Comments by "Historia, Magistra Vitae" (@Historia.Magistra.Vitae.) on "Katie Halper"
channel.
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@goldbluetears "but the one question I asked you avoided."
Already answered to your "So please enlighten us what is your definition of fasc ism?" question. Here it is again:
There is no "my definition". There is only historical definition: Tota litarian far-left, socia list ideology based on national syndic alism and Heg elian philosophy. Fasci sm was an outgrowth of Sorellian Synd icalism, which itself was an outgrowth from Mar xist soci alism. 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 wasn't the promotion of private interest, but the cent ralization and synchronization of society under the state, as an end unto itself. To quote Mussolini's infamous aphorism: "All with in the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state."
Ideologically, where the Fasc ists diverged from the Ma rxists was in their rejection of the narrative of class warfare, which they saw as utterly repudiated by the behavior of "the proletariat" during World War I, where rather than join together in a mutual overthrow of capit alism, the working class of each country stayed in lockstep with national loyalties and slaughtered their supposed foreign class brethren. Both the Fas cists and M arxists despised Classical Liber alism, and saw it as having a perverse role in atomizing the individual from society. Mussolini's favored intellectual, Giovanni Gentile, freely acknowledged Fasc ism' kinship with Marx ism through Sorellian Syndicalism.
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
-
@goldbluetears "So please enlighten us what is your definition of fas cism?"
Totalitarian far-left, socia list ideology based on national syndic alism and Hegelian philosophy. Fasci sm was an outgrowth of Sorellian Syndicalism, which itself was an outgrowth from Marxist soci alism. 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 wasn't the promotion of private interest, but 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."
Ideologically, where the Fascists diverged from the Marxists was in their rejection of the narrative of class warfare, which they saw as utterly repudiated by the behavior of "the proletariat" during World War I, where rather than join together in a mutual overthrow of capitalism, the working class of each country stayed in lockstep with national loyalties and slaughtered their supposed foreign class brethren. Both the Fascists and Marxists despised Liberalism, and saw it as having a perverse role in atomizing the individual from society. Mussolini's favored intellectual, Giovanni Gentile, freely acknowledged Fascism' kinship with Marxism through Sorellian Syndicalism.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@JohnT.4321 "Please enlighten me"
Fasc ism 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 wasn't the promotion of private interest, but 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."
Ideologically, where the Fasc ists diverged from the Marxi sts was in their rejection of the narrative of class warfare, which they saw as utterly repudiated by the behavior of "the proletariat" during World War I, where rather than join together in a mutual overthrow of capitalism, the working class of each country stayed in lockstep with national loyalties and slaughtered their supposed foreign class brethren. Both the Fascists and Marxists despised Liberalism, and saw it as having a perverse role in atomizing the individual from society. Mussolini's favored intellectual, Giovanni Gentile, freely acknowledged Fascism' kinship with Marxism through Sorellian Syndicalism.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jamesmorrow1646 "Hitl er privatised publicly owned banks and shipping companies"
Wrong. Hitl er privatized nothing. Privatization was never a thing in Na zi Germany. On the contrary, they nationalized most of the German industry and later reorganized all industries into corporations run by members of the Na zi Party. They called this "Gleichschaltung", which translates into synchronization.
"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 socia lisation, or what is known here as socia lism. … 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 Hit ler, Hit ler's interview with Richard Breiting, 1931, published in Edouard Calic, ed.,
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@carlos_herrera "as well as the majority of capitalist industrialists, "
The fact that the capitalists and entrepreneurs, faced with the alternative of Mar xism or Na zism, chose the latter, does not require any further explanation. They preferred to live as shop managers under Hit ler than to be "liquidated" as "bourgeois" by Mar xists. Capi talists don't like to be killed any more than other people do.
Nazis weren't on their side though, which was even mentioned in the Time's 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 Soci alism as a means of saving Germany's bourgeois economic structure from radicalism. The Na zi 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 Comm unism."
"Adolf Hi tler: Man of the Year, 1938", Time; January 2, 1939.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1