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

  1. "Fas cism is inherently reactionary, not progressive. " I guess it depends on from who you ask. According to Mussolini and Giovanni Gentile, their movement was revolutionary. Meanwhile H itler thought Mussolini's fascism to be reactionary. "Yet the Fas cist State is unique, and an original creation. It is not reactionary, but revolutionary, in that it anticipates the solution of the universal political problems which elsewhere have to be settled in the political field by the rivalry of parties, the excessive power of the Parliamentary regime and the irresponsibility of political assemblies." -The Political and Social Doctrine of Fasc ism
    1
  2. "It is inherently capitalist and profit-seeking, not soci alist and public-oriented. " Wrong. Fas cism was one of the branches of soci alism and it opposed capitalism and profiteering. Mussolini, who was a socia list, specifically reiterated that capita lism, as an economic system, was not viable. Fasc ist economy was to be based not on individual profit but on collective interest. "To-day we can affirm that the capit alistic method of production is out of date. So is the doctrine of laissez-faire, the theoretical basis of capita lism… To-day we are taking a new and decisive step in the path of revolution. A revolution, in order to be great, must be a social revol ution.“ — Benito Mussolini , Speech on November 14, 1933
    1
  3.  @robcrawford5165  " If you want to describe Fas cism as 'state-directed capit alism'," No. It was just so cialism. There is no such thing as "state-dir ected capit alism". It's an ox ymor on.
    1
  4.  @robcrawford5165  "that I will happily agree with but show me where any fas cist state repealed or criminalized the idea of private property and profit except for specific racially and politically defined opponents; the only change to capitalism under fasci sm was that private property and profit were to be directed for the benefit of the individual AND the nation-state as defined as a race--this NOT soci alism. " Fasci sm didn't care much about the race so you must be referring to naz ism? In both cases, the state took control over 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, and what dividends or other income the nominal private owners would be permitted to receive. The position of the alleged private owners, Mises showed, was reduced essentially to that of government pensioners. This is soci alism.
    1
  5.  @robcrawford5165  "What class have Mussolini’s Fasci sts dispossessed? " Mussolini didn't believe in the "class warfare" to begin with. He believed in the unified State. He wanted the State to control everyone regardless what your class might have been.
    1
  6.  @robcrawford5165  "The capitalist class was in power before Mussolini became a Dictator. It is in power to-day with Muss olini at its head. " Certainly they were not under Mussolini. His party and the Fasc ist Grand Council was purely formed from Syndicalists. On the contrary, Mussolini literally stated that the capitalist class will have to do what he wants them to do. "The Fascist State directs and controls the entrepreneurs, whether it be in our fisheries or in our heavy industry in the Val d'Aosta. There the State actually owns the mines and carries on transport, for the railways are state property. So are many of the factories… We term it state intervention… If anything fails to work properly, the State intervenes. The capitalists will go on doing what they are told, down to the very end. They have no option and cannot put up any fight. Capital is not God; it is only a means to an end." Talks with Mussolini, Emil Ludwig, Boston, MA, Little, Brown and Company (1933)
    1
  7.  @regisglass5464  "Even the doctrine of fas cism literally states: "We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the 'right,' a fa scist century"." The fas cists wanted to move to the right from marx ism, not into the right side of the spectrum. Mussolini continues: "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." 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.
    1
  8.  @regisglass5464  "This is particularly poignant when one notices the fas cists express opposition to left leaning views, ie, equality. " Fasci sm had no problems with left leaning views in general. After all, it was a national syndicalist movement. Equality has nothing to do with left nor right by default. It is advocated by both sides, with different methods.
    1
  9.  @regisglass5464  "fasc ists are capita list but only if it benefits their own group," Wrong. Fasci sts were totalitarian soci alists who opposed capita lism.
    1
  10.  @regisglass5464  "Hitl er and Mussolini both disavowed capitalism if non Ary ans like jews or Slavs had successful business ventures." Wrong. Both Hi tler and Mu ssolini denounced capitalism because it was capit alism and they were social ists. Ha d nothing to do with rac es.
    1
  11.  @regisglass5464  "But where does it state it is to the rig ht from Marxi sm? Or have you not read the book?" In their book it says, since (National) Synd icalism is to the right from ma rxism.
    1
  12.  @regisglass5464  "That's odd, didn't both remove businesses from Je ws and give them to ar yans?" Naz ism did, Fas cism didn't and didn't believe in arya nism in the first place.
    1
  13.  @regisglass5464  "Seems odd you believe those pushing Ary an suprem acy Had nothing to do with ra ces." Their rejection of capi talism had nothing to do with ra ces.
    1
  14.  @regisglass5464  "Note we already agreed it states fasci sm is a right wing trend" Wrong. Fasc ism had nothing to do with right wing of any kind whatsoever. The fas cists wanted to move to the right from marx ism, not into the right side of the spectrum. It was a totalita rian far-left, soci alist ideology based on national syndicalism.
    1
  15.  @regisglass5464  "Then why did both remove businesses from Jew s but support those they called Arya ns? ... Were you unaware of the Manifesto of Race and what it did in Italy?" Only Hitl er and the Na zis did. Fascism never forced the "Manifesto of Ra ce", which made both Göring and Hi tler angry and they scolded Musso lini about it.
    1
  16.  @regisglass5464  "But you accidentally avoided my question. Again, would you name any conservative movement that supports the individual rights of LGB TQ individuals, eg, gay marriage, if right wing ideologies are about the individual and not the State? " Because your question is irrelevant. It has nothing to do with fas cism, nor does amu rican conse rvatism nor any kind of amur ican politics.
    1
  17.  @regisglass5464  "that's strainge, why do you believe corpora tions are left leaning? " Again, because it was syndi calism / trade uni onism.
    1
  18.  @regisglass5464  "Does Mussolini not clarify he states as such because "We wish the working classes to accustom themselves to the responsibilities of management so that they may realize that it is no easy matter to run a business..."" “Corporations” were not individual businesses if that is what you are thinking.
    1
  19.  @regisglass5464  "Why did you attempt to state coporate capit alism is marx ist?" This has nothing to do with "coporate capitalism". It didn't exist in fasc ism nor in the fa scist Italy.
    1
  20.  @regisglass5464  "1) what conservative movement supports the individual rights of LGBTQ individuals, eg, gay marriage, if right wing ideologies are about the individual?" Again, your question is irrelevant. It has nothing to do with fas cism, nor does amu rican conse rvatism nor any kind of amur ican politics.
    1
  21.  @regisglass5464  "if Hitl er and Mussoli ni didn't favor ca pitalism, why did both remove businesses from Je ws but support those of Aryans," Only Hitl er and the Na zis did. Fascism never forc ed the "Manifesto of Ra ce", which made both Göring and Hi tler angry and they scolded Musso lini about it. Also their rejection of capi talism had nothing to do with ra ces.
    1
  22.  @robcrawford5165  "Name one. ONE business Mussolini nationalized. Give me the cite. Mussolini did NOT nationalize a single private business in Italy during his regime. Daniel Guérin, Fascism and Big Business, 1999." We can start with the Bank Reform Act in 1936, when the Bank of Italy and most of the other major banks became government entities. Also according to Mussolini himself: "The Fascist State directs and controls the entrepreneurs, whether it be in our fisheries or in our heavy industry in the Val d'Aosta. There the State actually owns the mines and carries on transport, for the railways are state property. So are many of the factories… We term it state intervention… If anything fails to work properly, the State intervenes. The capitalists will go on doing what they are told, down to the very end. They have no option and cannot put up any fight. Capital is not God; it is only a means to an end." Talks with Mussolini, Emil Ludwig, Boston, MA, Little, Brown and Company (1933) "Three-fourths of the Italian economy, industrial and agricultural, is in the hands of the state. And if I dare to introduce to Italy state capitalism or state socialism, which is the reverse side of the medal, I will have the necessary subjective and objective conditions to do it." Mussolini’s speech to the Chamber of Deputies on May 26, 1934
    1
  23.  @robcrawford5165  "Commu nism and social ism's goal is to abolish class distinctions. " Nothing to do with soci alism. The abolition of classes is the goal of mar xism, yes, which is supposed to happen after the "dictatorship of the proletariat" phase which ushers the classless and stateless society, known as com munism.
    1
  24.  @robcrawford5165  "and holds that clearly divided classes are necessary and the State's power depends on the maintenance of a system in which every person has a definite, unchangeable, specific role in glorifying the state. " They didn't divide people in classes. This is where the corporatism comes in, which holds that all aspects of Society should be organized into Corporations, some use the word Syndicates, which are nationalized Unions that then elect their own members into government as well as democratically run their workspaces. Each profession and field has their own Syndicate, which in turn, operates symbiotically with its composed members. Private enterprise, if it exists at all, is only for the benefit of the State, in which these Syndicates are inseparable from.
    1
  25.  @robcrawford5165  "The preservation of social hierarchy is in all classes' interest and therefore all classes should collaborate in its defense: the lower and the higher classes should accept their roles and perform their respective duties. This principle of class collaboration is combined with ultranationalism." Correct.
    1
  26.  @robcrawford5165  "They were ALL syndicalists? They weren't even all fascists." Most if not all of them were. National syndicalists to be precise, following the path laid down by Georges Sorel. They did rebrand themselves to "fascists syndicalists" though to make things more confusing for no reason. One of the most notable person, also one of Mussolini's henchmen, was Edmondo Rossoni. Look him up.
    1
  27.  @robcrawford5165  "The political system we know as Comm unism today" Which we don't know, since nobody has ever achieved Com munism as of yet.
    1
  28.  @robcrawford5165  " is simply authoritarian soci alism as opposed to democratic sociali sm" Soci alism is authoritarian by definition. Free people won't always behave the way you want them to behave. You don't need to force people to look after themselves, but you need to force people to make them look after the community as a whole before themselves. In order to instill these involuntary ideals on a population, there must be some kind of force, there must be some kind of aggression, some kind of hierarchical organization that sits on-top of the population, governing. If there was no aggression from a governing body, this ideology would not work and it would immediately dissipate into free-market capitalism, simply because sociali sm is involuntary.
    1
  29.  @robcrawford5165  "Welcome to Fa scism and Survival of the Fitt est." Fascis m did not accept market competition. It advocated the idea that the State knows better than the individual. They flat out reject individualism. "Fas cism is definitely and absolutely opposed to the doctrines of liberal ism, both in the political and the economic sphere." - the Doctrine of Fas cism "Fas cism establishes the real equality of individuals before the nation… the object of the regime in the economic field is to ensure higher social justice for the whole of the Italian people… What does social justice mean? It means work guaranteed, fair wages, decent homes, it means the possibility of continuous evolution and improvement. Nor is this enough. It means that the workers must enter more and more intimately into the productive process and share its necessary discipline… As the past century was the century of capitalist power, the twentieth century is the century of power and glory of labour." Four Speeches on the Corporate State, Rome, (1935) pp. 39-40. Speech delivered to the workers in Milan.
    1
  30.  @robcrawford5165  "So ONE of them was a syndicalist; so ALL of them must have been. Jeez." Again, go read some history before commenting. Most if not all of them were (national) syndicalist.
    1
  31.  @robcrawford5165  "-to separate Ma rx from sociali sm is simply ridic ulous. " Socia lism predates Mar x and his buddy Engels. The notion that social ism is somehow tied to proletarians specifically, was their own invention.
    1
  32.  @robcrawford5165  "The Bank of Italy was never nationalized; it was given power to supervise other banks. It remained in private hands." It was nationalized and under the control of the Government. "In the context of preparations for war (the invasion of Ethiopia started in 1935) and under IRI, the Banking Law was drafted. The first part of the Law, which is still in force, defined the Bank of Italy as “a public law institution” and entrusted it definitively with the function of monetary issue (no longer just a concession); individual shareholdings were expropriated and equity was reserved to financial institutions of public relevance; the Bank was prohibited from discounting bills itself to non-banks, underscoring its function as banker to banks. A second part of the law (repealed almost completely in 1993) concerned credit and financial supervision, totally revamping the credit system via a separation between banking and industry and between short- and long-term credit; it determined that banking was an activity of public interest; it concentrated supervision in the Inspectorate for the defence of savings and the exercise of credit (a newly created state body), chaired by the Governor and using resources and personnel of the Bank of Italy, but directed by a ministerial committee chaired by the Prime Minister. Aware of the new developments in economics and the challenge posed by a world in the throes of violent change, Governor Azzolini initiated the creation of a modern research service, taking on professional economists. At the end of 1936, the long-awaited devaluation of the lira stimulated economic recovery and improved the balance of payments. At the same time, by a simple ministerial decree, all limits on State borrowing from the Central Bank were abolished. The autonomy of the Bank was at its nadir." - Bankpedia
    1
  33.  @robcrawford5165  "Tell that to Sweden." Tell what to Sweden? Here in the Nordic countries we don't have soci alism if that is what you were thinking. We have a mixed economy, known as social democracy, which is way more restrictive than the economy model in the US for example.
    1
  34.  @regisglass5464  " I actually do recommend reading the Doctrine of Fasci sm because it's pretty clear it's rig ht wi ng. " Nope. It's pretty clear that they were socia lists and they had nothing to do with right wing of any kind whatsoever. 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.
    1
  35.  @regisglass5464  "I mean it literally says: "Fasc ism is therefore opposed to Socialism to which unity within the State (...) is unknown, and which sees in history nothing but the class struggle."" Yes, it literally says that they are against the marx ist variation of soci alism, not socia lism itself. Mussolini continues: "But when brought within the orbit of the State, Fas cism recognizes the real needs which gave rise to socia lism and trade unionism, giving them due weight in the guild or corporative system in which divergent interests are coordinated and harmonized in the unity of the State."
    1
  36.  @regisglass5464  "If so, you are entitled to believe they supported ri ght wi ng socia lism. " There is nothing to believe nor is this a matter of belief. There is no such thing as "rig ht win g social ism". They supported just socia lism.
    1
  37.  @regisglass5464  " Either way, thank you for accepting they're ri ght win ged." Wrong. Fasc ism had nothing to do with right wi ng of any kind whatsoever. The fas cists wanted to move to the right from marx ism, not into the right side of the spectrum. It was a totalita rian far-left, soci alist ideology based on national syndicalism.
    1
  38.  @regisglass5464  "You are still entitled to pretend corporations aren't capitalist if you so wish." There is nothing to pretend. They weren't. They had nothing to do with capita lism whatsoever. You just do not under stand what that word means, because you are am ur ican. Maybe you should do your homework before com menting. The word does not mean what you think it means.
    1
  39.  @regisglass5464  "Then kindly answer this query: which conservative group anywhere defends the individ ual rights of LG BTQ people? Or do they see them as a lesser group to them?" Again, some groups have, some grou ps have not. Comp letely depends on the country's politics and the ideology of the group. Co nservatism can be both left and right.
    1
  40.  @regisglass5464  "Then kindly name one conservative group that defends the indi vidual rights of LG BTQ people. " Haven't looked into them, because I don't care and it is irrelevant when discussing about fas cism.
    1
  41.  @regisglass5464  "Seems odd you state that's what right wing groups do, but fail to provide any name" I don't care about names. I care about what people do.
    1
  42.  @regisglass5464  "pretend fas cism's corporate capital ism is l eft win g." There was no such thing as "corpo rate cap italism" in fas cism. Maybe you should do your homework before com menting. The word does not mean what you think it means.
    1
  43.  @regisglass5464  "It's odd you have to ignore your own words and sources to do so though." That is what you are doing, hun. Look into the mirror, amu rican.
    1
  44. @regisglass5464: "again, you are entitled to believe fascism supported right wing socialism" There is nothing to believe nor is this a matter of belief. There is no such thing as "rig ht win g social ism". They supported just socia lism. / / / / / / @regisglass5464: "Not sure what you mean by this, but thank you for agreeing fascism is right winged." Wrong. Fasc ism had nothing to do with right wi ng of any kind what soever. The fas cists wanted to move to the right from marx ism, not into the right side of the spectrum. It was a totalita rian far-left, soci alist ideology based on national syndicalism. / / / / / / @regisglass5464: "A stated, you are entitled to pretend corporations aren't capitalist" There is nothing to pretend. There were no modern business / capit alist corporations in fasc ism. You just do not under stand what that word means, because you are am ur ican. Maybe you should do your homework before com menting. The word does not mean what you think it means. / / / / / / @regisglass5464: "to pretend Mu ssolini's corporations are left lea ning." Syndic alism / Trade union ism under Mussolini was left leaning. Had nothing to do with modern business corporations. / / / / / / @regisglass5464: "Or why not quote Mussolini on the capit alist model he used?" There is nothing to quote. Mussolini never used one. He used socia lism. / / / / / / @regisglass5464: "Then kindly name any conservative group or individual that defends the indivi dual rights of LG BTQ peo ple." Haven't looked into them, because I don't care and it is irrelevant when discussing about fas cism. Conse rvatism has nothing to do with this subject, especially the am urica n version. Again, conserva tism is relative. Is it too hard for am urica ns to understand? Again, conse rvatism has nothing to do with this subject. Mussolini didn't consider his movement to be conservative. On the contrary, he claimed that the Italian Socia list Party was conservative. / / / / / / @regisglass5464: "Seems odd you have such trouble answering if all rig ht wi ng ideology are about individual right s." They certainly are. Seems odd you have such trouble understanding that there is no definitive connection between right wing and conservat ism. Even Wiki knows this: "The central tenets of conservatism may vary in relation to the culture and civilization in which it appears ... 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
  45.  @tommasopalma7664  "consequently from what we have the term was born in the Nazi period and regarding the Nazi economy, stop." Wrong. The word "re-privatization" was born in that era, regarding the Nazi economy during the early 1940s.
    1
  46. @Joshua Morton: Incorrect. It was a form of to tal itari an soc iali sm and therefore can only manifest itself from the f ar le ft.
    1
  47.  @asdqwe8837  : Incorrect. Both Mussolini and the philosopher behind the ideology were socialists. Fascist state owned the means of production and controlled the economy via corporatism/syndicalism, which is a form of socialism. Fascism literally opposed capitalism. Go read some history and stop using words that you do not understand.
    1
  48.  @middaymeds  US is barely capitalist. They have a Mixed economy with heavy government regulations like 99% of the modern day countries.
    1
  49.  @GarethWareth  " And an ti-tra de union ism is a key component of fa sci sm." Incorrect. Their whole economic system was based on national syn dicalis m i.e. (natio nalize d) tra de union ism or also known as fa sci st corpor atis m; collectively managed by employers, workers and state officials by formal mechanisms at the national level. Government body would bring together federations of workers and empl oyers syndic ates belonging to the same profe ssion and branch, to reg ulate prod uction in a holistic  manner. Each tra de un ion would theoretically represent its profes sional conce rns, especially by negotiation of labour contra cts and the like.
    1
  50.  @GarethWareth  "Fairly standard fa r-rig ht practice." This has nothing to do with "fa r-rig ht" or any kind of rig ht win g politics. F ascis m was a form of f ar-le ft so cialis m.
    1