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

Historia, Magistra Vitae
Rebel HQ
comments

Comments by "Historia, Magistra Vitae" (@Historia.Magistra.Vitae.) on "Right-Winger Learns The Definition Of Fascism" video.

@Z4RQUON : Actually fascism can be defined as the following: an economic system that rejects capitalism, liberalism/democracy, and communism, in which the means of production is organized by national worker syndicals (i.e. trade unions), and the guiding philosophy of the state is Actual Idealism.
3
Daily reminder that fascism indeed was a far left ideology; a form of socialism, founded by 2 socialists and born out of the ideology of Marx.
3
@Chris Jones: Except the first guy knows nothing and literally classifies 99% of the countries as "fascists".
2
@Steve King: They wanted the name to reflect their ideology better but also they wanted to create some distance to the mar xi st so ciali sm. Ad olf himself would have wanted to use a name "So cial Re volut ion ary Party". "We are against the political bou rgeoi sie, and for genuine nati onalis m! We are against M arxi sm, but for true so cialis m! We are for the first German na tio nal state of a so cial ist nature! We are for the Nat ional Soc ialist Ger man Wor kers’ Party!“ —Joseph Goebbels "After all, that’s exactly why we call ourselves Na tion al Soc ialis ts! We want to start by implementing socialism in our nation among our Volk! It is not until the individual nations are so cial ist that they can address themselves to in ternatio nal soci alis m." —Ado lf They were so cialis ts because of their economic and social policies, not just because of their name though.
2
@nairsheasterling9457 : Well I can always try: www.youtube.com/watch?v=1b0o2ivIbFk
2
@dan_kay : As a German you should know that there was no fascism in your country. Adolf and NSDAP were not fascists, they were National socialists. Mussolini and his followers were fascists, in Italy. Did you sleep during history classes in school or something?
2
@Jeff 725 : Ironically the dude was right, that the fascists were from the left.
1
@HistoricLife : Fascism was totalitarian socialism, therefore far left.
1
@HistoricLife : Fascism has never been "right wing" and there is nothing that makes it right wing. The definition for fascism is either totalitarian socialism or corporatism, depending which founder you want to listen to. Both are socialism regardless. Adolf has nothing to do with this, and he was a socialist, a national socialist.
1
@HistoricLife : Fascism opposed liberal capitalism, but also international socialism, hence the concept of a “third way,” their centralized economic policies obeyed collectivist and socialist principles, openly opposing capitalism and the free market, favoring nationalism and autarchy.
1
@HistoricLife : By "people owning the businesses" you are referring to marxist socialist. Marxism is not the only form of socialism though. Socialism is simply an umbrella term, referring to a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole. NSDAP was that community and everyone who were part of the "superior race". According to Adolf himself: "Socialism is the science of dealing with the common weal. Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists." "We might have called ourselves the Liberal Party. We chose to call ourselves the National Socialists. We are not internationalists. Our socialism is national. We demand the fulfilment of the just claims of the productive classes by the state on the basis of race solidarity. To us state and race are one."
1
@HistoricLife : Again, the "superior race" was supposed to be that community, lead by the NSDAP. That was the core idea of their ideology, which lead to the infamous "Gleichschaltung".
1
@HistoricLife : Again, national socialism was a form of totalitarian socialism just like fascism was. Totalitarian, because they nationalized everything, and everything was under the NSDAP control. Socialism, because they took the means of production away from the individual and gave it to the State which controlled the economy in general (centralized economy).
1
@David Kramer : They certainly are different ideologies, however they have some common ground ... both being socialist ideologies and Marx having a huge influence on how both of them turned out to be.
1
@KamaraNoir : I don't believe, I know because of what the history tells us. Fascism is socialism because that's what they practiced. Fascism can be defined as the following: an political and economic system that rejects capitalism, liberalism/democracy, and communism, in which the means of production is organized by national worker syndicals (i.e. trade unions), and the guiding philosophy of the state is Actual Idealism. Adolf wasn't a fascist. Adolf was a national socialist. There was no fascism in the national socialist Germany. Fascism was an Italian movement. What Adolf did was also socialism. Both national socialism and fascism opposed liberal capitalism, but also international socialism, hence the concept of a “third way,” their centralized economic policies obeyed collectivist and socialist principles, openly opposing capitalism and the free market.
1
@davidkramer333 : Socialist ideologies are similar yes ... national social ism, fasc ism, marx ism and commun ism are quite similar.
1
@davidkramer333 : Well, the only difference there is the amount of people. For someone like a business owner, it makes no difference if his business decisions are controlled by one people or a group of people. In Germany's case, it was mostly Adolf pulling the strings via his party. In Italy's case, it was the collective syndicate with the blessings of Mussolini.
1
@davidkramer333 : I didn't say they are the same, I said the result is the same.
1
@KamaraNoir : You just have no clue what you are talking about. The historical fact is that Adolf had absolutely nothing to do with fascism whatsoever. Adolf changed nothing. Fascism is a completely different socialist ideology. Nobody from the Italians called him a fascist. Nobody called him a fascist here in Europe. On the contrary, Adolf criticized Mussolini's fascism since Mussolini didn't believe in his race theory. Adolf called himself a socialist and a national socialist multiple times. Once again, historical fact is, that Adolf has absolutely nothing to do with fascism whatsoever. Both national socialism and fascism have always been far left, socialist ideologies. It is you and the rest of the amuricans who are putting Adolf and Mussolini into the same definition. Adolf was a national socialist, not a fascist. Mussolini was a fascist. National socialism and fascism are 2 different socialist ideologies, practiced in 2 different countries. There is no such thing as "democratic socialism". What you might be referring to, is social-democracy which is still based on capitalism, not socialism. Again, both Mussolini and Adolf opposed liberal capitalism, but also international socialism. What Adolf did to unions, he socialized i.e. nationalized them under on single union, Deutsche Arbeitsfront (DAF, or German Labor Front). The DAF created a single overarching labor union. Essentially all German workers and employees in every economic sector belonged to the DAF. Why Adolf did the "night of the long knives", has nothing to do with socialists. He did it specifically because his paramilitary group, SA, was staging a coup and wanted to overthrow him. Adolf himself was the one who added national socialism into the party's name. Although he did suggest a name change for "Social Revolutionary Party" earlier. The only reason why he wouldn't have wanted to add "socialism" in there, would have been because he wanted to distance himself from the marxists. Again, please go read some history since you have no clue what you are talking about. "We might have called ourselves the Liberal Party. We chose to call ourselves the National Socialists. We are not internationalists. Our socialism is national. We demand the fulfilment of the just claims of the productive classes by the state on the basis of race solidarity. To us state and race are one." -Adolf
1
@KamaraNoir : I highly suggest you go and read the book "the doctrine of fascism" by Mussolini and Giovanni Gentile before you keep posting non sense.
1
@KamaraNoir : There is no historian that would try to lump Adolf's national socialism into fascism. None. Again, nobody called Adolf and NSDAP as fascist. Nobody here in Europe called them fascists. Adolf nor the NSDAP never called themselves as fascist. Mussolini nor the Italians called Adolf and NSDAP as fascists. It has never been a thing. It's just something you amuricans have invented in your head. How many quotes do you need? If you don't want to believe Adolf, what about Joseph Goebbels? "We are against the political bourgeoisie, and for genuine nationa lism! We are against Marx ism, but for true socia lism! We are for the first German national state of a socia list nature! We are for the National Socia list German Workers’ Party!“ "We are socia lists because we see the social question as a matter of necessity and justice for the very existence of a state for our people, not a question of cheap pity or insulting sentimentality. The worker has a claim to a living standard that corresponds to what he produces. We have no intention of begging for that right… Since the political powers of the day are neither willing nor able to create such a situation, socia lism must be fought for. It is a fighting slogan both inwardly and outwardly. It is aimed domestically at the bourgeois parties and Marx ism at the same time, because both are sworn enemies of the coming workers’ state. It is directed abroad at all powers that threaten our national existence and thereby the possibility of the coming socia list national state.“ or Gregor Strasser? "We National Socia lists want the economic revolution involving the nationali zation of the economy…We want in place of an explo itative capita list economic system a real socia lism, maintained not by a soulless Jew ish-materi alist outlook but by the believing, sacrificial, and unselfish old German community sentiment, community purpose and economic feeling. We want the soc ial revo lution in order to bring about the national revo lution.“ "What we National Socia lists want is revo lution or, better said, the attainment of a German future by the ruthless implementation of national freedom, social justice and völkisch recovery.“
1
@KamaraNoir : I'm not. Welcome to the lef tist you tube, where your comments are being cen sored if you say certain nau ghty words that either you tube or this channel has specified. There are plenty of comment chains where you can only see a handful of comments. Sometimes they won't even tell you that your comment is hidden, and you need to double check using your browsers private mode.
1
@Sarge 420: The american GOP is literally at the opposite side of the political spectrum than fascism.
1
@Dead Purple : Happens when people try to deny history. Fascism always been from the left. Was a totalitarian form of socialism, founded by two socialist, born out of marxism.
1
@RazorBurn : Fascism was a totalitarian form of socialism, so probably that is why.
1
@purevenus6359 : Incorrect. Fascism is a subset of socialism, just like Marxism, Communism and National socialism. Please go read some history.
1
@John Frazer: Certainly not accurate. Some random biased vague definition that has nothing to do with history nor reality.
1
@black jesus : They were national socialists and employed socialism in their economic and social policies. They were against the ideology of Marx, true, which is not the only form of socialism. Adolf never were against trade unions, he supported them from the start. They appeared so pro-worker that the foreign press during the 1920s simply referred to Adolf and his socialist party as the “National Socialist Labor Party.” The National Socialists went out of their way to get workers support. In some cases, they even allied with the Communist Party of Germany, demanding better wages for workers. Adolf’s “brownshirts” and red-flagged Communists marched side by side through the streets of Berlin in 1932, and violently destroyed any busses whose drivers had failed in participate in the worker’s strike. In fact, the biggest voter contingency for National Socialist candidates came from German factory workers.
1
@rickitynick4463 : It is to some extent. They allow people to vote and they also hold elections. After all, in order for a country to be “democratic” (not to be confused with Democracy) all that is necessary is that there be elections.
1
@nairsheasterling9457 : When woketube and lameHQ allow me to post links, I will.
1
@Otto Carnage: oh sweet summer kiddo, fa scis m has not been a thing since the ww2 Italian days.
1
@cariwaldick4898 : All of those points are so vague that you can apply to them almost every country, or at least to every dictatorial country, including Brazil, Venezuela, Cuba, Egypt, China and North Korea. Fa sci sm just doesn't exist in your country, kiddo. Fa scis m was a very specific so ciali st ideology that existed in Italy during ww2 and died with Mussolini.
1
@Norman Scott sailing : Would like to point out that nazis were not fascists. They were national socialist. Those are 2 different socialist ideologies, practiced in 2 different countries back in the day.
1
@georgetetrick8447 : Nope. Both fascism and communism are socialist ideologies, while communism being on the extreme left and fascism on the far left. Fascism was born out of marxist ideology for crying out loud.
1
@LoudAngryJerk : That is de facto definition for fa sci sm, hun. Provided by the people who came up with the ideology to begin with. Fa scis m didn't care about the race. That was nat ion al soc iali sm. However both of them were forms of so ciali sm. Soci alis m is defined as a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
1
@hechla : Yup. Go read some history.
1
@hechla : They certainly were so cial ists and Adolf was very proud of it. However were are talking about fa scis m here, not nat ional socia lism.
1
@hechla : He had mar xis ts and his political opposition arrested, not so cialis ts. Again, this is completely another ideology than fas cism. Fa scis m had no religion. They were only interested in national identity. Mussolini wasn't even a religious person, oh, and his first wife as a Jew.
1
J. Carosi : What lie? The original post is correct.
1
@annabethsyndullajaneway1424 : Certainly is correct.
1
@annabethsyndullajaneway1424 : Again, go read some history instead of posting nonsense.
1
@annabethsyndullajaneway1424 : Nope, you have no clue what you are talking about. Again, fascism was a form of socialism, founded by 2 socialists and born of out the ideology of Marx.
1
J. Carosi : The real history is that both of the founders of fascism were hardcore socialists. Fascism was founded upon labor syndicalism, which turned into nationalized collectivism, or "socialism for Italy" they said.
1
@vforwombat9915 : Marxist ideology is not the same thing as socialism. Socialism is only an umbrella term; a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole. That includes fascism, national socialism, communism and marx at least.
1
@vforwombat9915 : According to Mussolini, fascism was properly known as corporatism yes. However it seems you are confusing corporatism with corporatocracy. They are different things. When it comes to the national socialists, again, they did not privatize the industry. They nationalized it. Adolf's national socialism did support the workers which is why he nationalized it under the DAF and also why NSDAP came up with the "Strength Through Joy". They supported community ownership of the means of production since that community was the "superior race". It was socialism to the "superior race".
1
@NOT SURE : "democratic socialism" doesn't exist. It's not a thing. If you are referring to social-democracy, then sure, however note, that it is still based on capitalism.
1
@JordanS215 : Nope. They are social-democratic as I said. "democratic socialism" doesn't exist. It's not a thing.
1
@Z4RQUON: That is not socialism, that is just marxism. Socialism simply is a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole. Fascism was a form of socialism. Fascism can be defined as the following: an economic system that rejects capitalism, liberalism/democracy, and communism, in which the means of production is organized by national worker syndicals (i.e. trade unions), and the guiding philosophy of the state is Actual Idealism. Capitalism is when the individual owns the means of production, including the "working class".
1
@Dan Kay: Would like to point out that fas cism is exclusive thing of the f ar le ft wing.
1
@dan_kay : What do you mean? Have you not read history?
1
@dan_kay : Does soci alism belong to the right side of the political spectrum? Nope. Fas cism was a form of total itarian social ism, formulated by 2 socia lists and born out of mar xism and sorelian syndic alism.
1
@susan174 : Incorrect. National socia lists were national soci alists and embraced national soci alism. They have nothing to do with fasc ism whatsoever, which was a completely separate socialist ideology, practiced in completely separate country and formulated by completely separate people.
1
@susan174 : Adamant? Yes. Misinformed? Nope. Go read some history already.
1
@smith2354 : You should go read some history, buddy.
1
@dennisduncan7561 : Nope. They have nothing to do with right wing whatsoever. Go read some history.
1
@justsomedudeyouknow8372 : Again, fascism was a form of socialism, founded by 2 socialists. Has nothing to do with right wing whatsoever. Has always been on the far left when it comes to the political spectrum. Go read some history.
1
@frankbutterworth4257 : Technically Mussolini never left the Italian socialist party... he was kicked out because he supported the war while the party did not. Mussolini still remained a hardcore socialist though. He was for about six years both a Marxist and a Fascist leader. He founded the Fascist Revolutionary Party in 1915, supported Lenin’s October Revolution in Russia in 1917 and called himself the “Lenin of Italy” in the 1919 election.
1
@dennisduncan7561 : I already know history, buddy. That's why I'm here to educate you people. And again, fascism has nothing to do with right wing politics whatsoever.
1
@dennisduncan7561 : More than enough. More than most people here at the very least.
1
@justsomedudeyouknow8372 : Both Adolf and Mussolini were hardcore socialists, advocating for socialist policies. Fascism was an ideology that was based on syndicalism. Both founders of the fascist ideology were not only socialists but also told that fascism was a form of socialism. There is nothing right wing about it whatsoever. You would know this if you had read Adolf's autobiography, the turner diaries, the history of the birth of fascism by Mussolini or the doctrine of fascism. But you have not.
1
@frankbutterworth4257 : Mussolini certainly espoused their beliefs. It was the Italian Socialist party that disagreed with him since they didn't want to take part in the upcoming war. Adolf didn't kill socialists in his party. If you are referring to the "night of the long knives", he purged the SA leaders since they were plotting a military coup against Adolf, at least according to Adolf's generals. As I have said before, there was a struggle between different left-wing ideologies, an internationalist and a nationalist one. The Italian PSI were against joining the war, Mussolini wasn't. That's why there was a split and the fascists were formed essentially. You don't seem to understand that there are different socialist ideologies. Fascism was a form of socialism according to the founders of the ideology. "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.” - Mussolini
1
@justsomedudeyouknow8372 : It's called history, buddy. Should read some.
1
@justsomedudeyouknow8372 : Again, marxism is not the only form of socialism.
1
@justsomedudeyouknow8372 : Socialism, like capitalism is an umbrella term / category that fits many different ideologies under it. So technically both marxism and communism are socialist ideologies.
1
@justsomedudeyouknow8372 : When it comes to that statement, what Adolf tried to achieve, was socialism to the "superior race". As said in the statement, Adolf substituted Marx’s idea of class struggle with a race one. As I said earlier, it was not a battle of left against right, but a struggle between different left-wing ideologies, an internationalist and a nationalist one.
1
@justsomedudeyouknow8372 : Of course it is socialism, just within the race. Adolf's national socialism was socialism for the "superior race". Fascism has nothing to do with this since it's a complete separate socialist ideology. Has never been a "right wing" construct and has nothing to do with right wing whatsoever. Adolf and Mussolini never changed sides. They just didn't agree with the socialist people of Marx how socialism should be practiced. They continued to be socialists.
1
@DLAB White: Woke pedia is incorrect. Has nothing to do with rig ht w ing whatsoever, it was far le ft soci alism. Not auth oritarian, but total itarian. "Ultanatio nalism" is not a thing. Fas cism was a form of total itarian social ism, formulated by 2 socia lists and born out of mar xism and sorelian syndic alism.
1
@susan174 : Labels indeed have to retain their meaning, which is why there is no reason to believe in zoo mers behind some wok epedia page when you can just read history and from the founders of fas cism what they thought about their ideology.
1
@susan174 : Again, fascism has nothing to do with right wing whatsoever. it was far le ft soci alism. Not auth oritarian, but total itarian. "The Fas cist, on the other hand, conceives philosophy as a philosophy of practice (”praxis”). That concept was the product of certain Ma rxist and Sore llian inspirations (many Fasc ists 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 Fa scist mentality drew substance and achieved maturity.“ — Giovanni Gentile
1
@intcheese : Because they had to? or face an invasion. Mussolini didn't even want to co-operate with Adolf due to his racial policies but he chose to do it which then lead to a conflict with the Italian pope and the King. Both the Na zis and Fas cist s hated the ma rxist socia lism so they had a common ground there. Adolf didn't outlaw unions, he nationalized them and merged all of them into Deutsche Arbeitsfront (DAF, or German Labor Front). The DAF created a single overarching labor union. Essentially all German workers and employees in every economic sector belonged to the DAF. While traditional unions prioritized workers’ rights, the DAF emphasized national economic goals above personal well-being. If you are referring to the "night of the long knives" it was done because Adolf's generals believed, that the SA was stating a military coup against Adolf.
1
@intcheese : Mussolini referring to marx ism and creating a distinction that fas cism is not about the "class struggle" where individuals don't know their place in the society ... but uniting the whole State with a strong national identity. Statism. There was no capitalism in the fascist Italy nor in Adolf's national socialist state. As he said: “All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state”
1
@HepCatJack "the rig ht wi ng element was part of the defi nition long befo re Wikiped ia existed." It wasn't. Fasci sm was a f ar-le ft, aut horitarian social ist ideology.
1
@LoudAngryJerk " It's where the term comes from" It's where their symbol, "Fasc es" , comes from ... not the term or the ideology itself.
1
@HepCatJack : "fasc ism any political or social ideology of the extre me ri ght " Wrong. Fa scis m had nothing to do with ri ght wi ng of any kind. Fa sci sm was an aut horitar ian f ar-le ft, soc ialist ideol ogy. The fundamental differences between left-wing and right-wing ideologies center around the the rights of individuals vs. the power of the government. Left-wing beliefs are liberal in that they believe society is best served with an expanded role for the government. 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.
1
@HepCatJack : "relies on a combination of pseudo religious attitudes and the brutal use of force for getting and keeping power." Mus solini was more or less an ath eist and he didn't want to bring religion into fa sci sm. On the contrary, he had const ant arguments with the Po pe when it came to questions of faith. Also yes, every s ocia list ideol ogy has to use brut al for ce to keep the involuntary sys tem going.
1
@HepCatJack "The definition said fa r-rig ht even back then." When it comes to fa sci sm, a m urica ns espe cially have tri ed to gasl ight peo ple ever since the en d of the W W2 lmao. Eve n Geo rge Orw ell wro te about it.
1
@Jacques Gauthier : "There was no Idealized past for so ciali sts." So ciali sm is an econ omic mo del, not an ide ology. --- @Jacques Gauthier : "It's also why fasc ists engage in book burnings and ban books because they don't want anything around that contradict their narrative." Fasc ists didn't burn books. You are confusing f asci sm and na zis m but they are 2 different ideologies. Also fa sci sts were proud of their ideology and which is why they wrote 2 different manifestos which explained their ideology and its purpose. --- @Jacques Gauthier : "People trying to ban books in the U.S right now are on the f ar rig ht." Incorrect. Fa r-rig ht does not advocate for ce nsors hip. --- @Jacques Gauthier : "Some of the first people imprisoned by the Nzi regi me were so ciali sts and com muni sts. Why would he do that if they were on his side ?" He imprisoned ma rxis ts, not soc ial ist. And here is why according to Hitl er himself: "Socialism is the science of dealing with the common weal. Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists. Socialism is an ancient Aryan, Germanic institution. Our German ancestors held certain lands in common. They cultivated the idea of the common weal. Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality, and unlike Marxism, it is patriotic ... "Bolshevism, is our greatest menace. Kill Bolshevism in Germany and you restore 70 million people to power. France owes her strength not to her armies but to the forces of Bolshevism and dissension in our midst."_ - 1923 interview with Viereck, edited and reprinted in Liberty
1
@HepCatJack "the far right are banning books in the U.S. " Has it ever occurred to you that maybe they are not from the right? F ar rig ht does not advocate for censorship.
1
@James Amick: Except it has nothing to do with fascism whatsoever.
1
@Philbert-s2c : The movie is about national socialists, not about fascists.
1
@Philbert-s2c : Nope. Adolf never called his party nor his followers fascists. Adolf never called himself a fascist. None of the Italians nor Mussolini called Adolf and his followers fascists. Adolf called himself and his party, national socialists: "We might have called ourselves the Liberal Party. We chose to call ourselves the National Socialists. We are not internationalists. Our socialism is national. We demand the fulfilment of the just claims of the productive classes by the state on the basis of race solidarity. To us state and race are one."
1
@mork vom ork : Fascism certainly comes from the far left though.
1
@morkvomork6815 : Wrong definition. Fascism was a form of socialism, founded by 2 socialist and born out of the ideology of Marx and Sorelian syndicalism. Both Mussolini and Adolf were devout and proud socialists. Both opposed liberal capitalism, but also international socialism, hence the concept of a “third way,” their centralized economic policies obeyed collectivist and socialist principles, openly opposing capitalism and the free market, favoring nationalism and autarchy. If you are a German, then it seems they are still teaching propaganda in your country or you didn't pay attention to your own history in school.
1
@robertdowner4057 : Wrong definition. Fascism was a form of socialism, founded by 2 socialist and born out of the ideology of Marx and Sorelian syndicalism.
1
@enclave185 : right from commu nism that is.
1
@Joe Smith : Every nationalist will say that, but the difference lies in how it is put to action.
1
@SS 1964 : Incorrect definition. Was never right wing, was always far left. Totalitarian form of socialism, pro labor movement and unions from the start. Has nothing to do with German's national socialism.
1
Adolf was a national socialist, not a fascist. Adolf never considered himself to be a fascist nor did the Italians consider German's national socialists to be fascists. German's national socialism and Italy's fascism are 2 different, totalitarian socialist ideologies. Similar, yes, but still different.
1
Daily reminder that fascism indeed is a far left socialist ideology, founded by 2 socialists and born out of the Marxist ideology.
1
@NJames-dh6kz : Ever read the "doctrine of fascism" by Mussolini and Giovanni Gentile? Don't read "academic" nonsense that has nothing to do with history.
1
@NJames-dh6kz : Ah yes, the classic amurican "historian" who doesn't even understand that fascism and national socialism are 2 different things while trying his best to bastardize and re-write our European history. Please.
1
@NJames-dh6kz : If we go with the simplified definition given by Mussolini: "Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power." or if we go with the more in depth definition given by Giovanni 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."
1
@NJames-dh6kz : Fascism was a form of socialism because that's what they did in practice, with or without Mussolini's words. Obviously people should listen to the author of the ideology instead of someone's biased interpretation of it.
1
@NJames-dh6kz : When I said "born out of", I mean they used ideas of Marx as their foundation and in their mind, tried to perfect them since they saw international socialism as a flawed concept.
1
@NJames-dh6kz : To name a few; the means of production were organized by national worker syndicals (i.e. trade unions) which were eventually nationalized, nationalizing the banks, putting the economy under government oversight (centralized/planned economy), massive expanding social security, strongly intervening in the labor and agricultural market, general collectivism.
1
@DescartesStrollsIntoAPub : The video is incorrect, which is the reason why I'm here in the first place. Go read some history.
1
@thejacobin9406 : Well no. There was no narrative in the first place. Fascists used the ideology of Marx and Sorelian syndicalism as their foundation i.e. it was born out of them. Wouldn't exist without those 2 previous ideologies.
1
@robertdowner4057 : Wrong definition. Fascism was a form of socialism, founded by 2 socialist and born out of the ideology of Marx and Sorelian syndicalism.
1
@tgin4984 : Saves some time when you people are too la zy to search or read history.
1
@tgin4984 : I get my stuff from the history books. Go read some.
1