Comments by "Historia, Magistra Vitae" (@Historia.Magistra.Vitae.) on "PragerU" channel.

  1. @Worldmisery "The Nazi economy was built on business, and business profited from war crimes." Wrong. Nazi economy had nothing to do with businesses per se. It was build around the totalitarian State which controlled everything, 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. It was almost identical to the USSR under Stalin. In a report prepared by an SS Hauptsturmführer in July 1944, the question “Why does the SS engage in business activities?” was answered as follows: "This question was raised specifically by circles who think purely in terms of capitalism and who do not like to see companies developing which are public, or at least of a public character. The age of the liberal system of business demanded the primacy of business, in other words business comes first, and then the state. As opposed to this, National Socialism takes the position: the state directs the economy, the state is not there for business, business is there for the state." (Die wirtschaftlichen Unternehmungen der SS.)
    1
  2. @Worldmisery "What difference does it even make?" The size and scope of it, makes all the difference.
    1
  3. @Worldmisery "Free markets don't do anything but make one group of people very very rich " It makes people who deserve to be rich, rich. At the end of the day, it is up to the consumers.
    1
  4. @Worldmisery "It doesn't give people freedom if those people want socialism." Wrong. It does, as you don't have to participate in the Market. You are free to go and establish your own socialist commune if you wish.
    1
  5. @Willem Healy : You can not ha ve c apital i sm an d so cia lis m at the sam e ti me tho ugh, they are inco mpati ble.
    1
  6.  @raptango_na6199  " i was referring to ethno-nationalism as far right" Ethnonationalism is a form of collectivism, hence on the left. There was nothing right wing about National Socialism.
    1
  7.  @Rijneke1981  "Weren't the right-wing conservatives in Chile that helped General Pinochet come to power with his military junta? Pinochet who was a supporter of Milton Friedman. Did the conservative party in Chile and Pinochet suddenly become left-wing?" Pinochet was what we could call an "authoritarian right", since while he was a neoliberal, his regime was also a military dictatorship. His policies were the exact opposite of Hitler's and Mussolini's though.
    1
  8.  @Mark-zk3gu  "Hitler's economy may not have been a neoliberal fr ee ma rket, but it was still capita listic." Incorrect. It was state so cialis m similar to US SR under Le nin and Sta lin. All of them hated capit alism and were against it.
    1
  9.  @Mark-zk3gu  : "Does this sound like Nazi Germany to you?" It certainly does. Hi tler and NS DP were mostly against private property which they officially abolished with the Reichst ag Fi re Dec ree. While they did not dire ctly advocate ownership, they did advoc ate for st ate cont rol over the me ans of produc tion. Na zi Germ any had a pla nned econo my contr olled by the sta te in w hich all indu stries and natural resources were state co ntrolled. According to Hit ler himself: "To put it quite clearly: we have an econo mic progr amme. Point No. 13 in that progra mme demands the nation alisation of all public com panies, in other words sociali sation, or what is known here as social ism. … the basic principle of my Part y’s eco nomic programme should be made perfectly clear and that is the prin ciple of author ity… 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 overr iding point. The Thi rd Re ich 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?… Tod ay’s bour geoisie 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., “First Interview with Hi tler, 4 May 1931,” Secret Conversations with Hit ler: The Two Newly-Discovered 1931 Interviews, New York: John Day Co., 1971, pp. 31-33. Also published under the title Unmasked: Two Confidential Interviews with Hit ler in 1931, published by Chatto & Windus in 1971
    1
  10.  @Mark-zk3gu  "The night of the long knives was in 1934, where Hitler killed and expunged all the Strasserites from his party." The "night of the long knives" was all about the SA. By 1934, the main threat to Hitler’s continued control of the government came from within the N azi Par ty, specifically the SA since their violence and intimidation was met with increasing public disapproval. To reassure the nation, Hit ler announced that the revolutionary phase of the “natio nal uprising” had ended. Among the SA, however, there was talk of a second revolution. This was to be led by SA commander Ernst Röhm. By this time, the SA had 4.5 million members so it far outnumbered the Reichswehr, Germ any’s armed forces. Röhm made no secret of his desire to subor dinate the mili tary to the SA. In June 1934, Germany's generals made clear to Hi tler that he had to tame the SA or face a military coup. On June 30, 1934, Hit ler executed a bloody purge of the SA. The estimated 150 to 200 victims included Röhm and other SA leaders, as well as con servati ve figures who had earned Na zi displeasure. Though subordinate to the SA, the SS carried out most of the mur ders. As reward, Hitl er made the SS an independent Na zi organization. Its leader Hein rich Himm ler answered directly to Hit ler.
    1
  11.  @Mark-zk3gu  : Who said I was trying to dispute something? Only trying to shed some light why it happened in the case of you thought it had something to do with Hit ler "purg ing socia lists" or something similar.
    1
  12. @B Smith: Incorrect. Fasc ism has nothing to do with right wing whatsoever. Fas cism can be defined as the following: an economic system that rejects capitalism, libe ralism/dem ocracy, and com munism, in which the means of production is organized by national worker syn dicals (i.e. trade unions), and the guiding philosophy of the state is Actual Idealism. Go read some history, kiddo.
    1
  13.  @bsmith8166  : History agrees with me. You should go and read it. Can start from a book called "the doctr ine of fa scis m" by Giovanni Gentile and Mussolini.
    1
  14.  @bsmith8166  : Again, go read history, kiddo. Fa scis  m was a form of to  talita  rian soc  iali  sm.
    1
  15. @Tyler M : Has nothing to do with right whatsoever.
    1
  16.  @danmoreno1762  : Still wrong. It was a totalitarian far-left, soci alist ideology based on national syndi calism which they adopted from Georges Sorel.
    1
  17. "Faschism is a right-wing ideology, because it also prescribes order, hierarchy and subordination to authority. " Wrong. None of those things have anything to do with right wing. People on the right believe that the best outcome for society is achieved when individual rights and civil liberties are paramount and the role — and especially the power — of the government is minimized. When it comes to Fascism, it was a totalitarian far-left, socialist ideology based on National Syndicalism which they adapted from Georges Sorel. It was a spiritual continuation of the "Yellow socialism" movement which started in France.
    1
  18. "The reason that communism and faschism share a lot common practices is because communism is a far-left ideology, and faschism is far-right one. " Wrong. The reason is that Communism is an extreme left ideology while Fascism is a far-left ideology. They are both socialist ideologies, but they fundamentally disagree how socialism should be implemented. Fascism as created by Mussolini and Giovanni Gentile, comes from a belief that the "Stateless and Classless society" Communism calls for after its dictatorship cannot achieve Socialism, and that only the State can properly organize a Socialist Society.
    1
  19.  @middaymeds  "Fascism is considered by historians who actually study the field to be capitalism in decay. " Wrong. There is no such historian who has ever said such a thing. Only few prominent Marxist figures have said something like that. However in reality, Fascism had nothing to do with Capitalism of any kind whatsoever. In fact, as a socialist ideology Fascism was strictly anti-capitalist and if anything, Fascism was Marxist-Leninism in decay as Fascism was based on a Marxist revisionism known as Sorelianism, widely known as revolutionary National Syndicalism.
    1
  20.  @middaymeds  "Basically, when capitalism starts to frustrate it's citizens, it evolves into fascism. " Wrong. That is not how Capitalism even works in the first place, as it is just the result of free humans making voluntary exchanges with one another in the absence of outside coercion.
    1
  21.  @middaymeds  "This isn't a contentious idea, every scholar in the area more or less agrees that fascism is much more closely linked to capitalism than socialism." Wrong. There is no such scholar. Fascism was absolutely opposed to Capitalism, Liberalism and any kind of individualism. Fascism was closely linked to socialism via Sorelianism and Marxism essentially. 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
  22. 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 (Sorelianism). 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
  23. "Fascism = the one with most voilence are in control" Not exactly. 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
  24. "Socialism = the basic needs of a country are founded by taxmoney so that every citizen has a house, food, healthcare and so on." Not exactly. 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.
    1
  25. "China = Capitalistic dictatorship." No. China has nothing to do with Capitalism and Capitalism by definition is antithetical to dictatorships. China is still a socialist country.
    1
  26.  @Cancel-The-GOP  : "Much like the original fa scist s the rig ht-wi ng wants a str ong gover nment to maintain law and order , protect priv ate property, crush the power of organized labor , crush "liberal degen eracy" , etc.💯 This is a common misconception the ri ght-win g media spreads..💯💯💯" Incorrect. The fundamental differences between l eft-wi ng and rig ht-wi ng ideologies center around the the rig hts of indivi duals vs. the po wer of the gove rnment. Left-wi ng beliefs are liberal in that they believe so ciety is best served with an exp anded role for the gov ernment. People on the right believe that the best outcome for so ciety is achieved when individual rights and civil liber ties are para mount and the role — and espe cially the po wer — of the gove rnment is mini mized.
    1
  27. "downplaying the role of racism in fascism " Fascism wasn't a racist ideology. National Socialism however was.
    1
  28.  @AlethicAvenger  "1) your statement treats fascism and Nazism as entirely distinct entities when in reality, Nazism is considered a specific form of fascism." Because they were, two entirely distinct entities. National Socialism was National Socialism. Fascism was Fascism. Two different ideologies practiced in two different countries.
    1
  29.  @AlethicAvenger  "they share core characteristics, including a tendency towards exclusionary nationalism and hierarchical social structures, which often manifest in racist policies and rhetoric." Those two "core characteristics" you mentioned are shared by every single totalitarian and dictatorial regime however.
    1
  30.  @AlethicAvenger  "it did incorporate racist elements, particularly later in its development:" Mussolini introduced so called Racial Laws, yes... around a decade after he and Giovanni Gentile formulated the Fascist Ideology. That is why it was such a controversial move at the time, and it also split the Fascist supporters.
    1
  31.  @AlethicAvenger  "a) while Mussolini initially had Jewish supporters, the regime increasingly adopted anti-Semitic policies, especially after aligning with Nazi Germany. the Italian Racial Laws of 1938, for example, were explicitly discriminatory against Jews" For the most part, the Racial Laws were met with disapproval from not just ordinary Italian citizens but also members of the National Fascist Party themselves. On one occasion, 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
  32.  @AlethicAvenger  "most historians and political scientists consider Nazism to be a specific, albeit extreme, form of fascism. ... Nazism was a variant of fascism that emphasized racial purity and expansionism to an unprecedented degree. " Political activists maybe. No historian considers National Socialism to be a form of Fascism i.e. Neo-Fascism. The leading Italian historians of Fascism, Renzo De Felice and Emilio Gentile have always spoken against this type of conflation.
    1
  33.  @AlethicAvenger  " it incorporated core fascist principles with its own distinct elements." Wrong. It didn't. National Socialism had nothing to do with either National Syndicalism nor Neo-Hegelian philosophy.
    1
  34.  @AlethicAvenger  "both ideologies shared key features, such as authoritarianism, ie. belief in a strong central leader and suppression of dissent, nationalism, ie. extreme emphasis on national identity and unity, often with a sense of national superiority, militarism, ie. glorification of military power and the use of force, totalitarianism, ie. an aim to control all aspects of society, including politics, economy, culture, and private life, ... and suppression of opposition, ie. use of violence and propaganda to silence political opponents. .... combined with other fascist traits (like militarism, ultranationalism, and suppression of dissent) that defines fascism." Again, these "key features" are found in every single totalitarian and dictatorial regime. None of them are unique to Fascism nor National Socialism.
    1
  35.  @AlethicAvenger  ". it's simply inaccurate to portray Nazism and fascism as "two entirely distinct entities."" Wrong. It most certainly is not. Fascist ideology had nothing to do with "aryanism" nor any kind of racial supremacy, nor Volksgemeinschaft.
    1
  36.  @AlethicAvenger  " your statement attempts to downplay the significance of exclusionary nationalism and hierarchical social structures in defining fascism (and thus Nazism as a form of it)." Fascist ideology wasn't about "exclusionary nationalism", at least not within the Fascist state itself. Period. They had no problems with people no matter who and what race they were, as long as they were willing to bent the knee to the State apparatus. Most importantly, Fascism had no problems with the Jews, which is just one of the many factors, differentiating Fascism from National Socialism.
    1
  37.  @AlethicAvenger  " exclusionary nationalism in fascism is often ethno-nationalist or racial." Wrong. Was never a thing in the Fascist ideology.
    1
  38.  @AlethicAvenger  "also, hierarchical social structures in fascism are often based on a "cult of the leader" and a rigid social order" Wrong. Fascism had nothing to do with a "cult of the leader". If anything, it was the cult of the State. While Mussolini was a powerful man, he didn't have all the power unlike Hitler did under his National Socialism.
    1
  39.  @AlethicAvenger  "your statement is misleading because it presents the Racial Laws as a sudden, externally imposed deviation from core Fascist principles." And they were, per historical facts.
    1
  40.  @AlethicAvenger  " it's incorrect to say that racism was entirely absent from early Italian Fascism. " Racism was never part of the Fascist ideology. You will not find a single piece of official Fascist literature or work, which would advocate for racialism outside of the "Manifesto of Race" itself.
    1
  41.  @AlethicAvenger  "your statement attempts to minimize Italian Fascism's antisemitism by claiming the Racial Laws were unpopular and solely a political maneuver to appease Nazi Germany, " And they were, per historical facts.
    1
  42. I guess it would also be good to define the Fascist ideology, in order for you people to not confuse it with National Socialism anymore, so here it goes; 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
  43.  @AlethicAvenger  "i have to point out that your assertion of Fascism as left-wing is too amusing not to debunk." As long as socialist ideologies are classified as Left wing ideologies, so is Fascism.
    1
  44.  @AlethicAvenger  "Fascism was a "totalitarian far-left, socialist 3rd position ideology" is historically inaccurate. " Nothing inaccurate about it.
    1
  45.  @AlethicAvenger  "and practical implementation place it firmly within the right-wing of the political spectrum: " First of all, we need to define what Right wing even is and what it represents; The fundamental differences between Right wing and Left 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.
    1
  46.  @AlethicAvenger  " 1) fascism's emphasis on nationalism, hierarchy, traditional social structures, and its opposition to both liberal democracy and communism are characteristics typically associated with right-wing ideologies." None of these traits have anything to do with Right wing. Nationalism is a form of collectivism and therefore a Leftist trait, also used by various different socialist ideologies such as Stalinism, Maoism etc. Every single political ideology based on the concept of a "government" has hierarchies, some more some less. Fascism during its time was a revolutionary and anti-conservative movement and wasn't really advocating for traditional Italian social structures. Fascism was opposed to liberalism, democracy and communism as Fascism believed in an all encompassing State, being the center, the meaning and the existence of human life. "7. Anti-individualistic, the Fascist conception is for the State; and it is for the individual only in so far as he coincides with the State, which is the conscience and universal will of man in his historical existence. It is opposed to classical liberalism, which arose as a reaction to absolutism and exhausted its historical function when the State was transformed into the conscience and will of the people. Liberalism denied the State in the interest of the particular individual; Fascism reasserts the State as the true reality of the individual. And if liberty is to be the attribute of real men, and not of abstract puppets invented by individualistic liberalism, then Fascism is for liberty, and for the only liberty which can be real, the liberty of the State and of the individual within the State. Therefore, for the Fascist, everything is in the State, and outside of it nothing human or spiritual can exist, much less have value. In this sense Fascism is totalitarian, and the Fascist State—the synthesis and unity of all values—interprets, develops, and potentiates the whole life of the people." - the Doctrine of Fascism
    1
  47.  @AlethicAvenger  "2) while early Fascist rhetoric sometimes employed socialist language, Fascist regimes, particularly in Italy and Germany, did not implement socialist economic policies." Wrong. Both Fascist Italy and National Socialist Germany implemented 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. Both Germany and Italy shared the largest government owned public sector in whole Europe throughout the 1930s, losing only to the USSR itself.
    1
  48.  @AlethicAvenger  " they maintained private ownership of the means of production, " Wrong. They didn't. Nazi Germany abolished private property rights via Reichstag fire decree on February 28, 1933, and the means of production was controlled by the NSDAP via DAF. Fascist Italy took control over the means of production via Corporatism ("corporativismo" in Italian). 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. In both countries and ideologies, the idea was to let the state control and direct the economy from the top-down without itself owning the means of production.
    1
  49.  @AlethicAvenger  "not abolishing private property " Wrong. As already mentioned, private property rights were abolished in Nazi Germany. In Fascist Italy, individual ownership rights were understood to be strictly subordinate to collective discipline. It was not the individual ownership of property that concerned Fascists, but its subordination to collective control. Property was understood to perform social functions rather than to manifest individual rights. It was clear that the conception of property as a social function was broad enough to include socialization of the means of production, should that be required by the national interests as interpreted by the state.
    1
  50.  @AlethicAvenger  "or establishing worker control." Worker ownership of the means of production is what Marxism is about. That is why such a thing wasn't established.
    1