Comments by "Historia, Magistra Vitae" (@Historia.Magistra.Vitae.) on "PragerU"
channel.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@regisglass5464: "where does it state it supports right wing soc ialism"
There is no such thing as "right wing soci alism", there is just different socialist ideologies. Fas cism was one of nationalistic branches, and had no problems with soci alism as long as it was used within the State and was not against the state, as said in their 'Doctrine of Fas cism'.
"Fasc ism is therefore opposed to Socia lism to which unity within the State (which amalgamates classes into a single economic and ethical reality) is unknown, and which sees in history nothing but the class struggle. Fasc ism is likewise opposed to trade unionism as a class weapon. But when brought within the orbit of the State, Fas cism recognizes the real needs which gave rise to socialism 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."
/ / / / / /
@regisglass5464: "as you agree the doctrine of fas cism explicitly states it is right wing "
Wrong. It states no such thing. It says "ten ding to the ri g ht" i.e. moving to the rig ht from marxi sm that is, since they claimed to be part of the "3rd position" movement; between marxism/bolshevism and capitalism.
/ / / / / /
@regisglass5464: "Note you even write fasc ism opposes individual rights while Ma rxism focuses on the rights of workers, eg, all individuals should have rights and not just the powerful."
Marxism doesn't care about the individuals, it only cares about the proletarians. They want the bourgeoisie to be dead. Both fas cism and marx ism are collectivist ideologies and oppose individual rights.
1
-
1
-
@regisglass5464 "Then kindly quote where it explicitly states as such."
Gentile:
"The Fascist, on the other hand, conceives philosophy as a philosophy of practice (”praxis”). That concept was the product of certain Marxist and Sorellian inspirations (many Fascists and the Duce, himself, received their first intellectual education in the school of Marx and Sorel)—as well as the influence of contemporary Italian idealistic doctrines from which Fascist mentality drew substance and achieved maturity.“
"It is necessary to distinguish between socialism and socialism—in fact, between idea and idea of the same socialist conception, in order to distinguish among them those that are inimical to Fascism. It is well known that Sorellian syndicalism, out of which the thought and the political method of Fascism emerged—conceived itself the genuine interpretation of Marxist communism. The dynamic conception of history, in which force as violence functions as an essential, is of unquestioned Marxist origin. Those notions flowed into other currents of contemporary thought, that have themselves, via alternative routes, arrived at a vindication of the form of State—implacable, but absolutely rational—that finds historic necessity in the very spiritual dynamism through which it realizes itself.“
— Che cosa è il fascismo: Discorsi e polemiche (“What is Fascism?”), Florence: Vallecchi, (1925)
/ / / / / /
Mussolini:
"Some still ask of us: what do you want? We answer with three words that summon up our entire program. Here they are…Italy, Republic, Socialization... Socialization is no other than the implantation of Italian Socialism…“
— Speech given by Mussolini to a group of Milanese Fascist veterans (October 14, 1944)
“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.”
— Speech given by Mussolini on April 22, 1945 in Milan
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@regisglass5464 "Apologies, you didn't. Or why not provide it again?"
Learn to read.
"The Fascist, on the other hand, conceives philosophy as a philosophy of practice (”praxis”). That concept was the product of certain Marxist and Sorellian inspirations (many Fascists and the Duce, himself, received their first intellectual education in the school of Marx and Sorel)—as well as the influence of contemporary Italian idealistic doctrines from which Fascist mentality drew substance and achieved maturity.“
"It is necessary to distinguish between socialism and socialism—in fact, between idea and idea of the same socialist conception, in order to distinguish among them those that are inimical to Fascism. It is well known that Sorellian syndicalism, out of which the thought and the political method of Fascism emerged—conceived itself the genuine interpretation of Marxist communism. The dynamic conception of history, in which force as violence functions as an essential, is of unquestioned Marxist origin. Those notions flowed into other currents of contemporary thought, that have themselves, via alternative routes, arrived at a vindication of the form of State—implacable, but absolutely rational—that finds historic necessity in the very spiritual dynamism through which it realizes itself.“
— Che cosa è il fascismo: Discorsi e polemiche (“What is Fascism?”), Florence: Vallecchi, (1925)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@regisglass5464: "Thus my query, does this mean he supports rig ht wing soci alism per you quoting It is necessary to distinguish between soci alism and soci alism ?"
There are no left/right wing social ism. There is just different socialist ideol ogies. Fas cism was one of nationalistic branches, and had no problems with soci alism as long as it was used within the State and was not against the state, as said in their 'Doctrine of Fas cism'.
/ / / / / /
@regisglass5464: "Still odd you avoid writing of where he state fascism is left wing ... Again, where does it state fascism is left winged? Still odd you avoid this"
Already wrote the quote. Learn to read.
“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.”
— Speech given by Mussolini on April 22, 1945 in Milan
/ / / / / /
@regisglass5464: "Thank you for thus acce pting their economy was capita list."
Wrong. Corporatism had nothing to do with capitalism. They had socia list economy which they managed via corporatism.
/ / / / / /
@regisglass5464: "Seems odd you believe corporations are capitalist though."
We aren't talking about corpor ations. We are talking about corp oratism. Learn the diffe rence, amu rican.
/ / / / / /
@regisglass5464: "then why did they advocate for it?"
They didn't.
/ / / / / /
@regisglass5464: "But thank you for accepting the Naz is did, ie, fas cist Germany"
There was no fasci st Germany. They had nazi sm, not fasc ism. Those are two different socia list ideologies.
/ / / / / /
@regisglass5464: "But thank you for backtracking on stating fas cism expli citly states it is l eft win g."
There is no backtracking. Mussolini himself states as such, which you can read from the earlier quote. Also socia lism is left wi ng which makes fasc ism a le ft wing movement due to socia lism alone.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Brett McNear : "It's hilarious that you think dictionaries are incorrect."
Not so long ago certain americans tried to change the definition of a recession so... would not be the first time when things have been changed retroactively.
---
@Brett McNear : "It's not just dictionaries that say fa scism is a rig ht-win g political ideology; it's a well-known, obvious fact when you look at what fasc ism is... It's a form of f ar-right"
Only certain americans are trying to claim that f asci sm "is a rig ht-wi ng political ideology" in general.
There is nothing right wing about an ideology which wants the State to rule supreme over economy, businesses and people's personal lives. That is exactly the opposite of what right wi ng politics is about. The fundamental differences between l eft-wi ng and rig ht-wi ng ideologies center around the the rights of individuals vs. the power of the go vernment. Left-wi n g beliefs are liberal in that they believe society is best served with an expanded role for the government. People on the rig ht believe that the best outcome for society is achieved when individual rights and civil liberties are pa ramount and the role — and especially the power — of the govern ment is minimized.
---
@Brett McNear : "Fasc ism was initially born out of social Dar win ism, based on the premise that only the fittest should survive."
Incorrect. It has nothing to do with "soc ial darwinis m" whatsoever. It was born out of m arxi sm, sorelian synd icali sm and hege lian philosophy. It was based on a premise that the (fas cist) State is the be-all and end-all of human existence. According to the 'doctrine of f asci sm':
"Anti-individualistic, the Fa scist 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 liber alism which arose as a reaction to absolutism and exhausted its historical function when the St ate became the expression of the conscience and will of the people. Liberalism denied the State in the name of the individual; Fasc ism reasserts the rights of the State as expressing the real essence of the individual."
---
@Brett McNear : "ultra-nationalism characterized by centralized authoritarian power"
Just like every socia list government, like the US SR ... and "ul tra-nat ional ism" is not a thing. It was just natio nalism.
---
@Brett McNear : "anti-intellectualism, hyper-masculinity, "
Incorrect. On the contrary, again, it was based on hegelian philosophy and they also supported women in the work force and according to their manifesto, they wanted women to have the ability to vote. "Hyper-masculinity" is not a thing, and was not a thing in f ascis m.
---
@Brett McNear : "rac ial supremacy involving the rebirth of ethnic pu rity and quasi-religious pride"
Incorrect. Fas cis m didn't believe in ra ce or et hnonation alism. Hi tler and his na zism believed in that.
---
@Brett McNear : " It will often be implemented through a merger of the corporate sector with the state to nullify trade unionism and social welfare programmes."
Incorrect. There was no such thing as "merging corporate sector with the state". On the contrary, state controlled businesses and Mussolini nationalized over 75% of the Italian industry. Trade unionism was the core principle how fascism worked, better known as corporatism / fascist syndicalism. Fascism was also advocating FOR welfare programs due to the socialist nature of their ideology. It can't be that hard to go and read their manifesto.
---
@Brett McNear : " The first people Hit ler sent to the de ath camps were soc ial ists"
Incorrect. Hit ler was a so cial ist himself. The first people he sent were the marx ists. Need to point out that Hitl er has nothing to do with fasc ism though.
---
@Brett McNear : "He crushed labour unions and diverted public money to financial elites."
Incorrect. Hitler abolished private unions which he nationalized and merged under one single nation wide union. Also on the contrary, Hit ler was vigilant in keeping many of his promises to labor. Under the newly created German Labor Front (DAF), the Na zis 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 preferred nationalized enterprises over privately owned companies since it held a bias against lib eral ca pital ism. But its main mission was also to satisfy workers enough to prevent rebellion against both industrialists and the national soci alist state.
---
@Brett McNear : "The only thing remotely similar to le ft-wi ng philosophy in fa scis m is the idea of collectivism; everything else about fa scis m is extremely ri ght-w ing."
Incorrect. Both f ascis m and na zis m were economically more or less the same as the US SR was under Lenin and Stalin. They shared 95% of the same economic policies.
---
@Brett McNear : "PS. What does Tick Tock have to do with any of this? "
Because that's is from where you are getting your info it seems ... you don't even understand the difference between naz ism and fasc ism and keep conflating the two, while they are 2 completely separate ideologies.
---
@Brett McNear : "There is no fas cist manifesto like we have a com munist manifesto from M arx. "
Incorrect. There are 2 manifestos in fact. You are just lazy like the rest of the low in forma tion am u rica ns. You can find their m anife sto from W iki under the name "The Manifesto of the Italian Fa sc es of Combat". Or you can read the "the Doctrine of Fas cism " by Mus solini and Giova nni Genti le which outlines the whole fa sci st ideology.
---
@Brett McNear : "Fasc ism has evolved through time and has appeared slightly differently with each iteration"
Incorrect. Fas cism has not evolved anywhere and has only appe ared once, during the W W2 era under Musso lini, formulated by a soci alist philosopher Gio vanni Gentile.
1
-
@Brett McNear : "I thought by my previous comment, it would be evident that I'm not Ame rican. I can't believe you would think I was."
I didn't say that you are an am erican. I said you are la zy like the low infor mation ameri cans who cannot be bothered to read actu al history bef ore commenting.
---
@Brett McNear : "Speaking of terms, we need to address the difference between Fas cism and fasc ism. Fasc ism (with a capital F) refers to Fas cism under Muss olini, which was indeed based on the writing s of Giovan ni Gent ile and referred to the specific doctrine implemented under Mussol ini's reign. The other, more general use of the term fas cism (with a lowercase f) is more widely used to explain the many iterations of fasci sm that followed. There are obvious differences betwe en Hit ler and Mussoli ni, but to suggest Hit ler was not fasc ist is out of step with reality."
Incorrect. There is no difference between Fasc ism and fasc ism and FASC ISM and fAsCi Sm. There is only one type of fas cism, the Italian kind. There is no general use of the term fasc ism, since it is a very specific political ideology and philosophy. If you are using the term in a general way, you are doing it wrong. Hit ler was never a fas cist and never had anything to do with fas cism. He admired Mus solini's fas cism for sure, however he also criticized it in his autobiography "Mein Kampf". Hit ler was a national socia list and nazi sm was national sociali sm. Fas cism and nazi sm are 2 completely different socia list ideologies, practiced in 2 completely different coun tries and founded/form ulated by com pletely different people.
---
@Brett McNear : "Fas cism and socia lism are diametrically oppo sed on everything exc ept collecti vism."
Incorrect. Fasc ism was diametrically opposed to marx ism, not soci alism which is nothing more than a colle ctivist econ omic system which both fas cism and mar xism used.
---
@Brett McNear : "Soci alism advocates for equality, whereas fas cism is based on hier rchy."
Incorrect. Socia lism doesn't advocate for anything other than colle ctive owner ship of the means of produc tion, distribution and exchan ge. Equality has nothing to do with this. Also every single ideology that is based on a thing called the "sta te" or the "gover nment" are advocating for hierarc hies. Only ideologies that are opposing unjust hierarchies or hierarchies in general are anarch ism and com munism.
---
@Brett McNear : "So ciali sm, on the other hand, is an ideology where individuals of a society own the means of production."
Incorrect. Again, it is not an ideo logy. It is an econ omic syst em where the society as a whole, or a collective, or a group, or a state, or a guild, or a syndicate, or a class owns the means of production, not the indivi duals. Indiv iduals owni ng the means of produ ction and their use for pro fit is the defi nition of capit alism.
---
@Brett McNear : "A fasc ist ruler wields sup reme power and auth ority over a country."
There was no such ruler in fasci sm mind you. Muss olini had no sup reme po wer nor aut hority. Not only did Mus solini had to collaborate with the Pope, but he also was subservient to the King of Italy. Ironi cally, Muss olini was also democratically voted out from power. Meanwhile Hit ler had all the power and authority over the Na zi Germ any.
---
@Brett McNear : "Muss olini was a socia list in his formative years, but like many young ideal istic intelle ctuals, he abandoned this philos ophy as he matured."
Incorrect. He never abandoned socia lism and was a devout socia list to the day he died. This is one of his last speeches on April 22, 1945 in Milan, before he was execu ted:
“Our progra ms are definitely equal to our revolutionary ideas and they belong to what in democ ratic regime is called “left”; our institutions are a direct result of our programs and our ideal is the Labor St ate. In this case there can be no doubt: we are the work ing cla ss in stru ggle for life and death, against ca pitalism. We are the revolutio naries in search of a new order. If this is so, to invoke help from the bourg eoisie by waving the re d peril is an absurdity. The real scare crow, the real dan ger, the threat against which we fight relentlessly, comes from the right. It is not at all in our interest to have the capi talist bourge oisie as an ally against the threat of the red pe ril, 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 ha rmful, because it makes us confuse the types of genuine revolutio naries of whatever hue, with the man of react ion who sometimes uses our very language.”
---
@Brett McNear : "There are plenty of left-win g hippies out there who believe in complete autonomy, free from gover nment intervention, and plenty of ri ght-wi ng control freaks who ban books, abortion and call for the state to implement "law and order""
Which is why there is no such thing as "le ft" or "rig ht" ... and nobody can ever decide if they want to keep using the modern post-French revolution terms or pre-French revolution terms. "le ft" and "ri ght" have no mea ning anymore, which is exactly why the political spectrum only makes sense within the Autho ritarian/Freed om axis.
1