Comments by "King Orange" (@kingorange7739) on "Is Fascism Right Or Left? | 5 Minute Video" video.

  1. 2
  2. 2
  3. 2
  4. 2
  5. 2
  6. 1
  7. 1
  8. 1
  9. 1
  10. 1
  11. 1
  12. 1
  13. 1
  14. 1
  15. 1
  16.  @sonysoldier9587  "I don't feel like going through this whole song and dance again, especially with you. I've already explained why this video is wrong and has been debunked multiple times, but what I say really doesn't do much, if not anything at all. Because people will continue to believe in their own fiction," - Except it falls on you to explain why you believe it is a fiction. "no matter how many times they have been told otherwise. I've seen it before, whether it's on YouTube, Quora, or any other website." - Again, yes some people won't change their minds on things. But you are never going to change minds without entering the discussion and exchanging thoughts and viewpoints. "Quora is a special one, too. There are multiple conservatives who tell me that I don't what I'm talking about, yet the vast majority can't even back up their own claims, yet I'm expected to take what they say seriously? And they usually resort to disabling the replies just to avoid any sort of debate, which shouldn't even be a debate at all, since it's factual." - And that ignores what history is, history lies within the debate because its the interpretation of the evidence. It is not a mathematical or a science. "And I have these people blocked as well for just doing that alone. So if these people that I mentioned can't even back up their claims that fascism was an ideology of the left, then why should I take this video seriously despite it being debunked multiple times?" - By who? I would like to hear your counter arguments. "Just because someone has the same political beliefs as you do, doesn't mean everything they say is credible. And this is why America is the way that it is now. We have become so politically polarized that people will not accept or believe what the opposition has to say, even if it was true." - Polarization while an effect, does not excuse actual historical discussion. "I got to say, I do blame Trump for this, despite the fact I did vote for him. Because ever since him, the moderates have become almost non-existent" - False even by going by my own life experience. Also things got more polarized ever since Bush. "and now is mostly just the the far left and far right bickering at each other and they think that there side is the always right. It really needs to stop!" - Then stop it by partaking in the discussion.
    1
  17. 1
  18. 1
  19. 1
  20. 1
  21. 1
  22. 1
  23. 1
  24. 1
  25. 1
  26. 1
  27. 1
  28. 1
  29. 1
  30.  @sonysoldier9587  "Oh boy...as much as I don't like to have to repeat the same stuff over and over, but I guess I going to have to it here as well." - Best word of advice, save general argument statements. It helps. "First off, before I get into why fascism, Nazism, and even Falangism is right-wing specifically far-right, we need to go back to France in 1789 during the French Revolution." - This should be interesting. "Those who were right wing, were the elites who live in a luxurious lifestyle because they had so much money. And those who were left wing were the peasants who were suffering under the monarchy and they were getting taxed heavily, despite being poor, and they soon rebelled against the monarchy even going as far as to dismantle it." - I am aware of that history. However the sides taken was based on pro and anti monarchy in general. Pro conservatism vs revolutionism. "Even in the Estates General, those who sat on the right side of the president, supported the monarchy and believe things were fine the way they were. And of course, they love the things the way they were because they were the ones who benefitting off of it. And those who sat on the left side of the president, supported the revolution, and wanted to overthrow the monarchy and wanted to bring a more egalitarian society." - Ok, now there is an inherent contradiction that I will outline later on in ur argument. "And thus, the political terms left and right were born. And years after the French Revolution, they started to adopted more terms such as "center right", "center left", and "far right", and "far left". So what does the left wing and right wing mean. Left Wing means that they believe equality is possible goal to achieve Right wing means that inequality and hierarchies are natural, normal, or even desirable. Desirable hierarchies are pretty much forced and an extreme form of being right wing." - Ok here is a notable problem with that logic. Firstly I will start with the most simple one. Anything that is not a Direct Democracy has a Hierarchy. A hierarchy is defined as, "a system or organization in which people or groups are ranked one above the other according to status or authority." - Government roles are a status that carries authority. Now while there can efforts to keep the hierarchy more even or accountable, it does not dismantle it, and those anti establishment are typically anti authoritarian however a notable problem with this is the groups that formed pre and post Revolution. For instance the American Revolution was against the King's hierarchical authority and wanted a more equal society, but was willing to uphold capitalism and competitive markets because of the promotion of individualism. Same went with Libertarians typically now associated more with the right than left. Concepts such as Libertarianism and Authoritarianism can be associated with both sides in both a political perspective and an economic perspective. And the problem with looking into the principle of converitism is what exactly is being conserved? "Now finally I'm getting to exactly why Nazism, fascism and even Falangism are far-right ideologies. I'm going to start of with economic policies: Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and Francoist Spain supported a market economy, so that means there was competition in these countries." - To a degree yes, but its promotions were nowhere near the same extent nor for the same reasons that Free Market capitalism did. Italian Fascism for instance organized markets into state corporations that would compete with each other in a limited sense but still under the National authority. National Socialism on the other hand promoted competition because of Social Darwinism which was inherent in racial theory. But even worse than Fascist Italy, the markets were limited to the point of suffocation. Smaller businesses for instance utterly got crushed under the Nazi government and many who did not obey the state mandates or otherwise were seen as undesirable to them, were shut down. "All 3 countries supported private property rights," - Despite Hitler's expropriation of Jewish property and Suspending the Weimar Constitution Private Property rights.
    1
  31.  @sonysoldier9587  Mussolini has his summed up well through here, "On a wider scale, the Fascist economic policy pushed the country towards the corporative state, an effort that lasted well into the war. The idea was to create a national community where the interests of all parts of the economy were integrated into a class-transcending unity. Some see the move to corporatism in two phases. First, the workers were brought to heel over 1925–1927. Initially, the non-fascist trade unions and later (less forcefully) the fascist trade unions were nationalized by Mussolini's administration and placed under state ownership, conforming to Vladimir Lenin's earlier policies to eliminate independent labor unions in the Soviet Union.[30][31] Under this labor policy, Fascist Italy enacted laws to make union membership compulsory for all workers.[32] This was a difficult stage as the trade unions were a significant component of Italian fascism from its radical syndicalist roots and they were also a major force in Italian industry. The changes were embodied in two key developments. The Pact of the Vidoni Palace in 1925 brought the fascist trade unions and major industries together, creating an agreement for the industrialists to only recognise certain unions and so marginalise the non-fascist and socialist trade unions. The Syndical Laws of 1926 (sometimes called the Rocco Laws after Alfredo Rocco) took this agreement a step further as in each industrial sector there could be only one trade union and employers organisation. Labour had previously been united under Edmondo Rossoni and his General Confederation of Fascist Syndical Corporations, giving him a substantial amount of power even after the syndical laws, causing both the industrialists and Mussolini himself to resent him. Thereby, he was dismissed in 1928 and Mussolini took over his position as well." "they transferred a lot of public sectors and made them private," - The National Socialists often privatized what was already seized by them and were given to loyal party members. In a totalitarian society, the state and party carry the same meaning. "they suppress the workers right to strike." - Socialism isn't about the workers. Even disregarding that, so did Lenin and Stalin. "And I know a lot of you conservatives love to say that they were socialist, but these economic policies they had, says otherwise." - Except it doesn't. Firstly I am not a conservative, secondly to put it in a simple question, what is the definition of socialism? "Even though they claimed to be anti-capitalist, but they had a lot of support from capitalists and even had them in their cabinets." - They had support from major industrial elites. But they do not represent an entire private market. As mentioned before many smaller businesses got crushed under the Nazi and Fascist state. The concept of a free market or private control became a distant memory by that point. The state weaponized itself for the benefit of its own power and the loyalists to said state. "In terms of their social policies, they all held reactionary," - Ignoring that the National Socialists especially were against the current establishment or even restoring the original. Italy wasn't quite the same since Mussolini did keep the Monarchy, but much of that stemmed from wanting to prevent an Italian Civil War. Mussolini did hear and see the devastation such a civil brought to the Soviet Union and did not want Italy to go down that path if it could be avoided. Hitler on the other hand did attempt a more traditional style revolution against the government, back in 1924 however it fell flat on its face. And at that point it was later concluded that taking power would be easier and better through the democratic process, to appear as an ally to German stability rather than against it. That isn't being a reactionary, its changing your strategy to help your party and ideology take power. "ultranationalist views." - Nowhere does socialism claim it can't be National. And what do you think "Socialism in One Country" under Stalin was? "And keep in mind, reactionary literally means an extreme form of conservatism." - Again though, that depends on what is being conserved. If I am a Soviet conservative because I am against changing the Soviet system that is currently socialist, would that make me right wing? "In all three countries, they all opposed feminism, egalitarianism, and LGBT rights." - As did Stalin and Mao. Totalitarianism is the ultimate form of anti egalitarianism yet most of the totalitarian societies tended to be socialist.
    1
  32.  @sonysoldier9587  "Women had to stay in homes to be mothers and childbearing." - Until they were viewed needed in other things, or did you forget Germany did eventually have women work in the factories? "Did you know in Francoist Spain that the husband had the right to kill his own wife, if the wife dishonored the family?" - Can u elaborate. What classified dishonor, and is there proof to that? "Now I know what you're thinking "But the terms left wing and right wing are different here in the United States"!" - Actually that was one of the last things that came to mind. I instead just worked to deconstruct the lack of consistency your spectrum holds. "And if that were the case, then why do these neo-Nazis, neo-fascists, and neo-Confederates identify themselves as right wing in the United States as well?" - Most of the intellectual ones don't. As someone who has met actual Fascist and National Socialist party members before in the USA, they don't hold themselves part of the current right nor left wing camps. The uneducated grunts with Swastikas on their foreheads may say they are "right wing" but the actual intellectuals that make up these groups, who read into the National Socialist or Fascist literature don't. "Why did they marched together as one group called the "Unite the Right" during the Charlottesville protest?" - Primarily for being against the current left administration. Also there is a hypocrisy to your logic here. So apparently we cannot take the Nazis at their word when they say they are socialist, but we can take them at their word when they call themselves right wing? "Obviously, there really isn't that big of a difference between other countries and we all have the same meaning of what's right wing and what's left wing." - A meaning that does not work from even a basic inspection. The only aspect you displayed is that the Nazis and Fascists were pro traditionalism and authoritarian. Authoritarianism is attributed to both sides, those who try to claim otherwise are fooling themselves. As for traditionalism, yes that is considered more right wing from a social POV through historical analysis, but as mentioned before, left wing governments have had this before, and on top of that, all that proves is the Nazis and Fascists were socially right wing, but it does not account for political philosophy, economic theory and systems, foreign stances (Ironically despite the Nazis being called National Socialists, they were more international since their goal was to unite the race regardless of National systems, and even things down to individualism vs collectivism. "The only difference between them are in economic policies. Some far-right groups in Europe support what's called the Third Position," - Fascist third way, or the Nazi third position. However ur not looking into the logic they held with those, from their POV they are in the center while the current left and right are extremists. They saw themselves as the solution to the struggle of the left and right. "which they literally means they're political syncretic," - Which would put them closer to the center than being considered "Far Right" "so they are socially far right, however they're economically far left." - Ok so even by ur own logical admission, they aren't far right overall. They were politically authoritarian socialists with traditional values. In the case of National Socialists that was Racial Socialism with state domination. For Fascist Italy, it was National Syndicalism or National Corporatism with display of actualism. "Even a few fascist groups in the United States are adopting the Third Position as well." - Most actual fascists are, because unlike before, many of them are actually reading Gentile and Mussolini's original theories. As are the National Socialists starting to read more into Hitler and Strasser. "God, this took a while to do. But what I just said probably isn't going to do much to convince anyway...." - It was a good pieced together arguments and there are some aspects of your assessment I agree with, however even as you yourself admitted, there are multiple factors to consider then just traditionalism. Something that tends to be ignored. Politics and economics are also major factors.
    1
  33. 1
  34. 1
  35. 1
  36. 1
  37. 1
  38. 1
  39. 1
  40. 1
  41. 1
  42. 1
  43. 1
  44. 1
  45. 1
  46. 1
  47. 1
  48. 1
  49. 1
  50. 1
  51. 1
  52. 1
  53. 1
  54. 1
  55. 1
  56. 1
  57. 1
  58. 1
  59. 1