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

Historia, Magistra Vitae
PragerU
comments

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

Previous
15
Next
...
All

He isn't a Liberal.
1
@davidknierim8354 : So he isn't a Liberal in the slightest. Contrary to popular belief, actual Liberalism refers to the ideology and philosophy put forth by John Locke which advocates for a limited government.
1
ba1 : Incorrect. Mu ssolini and Giova nni Ge ntile expli citly said fascism wa s a form of so cialis m.
1
@Red-Trickle "and they were a counter revolutio nary movement that saved Italy from a socia list takeover in the early 20's ." Wrong. According to the fas cists themselves, they were a revolutionary movement, and they wanted to save Italy from marx ism/bolshev ism, not socia lism. Fasci sm itself was a soc ialist ideology.
1
@regisglass5464 "but the doctrine of fas cism quite literally states fasci sm is right wing ed. " Wrong. It does not. Nowhere. Neither sociali sm nor nati onal syndic alism are right wing positions.
1
@regisglass5464 "If you don't believe Mussolini and Gentile stating as such in their book, then who do you believe?" They never stated such a thing in their book. Go and read again.
1
@regisglass5464 "As you defend the book, it appears you view the doctrine of fasc ism as one that accurately defines what fascism is" Not defending anything. Merely point out historical facts. Also 'the Doctrine of Fasc ism' is the only book that accurately defines what fasc ism is, just like the books written by Marx and Engels are the only books that accurately define marxis m and comm unism.
1
@regisglass5464 "As it quite literally states fascism is right winged, why go against your sources?" It seems you should learn to read. It literally says "tending to the right", not right wing. The fascists wanted to move to the right from marxism, 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
@regisglass5464 "Again, if you don't believe Mussolini and the philosopher of fascism as to what fascism is, then who do you believe"_ They never stated such a thing in their book. Go and read again.
1
@regisglass5464 "Why not read the doc trine of fascis m before claiming to know what it does or does not say?"_ Already have.
1
The fundamental differences between left-wing and right-wing ideologies center around the 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.
1
" Only someone ignorant would draw parallels between socialism and fascism. " Wrong. Fascism by definition, was a socialist ideology based on National Syndicalism, Statism and Class collaboration. It was a rival socialist ideology to Marxism, as it challenged the idea of Marxist "class struggle" and "materialism" in general. Fascism was a synthesis of anti-materialist socialism and nationalism.
1
"Socialism is a transitional form of social organization on the transition from capitalism to communism, " Only in the Marxist ideology / theory. Not every Leftist, socialist ideology wants a Communist society.
1
@janjanabarra2160 "MOST WERE NOT. " All of them were under the control of the St ate, which 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.
1
@janjanabarra2160 "Fas cism allows capita lism, " Wrong. It does not. Fasc ism was all about st atism and cent ralized gove rnment. You cannot be an advocate for centr alized planning and strong govern ment controls without being a soci alist.
1
@janjanabarra2160 Fasci sm comes from the same side as mar xism and socia lism in general. Makes no difference to me if you want to call it lef t or rig ht. However you are only making things more confusing for yourself and others, if you insist that both f ar-le ft and fa r-rig ht can facili tate a tot alitarian socia list ideology.
1
@vcxz5248 "This is really ridiculous , right-wing ideology is about hierarchy and order , not anarchy." Every single political ideology is about hierarchies, especially the ones which are based on the concept of a "government" or group rule in general. Both ends of the spectrum end up in Anarchy, it's just a question of how. On the extreme right, Anarchy is represented by Anarcho-Capitalism. On the extreme left, Anarchy is represented by Communism.
1
@vcxz5248 " In America the right-wing builds up the police state , likes a big military , likes strong government social control like abortion bans and controls on cultural outsiders like LGBT people , they like strong controls on speech with their book bans and bans on ideas like CRT. " That is not what Right wing is. You are conflating certain American conservatives and traditionalists i.e. collectivists to Right wing, but they are two different things. 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
@cheesepuff65 : Fascism was kinda based on Marxism via Sorelianism. In fact, Mussolini tried to "fix" Marxism.
1
Fa sci sm has nothing to do fa r rig ht whatsoever. It was a totalit arian f ar le f t, soc iali st ideo logy.
1
@LordZandersSoapbox4811 " I would associate the extreme right with religious extremism " Well it isn't. Religious extremism is on the Left, since that is a form of collectivism where individual rights and freedoms do doesn't exist. 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
@abeIincoIn : Yes it did and there is nothing wrong with this definition. Have you ever read history? Fa scis m can be defined as the following: an economic system that rejects ca pital ism, libe ralis m/de moc racy, and co mmu nism, in which the means of production is organized by national worker syn dica ls (i.e. trade unions), and the guiding philosophy of the state is Actual Idealism.
1
@Micheal Freeman: Nope. Projecting much? Fa scis m has nothing to do with "ri ght wi ng" whatsoever. Gentile was a m arxi sts. Fa sci sm was formulated out of M arxis m and Sor elian sy ndica lism. Fa sci sm was a form of to talita rian so ciali sm. Go read some history, kiddo. Start with the book called "the doctrine of fas cism" by Giovanni Gentile and Mussolini.
1
@TMAD: There is nothing to believe. According to history and their own words and policies, they were soc ialis ts.
1
@z2z3z45 " The Republican Party has gone far-right to fascism" American GOP is neither. They are Center-Right.
1
@James Strong: On the political compass, fa s cis m is on the f ar le ft. It was a to tali tari an form of s ocial is m. Franco wasn't a fa sci st.
1
"Yet both the right and the left can employ fascist tactics to establish a totalitarian regime." No. Not only is Fascism completely different ideology than National Socialism, both of them were socialist 3rd position ideologies.
1
"Regarding "socialism," the Nazi party was not genuinely socialist." Wrong. 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.
1
"Hitler explicitly stated this in Mein Kampf. " Wrong. 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
"He purposefully named his party National-Socialist to reclaim the term, as he believed that communism/Marxism had distorted its true meaning ... Hitler wanted to restore what he perceived as the authentic meaning of "socialism"" And he was correct. Socialism is about the collective ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange of goods after all... while Marxists only regard socialism to be a proletarian thing. 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. Nazis had the latter.
1
@SisyphusOfSodom "Consider royalists in historical contexts, such as the feudal era. They were not socialists but rather staunch conservatives with deeply traditional beliefs. Despite this, their governance was highly centralized, sometimes even more so than fascist regimes." If they controlled the economy and the means of production in general, or directly owned it, then by definition it was socialism. After all, 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
@SisyphusOfSodom "Take the loyalists during the French Revolution, who were literally the right wing, they were fiercely loyal to the king, and held strong religious traditionalist views." Modern day political spectrum is not based on the French Revolution... otherwise Classical Liberalism and Capitalism in general would be advocated by the Left.
1
@SisyphusOfSodom "So yeah, you can advocate for centralized planning and strong government control without being a socialist." Wrong. You cannot.
1
@SisyphusOfSodom "There's more to it than just that ... Socialism is both an ideology and an economic system." No. Socialism is nothing more than an economic system advocating for collective ownership or control of the means of production, distribution and exchange of goods.
1
@Freddie Ban-Murray: "Fas cism is just author itarian" Incorrect. Fa scis m was way more than a synonym for authoritarianism. F asci sm was a form of (state) soc ialis m, which rejected capital ism, libera lism/demo cracy, and com munism, in which the means of production was organized by nati onal wor ker synd icals (i.e. trade uni ons), and the guiding philosophy of the state was Act ual Idealism.
1
@Mark-zk3gu : "Sta lin was fas cist rig ht." Incorrect. St alin was a m arxi st, not a fa sci st. He had nothing to do with fa scis m whatsoever.
1
@Mark-zk3gu "F asc ist le ft doesn't make any sense. Le ft wi ng is based on equality and anti-hierarchy." Incorrect. Fa scis m was a form of soc ialis m and can only be a fa r lef t ideol ogy. Only an archy and comm unis m are an ti-hierar chy ideol ogies, and any ide ology can be for "equality".
1
@Freddie Ban-Murray: "Fa scis m is a form of com plete auth ority from one person or government" Well no, that is just what we call auth oritaria nism and fasc ism was way more than that. F asci sm was a politi cal ideology and philos ophy that reject ed indivi dualism, ca pitalism, liberalism/demo cracy, and co mmun ism, in which the means of production is organized by national worker syndi cals (i.e. trade uni ons), and the guiding philos ophy of the state is Actual Idealism. --- @Freddie Ban-Murray: "Capi talism is not demo cracy, soci alism is rejection of capit alism not demo cracy" You are not making any sense. Capita lism and soc iali sm both are eco nomic models and have nothing to do with demo cra cy, which is a polit ical mo del. --- @Freddie Ban-Murray: "To call Starlin even remotely marx ist shows you lack of understanding on the subject" He adhered to the Leni nist interpretation of Marx ism, later he forma lised these ideas as Marx ism–Lenin ism, while his own policies are called Stal inism.
1
@Mark-zk3gu : "Fasc ism is not a form of socia lism." Incorrect. Fa scis m opposed libe ral capit alism, but also international so cialis m, hence the concept of a “third way,” their cent ralized economic policies obeyed coll ectivist and soci alist princ iples, openly opposing capita lism and the free mar ket, favoring nation alism and auta rchy. Fasci sm advocated for state control of the mea ns of prod uction, exchange, distrib ution, economy and busin esses in general. That is a fo rm of socia lism.
1
@Mark-zk3gu : "Fas cism is about propping up the owner class." Incorrect. While fa scis m believed in class collaboration, they were in favor of the pro leta riat and against the bou rgeo isie.
1
@Mark-zk3gu : "So cial ism is about propping up the working class." Incorrect. You are referring to m arxis m, which is just one of the many branches of soc ialis m. Soc iali sm itself does not care about the working class. So ciali sm does not specify who should own or control the means of production. So ciali sm is just about the collective ownership or control, being it a co llective, group, guild, st ate or cla ss for example.
1
@Mark-zk3gu : "he may have said to be a Mar xist but he governed like a f ar rig ht leader. " Incorrect. a "f ar ri ght" leader would be a libert arian who would advocate for a smaller gov ernm ent which is the exa ct oppo site.
1
@Mark : "Fascists operate as being for "the white working class"" Fascism has nothing to do with "whiteness" whatsoever. They had no problems with different races. --- @Mark : "Which means they are not soc ialis ts."" Incorrect. Again, soc ialis m is an economic system, which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole. Fa sci sts had a centralized economy and advocated for state control over the means of production, that is called st ate so ciali sm. --- @Mark : "Soc ialis ts believe people are divided by class, not by nationality or ethnicity. All types of so ciali sm are for empowering the wo rking class, even pre Ma rx."" Incorrect. Again, you are referring to m arxis m which is just one of the many branches of so ciali sm and only m arxi sm saw the world as a "class struggle".
1
@Mark : "opposing fre e ma rkets isn't so ciali st." Incorrect. If you are advocating for soci alis m then you are inherently opposing mark et economies since they cannot exist within soc iali st economy.
1
@lllooo1545 "Gentile actual says fa scism is the "logical negation" ( opposite ) of socia lism ," Incorrect. He says that fa scism is the negation of marxism, not soc ialis m. "Such a conception of life makes Fasc ism the resolute negation of the doctrine underlying so-called scientific and Marxi an sociali sm, the doctrine of historic materialism which would explain the history of mankind in terms of the class struggle and by changes in the processes and instruments of production, to the exclusion of all else."
1
@lllooo1545 "The Doctrine of Fascism also says fascism is a right-wing ideology: " Incorrect. You are quoting wrong. It has never said "right wing". "Granted that the XIXth century was the century of socia lism, libe ralism, democracy, this does not mean that the XXth century must also be the century of so cialism, 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 Fas cist century. If the XIXth century was the century of the individual (libera lism implies individu alism) we are free to believe that this is the "colle ctive" century, and therefore the century of the St ate."
1
@robertpolanco1973 "Din esh D'Sou za is such a conservative fool for believing that fasci sm is some kind of phenomenon of the Lef t. " Has nothing to do with Dine sh whatsoever. It's a historical fact that f asci sm is a phenom enon of the f ar-le ft, since it was a branch of soc ialis m.
1
"Fascists are uber nationalists. Who are racists. That is the main difference. " Fascists were Statists first, nationalists second. They also weren't racists, unlike National Socialists which you are probably referring to.
1
@ehanson6537 "What would you classify politically active racists?" Depends what kind of racism they are advocating for. Nowadays, nobody is advocating for actual "aryanism" like the National Socialists did for example, instead they are in favor of ethnonationalism in general.
1
@ehanson6537 "What would you call the Nazis?" National Socialists and their ideology was inherently anti-Semitic, and therefore racist in general. However what I tried to explain in my first comment, was that Mussolini's Fascism was a different ideology than Hitler's National Socialism.
1

Previous
15
Next
...
All