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 "Fascism Is Just Colonialism Turned Inward" video.

You people have no clue what Fascism means nor what it represented.
3
@TheHuxleyAgnostic "They literally killed off any prominent left leaning members, on the Night of the Long Knives. " Wrong. The Night of the Long Knives had nothing to do with "left leaning members" whatsoever. It was strictly about the internal power struggle between Hitler and Röhm, and simple fact that the German army leaders saw Röhm's SA as a threat. The murder of the SA leadership had several important long-term consequences. First and foremost, it 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.
2
"Fascism meanwhile is capitalism on steroids." Wrong. Fascism had nothing to do with capitalism whatsoever. On the contrary, as a socialist ideology Fascism strictly opposed it. 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."
2
@orphaotheseeker2770 "You seem to take for granted the fact that fascism uses the mask of socialism to appeal to the working class and popularity of socialism which was taking place in Europe at the time." There was no mask. Fascism by definition, used socialism as the basis for the economy.
2
Except Ayn Rand was more or less correct.
2
@ToxicAudri : Nope. I'm the epitome of an Anti-Fascist. Cope harder.
2
There is no such thing as "late stage capitalism" in the first place.
2
@ToxicAudri : You need to cope harder than that.
2
@thehappyclam3942 "Communism is indeed a fascist philosophy that values group rights over the individual." Both Communism and Fascism are collectivist ideologies, and the former has nothing to do with Fascism.
1
@TheHuxleyAgnostic "Hitler was backed by leading German industrialists." Wrong. He was backed by Thyssen mainly. Regardless, the fact that some capitalists and entrepreneurs, faced with the alternative of Marxism or Nazism, chose the latter, does not require any further explanation. They preferred to live as shop managers under Hitler than to be "liquidated" as "bourgeois" by Marxists. Capitalists don't like to be killed any more than other people do.
1
@TheHuxleyAgnostic "Nazis allied with other far right parties," Wrong. The entire Nazi regime consisted of former members of other leftist movements and they allied with other leftists movements.
1
@TheHuxleyAgnostic "They went after communists, socialists, and unionists, first, for "illegal socialist activity". " Just like the whole Bolshevik Regime, after the October Revolution.
1
@TheHuxleyAgnostic "Hitler blamed Jews for creating socialism, because Marx was of Jewish descent." Wrong. He blamed the Jews for creating Marxism specifically, and Capitalism. Both were seen as "ploys" to take over Germany.
1
@TheHuxleyAgnostic "Mussolini denied the class struggle," Wrong. Hitler did. Mussolini was of the opinion that the "class struggle" was a misguided idea and should be replaced by class collaboration.
1
@TheHuxleyAgnostic " that is the very foundation of socialism/communism. " Wrong. Nothing to do with socialism. It was the foundation of Marxism.
1
@orphaotheseeker2770 "You do not own yourself under capitalism." Wrong. You do.
1
@orphaotheseeker2770 " Your boss does, with the support of the militarist state. " Wrong. Nobody is forced to work for some boss.
1
@orphaotheseeker2770 "Under socialism, YOU OWN YOUR LABOR." Wrong. Under socialism you own nothing, because the labor is collectively shared and owned.
1
@j0j0dartiste21 "yes, that's why communism and socialism are better than fascism where only those at the top are allowed to be individuals" Wrong. Both Communism and Fascism, and every socialist ideology for that matter, are based on collectivism and are in opposition to individualism.
1
@orphaotheseeker2770 "False. I do not own my labor, therefore I don't own myself. " Nobody is stopping you from becoming an entrepreneur. You can own your own labor.
1
 @orphaotheseeker2770 "I cannot own myself if my only means of existence is renting my body to a capitalist." That is completely your choice. Nobody is forcing you to work for someone.
1
@orphaotheseeker2770 "Get bread (rentiny my body) or get dead is not a real choice, " That is how reality works and has been since the hunter/gatherer ways. Nothing to do with any kind of economic system.
1
@orphaotheseeker2770 "but rather a choice forced upon me by a class of opulent parasites whose sole purpose is extracting the value my labor creates." Again, it's a question of how you are going to get that bread, and under Capitalism nobody is forcing you to work for someone to get it. You can produce bread yourself for example.
1
@orphaotheseeker2770 "One boss, two bosses, three bosses etc etc is STILL working for a boss. " Again, nobody is forcing you to work for any boss.
1
@orphaotheseeker2770 "because if everyone were a capitalist (a parasite), then who would do the actual work? " People who choose to, just like it is right now.
1
@orphaotheseeker2770 " Do you think Elon Musk himself designs and builds Tesla cars?" He doesn't need to.
1
@orphaotheseeker2770 "Do you think Bezos himself is packing products to be shipped himself?" He did once. Now, he doesn't need to either.
1
@orphaotheseeker2770 "False. Here are a list of CAPITALISTS who directly dealt with the N*zis:" First of all, Nazism is not Fascism. National Socialism and Fascism were two fundamentally different ideologies. Secondly, the fact that some capitalists and entrepreneurs, faced with the alternative of Marxism or Nazism, chose the latter, does not require any further explanation. They preferred to live as shop managers under Hitler than to be "liquidated" as "bourgeois" by Marxists. Capitalists don't like to be killed any more than other people do.
1
@orphaotheseeker2770 "If Fascism was "Socialist" as you ignorantly claim, this means they would have opposed private ownership," Both Fascism and National Socialism opposed private ownership. They made owning anything conditional and dependent on being obedient to the State apparatus. When the government has total control and can legally seize your property if it's used in a manner they dislike, it is not private property ownership. You are not the arbiter of what to do with your own stuff. You are merely a manager of your property, and merely so long as the State permits it.
1
@orphaotheseeker2770 "hence would have came in conflict with capitalist enterprises like the ones listed. " And they had conflicts, which is why all enterprises were nationalized and brought under NSDAP control via "Gleichschaltung" principle in Germany, (and via Corporatism in Italy).
1
@orphaotheseeker2770 "In fact the N*zis loved private property so much they privatized many aspects of their economy, " Wrong. They did no such thing. Privatization didn't exist in Nazi Germany. On the contrary, they nationalized most if not all of the German industries and later reorganized all industries into corporations run by members of the Nazi Party. They called this nationalization as "Gleichschaltung", a system of totalitarian control and coordination over all aspects of German society from the economy and trade associations to the media, culture and education.
1
@orphaotheseeker2770 "hence the term "privatization" was first coined to describe the N*zi economy. " Wrong. It was coined by some random British journalist in "the Economist" magazine. Nothing to do with Nazi Germany whatsoever, which never used such a word in the first place.
1
@orphaotheseeker2770 "they eventually became fascist, " Only Mussolini became a Fascist, which was just a competing socialist ideology to Marxism, following the footsteps of a French movement called "Yellow socialism".
1
@orphaotheseeker2770 "which is distinctly different than socialism. " Fascism was a political ideology. Socialism is an economic system, which the Fascists used as the basis for their economy.
1
@orphaotheseeker2770 "however what makes them further distinct from socialism was their avoidance of two core fundamental tenants of socialism: class struggle and internationalism." Wrong. Those have nothing to do with socialism whatsoever and you are doing the rookie American mistake by conflating Socialism and Marxism. You are purely talking about the latter.
1
@orphaotheseeker2770 "In fact fascism in Italy was originally an instrument to prevent workers from joining socialist/anarchist organizations and was very nationalist. " Of course they prevented people from joining their competitors, i.e. Marxist / Communist organizations, since their whole ideology cared about unity in a strong central government with society being brought together by syndicalist organizations obedient to the State.
1
@orphaotheseeker2770 "then you would know that socialism is anti statist." Wrong. Communism is, which is why Fascism opposed it. Socialism is not, and is an economic system to begin with. Fascism, as created by Mussolini and Giovanni Gentile, 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
@TheHuxleyAgnostic " They allied with the right, " There was no Right in Germany at the time.
1
@TheHuxleyAgnostic "and literally outlawed, and rounded people up from, the Communist Party, first." and so did the Bolsheviks after the October Revolution. Your point being?
1
@TheHuxleyAgnostic "and backed another far right party, " There was no far-right of any kind.
1
@orphaotheseeker2770 "False. None of the companies listed were "nationalised" under the NSDAP. This is an outright falsehood. " Wrong. By definition they were, and also the owners were replaced by NSDAP members, or they were part of the NSDAP already.
1
@orphaotheseeker2770 "Again: the N*zis engaged in PRIVATIZATION, not nationalization." Wrong. There was no privatization of any kind in Nazi Germany. There was only nationalization.
1
@orphaotheseeker2770 "who thinks regulations= state control." Wrong. Regulations are interference on the market. State deciding 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... is State control, which the Nazis had. That is what we call a Command economy nowadays.
1
@TheHuxleyAgnostic "The Harzburg Front wasn't leftist." It most certainly wasn't right wing, unless you are subscribing to the funny belief that left/right spectrum is relative and changes country-by-country basis.
1
@orphaotheseeker2770 " It's basically a right wing form of the Scandinavian Model. " Scandinavian model is based on Tripartism, which was also used in Fascism. However the Scandinavian model is a mixed economy, while Fascism had a socialist economy.
1
@TheHuxleyAgnostic "Wrong. Prior to wartime economies fascists were leaders in privatization." Wrong. The only time there was any kind of privatization, was during 1922 to 1925, when Alberto de' Stefani was handing the Italian economy. He was fired after 1925, when Mussolini ushered in his one-party dictatorship. This was also during the time, when the official Fascist ideology wasn't even published yet. After 1925 and beyond, it was purely nationalization via Corporatism.
1
@orphaotheseeker2770 "Marxism IS socialism. " Marxism is just one socialist ideology and theory. They are not the same thing, the latter being an economic system for starters.
1
@orphaotheseeker2770 "Capitalists love the state," Wrong. They do not, and want the State out of economics in general.
1
@orphaotheseeker2770 "Capitalists worked with fascists," Wrong. There was no "with". The Capitalists were subjugated by the Fascists, as directly stated by Mussolini himself; "The Fascist State directs and controls the entrepreneurs, whether it be in our fisheries or in our heavy industry in the Val d'Aosta. There the State actually owns the mines and carries on transport, for the railways are state property. So are many of the factories… We term it state intervention… If anything fails to work properly, the State intervenes. The capitalists will go on doing what they are told, down to the very end. They have no option and cannot put up any fight. Capital is not God; it is only a means to an end.” — Benito Mussolini, As quoted in Talks with Mussolini, Emil Ludwig, Boston, MA, Little, Brown and Company (1933), pp. 153-154, Interview took place between March 23 and April 4, 1932 1930s
1
@orphaotheseeker2770 "capitalists have a long history of working along side fascist/authoritarian governments," Wrong. They do not. They are forced and subjugated to work, since they have the money while the government doesn't.
1
@orphaotheseeker2770 "Socialism is about democratizing the work place," Wrong. That is something which falls under egalitarianism and other ideologies. Nothing to do with socialism whatsoever, which merely advocates for a collective ownership or control of the means of production, distribution and exchange of goods.
1
@orphaotheseeker2770 "The purpose of the state, in a communist revolution, was to be used to repress the bourgeoisie. The reason for this was to abolish class entirely, and this can only be achieved once the DOTP is established, or else the reactionary, bourgeoisie elements of society, the counter revolutionaries, squash a communist revolution." And this is why Fascism opposed Communism. Again, Fascism believed that the purpose of the State was, according to Mussolini himself: "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 ... The National State conciliates in itself the interests of all social categories, and wants decidedly the greatness of the nation through the welfare of the single citizen ... 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."
1
@orphaotheseeker2770 "but he certainly wasn't a socialist, " Giovanni Gentile most certainly was a socialist, but not a Marxist.
1
@orphaotheseeker2770 "for the simple fact that he opposed the core tenants of socialism. " There are no such things. Socialism does not have "core tenets". It is an economic system, not an ideology.
1
@orphaotheseeker2770 "For one, the N*zi party grew out of the extreme right wing Völkisch nationalist party. " That is not what Extreme right wing even is. Go look at the current Argentinian president, Javier Miley, for reference. Extreme right wing is represented by Anarcho-Capitalism, or technically any political ideology based on Classical Liberalism.
1
@orphaotheseeker2770 "Hitler had the support of the conservative elite of Germany such as Hjalmar Schacht and Gustav Krupp. " And none of them were on the right wing, unless again, you also subscribe to the funny notion of a completely relative left/right spectrum.
1
@orphaotheseeker2770 "Axiomatically and quantifably false." Nope. Cope harder.
1
@orphaotheseeker2770 "You're literally spewing historical revisionism now. " Nope. Cope harder, and while you are coping, go read some history regarding the socialist economy of Nazi Germany. You should start from "the Vampire Economy" by Günter Reimann.
1
@orphaotheseeker2770 "That's precisely what "yellow socialism" is though." Wrong. It is not. Since you are too lazy to check out the proper definitions; "Yellow socialism, or yellow unionism, was an economic system proposed in 1902 in France by Pierre Biétry, as an alternative to the "Red socialism" advocated in Marxism.[1] Biétry envisioned workers organizing unions which would operate in parallel with groups of businesses (a structure similar to corporatism). Workers would get a greater share of company profits through negotiation between each union and the corresponding business group. Above this would be a strong authoritarian State. "
1
@orphaotheseeker2770 "Still waiting for you to show us where Marx and Engels called for all labor to be owned by "the state"." They never did. That wasn't the point of Marxism.
1
@orphaotheseeker2770 "Marxism is a political AND economic theory. " Still just one socialist variation, just like National Socialism, Fascism, Syndicalism, Anarcho-Communism etc.
1
@orphaotheseeker2770 "Completely false. He was a fascist. " Still the same thing. Fascism was a socialist ideology, and Gentile advocated for socialism. “The Fascist, on the other hand, conceives philosophy as a philosophy of practice (”praxis”). That concept was the product of certain Marxist and Sorellian inspirations (many Fascists and the Duce, himself, received their first intellectual education in the school of Marx and Sorel)—as well as the influence of contemporary Italian idealistic doctrines from which Fascist mentality drew substance and achieved maturity.” “It is necessary to distinguish between socialism and socialism—in fact, between idea and idea of the same socialist conception, in order to distinguish among them those that are inimical to Fascism. It is well known that Sorellian syndicalism, out of which the thought and the political method of Fascism emerged—conceived itself the genuine interpretation of Marxist communism. The dynamic conception of history, in which force as violence functions as an essential, is of unquestioned Marxist origin. Those notions flowed into other currents of contemporary thought, that have themselves, via alternative routes, arrived at a vindication of the form of State—implacable, but absolutely rational—that finds historic necessity in the very spiritual dynamism through which it realizes itself.” — Giovanni Gentile, Che cosa è il fascismo: Discorsi e polemiche (“What is Fascism?”), Florence: Vallecchi, (1925)
1
@orphaotheseeker2770 "Every academic on the subject agrees," Wrong. They do not, and I do not care about the opinions of American sheep academics and their ilk.
1
@orphaotheseeker2770 "This is completely at odds with socialism, particularly Marxism, which has been and will always be MATERIALIST. " Not at odds with socialism, but certainly with Marxism. Every element of Fascist doctrine can be traced to the belief system of revolutionary national syndicalism as that syndicalism emerged from the First World War. “Fascism as a consequence of its Marxian and Sorelian patrimony... conjoined with the influence of contemporary Italian idealism, through which Fascist thought attained maturity, conceives philosophy as praxis.” — Giovanni Gentile , Origini e dottrina del fascismo, Rome (1929) p. 58, A. James Gregor, The Ideology of Fascism: The Rationale of Totalitarianism, New York: NY, The Free Press (1969) p. 317
1
@orphaotheseeker2770 "LMAO!! ALL economic systems are guided by ideology, you silly goose." They are adapted by political ideologies, yes. Never denied that. It is up to the political ideologies how socialism or capitalism manifest themselves within the society they are implemented in.
1
@TheHuxleyAgnostic "You've argued Trump is a communist. You've lost. Give up." Wrong. Never said such a thing. Cope harder.
1
@orphaotheseeker2770 " If capitalists REALLY wanted the state out of the way, then they wouldn't demand subsidies, state backed violence when they don't get their way (coca cola hiring death squads/military to kill labor activists), bail outs, patent rights, and all the myriad of protections and state back privileges that they enjoy. " What you are referring to here is called Corporatocracy, which is a result of a Mixed economy system. Nothing to do with Capitalism / Capitalists whatsoever.
1
@orphaotheseeker2770 "Show us where Marx and Engels argued that the workers labor "belongs to the state" in their writings. Go on. I've asked 4 times and you ignore this question." Never ignored that question. Again, they never said such a thing because Marxism wasn't about that.
1
@orphaotheseeker2770 "Which definition?" Historical.
1
@orphaotheseeker2770 "post this definition, and by definition I mean an academic one, not your own personal definition or the definition by some loon over at FEE or Mises. Go on." There is no academic one. There is only the historical definition, based on the writings of multiple syndicalists involved; that is, Alceste De Ambris & Filippo Tommaso Marinetti in the beginning, then later Sergio Panunzio, Alfredo Rocco, Edmondo Rossoni, Mario Palmieri, and finally Giovanni Gentile, who formulated the latest iteration of the ideology with Mussolini. Now, to that definition; 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. or if you fancy a simplistic definition; Fascism was totalitarian National Syndicalism.
1
@orphaotheseeker2770 " ideology precedes economic calculation. " Political ideologies and economic systems exist as separate entities.
1
@orphaotheseeker2770 "Socialism is a political AND economic system." Wrong. It is purely an economic system, which then is used by various political ideologies.
1
@orphaotheseeker2770 "And revolutionary action is inherently liberal, " Wrong. It is not. Castro in Cuba certainly wasn't in favor of Liberalism for example nor was his movement liberal in nature.
1
@orphaotheseeker2770 "therefore using your stupid, insane logic fascism is liberal. " Not my logic, hun. Just yours, and it is flawed.
1
@orphaotheseeker2770 "doesn't necessarily mean that socialism is fascism or fascism is socialism. " Sorelianism, Syndicalism and Fascism all were socialist ideologies.
1
@orphaotheseeker2770 " If you wanted to go further, socialism is also rooted in liberalism, that includes the liberalism that founded free market capitalism" Wrong. I highly doubt Adam Smith would have wrote "the Wealth of Nations" if that would have been the case.
1
@orphaotheseeker2770 "Fascism is right wing, this is academic. " Wrong. Fascism was far-left, sits on the right side of Marxism and is always adjacent to Marxism. There is on academic consensus, since academia is not interested in historical facts.
1
@orphaotheseeker2770 "The N*zis were right wing, " Wrong. Nazism was also totalitarian far-left, socialist 3rd position ideology, however based on ethnonationalism instead.
1
@orphaotheseeker2770 "Mussolini was right wing and Giovanni was right wing. " Wrong. Both Mussolini and Giovanni Gentile were far-left socialists. Cope harder.
1
@TheHuxleyAgnostic "Yes you did. He owns businesses, and is a party member." Said nothing about Communism.
1
@orphaotheseeker2770 "If there wasn't one, why did you just give one!?" I didn't. I gave you a historical definition.
1
@orphaotheseeker2770 "Here's one that's better: Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/ FASH-iz-əm) is a far-right, authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology and movement,[1][2][3] characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation or race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy." Not better, it is flawed and inaccurate. Fascism wasn't far-right, since it was far-left socialist ideology. It wasn't authoritarian, it was totalitarian. It was just nationalist and statist movement, no reason to use funny prefixes on words like nationalism. Fascism didn't have a dictatorial leader since by definition, Mussolini wasn't one. Fascism was lead by the so called Grand Council of Fascism, which also ended up democratically removing Mussolini from office. They were about the supremacy of the State apparatus, race wasn't important to the ideology itself.
1
@orphaotheseeker2770 "Academic sources: Turner (1975), p. 162: "... goals of radical and authoritarian nationalism"; ... Larsen, Hagtvet & Myklebust (1984), p. 424: "... organized form of integrative radical nationalist authoritarianism"; Paxton (2004), pp. 32, 45, 173: (32) "" Inaccurate. It wasn't authoritarian, it was totalitarian. It was more about Statism than nationalism.
1
@orphaotheseeker2770 " more aggressive nationalism and racism, ... "...overtly violent racism and nationalism. [...] its defining elements" Inaccurate. Racism wasn't part of Fascism until closer to the end of the war, when Mussolini bent the knee to Hitler and implemented the "racial laws". This was around a decade after the ideology was initially formed.
1
@orphaotheseeker2770 "Nothing in the definition agreed upon by academics points to "syndicalism"." As I said already, academia is not interested in historical facts.
1
@TheHuxleyAgnostic ""Fascism is the complete opposite of Marxian socialism." ~ Mussolini" Correct, and nobody has argued otherwise. It was an alternative socialist ideology, a rival to Marxist version of socialism. This they also state in their "Doctrine of Fascism". "Outside the State there can be neither individuals nor groups (political parties, associations, syndicates, classes). Therefore Fascism is opposed to socialism, which confines the movement of history to the class struggle and ignores the unity of classes established in a single economic and moral reality in the State. Fascism is likewise opposed to classist syndicalism. But when brought within the orbit of the State, Fascism recognizes the real needs which gave rise to socialism and syndicalism, giving them purpose within the guild or corporative system in which divergent interests are coordinated and reconciled in the unity of the State."
1
@orphaotheseeker2770 "One of the main reasons for the purge was because Hitler opposed Röhm's outspoken support for a "second revolution" to redistribute wealth. " The main reason for the purge was that Röhm wanted to overtake the German army (Reichswehr). Many political leaders, including President Paul von Hindenburg and Vice-Chancellor Franz von Papen, feared that the SA had become too powerful. 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.
1
@orphaotheseeker2770 "By "misguided idea", meaning that he rejected it. " Well this is what Mussolini said about it. "The mistake of Marxism is that of believing that a nation is made of two classes only. A mistake even greater is that of believing that these two classes are in a perpetual state of war. There may be, it is true, contrast of interests, but it cannot be more than transitory; it can never be systematic. This systematic antithesis, which has furnished the basis for all socialistic theories is not a fact but an assumption. Its place has to be taken by collaboration." - Speech on 20th of December, 1923
1
@TheHuxleyAgnostic "State =\= socialism. " And nobody has argued that. 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. Both Fascism and National Socialism had the latter.
1
@TheHuxleyAgnostic "An absolute monarchy is a 100% privately owned and operated state. " It wouldn't be privately owned since by definition, a State cannot be private. Such absolute monarchy would be a form of socialism.
1
@TheHuxleyAgnostic "How can the "complete opposite" of one kind of socialism be another kind of socialism? " They only vary when it comes to the implementation of socialism. They aren't "complete opposite", they are adjacent.
1
@TheHuxleyAgnostic " It was crony capitalism." Wrong. It was textbook socialism and had nothing to do with any kind of capitalism whatsoever.
1
@TheHuxleyAgnostic "You either don't know what "complete" means, or "opposite" means. Which is it?" It is the complete opposite when it comes to the implementation of socialism. Fascism wanted the state to handle it (the economy) while Communism wants to eventually get rid of the state. Fascism wanted to unify the classes while Communists wants to get rid of them. Fascism was based on statism, Communism is based on anarchy.
1
@TheHuxleyAgnostic "Rofl!!! One person owns everything, and you call that "socialism". You've proven yourself insane." Regarding Absolute Monarchy, it doesn't differ much from a socialist one-party dictatorship. In what way did any of the socialist dictators differ from kings? They were all worshiped and elitist but presented themselves as the ally of the people. Kings have done that in the past to appeal to the population.
1
@Chinas-Hurricane-Gun "Much like the modern right-wing , the right-wing in Europe rejected the "atomization" of society that accompanied the rise of liberalism in Europe and threatened a common culture ... We're seeing this rejection of individualism on the right-wing currently ... with their attempts to enforce the norms of the collective with the government on things like gender expression , sexual orientation and their panic over preserving culture and traditions from the threats supposedly posed by those outside the cultural collective like immigrants. " This is not how Right wing works. People on the right believe that the best outcome for society is achieved when individual rights and civil liberties are paramount and the role — and especially the power — of the government is minimized. What you think is right wing, isn't so, and it seems you conflate right wing and conservatism/traditionalism.
1
@ToxicAudri : "Spotted the fascist." Where?
1
@07Flash11MRC : About everything.
1
@eveningchaos1 "Capitalism seems to be in decay, that's for sure." What Capitalism? Almost every country has a Mixed economy system, not Capitalism.
1
"form of crony capitalism." Wrong. It was State socialism. Fascism, as created by Mussolini and Giovanni Gentile, 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. Fascism cared about unity in a strong central government with society being brought together by syndicalist organizations obedient to the State.
1
@Chinas-Hurricane-Gun "Yup , fascism was a reaction against socialism and Marxism ," Fascism was a reaction to failing Marxist-Leninism in Russia specifically, which drove many marxists into syndicalism instead.
1
@Chinas-Hurricane-Gun "and socialist uprising during the Biennio Rosso in the early 20's." Marxist uprising. They had no problems with socialism, and Fascism was a socialist movement itself.
1
@TheHuxleyAgnostic "Hitler was backed by leading German industrialists." Wrong. He was backed by Thyssen mainly. Regardless, the fact that some capitalists and entrepreneurs, faced with the alternative of Marxism or Nazism, chose the latter, does not require any further explanation. They preferred to live as shop managers under Hitler than to be "liquidated" as "bourgeois" by Marxists. Capitalists don't like to be killed any more than other people do.
1
@TheHuxleyAgnostic "Nazis allied with other far right parties," Wrong. The entire Nazi regime consisted of former members of other leftist movements and they allied with other leftists movements.
1
@TheHuxleyAgnostic "They literally killed off any prominent left leaning members, on the Night of the Long Knives. " Wrong. The Night of the Long Knives had nothing to do with "left leaning members" whatsoever. It was strictly about the internal power struggle between Hitler and Röhm, and simple fact that the German army leaders saw Röhm's SA as a threat. The murder of the SA leadership had several important long-term consequences. First and foremost, it 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
@TheHuxleyAgnostic "They went after communists, socialists, and unionists, first, for "illegal socialist activity". " Just like the whole Bolshevik Regime, after the October Revolution.
1
@TheHuxleyAgnostic "One of the reasons they gave for hating Jws, is for creating scialism, because Marx was of the Jwish "race". Etc. " Wrong. He blamed the Jews for creating Marxism specifically, and Capitalism. Both were seen as "ploys" to take over Germany.
1
@TheHuxleyAgnostic "exactly because they had been opposing scialists ... exactly because his black shirts had been going after socialist enclaves." Mussolini opposed Marxism / Communism, not socialism in general.
1
@EricLeafericson "Hitler wasn't really a socialist. He lied. " Wrong. By definition he was. 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
@Vincent-fo7xp ""Corporatism and fascism they are the same thing" Benito Mussolini" Where people miss the mark, is the Corporatism part. They do not know what it means in this context. Corporatism ("corporativismo" in Italian) was one of the cornerstone principles in Mussolini's fascism, and had to do with the way society and the economy would be organized, with state power at the head of a system of syndicates ("corporazione") representing each major industry.
1
@TheHuxleyAgnostic " The Harzburg Front weren't leftists." They certainly were.
1
@TheHuxleyAgnostic "You think an absolute monarchy, where one person owns everything, is socialism. " It doesn't differ much from a socialist one-party dictatorship. In what way did any of the socialist dictators differ from kings? They were all worshiped and elitist but presented themselves as the ally of the people. Kings have done that in the past to appeal to the population.
1
@TheHuxleyAgnostic : And? Their Doctrine of Fascism keeps referring to Marxist socialism there, which they also specifically point out in previous paragraph. "Such a conception of life makes Fascism the resolute negation of the doctrine underlying so-called scientific and Marxian socialism, the doctrine of historic materialism which would explain the history of mankind in terms of the class struggle and by changes in the processes and instruments of production, to the exclusion of all else."
1
@TheHuxleyAgnostic "Nope. He routinely just said "socialism". A "socialism" that repudiates the class struggle isn't socialism." Wrong. You are doing the rookie mistake by conflating Marxism and Socialism. They are two different things. Socialism exists without the "class struggle", as Socialism predates Marx and his buddy Engels.
1
@TheHuxleyAgnostic "Nope. No such thing as a "socialism" that wants to keep class hierarchies as is." Sure there are, go read some history if you don't know about them. Being against "the class hierarchies" has never been part of the definition socialism.
1
@ianslee4765 "because socialism does have a definition. its when the means of production is owned by the workers." Except that is the definition of Marxism, not socialism, which doesn't care about the workers nor any specific group, regarding ownership or control of the means of production. Again, 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
@ianslee4765 "that it is YOU who is the fascist, doing the number one tactic theyve always done- PRETEND TO BE SOCIALIST" Wrong. They never pretended to be socialist; by their own words, actions and by definition they were socialists. When it comes to me, I'm the epitome of an Anti-Fascist.
1
@ianslee4765 "listen man. youre just a nazi. " Wrong. I'm the epitome of an Anti-National Socialist and Anti-Fascist, hun. Cope harder.
1
@ianslee4765 " the fact i straight up said you have nazi talking points " Wrong. I do not. You have no clue what you are talking about then.
1
@ianslee4765 "the "collective" IS the workers as a unit. " In the Marxist theory and ideology, not in socialism in general.
1
@ianslee4765 " deflecting the fact that the primary socialist thinkers, and therefor ADVANCERS of socialist dialect have been such. " Only Marx and Engels put forth the idea about the proletarian revolution, hun. Socialism has existed way before those two German goofballs, and it had nothing to do with some "workers of the world unite" bs.
1
@ianslee4765 "you cannot today clearly draw a distinction from as all marxist ARE SOCIALIST. " Nobody has argued that they aren't socialists. Marxism is just NOT the only form of socialism there is.
1
@ianslee4765 "ALL removed voting, all created a larger state, a nondeomcratic state = not socialist state. " Nothing to do with socialism whatsoever, since again, socialism is an economic system. Also Fidel Castro did just that, what you mentioned, and Cuba most certainly is a socialist country to this day.
1
@ianslee4765 "Massive movement of PRIVATIZATION and deregulation of industries. " None of this existed, in neither National Socialist German nor in the Fascist Italy. Both nationalized their industries, and during the 1930s, both had one of the largest government owned public sectors in Europe, losing only to the USSR.
1
@ianslee4765 "a FASCIST can say they are socialist or capitalist all they want, " It's not merely about what they said, but also what they did... and what they did was textbook socialism.
1
@ianslee4765 "but what they want is control of a nations/peoples culture and to create a homogeneous society via means of authoritarian control." Correct. That has been the goal of every socialist regime so far.
1
@ianslee4765 "1: if the only thing you changed in my term is that of work to that of collective then not only are you dumb, you are actually classist. As again, it is about being in the collective hands of those who have produced and work the land. not JUST every person, regardless of input. " Socialism is not limited nor restricted to some "proletarian" class. That was your first mistake.
1
@ianslee4765 "Again, giving the state power and having no rights for the peoples isnt socialism. " There is no correlation there. Again, socialism is an economic system and doesn't care if the state has the power or what rights people have. As long as the means of production, distribution and exchange of goods are either collective owned directly, or controlled, then it is by definition, socialism.
1
@ianslee4765 "2. notice how your talking points are that of what fascists SAID or WROTE and not DID" Again, what they did was textbook socialism, by nationalizing and collectivizing the means of production, distribution and exchange of goods. In both National Socialism and Fascism, it was the government which 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.
1
@NeonNights80 "and throwing leftist party members in concentration camps." This still doesn't mean anything, since every socialist regime did the exact same thing to their socialist, political rivals. Including the Bolshevik regime.
1
@NeonNights80 "Also there's no such thing as text book socialism." By textbook socialism, I meant the centralization, nationalization and socialization of the economy by the government.
1
@NeonNights80 "Throwing the working class into a war meat grinder is the antithesis of socialism." Wrong. You are talking about apples and oranges. There is nothing antithetical to socialism there, since again, it's nothing more than an economic system.
1
@ianslee4765 "The word socialism first appeared on 13 February 1832 in Le Globe, a French Saint-Simonian newspaper founded by Pierre Leroux." Wasn't referring to the mere word. I was referring to the collectivized and socialized means of production. There are plenty of sources for this, so I just leave a brief quote from Britannica here; "The origins of socialism as a political movement lie in the Industrial Revolution. Its intellectual roots, however, reach back almost as far as recorded thought—even as far as Moses, according to one history of the subject. Socialist or communist ideas certainly play an important part in the ideas of the ancient Greek philosopher Plato, whose Republic depicts an austere society in which men and women of the “guardian” class share with each other not only their few material goods but also their spouses and children. Early Christian communities also practiced the sharing of goods and labour, a simple form of socialism subsequently followed in certain forms of monasticism. Several monastic orders continue these practices today. ..."
1
@ianslee4765 "both the claim that socialism is not about the workers AND the claim that fascists are socialist are nazi talking points." Wrong. Nothing to do with Nazis nor are they claims in the first place. Both of those statements are historical facts.
1
@aheroictaxidriver3180 " Fascism is dictatorship in the service of the capitalist class. " Wrong. Fascism was strictly against Capitalism, and it only cared about the interests of the State apparatus / Nation as a whole. As said by Mussolini himself: "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."
1
Robert Paxton was wrong, and made up a random definition similar to Umberto Eco, where the definition is so vague that it can be applied to any and every totalitarian and dictatorial regime. In reality and historically, Fascism was totalitarian, 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
@maxpowers123 "The National Socialist German Workers' Party (the nazi party) was socialist fascism at work." Actually National Socialism and Fascism were two fundamentally different, socialist 3rd position ideologies.
1
@j0j0dartiste21 "what was socialist about then besides their name?" Their economy. 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. Both National Socialism and Fascism, had the latter.
1
@dmwalker24 "Socialism in any reasonable interpretation is about eliminating social hierarchy, class divisions, and exploitation. " No. That has nothing to do with socialism whatsoever. Socialism is not an ideology, it 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
@dmwalker24 " The results of attempts to combine socialism with authoritarian systems of control are plain to see. The two are fundamentally irreconcilable. " Socialism needs authoritarianism to function in the first place. For example, you have to use force to redistribute the wealth and also steal the means of production from people in order to collectivize it.
1
@dmwalker24 " If you want to say 'Nazi good' " No, both Fascism and National Socialism were terrible, just like every socialist and collectivist ideology.
1
"And liberalism it’s one of the other face of fascism." No, not really. Fascism strictly opposed (Classical) Liberalism.
1
"the opposite of fascism, would be left wing libertarianism." The opposite of Fascism is Libertarianism (Classical Liberalism), which is on the far-right side of the modern day spectrum.
1
@EricLeafericson "Fascism isn't politics, because it has no consistent policy or ideology. " Wrong. Fascism was a very specific and very detailed political ideology based on National Syndicalism and Hegelian philosophy.
1
@EricLeafericson " It's a cult of self-supremacy disguised as a legitimate political movement. " Wrong. It was a cult of the "State supremacy" if anything.
1
@EricLeafericson "For example, Hitler wasn't actually a socialist, " Wrong. By definition he was. 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
@EricLeafericson "& Mussolini wasn't serious about somehow bringing the Roman Empire back in 20th century." It was nonetheless part of the Fascist ideology, as stated in 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
"Yeah the "policy" side of fascism would be what would be the self-styled libertarians such as Ron Paul, Rand Paul, or Paul Ryan would like." Wrong. Those people mentioned are the polar opposite of Fascism, and Fascism strictly opposed libertarianism in the first place.
1
@EricLeafericson "I'm not trusting a reference about fascism that was written before 1945." Then you should stay quiet, since you will never understand what Fascism was and what Fascism tried to achieve.
1
@EricLeafericson " I disagree with almost all your points & I don't wish to talk about it. " You shouldn't talk about things you do not understand, yes.
1
@EricLeafericson "We're just going to endlessly disagree on terms because you won't update to the 21st century." There is nothing to update. History hasn't changed in that regard.
1
@YTsupportsZionaziGenocide "and yes it does have static traits, hence "the 14 characteristics of fascism"" Sadly these random characteristics created by Umberto Eco are useless, since they are so vague and generic, that they can be applied to every totalitarian and dictatorial regime.
1
@YTsupportsZionaziGenocide "Authoritarianism is one of the static traits of fascism." Fascism wasn't merely authoritarian, it was Totalitarian in fact.
1
@YTsupportsZionaziGenocide : "how many times are you going to be wrong... seriously, you basically just admitted you know nothing about politics other than right wing propaganda and revisionist history." You need to cope harder than that.
1
@YTsupportsZionaziGenocide "not all fascism was totalitarian," Wrong. Fascism was a totalitarian ideology.
1
@YTsupportsZionaziGenocide "but all fascism is right wing authoritarianism" Wrong. Fascism was a totalitarian far-left, socialist 3rd position ideology based on National Syndicalism. Nothing to do with right wing of any kind whatsoever.
1
@YTsupportsZionaziGenocide " FAR-RIGHT WING AUTHORITARIAN, ULTRA NATIONALIST.... just incase you missed it." And it is incorrect. Go look up any proper, physical dictionary from that time period. Had nothing to do with right wing of any kind whatsoever and such was never mentioned.
1
@EricLeafericson "Maybe at one point, but not anymore." Wrong. It always was and always is. Fascism has always explicitly referred to the Italian revolutionary syndicalist movement, lead by Mussolini. If you are using the word wrong, well that is on you.
1
@EricLeafericson "There's plenty to discuss after 1936." Sure, however the definition has never changed. If you are referring to movements beyond the WW2, then we have the word "Neo-Fascism" for them.
1
@YTsupportsZionaziGenocide "you are wrong, and what worse you don't even care that your wrong because you been corrected with definitions. you have not been correct even once in this thread, talking to anyone on this thread... you are either a propagandist or a someone too ignorant to be in the politic discussion... take your pick." You need to cope harder than that, and while you are coping, please go read some history so that you would at least understand the basics of Fascism. You should start from "the Doctrine of Fascism" by Mussolini and Giovanni Gentile, or from "the Philosophy of Fascism" by Mario Palmieri.
1
@YTsupportsZionaziGenocide "you are wrong, and what worse you don't even care that your wrong because you been corrected with definitions." You need to cope harder than that, and while you are coping, please go read some history so that you would at least understand the basics of Fascism. You should start from "the Doctrine of Fascism" by Mussolini and Giovanni Gentile, or from "the Philosophy of Fascism" by Mario Palmieri.
1
@YTsupportsZionaziGenocide "you confusing fascism is GROUPS (not ideologies) that had a SIMILIAR name, likely the groups (anmely unions) called "fascio" which has the same LINGUISTIC ORIGIN, but referred to a very different thing." Fascism was a very specific, political ideology referring to revolutionary syndicalist movement lead by Mussolini. Nothing more, nothing less.
1
@YTsupportsZionaziGenocide "from merriam websters: "An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization." And that is incorrect. Nothing to do with right wing of any kind whatsoever. It wasn't a system of government either, it was a political ideology.
1
@YTsupportsZionaziGenocide "totalitarian right-wing nationalist regime " And that is incorrect. Nothing to do with right wing of any kind whatsoever.
1
@YTsupportsZionaziGenocide "and the regimes of the Nazis in Germany and Franco in Spain were also Fascist." And that is incorrect. Nazi Germany had National Socialism. Spain had reformed Falangism. Neither had anything to do with Fascism.
1
@YTsupportsZionaziGenocide "Fascism tends to include a belief in the supremacy of one national or ethnic group" Fascism was strictly about the supremacy of the State apparatus, which tried and wanted to imitate the Roman Empire.
1
@YTsupportsZionaziGenocide " an insistence on obedience to a powerful leader, " It was strict and absolute obedience to the State apparatus. Not to any particular leader.
1
@YTsupportsZionaziGenocide Again, you need to cope harder than that, and while you are coping, please go read some history so that you would at least understand the basics of Fascism. You should start from "the Doctrine of Fascism" by Mussolini and Giovanni Gentile, or from "the Philosophy of Fascism" by Mario Palmieri.
1
@alistairmackintosh9412 "Fascism is the explicit design of a society in the form of a capitalist corporation, as Mussolini said." Wrong. Fascism had nothing to do with neither capitalism nor with business corporations. Also Mussolini has never said such a thing. I guess you are doing the rookie American linguistic mistake by conflating Corporatism with business corporations. However they are not the same thing.
1
Fascism was strictly the "supremacy of the State apparatus".
1