Comments by "Historia, Magistra Vitae" (@Historia.Magistra.Vitae.) on "Hakim"
channel.
-
11
-
6
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@bituminous3376 "fascism itself purported to be the perfect form of classic liberalism and democracy and a force for liberty but was nothing like that"
Wrong. They specifically and literally say that Fascism is the enemy of Classical Liberalism, democracy and liberty.
"Anti-individualistic, the Fascist conception of life stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual only in so far as his interests coincide with those of the State, which stands for the conscience and the universal, will of man as a historic entity. It is opposed to classical liberalism which arose as a reaction to absolutism and exhausted its historical function when the State became the expression of the conscience and will of the people. Liberalism denied the State in the name of the individual; Fascism reasserts The rights of the State as expressing the real essence of the individual. And if liberty is to he the attribute of living men and not of abstract dummies invented by individualistic liberalism, then Fascism stands for liberty, and for the only liberty worth having, the liberty of the State and of the individual within the State. The Fascist conception of the State is all embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value. Thus understood, Fascism, is totalitarian, and the Fascist State - a synthesis and a unit inclusive of all values - interprets, develops, and potentates the whole life of a people."
- the Doctrine of Fascism
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@theburgerboy5936 "One of the first acts of the Nazis in 1933 was to sell nearly every single state-enterprise in Germany to capitalists"
Wrong. They did no such thing and they sold nothing. On the contrary, they first thing they did was mass nationalization of the German industry, and later they reorganized all industries into corporations run by members of the Nazi Party. They called this nationalization as "Gleichschaltung", a system of totalitarian control and coordination over all aspects of German society from the economy and trade associations to the media, culture and education.
"To put it quite clearly: we have an economic programme. Point No. 13 in that programme demands the nationalisation of all public companies, in other words socialisation, or what is known here as socialism. … the basic principle of my Party’s economic programme should be made perfectly clear and that is the principle of authority… the good of the community takes priority over that of the individual. But the State should retain control; every owner should feel himself to be an agent of the State; it is his duty not to misuse his possessions to the detriment of the State or the interests of his fellow countrymen. That is the overriding point. The Third Reich will always retain the right to control property owners. If you say that the bourgeoisie is tearing its hair over the question of private property, that does not affect me in the least. Does the bourgeoisie expect some consideration from me?… Today’s bourgeoisie is rotten to the core; it has no ideals any more; all it wants to do is earn money and so it does me what damage it can. The bourgeois press does me damage too and would like to consign me and my movement to the devil.“
— Adolf Hitler, Hitler's interview with Richard Breiting, 1931, published in Edouard Calic, ed.,
2
-
@theburgerboy5936 "and the official stance of the Nazi party on private property was that enterprise should be in private hands wherever possible."
Wrong. Even in Hitler's table talks on September 3, 1942, he said that land was “national property, and in the end only given to the individual as a loan.” Hitler only recognized private ownership insofar as it was used according to the principle “common benefit ahead of private benefit,” which means that if it was necessary in the common interest, the state had the right at all times to decide the way, the extent to which, and when private ownership was used, and the common interest was, of course, defined by the state. Not to mention, that private property rights were abolished via Reichstag fire decree on February 28, 1933.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@theburgerboy5936 "Which is consistent with that policy, state-enterprise was kept to a minimum and only used when absolutely necessary, and when it wasn't, it was privatized."
Wrong. National Socialism was all about state control over every aspect of people's lives, including businesses. This was also reported by the Time magazine back in the day.
"Most cruel joke of all, however, has been played by Hitler & Co. on those German capitalists and small businessmen who once backed National Socialism as a means of saving Germany's bourgeois economic structure from radicalism. The Nazi credo that the individual belongs to the state also applies to business. Some businesses have been confiscated outright, on others what amounts to a capital tax has been levied. Profits have been strictly controlled. Some idea of the increasing Governmental control and interference in business could be deduced from the fact that 80% of all building and 50% of all industrial orders in Germany originated last year with the Government. Hard-pressed for foodstuffs as well as funds, the Nazi regime has taken over large estates and in many instances collectivized agriculture, a procedure fundamentally similar to Russian Communism."
"Adolf Hitler: Man of the Year, 1938", Time; January 2, 1939.
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"In the name of saving society from the Red Menace, unions and strikes were outlawed ... Minimum wage laws, overtime pay, and factory safety regulations were abolished."
And? Hitler and Mussolini were 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 and Mussolini followed Lenin’s nationalizing craze, their treatment of workers did not mimic their Russian counterparts.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Cordien "First read Lenin’s definition of imperialism b/c it explains the stage of capitalist economic development needed for fascism to occur. "
Ah yes, butthurt Lenin who was mad that Mussolini abandoned Marxism. No. Fascism had nothing to do with capitalism whatsoever. Capitalism had nothing to do with the occurrence of Fascism. On the contrary, Fascism was a reaction to Lenin's failed Marxist attempt which made many marxists turn into syndicalism. After the introduction of the New Economic Policy (NEP), Italian syndicalists continued to move further away from orthodox Marxism, determined to revise it to fit the changing times and to embolden its strategic goals. They argued that the Russian Bolsheviks had failed to adhere to Engels’ 1850 admonition about the dangers of trying to establish a social revolution within an economically backwards environment.This drift had emerged years before the economic malaise of Soviet Russia, prompting most Italian syndicalists to transcend the errors and drawbacks that “they believed they found in orthodox Marxism.” Developed to bring about worker control of the means of production by direct action, the intellectuals of syndicalism came to the realization that Italy's primitive economy could facilitate neither equality nor abundance for society. Without a mature industry developed by the bourgeois, they came to understand that a successful social revolution required the support of “classless” revolutionaries. Mussolini, along with Italian syndicalists, Nationalists and Futurists, contended that those revolutionaries would be Fascists, not Marxists or some other ideology. According to Mussolini and other syndicalist theoreticians, Fascism would be “the socialism of ‘proletarian nations.’”
1
-
“Of which liberalism does one wish to speak? I distinguish two principal forms of liberalism. For one…liberty is a right; for the other a duty. For one it is a gift; for the other a conquest… One liberalism conceives liberty rooted in the individual, and therefore opposes the individual to the State, a State understood as possessing no intrinsic value—but exclusively serving the well being and the improvement of the individual. The State is seen as a means, not an end. It limits itself to the maintenance of public order, excluding itself from the entirety of spiritual life—which, therefore, remains exclusively a sphere restricted to the individual conscience. That liberalism, historically, is classical liberalism—of English manufacture. It is, we must recognize, a false liberalism, containing only half the truth. It was opposed among us by Mazzini with a criticism, that I maintain, is immortal. But there is another liberalism, that matured in Italian and German thought, that holds entirely absurd this view of the antagonism between the State and the individual.”
— Giovanni Gentile Che cosa è il fascismo: Discorsi e polemiche (“What is Fascism?”), Florence: Vallecchi, (1925) pp. 42-45, 47-48, 49-51, 56,Origins and Doctrine of Fascism, A. James Gregor, translator and editor, Transaction Publishers, 2003, p. 63
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@somanytakennames "Those who worked in rearmament might have benefited because of the war that Hitler intended to wage but that was about it. From 1933 to 1939 wages fell, number of hours rose by 15%, serious accidents in factories increased and employees could be blacklisted for questioning conditions."
Well actually under the newly created German Labor Front (DAF), the Nazis set high wages, overtime pay was generous, and dismissal of workers by employers was difficult to execute, but inflation and stricter labor laws eroded much of that advantage. Headed by Robert Ley, the German Labor Front's main mission was to satisfy workers enough to prevent rebellion against both industrialists and the national socialist state.
In any event, following the Nazis’ “Socialism of Deed” ideology, all sorts of revolutionary new social and entertainment programs were provided to German workers via the “Strength through Joy” (Kraft durch Freude, or KdF), considered the world’s biggest tour operators. The KdF program, which was designed to provide affordable leisure activities, included such amenities as subsidized domestic or foreign vacations, parks, ocean cruises, construction of worker canteens that provided subsidized hot meals, factory libraries and gardens, sport facilities and swimming pools, adult education courses, periodic breaks, orchestras during lunch break, tickets to concerts and operas, no-cost physical education, gymnastic and sports training. The DAF-subsidized holiday vacations were so popular that by 1938 over 10.3 million Germans signed up.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@matthewkopp2391 "And there was a socialist wing of the Nazi, they were all murdered during the night of the long knives."
Except Night of the Long Knives had nothing to do with socialism / socialists whatsoever. During the night they mostly targeted right-wing nationalists, as well as former supporters whom they believed betrayed the Nazis.
It was simply about the power struggle between Hitler and Röhm. As early as April 1934, Himmler and Heydrich began to conspire with Göring to persuade Hitler to eliminate Röhm. In mid-1934, they planted rumors and evidence that Röhm was planning to overthrow the regime. Meanwhile, President von Hindenburg, the leadership of the Reichswehr, and Hitler’s conservative coalition partners, including Vice-Chancellor von Papen, issued warnings about the increasingly radical Nazi regime. If the “revolutionary elements” of the Nazi regime were not brought under control, the army leaders threatened to overthrow the Hitler government and place the country under martial law.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jnagarya519 "Hitler was not a socialist. "
Wrong. By definition he was, and according to his own words as well. He literally self-identified as a socialist.
"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 ... Since we are socialists, we must necessarily also be antisemites because we want to fight against the very opposite: materialism and mammonism... How can you not be an antisemite, being a socialist!"
"Why We Are Anti-Semites," August 15, 1920 speech in Munich at the Hofbräuhaus.
1
-
@jnagarya519 "But as I detailed, he first targeted for extermination Communists, socialists, and trade unionists. "
Again, He didn't go after socialists in general. Hitler himself was a proud one himself. He went after marxists and their political rivals ... also done by both Lenin and Stalin. Regarding unions, again, He went after independent ones, just like Lenin did... however Hitler wanted unions to be nationalized, which he did, and to be merged into one single nation wide union, which he did.
1
-
1
-
@Andy1805-y8w "Early appeals to socialism were quickly dropped after coming to power, sweety."
Wrong. They were not. On the contrary, the more time went on, the more Hitler admired Soviet central planning. This was also noted and reported in the Time magazine for crying out loud.
"Most cruel joke of all, however, has been played by Hitler & Co. on those German capitalists and small businessmen who once backed National Socialism as a means of saving Germany's bourgeois economic structure from radicalism. The Nazi credo that the individual belongs to the state also applies to business. Some businesses have been confiscated outright, on others what amounts to a capital tax has been levied. Profits have been strictly controlled. Some idea of the increasing Governmental control and interference in business could be deduced from the fact that 80% of all building and 50% of all industrial orders in Germany originated last year with the Government. Hard-pressed for foodstuffs as well as funds, the Nazi regime has taken over large estates and in many instances collectivized agriculture, a procedure fundamentally similar to Russian Communism."
"Adolf Hitler: Man of the Year, 1938", Time; January 2, 1939.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Chinas-Hurricane-Gun ""We are free to believe this is a century of authority , a century tending to the right-wing , a fascist century" -Giovanni Gentile. Epic...💯"
Except that is not how the quote goes. Fascism was a socialist ideology based on National Syndicalism, so for obvious reasons, there is no mention of "right wing". Nice try, loonie. The fascists wanted to move to the right from marx ism, not into the right side of the spectrum. In all Right wing ideologies, the Individual is superior to the State. In Socialist ideologies the collective (such as the State) is superior to the individual.
"Granted that the XIXth century was the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy, this does not mean that the XXth century must also be the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy. Political doctrines pass; nations remain. We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the " right ", a Fascist century. If the XIXth century was the century of the individual (liberalism implies individualism) we are free to believe that this is the "collective" century, and therefore the century of the State. "
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@@lucievelyn4866 :
"You cannot get rid of me because I am and always will be a socialist. You hate me because you still love me.”
— Benito Mussolini, As quoted by Mussolini after he was expelled from the Italian Socialist Party in 1914.
“Do not believe, even for a moment, that by stripping me of my membership card you do the same to my Socialist beliefs, nor that you would restrain me of continuing to work in favor of Socialism and of the Revolution.”
— Benito Mussolini, Speech at the Italian Socialist Party’s meeting in Milan at the People’s Theatre on Nov. 25, 1914.
“Our programs are definitely equal to our revolutionary ideas and they belong to what in democratic regime is called “left”; our institutions are a direct result of our programs and our ideal is the Labor State. In this case there can be no doubt: we are the working class in struggle for life and death, against capitalism. We are the revolutionaries in search of a new order. If this is so, to invoke help from the bourgeoisie by waving the red peril is an absurdity. The real scarecrow, the real danger, the threat against which we fight relentlessly, comes from the right. It is not at all in our interest to have the capitalist bourgeoisie as an ally against the threat of the red peril, even at best it would be an unfaithful ally, which is trying to make us serve its ends, as it has done more than once with some success. I will spare words as it is totally superfluous. In fact, it is harmful, because it makes us confuse the types of genuine revolutionaries of whatever hue, with the man of reaction who sometimes uses our very language.”
— Benito Mussolini, Speech on April 22, 1945 in Milan.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1