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

Historia, Magistra Vitae
Richard J Murphy
comments

Comments by "Historia, Magistra Vitae" (@Historia.Magistra.Vitae.) on "Richard J Murphy" channel.

Wrong. Not only is that antithetical to Fascism but it is also the complete opposite of it. What you are referring to is known as Corporatocracy, a completely different thing.
8
"Your definition essentially boils down to anyone who is not a socialist is far right. " Well I would say it's a good start. Left is anti-capitalist while the Right is anti-socialist. Centrists are the people who want a Mixed economy. Simple enough.
7
@shiptj01 "The Soviet Union was the far left system. " and the Nazis were a competing system, also on the Far-Left. In practice they were almost identical.
6
@thepoliticalgardner "fascism is the end point of capitalism." Wrong. The end point of Capitalism is Laissez-faire. Fascism strictly opposed both.
5
@thepoliticalgardner "That's a form of fascism." Wrong. That has nothing to do with Fascism whatsoever.
5
Those random traits have very little to do with Fascism per se. They apply to almost every authoritarian/totalitarian regime.
5
With all due respect, you people (activist Jason Stanley included) have no clue what Fascism means nor what it represented. Which is rather ironic, considering a well known Neo-Fascist Oswald Mosley was from your country. Please do your homework before making such videos, learn what Fascism was about, and stop using the word as a slur. For that, I highly suggest starting from the basics, such as "the Doctrine of Fascism" by Mussolini and Giovanni Gentile. After that, "Fascism: An Informal Introduction to Its Theory and Practice" by Renzo De Felice.
5
@thepoliticalgardner "It was Mussolini's Ghost Wrtier Giovanni Gentile who coined the phrase Fascism should be called Corporatism." Wrong. Neither Mussolini nor Gentile has said such a thing. Common misquote. Corporatism ("corporativismo" in Italian) was their socialist economic model, and one of the cornerstone principles in 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. Mussolini's corporatist view stressed total state power over businesses as much as over individuals, via these governing industry bodies controlled by the Fascist party, in which businesses retained the responsibilities of property, but few if any of the freedoms.
4
@thepoliticalgardner "Mussolini's Fascism was government departments run by corporations along with major cities." Wrong. Corporations run nothing. Everything was run by the Fascist State. Again, you are referring to Corporatocracy which is a completely different thing than Fascism. Meanwhile under Fascism, there couldn't be any single economic interests which were above the general economic interests of the State, no individual, economic initiatives which did not fall under the supervision and regulation of the State.
4
Fascism was socialism.
4
@navydonald "The spectrum really should be Mao on the left, through to Hitler on the right imo." There is no practical difference between Mao and Hitler. Both were collectivists and totalitarian socialists, hence Far-Leftists. Their main difference was only ideological.
3
@thepoliticalgardner "In fact many economists like Jürgen Kuczynski who say it's basically Monopolistic Markets and Capitalism." Again, that is Corporatocracy, not Capitalism nor Fascism.
3
@gerardpeterbrennan "Socialist is not central Government control. Socialist is power for the people, not Central Government." 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. National Socialists had the latter.
3
 @Redf322 What "wrong" exactly? I have never understood why it is "greed" to want to keep the money you have earned but not greed to want to take somebody else's money.
3
When it comes to the British Reform party, nothing. They are not Far-Right by any means. They are Center-Right. It's not rocket science. The fundamental differences between left-wing and right-wing ideologies center around the rights of individuals vs. the power of the collective. Left-wing beliefs are based on the notion that society is best served with an expanded role for the collective in-group (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. - The more Right you go, the more individual rights and liberties are allowed, hence resulting in an economic liberalization and eventually, Laissez-faire. - The more Left you go, the more collectivism is unleashed upon the society, hence resulting in an economic centralization and usually Socialism.
3
@calzonelover3950 "Far right generally in this case based on ultra-nationalist and nativist tendencies ... A far right critique involves scapegoating migrants for economic problems they didn't cause, using racist stereotypes in this argument and the idea that there is a static national culture that must remain pure and can't exist without specific other cultures for some reason ... Far right leaders will convince you that you can improve living conditions by stopping immigration but not changing the way the economy operates." Nothing to with Right wing of any kind, as they do not subscribe to collectivism such as nationalism. In fact, 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.
3
Neo-Liberalism is more or less the polar opposite of Fascism. It was socialism infused with statism and nationalism, which enabled Fascism and Fascists in general. Again, go and do your homework before making such videos.
3
Minimmalmythicist "Also, I would argue that fascist parties have varied on economics, they certainly aren´t socialist in any shape or form, " Wrong. They had a very specific socialist economic model known as 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. Mussolini's corporatist view stressed total state power over businesses as much as over individuals, via these governing industry bodies controlled by the Fascist party, in which businesses retained the responsibilities of property, but few if any of the freedoms.
3
Minimmalmythicist "they are opposed to the idea of workplace democracy," Wrong. They didn't actually. Corporatism was a system where sectors of the economy were divided into syndicates (which were nationalized Unions that then elected their own members into government as well as democratically run their workspaces. Each profession and field had their own Syndicate, which in turn, operated symbiotically with its composed members), whose activities and interactions were managed and coordinated by the government. The idea was to let the state control and direct the economy from the top-down without itself owning the means of production.
3
Minimmalmythicist "the Nazis actually privatised a few companies after they got power, " Wrong. They didn't. Privatization was never a thing in Nazi Germany. On the contrary, they nationalized most if not all of the German industry and later reorganized all industries into corporations run by members of the Nazi Party. They had no Fascism either. National Socialism and Fascism were two fundamentally different ideologies.
3
Minimmalmythicist " Mussolini privatised quite a lot of state companies too." Wrong. He didn't. The only privatization the Fascist Italy saw was before Mussolini's actual dictatorship, during the early 1920s when Alberto de' Stefani was handling the economy. After 1925 he was fired and Mussolini ushered in his one-party dictatorship. Throughout the whole 1930s, both Fascist Italy and National Socialist Germany had the largest government owned public sectors in whole Europe, losing only to Stalin's USSR.
3
@shiptj01 "How that isn't considered far right, I'll never understand." Because that has nothing to do with Far-Right. You were referring to Traditionalism, which the Nazis were more or less.
3
@SkinnerCrate : Nothing childish about historical facts.
2
"extremist, authoritarian, ultra nationalist ( traits of far right politics)." Nothing to do with Far-Right. Those are Leftist traits.
2
No such thing as "left liberal/liberal left". Liberalism is a Far-Right ideology.
2
Actually they are morally defensible, easily. For example, do you believe that stealing money is wrong? Do you think greed is a bad thing?
2
"Yes, Trump is a Fascist. " Nope. If anything, Trump is more or less the opposite of a Fascist, by being a capitalist "bourgeoisie".
2
@burner9147 : Wrong. They were pro-state run and controlled business i.e. nationalization and it was a socialist Far-Left party. Also every socialist one-party dictatorship sent other rival leftists to camps, including the Bolsheviks. Your point being?
2
@Redf322 : Every socialist regime did.
2
@gerardpeterbrennan "Lenin was not Socialist, Communism is not synonymous with Socialism." Lenin most certainly was a socialist and true, Communism is an ideology / theory and socialism is an economic system, so two different things.
2
@gerardpeterbrennan "Marx specifically called his sytem 'Dictatorship of the Proletariat,'" The Dictatorship of the Proletariat is a phase in which the proletariat take control over the State apparatus, and later the State is supposed to wither away which creates the Communist society, without the State, class and money.
2
@Incognito-jf1dr "the Nazis in 1933 promised industrialists that they would destroy socialism and trade Unions.if in power . " That they would destroy Marxism / Communism, not socialism. They had no problems with socialism. "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. .. I will tolerate no opposition. We recognize only subordination – authority downwards and responsibility upwards. You just tell the German bourgeoisie that I shall be finished with them far quicker than I shall with Marxism... When once the conservative forces in Germany realize that only I and my party can win the German proletariat over to the State and that no parliamentary games can be played with Marxist parties, then Germany will be saved for all time, then we can found a German Peoples State. .. Over the last forty years the German bourgeoisie has been a lamentable failure; it has not given the German people a single leader; it will have to bow without gainsaying to the totality of my ideology... The bourgeoisie rules by intrigue, but it can have no foothold in my movement because we accept no Jews or Jewish accomplices into our Party." - Hitler's interview with Richard Breiting, 1931, published in Edouard Calic, ed.,
2
@dazjackson1972 : None of them are Fascists.
2
@TSZatoichi "(and make no mistake, Trump and the people around him ARE Fascist)" Wrong. They have nothing to do with Fascism whatsoever. In fact, they are more or less the complete opposite. Also what you described there applies to every single totalitarian and dictatorial regime, not just Fascism.
2
Fascism is not rising anywhere and it hasn't really been a thing since the WW2 era.
2
Fascism is not a worry, anywhere. It's not a thing. Authoritarianism on the other hand, that is a problem.
2
@strandedstarfish : There was no Fascism in Germany. They had National Socialism.
2
There is no such thing as "late stage capitalism". It doesn't exist. Also Fascism was a socialist and strictly anti-capitalist ideology.
2
Racism has nothing to do with Capitalism, nor does Fascism which was a socialist and strictly anti-capitalist ideology.
2
@jemalo-cszweitausend As Thomas Sowell said; "I have never understood why it is "greed" to want to keep the money you have earned but not greed to want to take somebody else's money."
2
That in it's essence is fascism: ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power."" You are not making much sense as all of those 3 you mentioned are completely different things. Ownership of government by "an individual" can be an Absolute Monarchy or a dictatorship. Ownership of government by "a group" is what we call an oligarchy, which technically every single country is, as that group could also be called as a bunch of politicians. Ownership of government by "any controlling private power" makes no sense really as the government is a public entity by definition, unless you were referring to Corporatocracy. In any case, Fascism specifically had both a monarchy and totalitarian oligarchy. Their internal affairs were handled "democratically" by the Grand Council of Fascism, which was supervised by the King of Italy, Victor Emmanuel III.
2
@Redf322 : They were Far-Left socialists.
2
"That in it's essence is fascism: ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power."" You are not making much sense as all of those 3 you mentioned are completely different things. Ownership of government by "an individual" can be an Absolute Monarchy or a dictatorship. Ownership of government by "a group" is what we call an oligarchy, which technically every single country is, as that group could also be called as a bunch of politicians. Ownership of government by "any controlling private power" makes no sense really as the government is a public entity by definition, unless you were referring to Corporatocracy. In any case, Fascism specifically had both a monarchy and totalitarian oligarchy. Their internal affairs were handled "democratically" by the Grand Council of Fascism, which was supervised by the King of Italy, Victor Emmanuel III.
2
"The truth is only the far-left/communism can combat fascism." No, just no. Fascism itself was a Far-Left ideology and literally a rival socialist ideology to Communism. As created by Mussolini and Giovanni Gentile, Fascism came from the 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. Only by eliminating socialism in general, we can combat and win Fascism.
2
@DarkKerialstraz : Nothing to do with Far-Right.
2
Reminder that Far-Right is not a thing, anywhere in mainstream European nor UK politics.
2
@calzonelover3950 "it's literally the definition from Wikipedia. " And that is yet another word / term that they got wrong.
2
@calzonelover3950 "This is how the far right is defined by most people. " And they are wrong as well.
2
@calzonelover3950 Well those people are either nationalists or ethnonationalists. They are collectivists as they think, that their in-group should be given priority over this other group and individuals in general.... reasons may vary.
2
"I think of it as a term coined in the 20th century, to describe the far right wing of 20th century geopolitics. That being extremist ethno-nationalism such as Nazis and Fascists." Except Nationalism in general is a Leftist trait, as it is a form of Collectivism. Also both National Socialism and Fascism were socialist Far-Left ideologies.
2
"Authoritarian Liberal establishment " Authoritarian Progressive establishment* ... nothing to do with Liberalism.
2
There is no Far-Right rising anywhere and the 1930’s Europe was a socialist playground.
2
Fascism was strictly a socialist Far-Left ideology in the first place.
2
"The core principles of Libertarianism include:" These are the core principles of Liberalism actually ... and Libertarianism was a socialist ideology, and the word coined by an Anarcho-Communist Joseph Déjacque.
2
"Libertarianism can manifest in various forms, from classical liberalism to more radical interpretations that advocate for anarcho-capitalism, " Technically there is just Liberalism, which many just seem to mislabel as "libertarianism" or "classical liberalism". Anarcho-Capitalism indeed is a strand of Liberalism, as Liberalism how it was put forth by John Locke, results in a Nightwatchman state.
2
They were wrong. Fascism hasn't been a thing since the WW2 era, and it will never be a thing again... nor will National Socialism for that matter.
2
@shiptj01 "Nazi Germany had a mixed economy. " Wrong. Nazis had a socialist Command economy. 99% of the modern day countries today, have a mixed economy system.
2
@pascalsolal : Wrong. Fascism was statism first, nationalism second. Also it wasn't racist. Fascism was a totalitarian far-left, socialist 3rd position ideology based on National Syndicalism which they adapted from a French Marxist, known as Georges Sorel. It rejected individualism, capitalism, liberalism, democracy, and marxist interpretation of socialism ("class warfare"). Instead, it advocated for class collaboration where the means of production was organized by national worker syndicals (i.e. trade unions / Fascist Corporatism), and the guiding philosophy of the state was Actual Idealism (Neo-Hegelianism). Being an outgrowth of Sorelian Syndicalism, (which itself was an outgrowth from Marxist socialism), its 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 finalized by Mussolini and Giovanni Gentile ("the Doctrine of Fascism"), Fascism came from the belief that the "Stateless and Classless society" Communism calls for after its "dictatorship of the proletariat" cannot be achieved, and that only the State can properly organize a socialist society. Therefore, Fascism cared about unity in a strong central government with society being brought together by syndicalist organizations obedient to the State. [01] "La Dottrina Del Fascismo / the Doctrine of Fascism", by Mussolini and Giovanni Gentile [02] "Che cosa è il Fascismo: Discorsi e polemiche / Origins and Doctrine of Fascism", by Giovanni Gentile [03] "the Philosophy of Fascism", by Mario Palmieri [04] "Fascism: An Informal Introduction to Its Theory and Practice", by Renzo De Felice [05] "Mussolini's Intellectuals", by A. James Gregor [06] "La Camera dei Fasci e delle Corporazioni", by Rabaglietti Giuseppe & Sergio Panunzio [07] "Teoria generale dello Stato Fascista", by Sergio Panunzio [08] "The Birth of Fascist Ideology" by Zeev Sternhell [09] Any work from Emilio Gentile
2
@pascalsolal " Fascism was based on nationalism and racism. .... Fascism is based on the idea of race, on a biological basis." That has nothing to do with Fascism whatsoever. You are confusing Fascism with Hitler's National Socialism, which was a different ideology.
2
@pascalsolal "Therefore, when they were in power, the fascists fought the socialists and communists. They put them in jail, they killed them. " Fascism fought against Marxism specifically. It had not problems with socialism in general. However every single socialist one-party dictatorship fought against their socialist and communist rivals... including the Bolshevik regime itself. I highly suggest checking out what the October Revolution was about, and the Great Purge.
2
@eightiesmusic1984 "by which you mean the far right, " National Socialists were on the Far-Left though.
2
@eightiesmusic1984 " because there are plenty who wrongly conflate national socialism with socialism. " National Socialism being one of the branches of socialism is a historical fact, hun. 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.
2
@eightiesmusic1984 "No-one associates modern day socialism with the party in power in Germany from 1933 to 1945 if indeed that is the comparison you were making." That is due to ignorance. Marxism is not the only socialist ideology around.
2
@billpugh58 "No one but a few far right apologists and revisionists think that. " These are basic historical WW2 era facts. Nothing to do with any kind of far-right or "revisionists".
2
@timothyrussell4445 "Only 33% voted for Hitler in 1933 yet that was enough for him to ultimately secure power." Not exactly. Hitler reluctantly joined into a coalition government under the promise that Hindenburg would make him a Chancellor, which he did.
1
@timothyrussell4445 " we can see in far right leaders all over the planet - Trump, Modi, Bolsonaro, Mileil, Putin, LePen, Weidel; " Out of those people, only Milei is on the Far-Right. Trump is a moderate, Center-Right. Modi, Center-Right. Putin, Leftist. LePen, Center-Right, Weidel, Center-Right.
1
@timothyrussell4445 "Maybe they're not quite yet at the same level level as Hitler, but they're definitely moving in that direction." Are you sure they are moving towards Far-Left socialism? You do realize that Hitler and his National Socialism was by definition, a totalitarian Far-Left, socialist 3rd position ideology based on ethnonationalism trying to supersede Marxism as the most common socialist ideology. They had nothing to do with Right wing of any kind. You cannot be an advocate for centralized planning and strong government controls without being a socialist. That's what made Hitler a socia list. 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 Ma rxist international or full Soviet type. He struggled with HOW to distinguish his socialism from the rest of the Marxist crowd.
1
@timothyrussell4445 : Trump has been a moderate ever since he started running for president. VOX magazine back in 2015 even wrote an article called "Donald Trump is the perfect “moderate”". He is more or less in favor of the Status quo. He is not seeking to make the government smaller or bigger, but we shall see what actually happens in the next 4 years.
1
Minimmalmythicist "Fascism wasn´t centrally planned as such, " Wrong. It was, via Corporatism. 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
Minimmalmythicist " most private businesses in Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy were in private hands, indeed" Wrong. Most businesses and the industry in general was nationalized and was under the control of the State.
1
That is not how Capitalism works though.
1
Liberalism and the Far-Right doesn't mean what you think it means.
1
Far-Right is Liberalism actually.
1
You do know that Classical Liberalism is the epitome of humanity and decency, right?
1
"It is bizarre how you can be deemed far left just because you have compassion and empathy for others." It's not the compassion and empathy... it's the fact that the things you mentioned are supposed to be achieved via stealing money from others.
1
@musiqtee "Fascism has indeed existed on both sides of the typical left-right spectrum. " No, it hasn't. Fascism was a totalitarian Far-Left, socialist 3rd position ideology. Nothing to do with Right wing of any kind.
1
@Omegaess "That would be a very ignorant claim ... their main policies and platforms are not similar to socialists. " Wrong. It is a historical fact. By definition, National Soci alism was a totalitarian Far-Left, socialist 3rd position ideology based on ethnonationalism trying to supersede Marxism as the most common socialist ideology. You cannot be an advocate for centralized planning and strong government controls without being a socialist. That's what made Hitler a socia list. 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 Ma rxist international or full Soviet type. He struggled with HOW to distinguish his socialism from the rest of the Marxist crowd.
1
@Omegaess "Socialism and communism are about making a planed economy with high regulations and worker protections." And it just so happens, that Nazi Germany had a socialist Command economy, where the State 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 should be even more obvious after 1936 when they initiated their "4 year plan" ... after all, Nazi Germany was almost identical to the USSR under Stalin.
1
@Omegaess "The nazi’s wanted to kill Jews" Because those Jews were supposedly behind both Marxism and Capitalism.
1
@bfkc111 "No serious historian or European considers them left-wing, " Wrong. Every single one of them do. You can start from a historian known as Robert Gellately.
1
@bfkc111 "their main platform was nationalism and almost everything that is considered right-wing now." Wrong. Nationalism is a form of Collectivism, a Leftist trait. Nothing to do with Right wing of any kind whatsoever, as 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. Right wing ideologies do not embrace Nationalism, but rather Patriotism. In all Right wing ideologies, the Individual is superior to the State.
1
@bfkc111 "They are one of the purest forms of right-wing extremism. (" Wrong. They were a textbook example of Far-Left socialism. They had nothing to do with Right wing of any kind whatsoever, and so called "purest form of right-wing extremism" would be Anarcho-Capitalism.
1
@bfkc111 "If you get hung up on the "socialism" part you may ignore that back then this wasn't much used as a scare yet," They had socialism in their name, because they advocated for socialism on a national level. Simple as that. They were very vocal and clear about it. "The first three principles were clear, and they are inseparable from each other. Socialism as the final concept of duty, the ethical duty of work, not just for oneself but also for one’s fellow man’s sake, and above all the principle: Common good before own good, a struggle against all parasitism and especially against easy and unearned income. And we were aware that in this fight we can rely on no one but our own people. We are convinced that socialism in the right sense will only be possible in nations and races that are Aryan, and there in the first place we hope for our own people and are convinced that socialism is inseparable from nationalism. To be nationalist does not mean for us to belong to one party or another, but to show with every action that one benefits the people; it means love for all the people without exception.From this point of view we will realize that it is necessary to preserve the most precious thing a people has, the sum of all active creative powers of its workers, to keep it healthy in body and soul. And this view of nationalism compels us to immediately form a front against its opposite, the Semitic conception of the idea of people (Volk), and especially against the Semitic concept of work. Since we are socialists, we must necessarily also be antisemites because we want to fight against the very opposite: materialism and mammonism. And when today the Jew still runs into our factories and says: How can you be a socialist antisemite? Are not you ashamed? – there comes a time in which we will ask: How can you not be an antisemite, being a socialist! There comes a time when it will be obvious that socialism can only be carried out accompanied by nationalism and antisemitism. The three concepts are inseparably connected. They are the foundations of our program and therefore we call ourselves National Socialists." — "Why We Are Anti-Semites" (August 15, 1920 speech in Munich at the Hofbräuhaus).
1
No such thing as free healthcare, unless you are into slave labor.
1
@thepoliticalgardner "Neoliberalism is outsourcing of government departments for corporations to run." And this is antithetical to Fascism, where the Government controlled every single business for the "common good", i.e. for the benefit of the State. 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." - Speech on August 8th, 1925.
1
@reallymakesyouthink "If you are to the right of liberal you are probably far right. Liberal is centre right really." No, just no. Liberalism is on the Far-Right.
1
@fluxington " Liberal always has been somewhere to the left. In recent years, liberals have embraced more and more left wing policies." They aren't Liberals.
1
@fluxington "Classical liberals try to remain in the centre but are now branded as right wing because they're not left enough." Liberalism i.e. Classical Liberalism is on the Far-Right. There is nothing centrist about a Night-Watchman state i.e. Minarchism, which Liberalism advocates for.
1
@akastewart "Liberalism is definitionally tolerant, permissive and consequently moderately progressive. That’s moderate left." That has nothing to do with Liberalism whatsoever.
1
@reallymakesyouthink "Once you support capitalism and massive wealth inequality you are right wing. Liberalism is centre right. It's free market with some social safety net." Nothing to do with Liberalism whatsoever, as Liberalism literally advocates for free market and laissez-faire economics and civil liberties under the rule of law, with special emphasis on property rights, individual autonomy, limited government, economic freedom, political freedom and freedom of speech.
1
@reallymakesyouthink "Libertarianism relies on the free market for it's operation, not people helping others." Actually Libertarianism was a socialist ideology and had nothing to do with free market, as they advocated for cooperative ownership and management, viewing private property in the means of production as a barrier to freedom and liberty.
1
@reallymakesyouthink "libertarianism means no government and relying on the "invisible hand" of the market. " That is Anarcho-Capitalism actually, not "libertarianism".
1
@reallymakesyouthink : No. Libertarianism is a socialist movement.
1
@reallymakesyouthink "You realise there are different categories of liberalism?" And I'm talking about the original, i.e. just Liberalism or what people incorrectly call "classical liberalism".
1
@reallymakesyouthink "Libertarianism is not a socialist ideology. " The ideology and the word itself was coined by a French Communist known as Joseph Déjacque.
1
@reallymakesyouthink "Libertarianism is about freedom for the individual," That is Liberalism, as it was put forth by John Locke. There is no reason to use the word "libertarianism" at all.
1
@akastewart : Really depends how you define those words you mentioned. Essentially Liberalism was all about maximizing the freedom of the individual, where the sole purpose of the govenrment was to protect people's lives, liberty and property. That's about it. In practice it advocates for Minarchism / a Night-watchman State.
1
@akastewart "Liberalism on the far right? Nonsense. Utter nonsense." If socialism is on the Far-Left, then logic dictates that Liberalism is on the Far-Right.
1
@akastewart "all value that are incompatible with far-right ideology." Wrong. People on the Far-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
@akastewart "Do you know why the term ‘classical liberalism’ has become popular again? To distinguish it from modern Liberalism, which is the de facto Liberalism of our age." Because people are ignorant and do not read history. Classical Liberalism is a synonym actual Liberalism founded by John Locke, and the only reason there are words such as "classical liberalism" and "American Right Libertarianism" is because people on the Left are using words wrong. There is no "modern Liberalism", that is Neo-Liberalism i.e. not Liberalism at all essentially. This semantic confusion was started by Americans of course, as the term Liberalism after the New Deal and especially in the 1960s became widely used in the United States to refer to a centre-left politics that supports degrees of government intervention, which has nothing to do with Liberalism.
1
@akastewart "Go tell the far right then, bc they seem to think it’s about national and ethnic identity. " I'm from the Far-Right, and national and ethnic identity are forms of collectivism and not advocated by the Right in general.
1
@akastewart "Your assertion that they value civil liberties is somewhat incompatible with far right practices, such as Jim Crow, KKK." They have nothing to do with with Far-Right nor Right wing in general.
1
@akastewart "Where would you position Jim Crow and KKK on the left-right axis?" To the Left.
1
@akastewart "You think civil rights are antithetical to socialism?" Depends how you define civil rights but generally they are. For example socialism doesn't allow economic freedom as it goes against private property ownership. It also doesn't allow individual freedom either as you are supposed to work for the collective good.
1
@akastewart "I’ll ask again, where would you situate Jim Crow and KKK on the left-right axis? " Again, on the Left.
1
@akastewart "Additionally, if you believe Liberalism is far-right, where do you believe Fascism sits relative to that?" Fascism was adjacent to Marxism, on its right side, since it was a totalitarian far-left, socialist 3rd position ideology based on National Syndicalism which they adapted from a French Marxist, known as 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 Sorelian 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. [01] "La Dottrina Del Fascismo / the Doctrine of Fascism", by Mussolini and Giovanni Gentile [02] "Che cosa è il Fascismo: Discorsi e polemiche / Origins and Doctrine of Fascism", by Giovanni Gentile [03] "the Philosophy of Fascism", by Mario Palmieri [04] "Fascism: An Informal Introduction to Its Theory and Practice", by Renzo De Felice [05] "Mussolini's Intellectuals", by A. James Gregor [06] "La Camera dei Fasci e delle Corporazioni", by Rabaglietti Giuseppe & Sergio Panunzio [07] "Teoria generale dello Stato Fascista", by Sergio Panunzio [08] Any work from Emilio Gentile
1
@akastewart "that it doesn’t provide clarity between the Economic components of a political ideology and its Social components." There is no need to. When you have individual freedom it also results in economic freedom as you are free to trade and generate wealth as you please. When you have collectivism it results in a controlled social and economic environment.
1
@reallymakesyouthink "Do you understand why these ideas aren't compatible?" laissez-faire economics and civil rights most certainly are compatible.
1
@reallymakesyouthink "Examples of civil rights the right to government services, the right to a public education, the right to gainful employment, the right to housing, the right to use public facilities." Technically they are not rights as nobody is obligated to provide you those things. You have no right to force people to educate you. You have no right to force people to employ you. You have no right to force people to build houses for you. They are services and commodities provided by people, which wouldn't be a problem if they wouldn't be funded with stolen money.
1
@akastewart "But as you point out elsewhere a completely free market in practice often comes into conflict with individual freedoms, such as civil rights. e.g. " It doesn't conflict with individual freedoms. However it can conflict with "civil rights" depending on what the government decides those "rights" to be.
1
@akastewart "Right wing Christian Conservatism is broadly in favour of economic free market liberty, but against certain civil rights, such as LGBT+ rights, women’s rights, etc. This demonstrates how economic freedom is not a good proxy for all freedom, and shows why a single axis is insufficient." Christian Conservatism is not a Right wing thing though. The single axis is sufficient when it is about individualism vs. collectivism which I have tried to convey. When you have individual freedom it also results in economic freedom.
1
@akastewart "Do you believe socialist figures like Jeremy Corbyn or Bernie Sanders are against private property? Do you think they would force people into collectivist structures and roles?" If they are socialists then yes, by definition they would be against property rights in general. If they also advocate for socialism on a nation / government level, then yes, it would logically follow that they would force people into collectivist structures and roles unless they make everything related to the government voluntary.
1
@akastewart "You’d place Jim Crow and KKK — i.e. Christian ultra-Conservatism and ethno-Nationalism — on the left? " Yes. For me there is no difference between "Christian ultra-Conservatism" and "modern Left wing progressivism" and nationalism. Both want to use the government as a tool to enforce their own subset of beliefs which they think are more moral and just than the other beliefs. All of them are collectivists who do not like individual rights, freedoms and civil liberties, unless its about their own in-group.
1
@Redf322 : So did the Bolsheviks during and after the October Revolution, your point being?
1
Take your meds, loonie, and please stop using words that you do not understand.
1
@hotchpotch3278 : We can start from the fact that whatever wealth and money they have accumulated, it is their property and a result of goods and service they have provided to society in general.
1
@hotchpotch3278 "and what about the services supplied by a government? Safety, security, defence, general health, education, roads etc." Most of those could and should be privatized, unless some kind of voluntary tax system is put in place.
1
No, and that is not how Fascism even works.
1
"The state provides modern infrastructure, a police force, independent courts and judiciary, laws to protect property rights and an educated and contented workforce." If the State would only provide the police, firemen etc, independent courts, laws and judiciary... everything would be fine, since then we would have a Night-watchman state. But no country has such a limited government now do they, and that's the problem.
1
@WarrenPeaceOG "Far Right = Authoritarianism + Neoliberalism + Bigotry." Wrong. People on the Far-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. The epitome of Far-Right is Liberalism.
1
@WarrenPeaceOG " In fact, it contradicts the conventional understanding of political ideologies. " Ah yes, the "conventional understanding" where both the Far-Left and the Far-Right advocate for a totalitarian and economically centralized society based on socialism.
1
There is no Fascism anywhere.
1
@heartofatum : Not really.
1
" Fascism exists to PRESERVE Neoliberalism by shifting its failures away from aristocrats and billionaires and onto outsider groups." You are not making any sense. Fascism and Neoliberalism are more or less the polar opposite of ideologies.
1
"What is wrong with being a Socialist?" Effectively you are then in favor of theft, and something which requires totalitarianism. No country has been able to make the thing work properly.
1
That would collapse most small private sector businesses and increase prices elsewhere to compensate. Also it would mean less workers since not every business can afford to pay that for simple jobs which are not worth that much. If you also want to apply that into the public sector, then it will most likely increase taxes. The word 'economy growth' doesn't mean what you think it means.
1
There is no such thing as "religious far right".
1
"and many of the definitions of fascism outlined by others I've come across. " There is only one definition for Fascism though; a totalitarian far-left, socialist 3rd position ideology based on National Syndicalism which they adapted from a French Marxist, known as Georges Sorel. It rejected individualism, capitalism, liberalism, democracy, and marxist interpretation of socialism ("class warfare"). Instead, it advocated for class collaboration where the means of production was organized by national worker syndicals (i.e. trade unions / Fascist Corporatism), and the guiding philosophy of the state was Actual Idealism (Neo-Hegelianism).
1
Fascism was a socialist Far-Left ideology though.
1
Is the country free if people are told what political ideologies they are and are not allowed to support?
1
@l3eatalphal3eatalpha : ... and that is why everybody wants to be a politician, instead of a private business owner.
1
"On the one hand you have the comic-book Fascists who like Seig Heiling and bullying Muslim women in the street." These people are on the Far-Left actually, and they would also be National Socialists, not Fascists.
1
Neoliberalism and Fascism are more or less the complete opposites, as Fascism was a socialist Far-Left ideology.
1
"This is what brought the n@zis to power in 1933 and it is helping to bring a new generation of far-right into power in the 21st century." Except there was no Far-Right in Germany during that time, nor anywhere in Europe for that matter. Also National Socialists were on the Far-Left, and also socialists by definition.
1
@gerardpeterbrennan "The National Socialists were Leftist in name only, not in actuality. " Wrong. They were by definition, on the Far-Left.
1
@gerardpeterbrennan " They called themselves Socialists because that was quite popular and they thought they could use that, but none of their policies were actually Socialist." Wrong. They called themselves socialists because by definition they were. 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
@rohanharridge5579 "If the Nazis were socialist they wouldn't have violently suppressed organised labour they did." Wrong. Every single socialist regime suppressed independent unions, including the Bolsheviks. 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
@rohanharridge5579 " The Nazis hated socialism in their own words." Wrong. They never hated socialism and you will never find a single quote from any of them hating on socialism. They hated Marxism and Communism specifically, as National Socialism came from the 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
@rohanharridge5579 "Maybe try reading a few books." Take your own advice, hun. You can start from these; [01] "Mein Kampf" by Hitler [02] "Hitler's National Socialism" by Rainer Zitelmann [03] "the Vampire Economy" by Günter Reimann [04] "Omnipotent Government: The Rise of the Total State and Total War" by Ludwig Von Mises [05] "Hitler's True Believers" by Robert Gellately [06] "The Cause of Hitler's Germany" by Leonard Peikoff
1
@avs4365 "They also denied any opposition. Employed slave labour. Denied workers the right to strike (working hours increased dramatically under the regime) while the leaders hoarded wealth and property theft throughout their time in power," Just like the Bolsheviks essentially.
1
@Chris-wz5yd "No, it was a right wing dictator who pretended to be left wing, j" They were by definition, Left wing, Far-Left wing in fact. If you want to see a "right wing dictator" then I suggest you check out Augusto Pinochet.
1
@gerardpeterbrennan "Any system advocating cventral control is not Socialist." Wrong. It is by definition.
1
@gerardpeterbrennan " And Hitler's Government had nothing at all Socialist about it." Wrong. It had, by definition.
1
@gerardpeterbrennan "State-owned is Communist, not Socialist. " Wrong. There is no state under Communism. State ownership of the means of production is a form of socialism.
1
@gerardpeterbrennan "They are different systems although Capitalists like to equate the two. " Wrong. We do not.
1
@gerardpeterbrennan "Communism is a bad system, that leads to the sort of crap that the USSR descended into. " There was no Communism in the USSR. They had Marxist-Leninism and later Stalinism, which were spinoffs from Marxism. None of them achieved Communism.
1
@gerardpeterbrennan "Socialism is worker-owned, entirely different. " Wrong. 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
@gerardpeterbrennan "Nazis were a State-controlled system, they had nothing to do with Socialism. " Wrong. Again, State control over the means of production and economy in general is a form of socialism.
1
@gerardpeterbrennan "They had nothing to do with Communism either." They were rival ideology, as both National Socialism and Fascism came from the 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
@gerardpeterbrennan "Fascism is a Company-controlled Economic system," Wrong. That is Corporatocracy. Nothing to do with Fascism, where the State controlled and directed the economy.
1
@gerardpeterbrennan "Actually not much different to what Capitalism has descended into now." Both Hitler and Mussolini were devout socialists and their ideologies were strictly anti-capitalist.
1
@Incognito-jf1dr "One of the groups they murdered were Trade Union members, left wing groups, Communists etc. " All they did was mimic the Bolsheviks.
1
@Incognito-jf1dr "No they were most definitely NOT socialists or Left Wing. " Wrong. By definition, National Socialism was a totalitarian Far-Left, socialist 3rd position ideology based on ethnonationalism.
1
@Incognito-jf1dr "This attempt to link genuinely Socialism to the to Nazism is just a rewriting of history." Wrong. It is a historical fact. 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
@briskyoungploughboy : Wrong. It's a historical fact.
1
@iExploder : There were no Communists in his party, and the whole party was socialist. This socialist infighting is nothing new... in Russia they had a whole civil war because of it, just check out "October Revolution".
1
@nicholasmcanespy3408 : There is no such thing as "state capitalism" and such a term is an oxymoron. State ownership of the means of production is a form of socialism, also known as a Command economy.
1
@ka9fon Bernie advocates for European Social-Democracy, which would be on the Center-Left. Not familiar with that Israel group and if they were socialists, then by definition they were Leftists.
1
@Fritzgar "You know, there is this not very well known term called 'facism'. " Yes. However it may not mean what you think it means. Fascism was a totalitarian far-left, socialist 3rd position ideology based on National Syndicalism which they adapted from a French Marxist, known as Georges Sorel. It rejected individualism, capitalism, liberalism, democracy, and marxist interpretation of socialism ("class warfare"). Instead, it advocated for class collaboration where the means of production was organized by national worker syndicals (i.e. trade unions / Fascist Corporatism), and the guiding philosophy of the state was Actual Idealism (Neo-Hegelianism). Being an outgrowth of Sorelian Syndicalism, (which itself was an outgrowth from Marxist socialism), its 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 finalized by Mussolini and Giovanni Gentile ("the Doctrine of Fascism"), Fascism came from the belief that the "Stateless and Classless society" Communism calls for after its "dictatorship of the proletariat" cannot be achieved, and that only the State can properly organize a socialist society. Therefore, Fascism cared about unity in a strong central government with society being brought together by syndicalist organizations obedient to the State. [01] "La Dottrina Del Fascismo / the Doctrine of Fascism", by Mussolini and Giovanni Gentile [02] "Che cosa è il Fascismo: Discorsi e polemiche / Origins and Doctrine of Fascism", by Giovanni Gentile [03] "the Philosophy of Fascism", by Mario Palmieri [04] "Fascism: An Informal Introduction to Its Theory and Practice", by Renzo De Felice [05] "Mussolini's Intellectuals", by A. James Gregor [06] "La Camera dei Fasci e delle Corporazioni", by Rabaglietti Giuseppe & Sergio Panunzio [07] "Teoria generale dello Stato Fascista", by Sergio Panunzio [08] "The Birth of Fascist Ideology" by Zeev Sternhell [09] Any work from Emilio Gentile
1
@Fritzgar "it's the amalgamation of state and industry, " Only in the sense that the industry was nationalized and brought under strict State control and was forced to serve the interest of the State and the nation in general.
1
@Fritzgar "But in goals and ideology they are polar opposites." If you were referring to socialism, it doesn't have goals and its not an ideology in the first place. Socialism is an economic system where the collective (such as workers, guilds, syndicates, unions, 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
@Fritzgar "Socialism, by the only consistent part over all of it's definitions, aims for equality, the core idea of the left. " Again, socialism have no such aim as it is not an ideology. Socialism stands for collective direct ownership or control, of the means of production, distribution and exchange of goods. Nothing more, nothing less.
1
@Fritzgar "Facism aims for 'freedom' of the 'strongest' " No. It doesn't. Fascism was all about the State, and was more specifically "State supremacy".
1
@Fritzgar "the core of the right." Wrong. 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
@Fritzgar "while facism is derrived from the right wing goal of 'freedom'," Again, Fascism had nothing to do with Right wing of any kind. It was a socialist ideology and a rival to Marxism.
1
"the far right don't want freedom of speech, " Wrong. They specifically do.
1
"Look at Farage a neo fascist ... He’s a neofascist by heart! " So Farage is a socialist now?
1
"Far right or simply libertarian? " It is Liberal i.e. Liberalism, not Libertarianism which is a socialist movement. Far-Right i.e. Liberalism advocates for free market and laissez-faire economics and civil liberties under the rule of law, with special emphasis on property rights, individual autonomy, limited government, economic freedom, political freedom and freedom of speech.
1
"Anything slightly free market is "Far Right"." Free Market capitalism is on the Far-Right. The more Right you go, the more individual rights and liberties are allowed, hence resulting in an economic liberalization and eventually, Laissez-faire. The more Left you go, the more collectivism is unleashed upon the society, hence resulting in an economic centralization and usually Socialism.
1
Nothing civilized about theft.
1
"(unrestricted free-market capitalism, prone to degenerate into fascism since the mission, in both instances, is to maximize inequality)" Fascism was a socialist Far-Left ideology, just fyi. ... and so called "inequality" is just a glorified word for Authoritarianism.
1
"Ah the left wing argument. Anything that’s not socialism is far right. " Well I would say it's a good start. Left is anti-capitalist while the Right is anti-socialist. Centrists are the people who want a Mixed economy. Simple enough.
1
"That in its essence is fascism: ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power." Wrong. That is the opposite of Fascism, known as Corporatocracy.
1
@Redf322 "the reason is you didn’t earn the money on your own you used employees and our infrastructure." Employees get paid directly by their employer which has nothing to do with the government, and the government doesn't give anyone a choice not to use the already established infrastructure.
1
@Redf322 " You, and your employees will use our health service, our police force, our firebrigade. " They may or may not use them, but they are forced to pay for the regardless. There is no choice on the matter. You cannot choose not to pay and then not use.
1
@Redf322 "Libertarianism exists to protect big corporations not you." They exist to protect individual freedoms and civil liberties, also the proper word is Liberalism.
1
UK is not a Christian country and there is no such thing as a "christian country". If there were, it would be a heresy as Christianity doesn't not advocate for Theocracy. One could also argue that Anglicanism with the rest of the protestant, Catholic and Orthodox religions are closer to Judaism than Christianity.
1
"but the minimum wage should be a living wage." There is no such thing as a "living wage".
1
"Raising the minimum wage would actually save the government money!" Nope. It just doesn't.
1
@timwoodger7896 "The best of communism And the best liberalism. " These two are mutually exclusive.
1
@WarrenPeaceOG : That is not how Fascism works. Those are 10 generic points of every totalitarian and dictatorial regime. None of them are unique to Fascism.
1
Except those are not the characteristics of Fascism. Those are generic traits of every authoritarian and dictatorial regime. None of them are unique to Fascism and some do not even apply to Fascism.
1
@Redf322 : Plenty of them were killed by their own comrades during the October Revolution and beyond also. Your point being?
1
@timonsolus : Wrong. They were a textbook example of socialists.
1
@timonsolus : Wrong. They were. Go read some history.
1
@timonsolus What made Strasser 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. Also 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.
1
Capitalism doesn't fail though, as it is just the result of free humans making voluntary exchanges with one another in the absence of outside coercion.
1
"Not sure why you pussyfoot around the inherent racism in far right parties. " It doesn't exist. Racism has no political alignment.
1
There is no Far-Right in mainstream European politics.
1
@Redf322 : That is not how Far-Right works though. That is how modern governments work.
1
"By calling a group "Far Right" is equating them to Nazi Germany." Except Nazi Germany was a socialist country... and National Socialism a totalitarian Far-Left ideology.
1
"Far right = crony capitalism." Wrong. So called "crony capitalism" is a Centrist thing, thanks to the prevalent Mixed economy system. On the contrary, Far-Right will give you proper Capitalism and do away with this socialistic "welfare state".
1
There is no Fascism anywhere in Europe. It hasn't been a thing since the WW2 era.
1
@charliemoore2551 "I suppose you can nit-pick and say it's specific to a certain era. There are quite a few historians who hide behind that one. I wonder why? " Because it is a historical fact. Nobody has tried to implement Mussolini's revolutionary syndicalism which idolized the Roman Empire. However many people were influenced by Fascism and had their own Neo-Fascist spin ... well, the UK people should know as they had Oswald Mosley.
1
@charliemoore2551 "Alternatively, you can live in the real world and recognise the fact that there's very little difference between the ideology of AfD and National Rally and that of Mussolini and Hitler." I highly doubt AfD is advocating for socialism i.e. nationalization and centralization of the economy under a one-party State... like National Socialists and Fascists did.
1
"Aristocrats and fascists are cut from the same cloth" I highly doubt there are Aristocrats anymore, and even if there are, they all would be politicians. Fascists were cut from the same cloth as Marxists were, that is, socialism.
1
"Reform is not only far right, it is fascistic by its very definition. " Wrong. They have nothing to do with Fascism whatsoever.
1
"Single figurehead, oligarchy, militaristic, press and protest restrictions, a racist agenda with an out group etc." Fascism wasn't racist however. National Socialism was. Also pretty much all of those generic attributes could be applied to every socialist one-party dictatorships.
1
@ALFarrell-kv6ok : That is not what Fascism is. All of those 14 traits are generic, and could be applied to almost every totalitarian and dictatorial regime, socialist or otherwise. Some of them do not even apply to Fascism itself.
1
@ALFarrell-kv6ok "And fascism is really just a vehicle for corporations and the wealthy to add power to the money they wield. Resist!" Wrong. Was never a thing under Fascism. Corporations and "wealthy" people were subjugated under the iron boot of the State, which was one of the core tenets of Fascism: Statism.
1
@ALFarrell-kv6ok "Fascism is virtually a declaration of war by the corporations and the wealthy on the less wealthy. Class warfare." Wrong. Fascism specifically and explicitly was against this Marxist "class warfare" nonsense. They advocated for class collaboration instead.
1
@benjaminford9932 "They got into power by exploiting the population's base fears and creating division..." Well not exactly. The main reason why they managed to get into power was that they promised to end German unemployment, which incidentally they did in record time ... by forcing everyone to work for the party of course.
1
What Far-Right?
1
"Shrinking the role of government is not far right, its libertarian." It is Liberalism put forth by your own countrymen, John Locke and by definition it is on the Far-Right. Libertarianism on the other hand, is a socialist movement and coined by a French Anarcho-Communist, Joseph Déjacque. It is 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
"Far right is synonymous with 1930s germany, that was the opposite of small government." German National Socialism was a socialist Far-Left ideology and they had nothing to do with Right wing of any kind.
1
@josemengelez6947 "reminder that the political compass has two axes." Which is why it is wrong. The political spectrum is not a quadrant and there is no need for such in the first place. One axis is enough. The more Right you go, the more individual rights and liberties are allowed, hence resulting in an economic liberalization and eventually, Laissez-faire. The more Left you go, the more collectivism is unleashed upon the society, hence resulting in an economic centralization and usually Socialism.
1
" Neoliberalism is fascism by any other name. " Wrong. They are more or less the polar opposite of ideologies.
1
"Liberals facilitate fascism, they always do. " Liberalism doesn't mean what you think it means. Also Liberalism and Fascism are philosophical and ideological enemies.
1
"Mussolini is reported to have said his system would properly be called 'corporatism.'" Except Mussolini has never said such a thing. It was a random American known as Adam McKay who invented that random saying. Fascism could be called as revolutionary National Syndicalism if anything, and Corporatism ("corporativismo" in Italian) was how they managed their socialist Command economy. It 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 nationalized syndicates ("corporazione") representing each major industry. Mussolini's corporatist view stressed total state power over businesses as much as over individuals, via these governing industry bodies controlled by the Fascist party, in which businesses retained the responsibilities of property, but few if any of the freedoms. Each profession and field had their own Syndicate, which in turn, operated symbiotically with its composed members, whose activities and interactions were managed and coordinated by the government. The idea was to let the state control and direct the economy from the top-down without itself owning the means of production.
1
@quillo2747 : That is actually called Corporatocracy, not Corporatism.
1
Only in Argentina right now, thanks to Javier Milei.
1
@d-5037 "Fascists and socialists hate one another." No. They do not. Fascists were socialists. Fascists hated Marxism/Communism specifically.
1
@d-5037 "Fascists and pro capitalists have gotten along quite well." Wrong. They are enemies. Fascism was strictly anti-capitalist movement.
1
@Redf322 "Fascism was invented to combat socialism and protect the big corporations." Wrong. Fascism was invented to protect the State apparatus itself, and it had no problems with socialism. It had nothing to do with "big corporations" which were subjugated under the iron boot of the State.
1
UK is not a Christian country and there is no such thing as a "christian country". If there were, it would be a heresy as Christianity doesn't not advocate for Theocracy. One could also argue that Anglicanism with the rest of the protestant, Catholic and Orthodox religions are closer to Judaism than Christianity.
1
@lloydmeadows3471 : It may be the "state religion" on paper, however that is not how Christianity works though, as no country is a Christian country just because it was written on a piece of paper. After all, it is a belief system, not a juridical matter. Beliefs cannot be magically enforced or compelled by secular Law. That was my point. I guess we need yet another John Locke to beat some rationality into people.
1
@bakakafka4428 "And you're a better expert than a leader that fought the Nazis, the Italian Fascists and the Japanese fascists, as well as the billionaires in the US and elsewhere that facilitated these extremists? " Fascism was only a thing in Italy, and I have read what the experts of Fascism (Renzo De Felice and Emilio Gentile) have said about the ideology. Here is a list from where you can start your educational journey regarding Fascism; [01] "La Dottrina Del Fascismo / the Doctrine of Fascism", by Mussolini and Giovanni Gentile [02] "Che cosa è il Fascismo: Discorsi e polemiche / Origins and Doctrine of Fascism", by Giovanni Gentile [03] "the Philosophy of Fascism", by Mario Palmieri [04] "Fascism: An Informal Introduction to Its Theory and Practice", by Renzo De Felice [05] "Mussolini's Intellectuals", by A. James Gregor [06] "La Camera dei Fasci e delle Corporazioni", by Rabaglietti Giuseppe & Sergio Panunzio [07] "Teoria generale dello Stato Fascista", by Sergio Panunzio [08] "The Birth of Fascist Ideology" by Zeev Sternhell [09] Any work from Emilio Gentile
1
@Jakejackson1980 : People who like Hitler are Far-Left socialists though, like Hitler himself was.
1
"Far right is associated with Fascism. " Except Fascism was a socialist Far-Left ideology.
1
"It was defined in Mussolini's books on fascism as the merger of Government and corporate interests under Socialist thinking people. . " No. Mussolini has never said such a thing. Common misquote. There was no merger, and there was only Government interest above everything else.
1
"Starmer is Far Right. " No. He is a left leaning centrist or just leftist.
1
@boptah7489 Mussolini advocated for Corporatism. It had nothing to do with businesses. However true, he was indeed a socialist.
1
@gerardpeterbrennan "The problem with Capitalism is that it requires a strict hierarchy to maintain it. " Wrong. It doesn't. It only requires voluntarism as Capitalism is just the result of free humans making voluntary exchanges with one another in the absence of outside coercion. And sure, an entity of some kind, to protect private property.
1
@gerardpeterbrennan "Left Wing is about removing hierarchal power structures, not enforcing them." This "hierarchical" nonsense has no logical basis as anyone can easily deduct that a capitalist Nightwatchman state is less hierarchical than a Social-Democratic "welfare state", or a full blown socialist one-party dictatorship with a Command economy for example.
1
@gerardpeterbrennan "The difficult part of Left Wing politics is in preventing them being taken over by these bad actors, as they certainly usually have been." When the whole premise of the Left wing politics is to consolidate and centralize the power and the economy, you are literally handing everything to a potential bad actor on a silver platter.
1
@gerardpeterbrennan "This is why I do not consider Marxism Left Wing. " Then there is no logic nor coherence in your political views. Capitalism and Socialism cannot exactly exist on the same side of the spectrum.
1
@vgstb "The point is that there is no far left in the west." Anyone who is advocating for socialism and is an anti-capitalist, is a Far-Leftist .... and there are plenty, and almost every European country has at least one Communist party.
1
@markbedwell3100 "The term far right is used in association ort parties like the nazi party. " And that is wrong, as National Socialism by definition, was a totalitarian Far-Left, socialist 3rd position ideology based on ethnonationalism trying to supersede Marxism as the most common socialist ideology. They had nothing to do with Right wing of any kind. You cannot be an advocate for centralized planning and strong government controls without being a socialist. That's what made Hitler a socia list. 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 Ma rxist international or full Soviet type. He struggled with HOW to distinguish his socialism from the rest of the Marxist crowd.
1
@Manuscriptsdontburn1990 "What we have is left-wing capitalism." Doesn't exist. Capitalism is on the Right. Socialism is on the Left.
1
@gerardpeterbrennan " Capitalism is a specific type of Market Economy which is specifically designed to benefit the holders of Capital and nobody else...." To put it simply; Capitalism is a Market based economic system that maintains that the production of goods and services should remain in the hands of private individuals and businesses, not governments. To be successful, these individuals will produce the goods and services needed by the public, at the prices that the public is willing to pay. The law of supply and demand will determine what goods are produced and the quantities of them that are produced. Competition among businesses will ensure quality and affordability and the drive for greater market share will encourage innovation.
1
@gerardpeterbrennan "A more Socialist form is through Co-operative Societies that are run by and for the benefit of their Workers. " This is already possible under Capitalism, as they are called worker co-ops or simply; entrepreneurship.
1
@gerardpeterbrennan "It would require institutions to prevent any monopolistic situations arising, " That "institution" is the Free Market itself, and consumers in general.
1
@gerardpeterbrennan "However this is not possible if you start from the level of inequality we have now," So called "inequality" is just a fancy word for Authoritarianism, as you cannot have "economic equality" and economic freedom, nor individual freedom at the same time.
1
@gerardpeterbrennan "It is not possible for a Capitalist Market to be a Free Market." Wrong. It can, and I highly suggest you go and read about Capitalism and the basic theory of the Market as you have no clue what you are talking about.
1
@gerardpeterbrennan "Left Wing and Right Wing I consider to be about the hierarchal nature of Society, not it's Economics." And by "hierarchies" you mean what exactly? What is the size of "hierarchies" in these societies; 1) Capitalist Nightwatchman state 2) Social-Democratic "welfare state" 3) Socialist one-party state with a Command economy
1
@gerardpeterbrennan "Left Wing is about ensuring that the benefits of the Society go to eveyone rather than just a few." Benefits such as? Clearly if people are allowed to have private property, personal freedom and civil liberties, it benefits the society as a whole way more than any kind of a socialist philosophy or ideology, as we have seen throughout history already what happens when those things are denied and when the economy and the power of the State is centralized instead.
1
@gerardpeterbrennan "Right Wing is about maintaining a Hierarchy where a few benefit, and the rest are little more than their slaves, pets at best. " So are you suggesting, that socialist one-party dictatorships were on the Right side of the spectrum then? After all, throughout the history of these regimes, only the socialist "elite" which happened to be party members and State officials, benefited... while the rest of the citizens were all equally poor.
1
"Does liberalism uphold freedom of speech? No. Wrong speech is a criminal offence. " Actually it does, however Liberalism doesn't mean what you think it means. What countries have now, isn't exactly Liberalism.
1
@oneoflokis "You can't have left-wing fascists. Fascism came out if right-wing politics in Italy." Wrong. Fascism specifically was a totalitarian Far-Left, socialist 3rd position ideology based on National Syndicalism which they adapted from a French Marxist known as Georges Sorel. It literally came from the 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
@fburton8 "classical fascism is a right-wing phenomenon ... but equating them with fascism overlooks the distinct historical and ideological foundations of fascism as a far-right ideology." Wrong. Fascism had nothing to do with Right wing of any kind whatsoever. Again, 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
@oneoflokis "Mussolini said that fascism was a state where there was a partnership between government and big business and that they should run everything." Mussolini has never said such a thing. There was no partnership of any kind. There was only big Government which controlled business and subjugated them under the interests of the Government. 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
@oneoflokis "The total opposite of socialism." Which is why that has nothing to do with Fascism whatsoever. What you were referring to is known as Corporatocracy, and it is a completely different thing.
1
@oneoflokis "Mussolini didn't think so! You protest too much..." He certainly did.
1
@oneoflokis "Nevertheless that's what he believed, in practice. " Wrong. He didn't. In practice he was a socialist who believed in an all encompassing State, which controlled the economy and every aspect of the society, as explicitly stated in their 'Doctrine of Fascism'.
1
"The right always claims to have a monopoly on religion." What does this even mean?
1
"Labour needs to remind everyone when the free market goes too far. " What Free Market? No country has that.
1
There is no such thing as a "christian country" and if there were, it would be a heresy as Christianity doesn't not advocate for Theocracy.
1
Fascism was socialist and strictly anti-capitalist ideology though.
1
UK is not a Christian country and there is no such thing as a "christian country". If there were, it would be a heresy as Christianity doesn't not advocate for Theocracy.
1
@Toastfacekillah87 "At this point woke is just a right wing snarl word. A slur that brings nothing to the table " Woke refers to someone who is an obnoxious moral busybody.
1
Doesn't exist.
1
@WarrenPeaceOG "free of ... rents." Pretty sure Adam Smith wasn't a communist, who thinks everything should be free.
1
" Fascism is not political, it's an economic model " Wrong actually. Fascism was a very specific political ideology and revolutionary socialist movement in Italy. It was Mussolini's ideology, and it used socialism as the basis for their economy, and their specific model for it was known as Corporatism.
1
"Fascism is simply an amalgamation of state and the private sector and has nothing to do with the leadership structure. " Technically the State takes over the private sector. There is no "amalgamation" of any kind, only subordination.
1
"A fascist economic model is collectivism where the state controls the means of production via a centrally planned economy (socialism) and it's modern day equivalent would be stakeholder capitalism. " Otherwise correct, but it wasn't even close to Stakeholder Capitalism or Capitalism of any kind. Under Corporatism ("corporativismo" in Italian), the society and the economy was organized, with state power at the head of a system of syndicates ("corporazione") representing each major industry. Mussolini's corporatist view stressed total state power over businesses as much as over individuals, via these governing industry bodies controlled by the Fascist party, in which businesses retained the responsibilities of property, but few if any of the freedoms.
1
Also have to note, that Fascism had nothing to do with Germany. They had National Socialism, which was a completely different political ideology.
1
Corporatism is a form of socialism, an doesn't mean what you think it means, as it has nothing to do with businesses.
1
It's not that hard guys. People on the Left are pro-socialist and anti-capitalist, meanwhile people on the Right are anti-socialist and pro-capitalist. If you want a mixture, you are at the center, like 99% of the modern day countries with their Mixed economy systems.
1
Minimmalmythicist "and fascism was not thought to be a left wing ideology in the 1920s and 30s," Wrong. It most certainly was. It was a competing ideology to Communism just like Trotskyism was to Bolshevism. It was clear to everyone in the world during that time period, that Fascism was socialist ideology where the emphasis was on national identity instead of the Marxist "class struggle".
1
Minimmalmythicist " indeed the fascists allied themselves with the conservative and reactionary parties, never the left." On the contrary, Fascism was a revolutionary and anti-conservative ideology at the time. They most certainly didn't want to preserve the status quo nor were they in favor of Monarchy.
1
Minimmalmythicist "We´ll take the two regimes that are undisputedly fascist, Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, " Nazi Germany never had Fascism. They had National Socialism. Fascism was strictly a radical and revolutionary Italian ideology.
1
Minimmalmythicist "The Spanish falangists, also fought on Franco´s side in the civil war and not on the left´s." All of them were on the on Left, just not was far to the Left as Marxism was. Also there was no Fascism in Spain. Franco's reformed Falangism was yet another different 3rd position ideology.
1
Minimmalmythicist "Indeed, Ernst Rohm might have had a sincere belief in more egalitarianism but he was swiftly purged by Hitler. " He was purged because he threatened the German army leaders and Hitler complied with their request to eliminate him, in order to gain the army leader's support in return.
1
Minimmalmythicist "Fascism is also certainly not left wing in any other way, " Wrong. 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
Minimmalmythicist "it´s an uber-traditionalist ideology, " It was traditional in the sense, that they wanted to mimic and bring back the Roman Empire, but that's about it.
1
Minimmalmythicist "Fascism also to my knowledge never called for a stateless society," Nobody has claimed that they did.
1
Minimmalmythicist "It´s a collectivist right wing ideology for sure," Wrong. It's a collectivist Left wing ideology. There is no collectivism on the Right side of the spectrum, since the Right advocates for individualism.
1
Minimmalmythicist "The whole reason why Paul Von Hindburg appointed Hitler was because a) he was much closer to his reactionary ideology b) he wanted to crush the communists at all costs." Wrong. Paul Von Hindburg never wanted to appoint Hitler in the first place. Hitler refused to join his coalition government unless he was appointed Chancellor. Hindenburg opposed this demand.
1
Minimmalmythicist "People at the time didn´t consider it to be a left wing ideology" Wrong. They did. National Socialism wasn't perceived to be as radical as Marxism was.
1
Minimmalmythicist "Indeed, both the Nazis and the Italian fascists initially privatised quite a few state companies." Wrong. They did not such thing. Privatization was never a thing in Nazi Germany. On the contrary, they nationalized most if not all of the German industry and later reorganized all industries into corporations run by members of the Nazi Party. They had no Fascism either. National Socialism and Fascism were two fundamentally different ideologies. The only privatization the Fascist Italy saw was before Mussolini's actual dictatorship, during the early 1920s when Alberto de' Stefani was handling the economy. After 1925 he was fired and Mussolini ushered in his one-party dictatorship. Throughout the whole 1930s, both Fascist Italy and National Socialist Germany had the largest government owned public sectors in whole Europe, losing only to Stalin's USSR.
1
"The way to look at it is, having good moral principles, you will be attracted to left wing politics. " Wrong. Having good moral principles, will make you attracted to Liberalism, as it was put forth by John Locke.
1
"It IS direct democracy, " Not every Leftist ideology advocates for direct democracy.
1
"And no, socialism is NEVER authoritarian. " Wrong. Socialism by definition is authoritarian, as it is not only a form of collectivism but also you have to make sure everyone adheres to this collectivist principle. Also without authoritarianism you can never make anything equal (as you have to limit rights and freedoms) nor re-distribute wealth for example. Without authoritarianism, everything would default to free-market Capitalism which is the natural state of man, and Capitalism is just the result of free humans making voluntary exchanges with one another in the absence of outside coercion. As a side note, why is it that 'socialists" don't have co-ops and communes all over the place? Since supposedly they are superior to human freedom, they would form naturally without the need of government enforcement.
1
" Only a complete moron thinnks Hitler was left wing (National Socialism), or Stalin was left wing (Authoritaian state capitalism). " Both of them were socialists by definition, as 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 had the latter ... also there is no such thing as "state capitalism" as such a term is an oxymoron.
1
"but it is a capitalist oligarchy" Wrong. They have a Mixed economy system where the "oligarchy" is formed by government officials i.e. politicians... not capitalists, who have no power anywhere. You cannot even own land without asking the permission of the government first, which owns all the lands just like under Feudalism.
1
There is only one Far-Right politician in mainstream politics in general, that is, the president of Argentina Javier Milei.
1
No such thing as "centrist liberal". They are just centrists, and have nothing to do with Liberalism which is a Far-Right ideology.
1
Nazis were from the (Far) Left
1
Both the Mustache man and Marx were on the Far-Left, and merely disagreed on how socialism should be implemented.
1
Wrong. Fascism had nothing to do with Capitalism whatsoever. It was strictly anti-capitalist movement, so if anything, Fascism was Marxism in decay.
1
"Shrinking the State an indicator of a far right position?" Yes. 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. The more Right you go, the more individual rights and liberties are allowed, hence resulting in an economic liberalization and eventually, Laissez-faire. The more Left you go, the more collectivism is unleashed upon the society, hence resulting in an economic centralization and usually Socialism.
1
"Did not Messrs Hitler and Mussolini show a distinct bias in favour of an overwhelming state." Yes. They were Far-Left socialists and collectivists.
1
"(racism, "racial purity", misogyny, homophobia, anti-intellectualism, populism, militarism, exceptionalism, nationalism, opposition to democracy and human rights, etc)," None of this have anything to do with Right wing nor with the political left/right spectrum in the first place.
1
@georgedorn1022 "To the far right, if you are not producing wealth for corporations and billionaires, you do not deserve to be alive." Nobody from the Far-Right is forcing you to work for corporations or billionaires. If there is nothing else that you can provide to the society than your physical labor, instead of being an entrepreneur for example or self-sufficient... well that is on you. Nobody owes you a job or pay.
1
Fascism was a socialist Far-Left ideology.
1
Hitler was a devout socialist and the Neo-Nazis are Far-Left socialists as well. Nothing to do with Right wing of any kind.
1
@Redf322 : Hitler was a National Socialist, not a Fascist.
1
@Redf322 "The word socialism was adopted for popularity. " Wrong. It was used because by definition they were advocating for it.
1
@Redf322 "They were a fascist party, " Wrong. They were a National Socialist party. Nothing to do with Fascism.
1
Well the thing with Hitler was that he promised to end the unemployment, which he incidentally did in a record time ... by forcing everyone to work for the Government.
1
"Capitalism is nazism." Wrong. Nazism was literally a socialist and anti-capitalist ideology.
1
@VeganaAnarkiisto " imperialism-colonialism is capitalism is nazism." Capitalism has nothing to do with either.
1
Are you saying that Farage is a socialist now?
1
Actually Mussolini has never said such a thing. Common misquote. There was no such merger, there was only State power.
1
No. Fascism was rather anti-religious and anti-clerical ideology. If you want to put it simply, fascism was a cult of Statism and the Roman Empire.
1
@calzonelover3950 "What do you think is the better definition of far right?" If the Far-Left is characterized by socialist ideologies and collectivism in general, then logic dictates, that the Far-Right in return is characterized by capitalist ideologies and individualism in general. Therefore, the epitome of Far-Right is Liberalism as it was put forth by John Locke, i.e. free market and laissez-faire economics and civil liberties under the rule of law, with special emphasis on property rights, individual autonomy, limited government, economic freedom, political freedom and freedom of speech. From there, it is logical to conclude that the Extreme Right would be Anarcho-Capitalism.
1
@calzonelover3950 "If it was only about individualism then in theory you would have no border controls because anyone is free to move across borders as they like and no collective can tell them no." And that is true, as under Liberalism the sole purpose of the government is to protect people's lives, liberty and property and that's about it. Free movement and trade would be acceptable, as long as it doesn't conflict with the previously mentioned.
1
@calzonelover3950 "Right wing parties are know for various levels of nationalism and social conservatism." That is not how Right wing works though. First of all, nationalism is a form of collectivism which sees all other states as inferior and in competition. Right wing ideologies do not embrace Nationalism, but rather Patriotism. In all Right wing ideologies, the Individual is superior to the State. Secondly, "social conservatism" doesn't mean anything by itself as there is no single set of policies regarded as conservative because the meaning of conservatism depends on what is considered traditional in a given place and time.
1
@calzonelover3950 "By your logic the GOP in America isn't a right wing party because of its social conservatism. " Depends on what they are trying to preserve and how. If they want to preserve the current left leaning status quo for example, then no, they are not on the Right.
1
@calzonelover3950 "Are you worried because you are right wing and fine with immigration and these far right types are giving the right a bad name?" They aren't Far-Right, that's the issue. I am Far-Right.
1
@calzonelover3950 : Immigration is a non-issue for people like me who do not advocate for a "welfare" nanny state and want to tear the current one down, as immigration would naturally sort itself out. There would be no incentive to migrate willy-nilly and it would be more or less worked-based unless there are voluntary organizations taking them in and helping them personally. It's not rocket science. Once the Government starts handing out "free money" then it shouldn't be a surprise that eventually people from poorer countries will flock in, where that same amount of money is someone's monthly wage. Take the stupid UK UBI experiment from last year for example... £1,600 is pretty much what my wife makes in a month, and a bit less what I make. If UK would be stupid enough to actually give that amount to absolutely everyone, me and my wife would literally just move to UK and retire.
1
@KM_Mountain : Argentinian president, Javier Milei.
1
"It’s arguable that religious nationalism should also be considered far-right." This also belongs under Collectivism, hence on the Left side of the spectrum. Meanwhile 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 are not making any sense, considering Fascism was a socialist and a Leftist ideology, and strictly anti-capitalist.
1
@Spiral.Dynamics : There are no lies, only historical facts. Cope harder.
1
@Spiral.Dynamics : What does German have to do with this? Keep coping.
1
However, both Fascism and National Socialism are on the Far-Left.
1
It always was.
1
"5. Shrinking the role of government = far right? Laughed at this one" Yes, it is. 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. The more Right you go, the more individual rights and liberties are allowed, hence resulting in an economic liberalization and eventually, Laissez-faire. The more Left you go, the more collectivism is unleashed upon the society, hence resulting in an economic centralization and usually Socialism.
1
"7. Celebrating our country's history of defeating THE ACTUAL FAR RIGHT NAZIs = far right 😂 dying laughing by now. " By definition, National Soci alism was a totalitarian Far-Left, socialist 3rd position ideology based on ethnonationalism trying to supersede Marxism as the most common socialist ideology. They had nothing to do with Right wing of any kind. You cannot be an advocate for centralized planning and strong government controls without being a socialist. That's what made Hitler a socia list. 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 Ma rxist international or full Soviet type. He struggled with HOW to distinguish his socialism from the rest of the Marxist crowd.
1
@alexdings1725 "For fascism, I like to refer to Umberto Eco's list of 14 characteristics that fascist movements tend to have. " Useless. Umberto had no clue what Fascism was, and his list of 14 characteristics are so generic and vague, that most of them apply to every totalitarian and dictatorial regime.
1
@Redf322 : Every country already has that, and it is not working.
1
Funnily enough, both Fascism and National Socialism are on the Far-Left.
1
"and a believer in a fairer society I do favour a degree of progressive taxation / redistribution " Except that is the complete opposite of fair. Don't you think it is unfair that someone does most of the work in a group assignment and then everybody gets the same grade no matter how much effort they put in, or at all? Just as much unfair, it is to steal money from people who happened to provide more things to the society and get wealthy because of it. If we want to talk about fairness, then everybody pitching in the same amount would be the most fair, i.e. a flat tax rate, regardless how much wealth they would have or generate after that.
1
"Richard, you don't mention elephant in the room, which is neoliberalism, which according to google is all about, letting the markets rule, deregulation privatization and austerity with less state influence in the economy. " And that is the only way to create a functional society which doesn't collapse under high inflation and deep national dept.
1
" without taxation of the rich, it is a system which makes the rich richer and poor poorer, " Wrong. When will you people learn that stealing money from others isn't going to make the world work? Rich people have enough money to leave your stupid country if you start stealing more from them. Also it is the government which is making rich richer and poor poorer by playing favorites etc.
1
Jodie Foster was an idiot back then... still is if she thinks like that.
1
"Do away with the tax havens and there is suddenly more money in the government's coffers." Well if you want more money in the gover nment's coffers, just do away with prop erty and hu man righ ts, and bec ome the totalitarian gove rnment you wish it would be. It's not like it hasn't been done before.
1
National Socialists were the less radical left wing. They were by definition, socialists.
1
In almost every European country, the government has been expanding, not shrinking... that ain't Neo-Liberalism.
1
"The 'Far Right' years ago was the likes of Mussolini, Franco, Hitler, Mosley etc... " Actually they were Far-Left socialists. They had nothing to do with Right wing of any kind.
1
@franko2886 : Nope. I'm citing historical facts. Fascism was a totalitarian far-left, socialist 3rd position ideology based on National Syndicalism which they adapted from a French Marxist, known as 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. [01] "La Dottrina Del Fascismo / the Doctrine of Fascism", by Mussolini and Giovanni Gentile [02] "Che cosa è il Fascismo: Discorsi e polemiche / Origins and Doctrine of Fascism", by Giovanni Gentile [03] "the Philosophy of Fascism", by Mario Palmieri [04] "Fascism: An Informal Introduction to Its Theory and Practice", by Renzo De Felice [05] "Mussolini's Intellectuals", by A. James Gregor [06] "La Camera dei Fasci e delle Corporazioni", by Rabaglietti Giuseppe & Sergio Panunzio [07] "Teoria generale dello Stato Fascista", by Sergio Panunzio [08] Any work from Emilio Gentile
1
Jesus had nothing to do with secular politics in the first place.
1
@Mayan_88694 : Wrong. They were Far-Left socialists. By definition, National Soci alism was a totalitarian Far-Left, socialist 3rd position ideology based on ethnonationalism trying to supersede Marxism as the most common socialist ideology. You cannot be an advocate for centralized planning and strong government controls without being a socialist. That's what made Hitler a socia list. 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 Ma rxist international or full Soviet type. He struggled with HOW to distinguish his socialism from the rest of the Marxist crowd.
1
@pascalsolal "The fascists rejected capitalism in their propaganda, but in reality they got along with capitalists very well." Wrong. They rejected Capitalism everywhere. In their speeches, in their doctrine and in practice.
1
@pascalsolal "Fascism is built upon the idea that inequalities are natural, whereas socialists, on the contrary, considers that all men are born equal." Except Fascism considered everyone to be equal, whilst having different functions, under the iron boot of the State. Fascism was built upon the idea that everyone would be unified under the "supreme" State. Fascism was the ultimate cult of the "welfare state". “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
@pascalsolal "I don't agree with you." This has nothing to do with me, so no, you are not disagreeing with me... you are disagreeing with historical facts.
1
@pascalsolal "Italian fascism was also based on the idea of biological race." It most certainly was not. There was nothing racist about the Fascist ideology. Mussolini introduced the "manifesto of race" over a decade after they had formulated the Fascist ideology with Giovanni Gentile. And even then, an Italian Fascist scholar questioned Mussolini over the treatment his Jewish friends were receiving after the promulgation of the Racial Laws, which prompted Mussolini to say: "I agree with you entirely. I don't believe a bit in the stupid anti-Semitic theory. I am carrying out my policy entirely for political reasons." Also, William Shirer in his "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" suggests that Mussolini enacted the Racial Laws in order to appease his German allies, rather than to satisfy any genuine anti-Semitic sentiment among the Italian people.
1
@pascalsolal "He says that nazis were "hyper-capitalists"." He is an idiot then, as Nazis and National Socialism had nothing to do with any kind of Capitalism nor Market based economic systems in general. They had a socialist Command economy almost identical to the USSR under Stalin.
1
@pascalsolal "You say he's an idiot without knowing his arguments. Not very scientific." You said, that "He says that nazis were "hyper-capitalists" ... isn't that his argument?
1
Fascists don't get elected tho... they are appointed.
1