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

Historia, Magistra Vitae
The Majority Report w/ Sam Seder
comments

Comments by "Historia, Magistra Vitae" (@Historia.Magistra.Vitae.) on "Living In ‘Late Fascism’ | Alberto Toscano | TMR" video.

@joschafinger126 "Fascism is *not*, at heart, a unified, internally consistent ideology. Rather, it's a political style, much like more general populism is rather style than ideology." Wrong. Fascism was a very specific and consistent political ideology based on Hegelian philosophy and National Syndicalism. There were multiple syndicalists involved with the ideology, such as Alceste De Ambris & Filippo Tommaso Marinetti in the beginning, then later Sergio Panunzio, Alfredo Rocco, Edmondo Rossoni, Mario Palmieri etc. Finally, Giovanni Gentile was the one who formulated the latest iteration of the ideology with Mussolini.
2
and Kershaw was wrong about that... among other things.
2
"Neoliberal Christo-Fascist state... " Such a word is an oxymoron on so many levels, hun.
1
@ToxicAudri "this is regarded as christo fascism ... combine the two and you get a neoliberal christo fascist nightmare." Has nothing to do with Fascism. The word you are looking for is Theocracy.
1
@ToxicAudri : You need to cope harder than that.
1
@ToxicAudri "You're the one coping by lying." There is no lie. Cope harder.
1
@ToxicAudri "Because fascism doesn't exclude a theocracy, it very easily includes it." Wrong. In the Fascist ideology, there was nothing above and beyond the State. The State was the final and only authority. Even Mussolini himself was anti-clerical and a fan of Nietzsche. "Anti-individualistic, the Fascist conception is for the State; and it is for the individual only in so far as he coincides with the State, which is the conscience and universal will of man in his historical existence. It is opposed to classical liberalism, which arose as a reaction to absolutism and exhausted its historical function when the State was transformed into the conscience and will of the people. Liberalism denied the State in the interest of the particular individual; Fascism reasserts the State as the true reality of the individual. And if liberty is to be the attribute of real men, and not of abstract puppets invented by individualistic liberalism, then Fascism is for liberty, and for the only liberty which can be real, the liberty of the State and of the individual within the State. Therefore, for the Fascist, everything is in the State, and outside of it nothing human or spiritual can exist, much less have value. In this sense Fascism is totalitarian, and the Fascist State—the synthesis and unity of all values—interprets, develops, and potentiates the whole life of the people." - the Doctrine of Fascism
1
@ToxicAudri " it extends into fascist schools of thought, things like the "great replacement" conspiracy." Nothing to do with Fascism whatsoever.
1
@ToxicAudri "These folks arent just theocrats, they are fascistic theocrats." Wrong. There is no such thing. The word you are looking for, is christian nationalists.
1
@ToxicAudri : Fascism and Nazism were two fundamentally different ideologies. If by "great replacement" you were referring to the Nazi's "Jew problem" then you have a point, but that doesn't concern Fascism.
1
@gary2kr1 "My definition of fascism would be the merging of state and corporate interests generally led by an authoritarian. " Unfortunately your definition is incorrect. There was no such merging. There was only the State interest.
1
@gary2kr1 "But if I were to discuss the rise of fascism (which at the time I wasn't) I would say (once again narrowly) that it takes really only one very important ingredient, capitalism." Wrong. Capitalism has nothing to do with Fascism whatsoever. On the contrary, Fascism as a socialist ideology strictly opposed Capitalism.
1
@gary2kr1 "Fascism and Socialism have nothing to do with each other whatsoever. " Wrong. Fascism was a socialist ideology from the "Yellow socialism" branch, in opposition to Marxism and its "Red socialism". Fascism was an outgrowth of Sorellian Syndicalism, which itself was an outgrowth from Marxist socialism. The idea was that society would be consolidated (i.e., incorporated) into syndicates (in the Italian context, fascio/fasci) which would be regulated by and serve as organs for the state, or "embody" the state (corpus = body). The purpose was the centralization and synchronization of society under the state, as an end unto itself. To quote Mussolini's infamous aphorism: "All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state."
1
@gary2kr1 "Socialism is generally the process of the workers gaining control of the means of production." Wrong. That is called Marxism. Meanwhile 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. Fascism had the latter.
1
@gary2kr1 " Fascism is a direct inevitable reaction to capitalism." Wrong. Fascism was a reaction to failing Marxism under Lenin, which made many turn into syndicalism. Mussolini was one of the first to comingle the phrase fascism with syndicalism, remarking in the early 1920s that “Fascist syndicalism is national and productivistic… in a national society in which labor becomes a joy, an object of pride and a title to nobility.” Most Italian syndicalists viewed social revolution as a means for rapid transformation to provide “superior productivity,” and if this economic abundance failed to occur, there could be no meaningful social change. The emphasis by syndicalists towards the importance of “producerism” had been originally initiated by Sorel in 1907, who argued that “Marx considers that a revolution by a proletariat of producers who [have] acquired economic capacity.” When Carlo Cafiero developed a compendium for the initial volume of Capital in Italian, Marx reminded his colleague that “material conditions necessary for the emancipation of the proletariat” must be “spontaneously generated by the development of capitalism (den Gang der kapitalistischen Produktion).” The support for the theory of producerism expanded among Fascist syndicalists after the conclusion of the Russian Civil War and transition from war communism showed high unemployment and an environment where “most of the mills and factories were at a standstill; mines and collieries were wrecked and flooded.” After the introduction of the New Economic Policy (NEP), Italian syndicalists continued to move further away from orthodox Marxism, determined to revise it to fit the changing times and to embolden its strategic goals. They argued that the Russian Bolsheviks had failed to adhere to Engels’ 1850 admonition about the dangers of trying to establish a social revolution within an economically backwards environment. This drift had emerged years before the economic malaise of Soviet Russia, prompting most Italian syndicalists to transcend the errors and drawbacks that “they believed they found in orthodox Marxism.” Developed to bring about worker control of the means of production by direct action, the intellectuals of syndicalism came to the realization that Italy's primitive economy could facilitate neither equality nor abundance for society. Without a mature industry developed by the bourgeois, they came to understand that a successful social revolution required the support of “classless” revolutionaries. Mussolini, along with Italian syndicalists, Nationalists and Futurists, contended that those revolutionaries would be Fascists, not Marxists or some other ideology. According to Mussolini and other syndicalist theoreticians, Fascism would be “the socialism of ‘proletarian nations.’” Fascist syndicalists also became preoccupied with the idea of increasing production instead of simply establishing a redistributive economic structure. Sergio Panunzio, a major theoretician of Italian Fascism and syndicalism, believed that Syndicalists were producerists, rather than distributionists. In his criticism of the Bolsheviks’ handling of their economy, Panunzio also asserted that Russian Soviet state had become a “dictatorship over the proletariat, and not of the proletariat.”
1
@gary2kr1 "the cult of traditionalism" Not just any traditionalism. The whole point was to emulate the Roman Empire, where the State apparatus would be Caesar. "Fascism means, in fact, the return to Order, to Authority, to Law; the return to the Roman conception of human Society, conception which those centuries of oblivion could obscure but never efface. ... Fascism is, in other words, intimately connected to Roman; its mission is the continuation of the mission of Rome; its heritage is the legacy of Rome. ...There are some things Rome symbolized in the golden age of its glory which were and still are of supreme significance to mankind; things of the spirit of an eternal and absolute value which Fascism wants restored to their rightful supremacy." - the Philosophy of Fascism, Mario Palmieri, 1936
1
@gary2kr1 "irrationalism" Wrong. Giovanni Gentile’s rationale (philosophical basis for their ideology) was neo-Hegelian in origin, the same source out of which Marxism and Marxism-Leninism were to emerge. Fascism was neither ‘anti-intellectual’ nor, in principle ‘irrationalist.’
1
@gary2kr1 " If you want more I highly recommend reading Ur-Fascism by Umberto Eco." There is no such thing as "ur-fascism" and Umberto Eco had no clue what he was talking about. His works are useless and waste of time.
1
@wodidos : What I supposedly am is irrelevant.
1
@wodidos : Still completely irrelevant to this conversation. Is changing the subject a way how you cope or something?
1
@wodidos : Not relevant at all. Keep coping.
1
@wodidos : Since when you have wanted to argue? All you did was change the subject, when I wasn't even talking to you in the first place.
1
@wodidos : There is no "historical revisionism" of any kind whatsoever. Is it really that hard for you people to go to your local library and borrow some history books?
1
@wodidos "the nazis were socialist and all that crap right?" What part of that is crap exactly? By definition, National Socialism is a form of socialism, and by their own very words, they also were socialists. You cannot be an advocate for centralized planning and strong government controls without being a socialist. That's what made Hitler a socialist. He may have been to the right from the Bolsheviks, but he was still a socialist leftist as he believed in strong central government control. Hitler outright declared himself a socialist in Mein Kampf, just not the Marxist international or full Soviet type. He struggled with HOW to distinguish his socialism from the rest of the Marxist crowd.
1
@wodidos "You are not acknowledging reality." Historical facts are reality, hun.
1
@wodidos " I‘m not gonna have the “hitler was a socialist” argument with you bro." It's not up to an argument in the first place. It is a historical fact.
1
@wodidos "but from the nonsense you write you’re clearly very selective about the stuff you read. " I highly suggest you go and check out a book called "the Vampire Economy" by Günter Reimann for starters.
1
@wodidos " also who is you people? Try to be more precise" People like you, who are rejecting historical facts and can only resort to informal fallacies (most common being the 'Ad hominem'). The fact that you people cannot even differentiate between National Socialism and Fascism, already indicates that you people should not be part of this discussion.
1
"We are living under late stage fascism right now in The West." Nope, we are not and such a thing doesn't even exist.
1
@communistmole "because the exploitation of immediate labor can no longer be the basis of the social reproduction process" There is no such exploitation.
1
@communistmole "(But if you don't want to talk about capitalism, you should also keep quiet about fascism - Max Horkheimer, 1939)." This quote makes no sense whatsoever, considering Fascism was a socialist and anti-capitalist ideology.
1
@communistmole : Well, Fascism was a totalitarian far-left, socialist 3rd position ideology based on National Syndicalism which they adapted from Georges Sorel. It rejected individualism, capitalism, liberalism/democracy, and marxism. The means of production was organized by national worker syndicals (i.e. trade unions), and the guiding philosophy of the state was Actual Idealism. Fascism was an outgrowth of Sorellian Syndicalism, which itself was an outgrowth from Marxist socialism. The idea was that society would be consolidated (i.e., incorporated) into syndicates (in the Italian context, fascio/fasci) which would be regulated by and serve as organs for the state, or "embody" the state (corpus = body). The purpose was the centralization and synchronization of society under the state, as an end unto itself. To quote Mussolini's infamous aphorism: "All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state." As created by Mussolini and Giovanni Gentile, Fascism comes from a belief that the "Stateless and Classless society" Communism calls for after its dictatorship cannot achieve Socialism, and that only the State can properly organize a Socialist Society. It cared about unity in a strong central government with society being brought together by syndicalist organizations obedient to the State.
1
@Kurgan19XX "Fascism was against Worker Control," Yes, since as created by Mussolini and Giovanni Gentile, it comes from a belief that the "Stateless and Classless society" Communism calls for after its dictatorship cannot achieve Socialism, and that only the State can properly organize a Socialist Society.
1
@Kurgan19XX "it was for State and Private Control with certain conditions," It was State control and State control only. They never advocated for any kind of private control. “The State exists for all the people, but is also above the people, and, if necessary, against the people. ... It is against them whenever they attempt to place their particular interests above the general interests of the Nation. ... It is the purpose of Fascism to unify the Nation through the sovereign State, the State which is above all and can be against all, because it represents the moral continuity of the Nation. Without State there is no Nation.” - Mussolini, speech on August 8th, 1925.
1
@Kurgan19XX "it couldn't be socialist." Wrong. It could and it was. 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. Fascism had the latter.
1
@communistmole Nope.
1
There are no Fascist countries anywhere. You people have no clue what the word "Fascism" means.
1
Griffins definition is nothing more than vague jargon. The supposed "mythic core" of Fascism was specifically the rebirth of the Roman Empire, where the State apparatus was Caesar.
1
@wodidos That is literally what the Fascists themselves said about it. From their "Philosophy of Fascism" by Mario Palmieri, 1936; "The historical continuity of political forms, social organization, religious expression and spiritual aspirations, in the life of the Italian people, which had lasted two thousand years and had been broken only in the last few centuries of servitude to foreigners and their foreign ways of living, has been at last restored by Fascism, which is the direct heir of Roman traditions and of Roman ideals. Fascism means, in fact, the return to Order, to Authority, to Law; the return to the Roman conception of human Society, conception which those centuries of oblivion could obscure but never efface. Fascism is, in other words, intimately connected to Roman; its mission is the continuation of the mission of Rome; its heritage is the legacy of Rome. There are some things Rome symbolized in the golden age of its glory which were and still are of supreme significance to mankind; things of the spirit of an eternal and absolute value which Fascism wants restored to their rightful supremacy."
1
@wodidos "I agree that it is questionable if we can come to a generic definition of fascism, but when it comes to generic definitions, his makes the most sense to me among the ones I’ve come across." If you are looking for a generic definition, then here it is: Totalitarian National Syndicalism (inspired by Georges Sorel), based on a philosophy of "Actual Idealism" (inspired by Hegel), trying to restore some traditions and ways of the Roman Empire.
1
@wodidos "are we looking for a generic definition of historic italian fascism?" There is no generic definition. Fascism = Mussolini's ideology.
1
@wodidos "Or do we think that the concept can be applied to other regimes/movements in a generic way?" It was very specific and only practiced by the Italians. It could be applied if there would be such a movement, but there hasn't been. Instead we have had different ideologies which have mimicked the Italian Fascists to some degree, and those ideologies are labeled as Neo-Fascist.
1
@nerag7459 "Fascism supports private property rights and the existence of a market economy and very wealthy individuals." Wrong, Wrong and Wrong. Fascism didn't support private property and it made owning property conditional and dependent on bending the knee to the State apparatus. Individual ownership rights were understood to be strictly subordinate to collective discipline. It was not the individual ownership of property that concerned Fascists, but its subordination to collective control. Property was understood to perform social functions rather than to manifest individual rights. It was clear that the conception of property as a social function was broad enough to include socialization of the means of production, should that be required by the national interests as interpreted by the state. Fascism opposed market based economies, since their whole ideology was based around the supremacy of the State apparatus, which would also decide what was to be produced, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it was to be distributed, as well as what prices would be charged and what wages would be paid, for the benefit of the nation as a whole. Fascism opposed wealthy individuals in their own way, because according to them, private wealth belongs not only to the individual, but in a symbolic sense, to the State as well.
1
@nerag7459 " Thus, fascist ideology includes both pro- and anti-capitalist elements." Wrong. It had no capitalist elements whatsoever. Fascism was purely a socialist 3rd position ideology based on National Syndicalism which they adapted from Georges Sorel. As created by Mussolini and Giovanni Gentile, Fascism comes from a belief that the "Stateless and Classless society" Communism calls for after its dictatorship cannot achieve Socialism, and that only the State can properly organize a Socialist Society.
1
@nerag7459 "It does have pro and anti capitalist elements when interpreted from a pragmatic perspective. " Wrong. Again, it had zero capitalist elements. They strictly opposed anything capitalist.
1
@nerag7459 "The Nazis (for example) engaged in generally maintaining private enterprise with a handful of exceptions where certain factories were nationalized." Wrong. First of all, the Nazis weren't Fascists. They were National Socialists. Two fundamentally different ideologies. Secondly, there were no private enterprises. Everything was nationalized and under control of the NSDAP. Nazis issued quotas for industries and farms 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
@nerag7459 "Historically fascism supported private property rights" Wrong. They didn't. Again, property was strictly conditional and dependent on bending the knee to the State. When the State has total control and can legally seize your property if it's used in a manner they dislike, it is not private property ownership. You are not the arbiter of what to do with your own stuff. You are merely a manager of your property, and merely so long as the fascist state permits it. Even the Nazis abolished private property rights with the Reichstag fire decree on February 28, 1933.
1
@nerag7459 "and the existence of a market economy ... Fascism made use of the market economy paradigm." Wrong. Both Nazis and Fascists had a centralized and planned economy. In the former, it was controlled by the NSDAP via DAF. In the latter, it was controlled by various different syndicates via Corporatism. Both ideologies were strictly against any type of market economy.
1
@nerag7459 "They used the capitalist market model. " Wrong. They never had a market based economy system. They had a centralized and planned economy system almost identical to the USSR under Stalin. "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)
1
@nerag7459 "Look at the tendering processes used for military equipment." Nationalized and expropriated if they didn't comply, like what happened to Hugo Junkers. "When the Nazis came into power in 1933, they requested Junkers and his businesses aid in the German re-armament. When Junkers declined, the Nazis responded by demanding ownership of all patents and market shares from his remaining companies, under threat of imprisonment on the grounds of High Treason. In 1934 they eventually seized control of his patents and company. He died the following year. Under Nazi control, his company produced some of the most successful German warplanes of the Second World War. " - Wiki
1
@nerag7459 "It wasn't nationalised. Lets take the Me 109 Arado, Heinkel and BFW all applied for the contract. Focke-Wulf joined late. Each was asked to deliver three prototypes for head-to-head testing in late 1934" They effectively were Government subsidiaries. When the State has total control and can legally seize your property if it's used in a manner they dislike, it is not private property ownership. You are not the arbiter of what to do with your own stuff. You are merely a manager of your property, and merely so long as the State permits it.
1
@nerag7459 " etc I mean in order to be right you are going to have to redefine capitalism,..." Nazi Germany abolished private property rights and the NSDAP controlled the means of production. By definition, there cannot be any kind of Capitalism there.
1
@nerag7459 "There was nationalization but it was rare. Just take the loss buddy." You only need to go read some actual history to know I'm right. You should start from "the Vampire Economy" by Günter Reimann, which reveals the socialist nature of the Nazi economy. Regarding nationalization, that was one of Hitler's goals since the beginning. "To put it quite clearly: we have an economic programme. Point No. 13 in that programme demands the nationalisation of all public companies, in other words socialisation, or what is known here as socialism. … the basic principle of my Party’s economic programme should be made perfectly clear and that is the principle of authority… the good of the community takes priority over that of the individual. But the State should retain control; every owner should feel himself to be an agent of the State; it is his duty not to misuse his possessions to the detriment of the State or the interests of his fellow countrymen. That is the overriding point. The Third Reich will always retain the right to control property owners. If you say that the bourgeoisie is tearing its hair over the question of private property, that does not affect me in the least. Does the bourgeoisie expect some consideration from me?… Today’s bourgeoisie is rotten to the core; it has no ideals any more; all it wants to do is earn money and so it does me what damage it can. The bourgeois press does me damage too and would like to consign me and my movement to the devil.“ — Adolf Hitler, Hitler's interview with Richard Breiting, 1931, published in Edouard Calic, ed.
1
@nerag7459 "The right to hold private property was removed but this is not the same as abolishing private property. " On February 28, 1933, the Nazis suspended a number of articles of the Weimar Constitution. Among these were Article 115 and Article 153. Article 115 said: "The dwelling of every German is his sanctuary and is inviolable. Exceptions may be imposed by authority of law." This was suspended. Article 153 also guaranteed property. It was also suspended. Obviously, they did not confiscate everyone's property, however all property at any given time could be confiscated by the state and a certain amount was. Industry was divided into 13 sectors and placed under the control of the state. The Nazi state imposed 4 year plans, price controls, party cells in all corporations, and considerable redistribution.
1
@nerag7459 "Nazi Germany was a crony capitalistic system " Still wrong. There was no capitalism of any kind in Nazi Germany. They had a centralized government with a centralized and planned economy similar to the USSR under Stalin. The government controlled the means of production and also decided what was to be produced, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it was to be distributed, as well as what prices would be charged and what wages would be paid. This is what we call a Command economy nowadays.
1
@nerag7459 " No. Its capitalism and you are wrong." Still wrong. It was textbook socialism.
1
@wodidos "You‘re one of those weird libertarians. Let me guess you get your infos from such idiots as TiK history and such?" What I supposedly am is irrelevant. I get my info from history books. Cope harder.
1
@j0j0dartiste21 "Yet it focused itself on traditionalism and hierarchy. " Every political ideology is focused on hierarchies no matter left or right. When it comes to traditionalism, they certainly didn't focus on preserving the status quo nor Monarchy which they had previously.
1
@j0j0dartiste21 " Fascism, like capitalism in action, needs that hierarchy, or can't exist without it." Every political ideology does, no matter left or right.
1
@j0j0dartiste21 "they only opposed "aesthetically" capitalistic ideas because they considered "Jewish"." Party true. Hitler saw both Capitalism and Marxism as "Jewish ploys" to take over Germany, which is why he rejected them both and classified themselves as a "3rd position" movement.
1
@nerag7459 "Now you are embarrassing yourself. You are wrong. textbook capitalism." Still wrong. Nothing to do with capitalism whatsoever. It textbook socialism, where the government controlled the means of production, distribution and exchange of goods.
1
@nerag7459 " Its clear you don't know what capitalism is. " Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit. Central characteristics of capitalism include capital accumulation, competitive markets, price systems, private property, property rights recognition, voluntary exchange, and wage labor. This wasn't a thing in Nazi Germany.
1
@Kurgan19XX "and ignore alllll the people who are legit scholars of Fascism," Scholars such as? There aren't many actual scholars of Fascism though. Many people don't even know who Renzo De Felice was.
1
@Kurgan19XX "they had what is considered a state capitalist model, it was not centrally planned. " Wrong and Wrong. First of all, there is no such thing as "state capitalism", and such a word is an oxymoron. Either you have a state controlled and driven economy or you have a market based economy. Both Fascism and National Socialism had the former, and almost identical to the USSR under Stalin.
1
@Kurgan19XX " also Nazi's are Fascists, they are part of the Ideology." Wrong. Nazis were National Socialists, nor Fascists. Fascists were Fascists. They were two fundamentally different ideologies with different origins and practiced in two different countries. This is WW2 era history 101.
1
@Kurgan19XX "Not gonna respond to you at all if I see your icon now lol." You need to cope harder than that, and while you are coping, go read some history before commenting. It's embarrassing.
1
@Kurgan19XX "No, Right. " Still wrong. Both Fascism and National Socialism were far-left, 3rd position socialist ideologies.
1
@Kurgan19XX "Nazi's being socialists is something no one but idiots believe your goign by "Its in the name", " Nazi's being socialists is a historical fact and has very little to do with the name, which signified what they were advocating for; socialism on a national level. “After all, that’s exactly why we call ourselves National Socialists! We want to start by implementing socialism in our nation among our Volk! It is not until the individual nations are socialist that they can address themselves to international socialism.” — Adolf Hitler, Memoirs of a Confidant (1978)
1
@Kurgan19XX "as anyone who looks into that would realize the Nazi's killed the Socialist arm of their party, The Strausserites," Wrong. The whole NSDAP party was full of socialists. After all, the entire Nazi regime consisted of former members of other leftist movements. Regarding Strasser, what made him and Hitler have a falling out was, as written in the text by Strasser titled "The socialists leave the NSDAP", that he did not approve of Hitlers imperial "Lebensraum" policies and considered National Socialism to be a non-expansionist movement. Nothing to do with socialism. Also Gregor had sought in the winter of 1932 to reach an electoral agreement with then Chancellor von Schleicher that would have barred Hitler from rising to power.
1
@Kurgan19XX " along with all the other liberal and socialist elements in government at the time during the night of long knives especially." The Night of the Long Knives was about the internal power struggle between Hitler and Röhm. Nothing more, nothing less. SA leaders held ambitions to replace the officer corps of the Reichswehr and the professional army with a “People’s Army.” Such a goal became a threat to the Nazi regime itself. Army leaders responded by demanding the elimination of the SA as a condition for permitting the Nazi government to remain in power. The murder of the SA leadership cemented an alliance between Hitler and the German army leadership. In return for Hitler purging the SA and prioritizing the needs of the professional army, military leaders supported Hitler in August 1934 when he took the last key step toward full dictatorial control.
1
@Kurgan19XX " Its pretty Common Knowledge by everyone from Paxton to Griffin to Kershaw, Eco, and others that are scholars of Fascism or studiers of it," Paxton and Griffin have studied National Socialism, not Fascism. Also Umberto Eco had no clue what he was talking about, and even denied the existence of Fascist ideology in favor of his fictitious "ur-fascism".
1
@Kurgan19XX "that that Nazi's were Fascists." Wrong. Again, Nazis were National Socialists. Fascists were Fascists. Anyone who disagrees with this basic historical fact is not a credible source for this subject. Even Hitler, Goebbels, Mussolini etc. themselves, were very clear about this, that while they were "brothers in arms", they were fundamentally different ideologies. "One might say that Fascism has reacted upon the creative life of the Italian people somewhat like sterilization. It is, after all, nothing like National Socialism. While the latter goes down to the roots, Fascism is only a superficial thing. That is regrettable, but one must recognize it clearly. National Socialism is really a way of life." - Dr. Joseph Goebbels, The Goebbels Diaries
1
@Kurgan19XX "Fascism is an Ultranationalist movement based around some mythical rebirth of the nation" It wasn't about some random "mythical rebirth of the nation". They were very clear, that they wanted to bring back traditions and way related to the Roman Empire. "Fascism means, in fact, the return to Order, to Authority, to Law; the return to the Roman conception of human Society, conception which those centuries of oblivion could obscure but never efface. Fascism is, in other words, intimately connected to Roman; its mission is the continuation of the mission of Rome; its heritage is the legacy of Rome. There are some things Rome symbolized in the golden age of its glory which were and still are of supreme significance to mankind; things of the spirit of an eternal and absolute value which Fascism wants restored to their rightful supremacy." - Philosophy of Fascism, Mario Palmieri, 1936
1
@Kurgan19XX "fueled by Xenophobia" Wasn't actually thing in Fascism. Mussolini welcomed everyone who were willing to bent the knee and serve the Fascist state.
1
@Kurgan19XX " Anti intellectual ideas, " Wrong. They literally had a philosopher, Giovanni Gentile, involved when forming the ideology. Fascism was neither ‘anti-intellectual’ nor, in principle ‘irrationalist.’ Gentile’s rationale was neo-Hegelian in origin, the same source out of which Marxism and Marxism-Leninism were to emerge. In fact, Gentile understood Marxism so well that his essay on the thought of the young Marx has not only withstood the test of time, but was, on the occasion of its publication, recommended as particularly insightful by V.I. Lenin.
1
@Kurgan19XX "anti labor" Fascism wasn't anti-labor. Their whole infrastructure revolved around labor, i.e. Corporatism ("corporativismo" in Italian), which was one of the cornerstone principles in Mussolini's fascism, and had to do with the way society and the economy would be organized, with state power at the head of a system of syndicates ("corporazione") representing each major industry.
1
@Kurgan19XX "and pro corporate sentiment, " Wrong. Fascism was anti-corporate if anything. Fascism did not allow for the kind of competition, innovation, market entry, and research and development characteristic of modern capitalism, and it was closely ruled in every way by the state with Mussolini at its head.
1
@Kurgan19XX "Nazi Germany is absolutely Fascist " Still wrong. Nazi Germany had National Socialism. Italy had Fascism. They were two fundamentally different ideologies.
1
@Kurgan19XX "and to deny that would get you laughed out of any professional institution. " Nope.
1
@Kurgan19XX "Also yes, they would be state capitalist, " Wrong. Again, there is no such thing as "state capitalism", and such a word is an oxymoron. Either you have a state controlled and driven economy or you have a market based economy.
1
@Kurgan19XX "capitalism is private ownership of companies with wage labor contracts, pricing and competition between firms, Nazi germany Had all of that," Wrong. Nazi Germany had none of that. There was no private ownership, since the means of production was controlled by the govenrment. Labor contracts were controlled by the DAF. Pricing was controlled by the government via Reichskommissars such as Josef Wagner. There was no competition between firms since there was no market, and the firms acted as government subsidiaries.
1
@Kurgan19XX " Its literally Capitalism with State Oversight. " Wrong. What every modern day country now has, is "capitalism with state oversight" i.e. a mixed economy system. Meanwhile Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy had a socialist Command economy.
1
@Kurgan19XX "they had economic planning Command economy, the Nazi's had NOTHING of the like, they allowed businesses to make their own decisions, they didn't really nationalize anything," Wrong, Wrong and Wrong. Again, both Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy had a socialist Command economy. They didn't allow business to make their own decisions, since the government decided what was to be produced, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it was to be distributed, as well as what prices would be charged and what wages would be paid. Both nationalized their industry and had one of the largest govenrment owned public sector throughout the 1930s.
1
@Kurgan19XX "especially when Paxton made a book called "The Anatomy of Fascism" not The Anatomy of Nazi Germany." That was his mistake. He specifically wrote about National Socialism and did not understand the difference between it, and Fascism.
1
@Kurgan19XX "National Socialism is Fascism by guy." Wrong. It isn't. They are two fundamentally different ideologies.
1
@Kurgan19XX "Ur-Fascism is Fascism, he literally states that...holy lord you know nothing" Wrong. Ur-fascism is not a thing. It doesn't exist. It's only a made up word by Umberto, which doesn't mean anything.
1
@Kurgan19XX "Socialism is about worker control and you did nothing to combat my point, " Wrong, and you point is also wrong. What you are referring to here is Marxism, not socialism per se. Socialism doesn't care about the workers nor any specific group. 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
@Kurgan19XX "Nazi's didn't intend to move towards that in any way, " You have indeed proven that National Socialism is not Marxism.
1
@Kurgan19XX "hell, they purged the Socialist Arm of their party for that reason, " There was no such thing. The whole party was socialist.
1
@Kurgan19XX "crushed Unions and Wages " Every socialist regime did that. In fact, Hitler was simply imitating Lenin, who had earlier closed down all independent labor associations, factory committees and worker cooperatives, banned strikes, walkouts, and lockouts. Lenin even forced workers to work a slavish 80-hour week. After the Bolsheviks banned all labor unions, one unionist “described the unions as ‘living corpses.’” Any Russian worker who participated in general strikes was arrested, imprisoned or shot. Under Lenin’s regime, workers had no real representation or bargaining rights and were treated like industrial serfs who were chained to their factories. Although Hitler followed Lenin’s nationalizing craze, his treatment of workers did not mimic their Russian counterparts.
1
@Kurgan19XX "There is nothing Far Left about Nazism, " Again, there was; collectivization of the economy and consolidation and centralization of state power being the major points. All that which limits individual power and increases group/state power is on the left.
1
@Kurgan19XX "like capitalist countries in europe do nowadays?" We don't have capitalist countries here in Europe. All of the countries here have a mixed economy system.
1
@Kurgan19XX "No, the Night of Long Knives was also about purging the Socialist group of the Party " Wrong. There were no such groups. The whole party was socialist.
1
@Kurgan19XX " conveniently left that part out because of your other post because that would prove the Nazi's hated socialism, huh? " They never hated socialism. You will not find a single quote from Hitler, Goebbels nor from any Nazi, where they would have hated socialism itself. They have explicitly stated, that they hated Marxism / Communism, not socialism. On the contrary, they also explicitly state, that their movement is supposedly "proper socialism".
1
@Kurgan19XX "Leading members of the Strasserist faction of the Nazi Party, including its leader Gregor Strasser, were also killed, as were establishment conservatives and anti-Nazis, such as former Chancellor Kurt von Schleicher and Bavarian politician Gustav Ritter von Kahr, who had helped suppress Hitler's Munich Beer Hall Putsch in 1923. " And? This had nothing to do with socialism. Gregor Strasser had sought in the winter of 1932 to reach an electoral agreement with then Chancellor von Schleicher that would have barred Hitler from rising to power. Also what made him and Hitler have a falling out was, as written in the text by Strasser titled "The socialists leave the NSDAP", that he did not approve of Hitlers imperial "Lebensraum" policies and considered National Socialism to be a non-expansionist movement.
1
@Kurgan19XX "He calls it Fascism, he means Fascism, have you read his essay on it at all where he describes traits of Fascists?" Then he is wrong. Simple as that. What he calls Fascism, isn't Fascism. What he means Fascism, isn't Fascism.
1
@Kurgan19XX "you also have no idea what Capitalism and Socialism are either," Both are economic systems; Capitalism, based on the private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit. Central characteristics of capitalism include capital accumulation, competitive markets, price systems, private property, property rights recognition, voluntary exchange, and wage labor. Socialism, based on collective (such as workers, guilds, the government etc.) ownership or control of 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
@Kurgan19XX "hell, you probably think Anarchism is Right Wing as well." Anarchism exists on both ends of the spectrum. On the extreme left, it is represented by Communism. On the extreme right, it is represented by Anarcho-Capitalism.
1
@Kurgan19XX "I think deep down, if you look further, you would be wrong and realize Fascism and Nazism have nothing to do with the Far Left," Wrong. This has nothing to do with me. This is about historical facts. If we classify Marxism (and socialist ideologies in general) to be on the far-left side of the spectrum, then both Fascism and National Socialism are there also, since both of them are adjacent to Marxism.
1
@Kurgan19XX " as none of these ideologies were about building a worker and citizen controlled society which is the main goal of Socialists, " Wrong. That is the goal of the Marxists (Communism). That is not the goal of every socialist.
1
"Whenever the people begin to gain power, the capitalists fund and support chaos and fascism to maintain their power." Wrong. Capitalism and Fascism are enemies. After all, Fascism was a socialist ideology and strictly opposed Capitalism.
1
@mattymagpie "Do you believe the Nazi's when they say they're socialists?" By definition, historical facts and even by their own words and actions, they most certainly were socialists.
1
@ToxicAudri "Fascism is generally described as "a far-right," Wrong. It is not. Fascism was a far-left, socialist 3rd position ideology based on National Syndicalism which they adapted from Georges Sorel.
1
@ToxicAudri "authoritarian," Wrong. It was totalitarian.
1
@ToxicAudri "characterized by a dictatorial leader," Wrong. Mussolini wasn't a dictator by definition. He didn't have all the power, unlike Hitler in his ideology (Führerprinzip).
1
@mattymagpie "Ohhhh you're just a nazi pretending to be a historian. Got it." Nope. You need to cope harder than that. Try again.
1
Nobody is living in Fascism nor is there such a thing as "late Fascism" in the first place. Fascism hasn't been a thing since the WW2 era. It was a totalitarian far-left, socialist 3rd position ideology based on National Syndicalism which they adapted from Georges Sorel. It rejected individualism, capitalism, liberalism/democracy, and marxism. The means of production was organized by national worker syndicals (i.e. trade unions), and the guiding philosophy of the state was Actual Idealism. Fascism was an outgrowth of Sorellian Syndicalism, which itself was an outgrowth from Marxist socialism. The idea was that society would be consolidated (i.e., incorporated) into syndicates (in the Italian context, fascio/fasci) which would be regulated by and serve as organs for the state, or "embody" the state (corpus = body). The purpose was the centralization and synchronization of society under the state, as an end unto itself. To quote Mussolini's infamous aphorism: "All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state." As created by Mussolini and Giovanni Gentile, Fascism comes from a belief that the "Stateless and Classless society" Communism calls for after its dictatorship cannot achieve Socialism, and that only the State can properly organize a Socialist Society. It cared about unity in a strong central government with society being brought together by syndicalist organizations obedient to the State.
1
"Fascism (dictatorial capitalism)" Wrong. Fascism was a totalitarian socialist ideology which strictly opposed Capitalism.
1
" can be interpreted as an organized counter-revolution spear-headed by the far-right" Wrong. Fascism was a far-left, socialist 3rd position ideology based on National Syndicalism which they adapted from Georges Sorel.
1
@bensonchannel8676 : Totalitarianism is a characteristics of a dictatorial regime. While Fascism was also totalitarian, totalitarianism is not a "fascist characteristic".
1
@Kurgan19XX : Those groups you mentioned have nothing to do with Fascism whatsoever though.
1
@Kurgan19XX " yeah im not responding to you, your an idiot." You need to cope harder than that, and while you are coping, go read some history before commenting. It's embarrassing.
1
@miguelvelez7221 "No. It's an opinion. " Wrong. It is a fact. The ideology of Fascism was strictly pure Statism and anti-capitalistic, which they themselves point out in their "Doctrine of Fascism". "Fascism is definitely and absolutely opposed to the doctrines of (classical) liberalism, both in the political and the economic sphere." "The Fascist State lays claim to rule in the economic field no less than in others; it makes its action felt throughout the length and breadth of the country by means of its corporative, social, and educational institutions, and all the political, economic, and spiritual forces of the nation, organized in their respective associations, circulate within the State." "The keystone of the Fascist doctrine is its conception of the State, of its essence, its functions, and its aims. For Fascism the State is absolute, individuals and groups relative. Individuals and groups are admissible in so far as they come within the State."
1
@miguelvelez7221 "Moderate Capitalists ALWAYS capitulate to the Far Right ..." Oh honey... the fundamental differences between left-wing and right-wing ideologies center around the the rights of individuals vs. the power of the government. Left-wing beliefs are based on the idea that society is best served with an expanded role for the government, 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
You do understand that "extreme right" is Anarcho-Capitalism, right?
1