from your own cite, that the National Socialists, Maoists and Vietnamese communists all had some similarities in things like authoritarianism, but of course given the corporatist state that places like China have become, this still falls on the anti-socialist's shoulders.
You've made some real progress here. I'm sure your daddy TIK is quite proud of you. Now go forth and sin no more.
1
-
@DrCruel Hm, I suppose you forgot that whole bit where they just... let the nazis build up their army. Did you know "appeaser" is still a dreadful insult in parts of Britain? I wonder why. You also left out these quotes, you know, the ones cited above you.
“Winston Churchill (who is talked of as the likely leader of a Fascisti party in England) says Fascism is the shadow of Bolshevism, and that if we must be ruled by one or the other, he would rather be ruled by Fascisti than by Bolshevik violence.” - Clare Sheridan, In Many Places, 1923
“If I had been an Italian, I am sure I should have been wholeheartedly with you from start to finish in your triumphant struggle against the bestial appetites and passions of Leninism. But in England we have not yet had to face this danger in the same deadly form. We have our own way of doing things. But that we shall succeed in grappling with Communism and choking the life out of it - of that I am absolutely sure… the great mass of the people love their country and are proud of its flag and history. They do not regard these as incompatible with a progressive advance towards social justice and economic betterment.” - Churchill, statement to Journalists in Rome on 20 Jan 1927
“The Roman genius impersonated in Mussolini, the greatest law-giver among living men, has shown to many nations how they can resist the pressures of Socialism and has indicated the path that a nation can follow when courageously led. With the Fascist regime, Mussolini has established a centre of orientation from which countries which are engaged in a hand-to-hand struggle with Socialism must not hesitate to be guided.” - Churchill Feb 1933
I have to admit, you really do have some chutzpah. Ignorant as a brick, and not two scruples to rub together to keep you warm, but you really are utterly shameless. I hope TIK is proud of the liars he encourages. Or do you think he would be ashamed of you?
Thanks for the entertainment.
1
-
@DrCruel And again, the Germans were building up their army long before Hitler, with exactly zero interference by the west.
As for Churchill, it seems the right was engaging in some ideological infighting.
It truly is deeply sad that you have no actual counter to the facts surrounding Churchill's praise of the nazis and fascists. See, the conservatives of the era exemplify everything you so desperately wish to project onto the left - a proud adherence to allyship with the nazis, and their own fascistic views. As Churchill himself said, if fate had not placed him in Britain, he would be a proud fascist. His disagreement was not ideological, but material. Even your own quotes show as much - he puts ideology aside when his country is at risk, though this will never erase his own ideological views.
I'm sorry, but like it or not, there is no such thing as a "left fascist." The very fact that you have to call them "left fascists" proves that even such a concept is a departure from typical usage of the term. In all your apologetics for fascism, you cannot even see how plainly you expose your own bias towards their actual views. In trying to equate two disparate groups, you proudly show your alliance to one of them in actuality, while projecting differing views onto them to disassociate yourself. Shameful. The nazis weren't socialists, and for all of socialism's flaws, they've never done the downright evil things that the right has endorsed, from nazism to monarchism, the very things you seek to erase, deny, and apologize for to this day.
Not that means much of anything, of course. You know, because the National Socialists weren't socialists, and because there's little practical difference between the modern genocidal neo-fascist movement you defend and National Socialism. They're both as bad as the other, and are both up to the same racist, brutal, criminal, right wing genocidal, atrocities and similar vicious self-serving nonsense (indeed, right up to the present day - see the terrorism rates of the american right). But then, we've already well established that the fascists learned most heavily from conservatives. Per MY OWN CITE no less. 😃
1
-
1
-
@DrCruel Oh, this is funny. So you really can't read then? Must be embarrassing.
Mind, I'm still trying to figure out why you think the West wasn'table to actually enforce the restrictions they imposed on the germans. You focus on the Bolsheviks to avoid this. They certainly did next to nothing to try to stop the climbing militarization and arming of the National Socialists. Churchill sate back in his chair and praised both the italian fascists and nazis while letting them expand, and it seems he was perfectly find with the German anti-socialist forces being able to grow into a bigger threat.
I don't see why you keep attempting to defend the actions of the west by arguing that the European democracies should have gone all out against the Bolsheviks, when you openly admitted that the re-armement of germany started before hitler's reign. It seems, like most of the right, you almost unconsciously defend your right wing allies in the nazis by deflecting to the socialists. The western nations certainly are incredibly rotten shits, and them leaving the nazis be eventually lead to trouble, clearly The problem being that it seems you will do anything to deflect from the crimes of your ideological compatriots, and in doing so, minimize and normalize the title of fascist so you can spread that ideology further. After all, the potential crimes of an imaginary ideology known as "left fascism" apparently take priority in your mind to the very real crimes of the only type of fascism in existence, right wing fascism.
1
-
@ludwigvanel9192
there's your problem, Mussolini "started out" as a Socialist, before rejecting it and communism in favor of far right Fascism. The actions of his parents have little to do with this. He hated communism because it wanted the opposite as his fascism, it rebuked every facet of his far right ideology.
I don't think you actually know the basics of marxist or lenninist, or hell even stalinist economic practices, and I am not at all surprised by that fact. They wanted to rapidly industrialize the nation to make way for a potential future socialism, which yes, involved capitalist policies, though they had no desire to ferment armed rebellion against their state.
You literally don't know the definition of fascism.
And to Dr. Cruel, who thankfully has entirely conceded his argument by now -
Well I'd actually like you to provide proof of your assertions, buddy, I hate to break it to you, but at best your evidence covers the actions of one regime, and a few dictators. You're well aware that they were not universally loved among socialists, correct? Or is that another lie you're going to tell?
I do love this strategy you're trying, though. Pretend to somehow be in the right by citing information, but rather than actually relying on the content of the citation and quotes, you act as if their mere presence will excuse you narrow focus, and historical revisionism. I hate to break it to you, but that doesn't work. I can't wait to see the next response in which you do the same, deflect, move the goalposts, and then blame me for not following your one-off train of thought.
Again, to reiterate in more detail.
Socialists were always against Hitler:
" ... Hitler gave military assistance to the fascist rebels who ultimately crushed the young [Spanish] republic. The ASU, influenced by these events—especially by the deaths of several ASU members who joined the International Brigade in its fight to save the Spanish Republic—and by the Popular Front line of the Comintern, shifted its emphasis from anti-interventionism to collective security against fascism."
Then the capitalists were allied to Hitler:
‘That word “socialism” is the trouble,’ said Hitler. He shrugged his shoulders, appeared to reflect for a moment, and then went on: ‘I have never said that all enterprises should be socialized. ...Unless they were so guilty, I should consider it a crime to destroy essential elements in our economic life. Take Italian Fascism. Our National-Socialist State, like the Fascist State, will safeguard both employers’ and workers’ interests while reserving the right of arbitration in case of dispute.’
Then the capitalists begged the "socialist exploiters" to save their miserable hides:
"Stalin met with Winston Churchill and Franklin D. Roosevelt at the Tehran Conference and began to discuss a two-front war against Germany and the future of Europe after the war. Berlin finally fell in April 1945. Fending off the German invasion and pressing to victory in the East required a tremendous sacrifice by the Soviet Union, which suffered the highest casualties in the war, losing more than 20 million citizens, about a third of all World War II casualties. The full demographic loss to the Soviet peoples was even greater."
Then the capitalists betrayed the people who saved them before Hitler's corpse was cold:
"Operation Paperclip was a secret United States intelligence program in which more than 1,600 German scientists, engineers, and technicians were taken from former Nazi Germany to the U.S. for government employment after the end of World War II in Europe, between 1945 and 1959"
https wwwhistory news/what-was-operation-paperclip
"As James Q. Whitman reminds us in Hitler’s American Model, Nazi Germany learned many of its practices by studying the Jim Crow laws in the United States. In fact, as Whitman points out, Charles Vibbert, a Frenchman, argued in 1930, “The Ku Klux Klan are the fascists of America. The moment has come where Trump supporters have been revealed as not being believers in democracy or freedom but white supremacy and dictatorship. They were never patriots, they were white nationalists. Their conspiracies and violence replaced truth and justice. ‘The American Way’ was paved by white supremacy and enslaved black people. While fascists today might not wear hoods or swastikas, opting instead for red hats and confederate flags, their attempt to overthrow the US government this past week could have ended very differently."
encyclopedia - /economics/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/american-student-union
rferl.org - /a/did-us-lend-lease-aid-tip-the-balance-in-soviet-fight-against-nazi-germany/30599486.html
Again. Will you answer the question, or are you sticking with another "you got nothing on me copper" variant? Perhaps you can't handle the truth?
1
-
@ludwigvanel9192 you mean he was one of the most successful anti socialists alive ever, and that he wants the same as modern far right idiots like trump, as in a strong military, traditionalism, conservatism, anti immigration, and so on. To compare hitler to a Jewish man is extremely fucked up, but it's ok, because you've just admitted that you're politically closer to hitler than your political rivals could ever be.
Hitler wasn't at all a socialist, though. In fact,Hitler was one if the most succesful anti-socialists ever, and yet the modern right feels the need to distance themselves from him. Not from his actual policies, but just from his name, falsely claiming the most effective anti-socialist in history... wasn't that at all.. Hitler wanted the same as today's right wing conservatives, and both oppose democratic socialists, like Sanders and AOC. Hitler's system was one build out of the rejection of welfare, in favor of private domination of the means of production etc. He had gushed about the economics of conservatives and capitalists worldwide, that was so good, only his own surpassed it.
But it isn't. Marx was a socialist. Hitler was an anti-socialist racist. Mussolini was an anti-socialist racist. Your false titles "lead to some confusion" because they are utterly incompatible with reality.
1
-
@ludwigvanel9192 I've watched plenty of TIK videos, and the more you watch, the more you realize that he's a liar. After all, the majority of his historical citations (he's admitted) disagree with his lies. Also, according to your 'once a Socialist" logic (which already doesn't make any sense) famous conservative economists would now apparently be socialists to you. In other words, you've proved he's an anti Socialist, and that he was far right, just like hitler, and just like you.
Your statements are absurd. Human beings can change. No, I think I'd rather read actual historical works rather than watch some random right wing youtuber and refuse reality, as you do. I don't much care for your political views, we're talking about history.
Mussolini's cartels were not "state unions," hitler didn't "nationalize the people" (which in economic terms is absolute nonsense) and you generally have no idea what you're talking about. You just make up sad assertions without a single thought as to if they actually make sense or not.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@DrCruel Oh, you're finally back! Thank you for admitting that the fascists and nazis have always been right wing, though, and proving yet again that no real evidence exists to the contrary. That is, after all, why you've lost three arguments with me prior, and yet keep coming back for another intellectual ass beating. By the way, why do you support such fascistic policy and propaganda, which you keep trying to push on the "left," whatever that means? Does that mean that you think you, as a fascist sympathizer, are a leftist?
Fascism is far right and anti-socialist. Has always been :)
The American (far right)Fascist Party (AFP) was in the US. The American Civil War was fought by left wing anti-fascists in America, opposing your pro-slavery stances. (in fact the KKK still exists, and is still violent). North Korea still has a hereditary non-socialist autocracy.
I don't care very much for the strategy of your right wing fascists, which you seem to be engaging in, by continually calling random people the oxymoron known as "left fascist.". It means the people who are burning churches and their churchgoers in the united states won't be punished for their arson, violence and terrorism. I admit, your sad fascist hypocrisy and your constant comfort with bald-faced deceit has made them more successful than your fellow right wing National Socialists, but it's not anything I could ever bring myself to "love." No doubt the actual left feels differently.
So yeah, I'm blaming you for trying to evade my question - again. How about an answer then? Because the answer is actually quite pertinent to why so many stores have been looted in the West and why so many people have been terrorized or murdered this year by the right. And during a world-wide epidemic no less.
HINT: It has something to do with the far right National Socialists and the far right US fascists that follow them teaming up against their their enemies, the left wing Bolshevik socialists, and indeed your sad right wing denialism trying to defend all the variants of right wing fascism, a, being different names for the same damned ideological shitstorm of sad, right wing fascism. Which, of course, brings us back to the original premise, n'est-pas? The original fact that you just can't handle your right wing fascist ideology being called out.
I'm deeply sorry that you feel such a need to deny the history of your favorite ideology, far right nazism, and i'm sorry you feel the need to project all of your ideological failures on random unrelated groups. Thus the ubiquitous genocides, torture, organized butchery including live burials, aggressive wars on the neighbors, etc that you all deny.
Of course, you claim the opposite. You claim to represent some sort of patriotic heroes, despite the mass terrorism and mass murder of the people you're supposedly defending from your imaginary oxymoronic "left fascists." But of course, in your fascistic brain, the rationality of your bigotry doesn't matter as much as the efficiency of it. You're still at it, to this da.
Again:
Mussolini used to claim ome sort of fondness for socialist ideology, hence your "source" (which calls radical right wing ideology "liberal leftist") only speaking on the early 1910s. Of course, after he was kicked from the socialist party, he openly rejected socialism as a whole, not just that party, and began to ally with the far right nationalists that pushed the war he was such a fan of. Mussolini's rejection from and to socialism was part of the capture of control of the far right conservatives by the new anti-Marxist right. The shift in conservatism to traditionalist control was greeted with delight by right wingers, racists, and other revolutionaries throughout the world.
After those limited few dates, the true basis of fascism was sewn. Mussolini showed the roots of fascism in an explicit rejection of leftism, and makes it clear that the movement of fascism has its roots primarily in the right. He, like many others at the time, felt betrayed by socialists, and thus founded a new ideology that used the rhetoric of the socialists and the policies of the far right for his own benefit. He was a peerless duce of the italian right.
I'm sorry that you can't accept basic reality, only sad opinion pieces and youtube videos.
My commentary is based on the evidence. Yours, on your feelings, and pro-fascist desires.
1
-
1
-
@-John-Doe- @john doe worth "saving?" Why would I want anything to do with ahistorical idiots like you? All you do is give a bad name to actu historians. The modern left isn't even socialist in nearly the whole first world, but of course you're so far right that you think conservative neoliberalism is basically communism. The right is there, and of course it's more violent, extreme, and as you're proving, revisionist. But you don't care. The Nazis were less socialist than you, they were far right and ant socialist, something you two seem to have in common. you need to break out of your far right conditioning and realize that capitalism is a word that's had meaning before socialism even existed, and that you have no facts to back up your backwards ideology. You're a liar, the only question is whether you do it out of ignorance, or willingly.
1
-
@-John-Doe- the term capitalist started as a term used by french anarchists to describe a person who had "capital," wealth, land, industry, ect. A capitalist, then, is one who wants those things, and capitalism is the system in which they achieve them. See? That was extremely easy to break down your lies.
And yes I hate to break it to you but the party that murdered socialists by the thousands, followed a fs right anti Socialist ideology, and openly proclaimed that their "socialism" had nothing to do with the left or socialism at all, yeah they easily weren't socialists. All you need to do is admit it and you'll be on the path to correctly understanding history.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@joannes767
I'm sorry, this is all false. First off, the nazi party pretty explicitly drew inspiration from fascism, and became fascists in turn, though a different branch of that same ideology. Germany at the time was not a socialist state at all, but a far right, anti-socialist state. Both the nazis and the fascists reject the left utterly, and find themselves on the far authoritarian right, both with the same ideological roots in the far right and conservative nationalist movements before them. If that's what you think, you need to do actual, genuine research.
I would start with TIK's reading list. He admits the primary sources disagree with him, so read and see why.
Stop trying to defend fascism and attack socialism with its legacy.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@silent_stalker3687 Ok, so now you're open to the idea that Mussolini could have changed his rhetoric to suit his political gains? But then you charege on right ahead while ignoring the possibility of himdoing that again? Amazing.
I believe he said that in reference to the old italian flag and old italitan government, which he considered unfit to represent them and degenerate.
Ok, and here's the thing - not only is your tangent about the American Democratic and Republican party unrelated and has nothing to do with the conversation - it's false.
The confederates were not right wing. There are plenty of ways to show this, for example their policy and rhetoric. Even though the war was really fought over slavery, like you said, they also claimed the reasoning was that the government was interfering in their business, imposing tariffs that gave them a disadvantage, and most telling of all trying to take away what was considered their "private property." I cannot think of a left winger that would do the same. The south was largely an oligarchy, ran by the leaders of unregulated an inhumane farms and plantation, who held all of the political power. Holding power because you own property is the left communist you can get. Also, I find it funny that you try to say that the democrats acted like communists back then...
Because the communists and socialists were by far in the republican party. Marx himself endorsed lincoln and the union, and the republicans at the time were made up of many socialist figures, like Horace Greeley, W.E.B. Du Bois, Charles Dana, Alexander Schimmelfennig, August Willich, ect. These people held high positions in the party, some were generals that came to lead for the sole purpose that lincoln called them there. Even if you want to pretend the part switch didn't happen, the socialists were republicans back then, around the 1960s began to associate with socialist movements, and then later it seems fell into the democratic part.
And yes, you're right that the definition of right wing can change drastically across countries, but mussolini would not fit no matter what.
And yes, I am aware of this. You'll notice, however, that the letters were written with the goal of trying to dissuade Mussolini from truly allying himself with the nazi powers, as they had shown disagreement in the past. Mussolini described his own system as a right wing form of corporatism.
In other words, it seems no matter the evidence, the left and the movement of fascism are connected on only the most surface level ways, while the right has a long history of supporting and funding the rise of these systems and continuing their existence. Bringing up the american politics of the 1800s doesn't really deal with that fact at all.
1
-
1