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

@pqunit "When the right seeks to limit people's personal freedom, spend more on the police and the military, expand government beurocracy etc - that's not shrinking the government. " It indeed is not shrinking the government, however what you think is right doesn't seem to be right at all.
1
@pqunit "Mili tary dicta torships are cent ralized, planned eco nomies that are the opposite of soci alist." You are not maki ng any sen se whatsoever. In a cent rally plann ed economy, major econo mic decisions are made by a central authority such as the gove rnment. That is by definition, socia lism. Makes no diffe rence if it is a mili tary dictato rship or not.
1
@pqunit "As many deaths as M ao might be responsible for, fas cists make murder into a factory operation." Not really. Fas cists had the least kills in the W W2, compared to Na zis and Mar xists. Even Na zis killed less people than mar xists in the US SR.
1
@pqunit "you've bought into this idea that left = government and right = no government." Left is more government, right is less government. Extreme ends of both have 'no government' but the way to get there is the polar opposite.
1
@eedragonr "What industry ever have the Na zis nationalized and confiscated?" Every major industry. Junkers for example, or Volkswagen or IG Far ben, or Krupp or Hugo Boss or Porsche. Every single one of the major industries were either owned by NS DAP directly, or its individual members. Either businesses bent the knee to the NS DAP or the owners were replaced by Hit ler's own goons. Of course the NSDAP got lucky in the sense, that most of the CEO's were already part of the NS DAP movement. "To put it quite clearly: we have an economic programme. Point No. 13 in that programme demands the nationalisation of all public companies, in other words socialis ation, or what is known here as socia lism. … the basic principle of my Party’s economic programme should be made perfectly clear and that is the principle of authority… the good of the community takes priority over that of the individual. But the State should retain control; every owner should feel himself to be an agent of the State; it is his duty not to misuse his possessions to the detriment of the State or the interests of his fellow countrymen. That is the overriding point. The Third Reich will always retain the right to control property owners. If you say that the bourgeoisie is tearing its hair over the question of private property, that does not affect me in the least. Does the bourgeoisie expect some consideration from me?… Today’s bourgeoisie is rotten to the core; it has no ideals any more; all it wants to do is earn money and so it does me what damage it can. The bourgeois press does me damage too and would like to consign me and my movement to the devil.“ — Adolf Hit ler, Hitl er's interview with Richard Breiting, 1931, published in Edouard Calic, ed.
1
Except Mussolini was a f ar-le ft, so cia list leader
1
@jaykillxreaperofdeath6967 : Mu ssol ini didn't cr ea te fas cis m, a ma rx ist soc ia list phi losop her Gi ova nni Gen tile did. Mu ssol ini wa s a f ar le ft so cial ist.
1
@Andrew-ob5ij : You ju st have no cl ue wha t yo u are talk ing abo ut. How abo ut you go re ad so me his tory.
1
@Andrew-ob5ij : Nope. Yo u ha ve no cl ue wh at you are tal ki ng abo ut.
1
"You got Fas cists + Conservatives on on side and Liberals + Communists + Anarchists on the other. " Actually fasci sts were far-left soci alists. Conservatism is not a political movement and can be both, same goes for liberalism. Communism already is a type of anarchy, but so is Anarcho-Capitalism.
1
@American Authoritarianism Rising : Fas c is m is not back and if it were, it would come from the f ar-le ft like last time. Go read history.
1
@R_C_Davies: She would need to be a s o ci alis t first.
1
Well ain't that an ironic title coming from Vice.
1
@niccolomadeo6691 : He certainly was, by his own adm ission no less. Sho uld read so me hist ory.
1
@Andrew-ob5ij : Wrong. Mu sso lini didn't cr ush un ions, he na tion aliz ed them and tr ade un ioni sm (sy ndic ali sm) was e ssen tial part of how fa scis m w orked. Fas cist s were (st ate) soci alis ts. Read so me hist ory.
1
@Andrew-ob5ij : They pr ivati zed nothing. They nationalized almost everything like the na zis did. Mus soli ni didn't want people co mpeting against the in terest of his fa sci st sta te. Private se ctor was not a thing. Priv ate prop erty was not a thi ng, unl ess you did exa ctly what the sta te told you to do with "your property". I hig hly sugg est you go and read "the doctrine of fa scis m" or at the very le ast, their m anif esto.
1
@Andrew-ob5ij : Hit ler and Mu ssoli ni were simply imitating Le nin, who had earlier closed down all independent labor associations, factory committees and worker cooperatives, banned strikes, walkouts, and lockouts. Although Hit ler and Mu ssoli ni followed Len in’s nati onalizi ng craze, their treatment of wor kers did not mimic their Ru ssi an counterparts.
1
Hedonist Heathen : Wrong. None of those things have anything to do with right wing nor left wing for that matter. They have no political alignment by default and can be used by either right or left.
1
@Andrew-ob5ij : Mu sso lini was a f ar le ft so cia li st, just an ti-m ar xi st.
1