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

Historia, Magistra Vitae
David Pakman Show
comments

Comments by "Historia, Magistra Vitae" (@Historia.Magistra.Vitae.) on "David Pakman Show" channel.

You people have no clue what fas cism means nor what it represented. Stop usin g words that you do not understand.
4
There is no Fascism in America. You people should stop using words that you do not understand.
2
Reminder that fasc ism was a totalitarian far-left, soc ialist ideology based on national syndicalism. It hasn't existed since the W W2. Your country will never become fas cist.
2
@reversefulfillment Would be more accurate to say that you are a marx ist who aspires to be a comm unist.
2
"Well an early definition of fas cism deals with the idea of when the government is controlled by corporations." That is actually the definition of Corporatocracy, which is a completely different thing than fasc ism, which didn't work that way.
2
" Fasc ism is a partnership between government and big companies being used for government initiatives for control and military." Actually no. In fasc ism, there was no such partnership. There was only the government. What you are referring to is called Corporatocracy, which is a different thing.
2
He is literally the opposite of a Fascist. Cope harder.
2
@Kenneth Clay: How?
2
@Choco Mojo: Except Meloni has never said such a thing.
2
@shortyorc121 : Indeed it is not.
2
@shortyorc121 "Classical liberalism is far-right. " Well yes, I said that already.
2
Literally the opposite of Fascist.
2
Have nothing to do with fasc ism.
2
@LavaWings Plays : Fa sc ism is a form of soci ali sm. It is born from social democracy.
2
@CarolLynnWilliams : Fascism is born from socialism, some say it's the "third way". It is a form of socialism. Fascism doesn't employ capitalism and never has. There is no free market in a fascist society. Fascism employs economy that is owned and controlled by the State, also known as socialism.
2
@Jeffrey Carman: The failure lies within the government... has nothing to do with capitalism tho.
1
@jeffreycarman2185 : In a free market, its your job to put adequate restraints on greed by voting with your wallet though...
1
@303TAG303: Fa s cis m has not been a thing since the ww2 Italy, hun.
1
@303TAG303 : Well no.
1
@dark14life : No such thing as "late stage capitalism" ... there is just capitalism and its working fine. Having enough money completely depends on people's expenses. If you have more expenses than income, you are doing something wrong and probably should do something about it.
1
@Screaming PHOENIX : Well that's a government issue... not capitalism issue.
1
@screamingphoenix8113 : You do realize that your aMurica is one if not the only country where you can put your own farts in a jar and find people who would buy it? or stream on a hot tub and make over $10k a month? or even play video games as a profession? or stumble in a self deleting forest while filming on phone and be a celebrity? You people are just seriously doing something wrong if you are going more broke ... you would never make a living being a twitch thot or eSports player or an internet celebrity in my european, "social-democratic" country.
1
@screamingphoenix8113 : Sure there are, however they usually earn significantly less.
1
@screamingphoenix8113 : How are you being robbed exactly? And if you are, why are you supporting such a business? Find a better one or make your own... at least you have choices here, unlike in socialism. If there is someone doing the robbing, that would be the government.
1
@Flying Fesh: Nope. Fa scis m d ied alongside with Be nito and it has not been a thin g eve r sin ce.
1
@gordonrehm3350 : Makes no difference if it's laughable or not ... it's called history.
1
@gordonrehm3350 : You just have no cl ue what you are talki ng abo ut, that's the pro blem.
1
@gordonrehm3350 : There is nothing to address.
1
@gordonrehm3350 : It was a factual statement. Has nothing to do with denial whatsoever.
1
@gordonrehm3350 : You need to stop def l ect in g so much, it's not hea lthy.
1
@gordonrehm3350 : You should go read some history.
1
@gordonrehm3350 : There is no thereafter. Fa scis m stopped being a thing after the W W2 ended and nobody has tried it eve r since.
1
@gordonrehm3350 : As I sa id, go re ad so me hist ory.
1
@scheis123 : Except fa sc is m comes from the f ar-le ft, hun.
1
@🔥Lago di Fouco🔥 : It is bad.
1
@lake-of-fire313 : Nope. Socialism kills people and democracy is just a majority mob rule.
1
@lake-of-fire313 : The difference between socialism and democratic socialism is that the latter doesn't exist. If you are referring to social-democracy that we northern europeans have, well, it's still based on capitalism ... just fyi. Socialism simply doesn't work and never will. Capitalism works just fine.
1
@lake-of-fire313 : The working class can create their own wealthy corporations if they are unhappy working for their current one. Everybody has to start somewhere. Plenty of people were poor once that now own a wealthy corporation, thanks to Capitalism. Either it works for everyone or it doesn't work for anyone. If wealthy corporations can exist within such a system, then a poor can also become wealthy.
1
"The market is not more efficient at providing public services. The market SUCKS at providing public services." Wrong. The market will produce better services and more efficient services than any government public service. Not only that, but they have to, otherwise they will find themselves unemployed... unlike government officials, who can fuk up how much they want and the money still keeps flowing in.
1
@Lyn Mc Grow: There is no fa sci sm today.
1
@Aaron Chandler: Actually God couldn't have stopped it, since some people wanted it to happen.
1
@aaronchandler2380 : Sure he is, people aint'.
1
@aaronchandler2380 : Nope.
1
@Dan S. : Fas cis m has not been a thing since the ww2 Italy ... also fas ci st s and republicans are literally at the opposite sides of the political spectrum. Co pe harder.
1
@Charles Cain: If you think capitalism suppresses people's wages, steals people's homes, take their retirement, distribute taxes to the wealthy etc. , wait 'til you read and learn about socialism, or communism rather.
1
@Dog.eatdog : there are no such things as "rig ht win g fa s cis ts" ... every f asc is ts was a f ar-le ft so cia li st.
1
@Dog.eatdog : Yup. Read some history.
1
@Dog.eatdog : Nope, you didn't... since if you did, you wouldn't have made your initial post to begin with.
1
@Dog.eatdog : Already have.
1
@Jerry Callender : Here is a sane, rational or logical argument: S ociali sm always leads to to talit arian ism, since ce ntraliz ed / planned economy and so cializa tion in general doesn't work otherwise.
1
@Fredric Henning : Fa sc is m has not been a thing since the ww2 It aly, hun.
1
@bjornstahle4652 : Incorrect. They had plenty of so ci ali st policies.
1
@EuropeanWren Probably meant the European Union.
1
"I think a libertarian socialist society could work," No. It won't. Any kind of socialism will not work.
1
@steve-ph9yg Mel oni has no m a rx ist background, nor is she a devout so ci ali st like Be nito was nor does she ad voc ate for st atis m; that the st ate sho uld co ntr ol every asp ect of peo ple's live s. You do not und ersta nd what fa sc is m is so how about you go read some history.
1
"You're not being coerced." Wrong. You are, since you cannot just stop paying for taxes.
1
"You pay for services that you receive. " You are forced to pay for services that you may or may not even need or want. Still coercion.
1
"you are getting something for your money." Irrelevant.
1
"Lastly, as David says, these conversations don't do anything to progress society." The only way to progress society, is to make the government progressively smaller. After all, we already know what happens when you try to make the government bigger.
1
@CireAknow : You never had a point. Cope harder.
1
@Cynthia G. Downer: Fascism is a form of socialism. Capitalism works just fine.
1
@mx.pixiedowner4593 : Wrong. Fascism is a form of socialism that bases its identity around nationality and patriotism. Communism is only one form of socialism, and it bases its identity around the Class. Then there is national socialism aka nazism which bases its identity around ethnicity / race. Every form of socialism shares this core principle though: the State owns and controls the economy. Capitalism has always worked and still works in every country that uses it, unlike socialism. Under capitalism, you don't have to prioritize profit unless you want to. That's up to you if you want to do that or support that with your wallet.
1
@King Franklin 1: Your capitalism is still regulated... you still have a government don't you? Get rid of it or make it smaller so that it cannot interfere with your economics, then we can talk about unregulated free market. Capitalism is the only economic model that works.
1
@1JamesMayToGoPlease : Nope.
1
@Anne Pascoe : It's so good that most of the people want to stay away from it ... just look at Cuba. :)
1
@therenegade79 : If you actually have read the Mein Kampf, you would also know that neo-nazis come from the far left.
1
"Better to be fas cist than lef tist." Same thing. Fas cists were soci alists.
1
@jessew7565 : You tell me.
1
@Hope and Peace : Fascism comes from the left though...
1
@dspondike "Names were THE reason you started this conversation." Wrong. The reason for my reply was to state, that you have no clue what the term Fascism means nor what that ideology represented. And due to this ignorance, you keep using that word as a slur instead.
1
You have no clue what fasci sm means, hun.
1
@Uli Loquito: You don't have fa sc is m over there in the US A.
1
@CarolLynnWilliams : In a pure capitalist society that has a free market, it is YOU who is supposed to police and regulate it with your own wallet.
1
@d33j4ybf : Meloni is not a s oc iali st and therefore cannot be a fa sc is t. Go read hist ory alr eady.
1
@jasonlord718 : It certainly is.
1
@d33j4ybf : Incorrect. So cia lis m is an umbrella term and refers to an economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the com munity as a whole. Fa scis m was a political and economic system that rejected capitalism, liberalism/democracy, and com mun ism, in which the means of production was organized by national worker syndicals (i.e. trade unions), and the guiding philosophy of the state was Actual Idealism. Fas cis m was one of the branches of so cia lis m and is right next to ma rxi sm.
1
@jasonlord718 : Technically Mus solini wasn't a di cta tor by definition ... compared to someone like Ado lf for example.
1
@the slunch: ehh... that's some ironic statement, considering fa sc ist s were tot alit ari an soci alis ts.
1
Actually it is the same. 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. Libertarianism / Minarchism and all the ideologies based on Classical Liberalism are on the far-right side.
1
@Old Groucho: Capitalism works for everyone. Majority of the people are either doing something wrong or being too lazy to do it properly.
1
@Kelly Burket: The german dude with a funny mustache certainly was a soci alist, a national soci alist at that. USSR was a soci alist country, China still is and N. Korea.
1
@Kevin Burrell : The government having absolute power is called (state) so ci al is m, hun. I highly doubt your am uri ca n rig ht-win ge rs are adv ocating for f ar-le ft ide olog ies.
1
@LD86 : Sure, that is called a mixed economy.
1
"This whole having taxes taken from you "down the barrel of gun" is such an emotional argument. " Wrong. It's a factual argument. Nothing to do with emotions whatsoever.
1
@philb4462 "Except that you don't like having your stuff taken to input into society." Theft is not a matter of liking or preference.
1
@philb4462 "You want to keep it all to yourself." People want to keep things that are rightfully theirs, however that doesn't stop people voluntarily giving things away.
1
"Social democracy has a long history of abandoning Ma rx, abandoning proleta rian revolution, abandoning socia lism, and most recently embr acing neolibe ralism." Sounds like social democracy is starting to wise up for once.
1
@tritone11 : We certainly are not thriving here in the northern europe ... our taxes are high, wages are low. That $15/h minimum wage your Bernie likes to talk about? That's the average wage here lmao. So sure, if you want everyone to be equally poor and make around $2k a month, go for it. It's not a surprise that you can literally count the number of millionaires with one hand, at least when it comes to my nordic country. You can't get rich here but sometimes someone gets lucky ... well, they don't live here anymore.
1
@Sir Equinox: We do, hence why re vol ut i on ar y so c ia l i s m has not been a th ing he re since W W2.
1
@NomadSoul76: If Meloni is not a re vol utio nary so cia list like Ben ito and his syn dic alis ts were, then she ain't a fa sc ist. Simple as that.
1
@derrickwolters8694 : And that is cal led a ri ot.
1
@LD86 : Except nobody has been charged for ter ror is m nor anything else other than trespassing pretty much.
1
@LD86 : Wrong about what exactly?
1
@LD86 : You need to co pe harder than that.
1
@Edwin Maurice Torchon Manrìquez : Sh e is not a so ci al is t and th e refore not a f a s ci st.
1
@Bullveigh25 : Well if you have a free market, you can bypass corporate corruption with your wallet.
1
""Fas cism should more appropriately be called Corpor atism as it is the merger of Cor porate and State power." Benito Mus solini" Except Mussolini has never said such a thing. Common misquote. There was no merger. There was only State power.
1
@view1st : There was no business corporations nor private capitalist power in fas cism. Fa scism was a totalitarian far-left, socia list ideology based on national syndicalism, where everyone and everything were subju gated under the goals and directives set by the State. It was State power only.
1
You people have no clue what fas cism means nor what it represented. Stop using words that you do not understand.
1
If you are too smooth brain to understand, that Trump "claiming to be a dictator day one" was a reference to your American Executive Orders, then you should stay away from political discussions.
1
@hajkie : If it can be exploited so easily, then more people should be rich no? Capitalism isn't selfish nor greedy. It provides equal opportunities to everyone to get wealthy.
1
@cirrus1976: Nope. Socialism means that the State/government controls the economy. Capitalism means supply and demand / free market controls the economy. Capitalism isn't supposed to care about people, that's your job. It's supposed to and gives equal opportunities to people to get wealthy.
1
"What is fas cism? Failing capitalism put on life support " Wrong. Fasc ism was a socia list ideology which opposed capit alism.
1
@Oil Can Harry : Except they portr ayed themselves as so cia lis ts.
1
@gordthor5351 Except US doesn't have unfettered capitalism. If they would have, anyone could put up a pharmacy tomorrow and create competition on the pharmaceutical industry but oh no! the big daddy government won't let them. Can't have unfettered capitalism if the government is still poking its nose into the economy and free market.
1
"Dan is an example of what's wrong with America." Well not really... but keep printing that Biden funny money, and your America will have to face the same fate as Argentina did.
1
@Ikkeligeglad : Since when we have been talking about the economy of the whole world?
1
@Ikkeligeglad : Nope. I mentioned only America and Argentina, not the whole world. Read again.
1
Maybe some day you will understand, when you grow up.
1
@Official Garbage: China still ... and N az i Germany wasn't fa scis t, it was na tion al soc iali st. Italy had fas ci sm.
1
@puzzley6613 : Woke pedia is wrong then. Na zis m was Nat ional so cia lism. Nobody here in Europe called Na zis as fas cis ts. Nobody in the fa sc ist Italy called Na zis as fa scis ts. Even the Na z is themselves never called themselves as fa scis ts. They were 2 different tot alitar ian soci ali st ideologies practiced in 2 different countries back in the day. Also the founders of the ideologies are different. China is also not a com mun ist country ... a soc iali st (Mar xist) country, yes, with a mixed economy now that they have embraced capit alism like the past 3 decades.
1
@puzzley6613 : I don't, but history does.
1
#AssociationFallacy
1
"He doesn't take into account monopolies," Only a thing if the government is involved with the economy.
1
"wage theft," Doesn't exist.
1
" debt that prevents many from accessing services" Not necessarily under a proper free market.
1
@Domi Ro: Well start donating then. US already has a fair society. US is a country of opportunity. US is literally the only country where you can show your body on a stream, can your farts and make over $10k a month selling them. Or you can be a brain dead "influencer" and make money spewing random stuff on the internet. Like c'mon man.
1
@tyronesoares3268 : Fa sc ists were fa r le ft so cial ists, just fyi
1
@ronelkins1057 : There is no fourteen in the first place.
1
@Marco Krueger: Hate to burst your bubble, but it is you and people like you, who do not understand what fa sc is m represented and what kind of ideology it was.
1
@eric a: That's not how fa sc is m works though.
1
@Splaticus Max: That is true, but the few other forms of socialism aren't any good either.
1
You am uric ans have no clue what fasci sm even means nor what it represented. Stop using words that you do not understand. It's embarrassing.
1
@ilgattopazzerello : Nope.
1
@Kevin Ramsey: Meloni is not a so ci ali st. Brothers of Italy is not a s o cial ist party. They have nothing to do with f as ci sm whatsoever, which has not been a thing since the W W2.
1
Reminder, that not only was fa sci s m a bra nch of s oc ial is m, but also it h as not be en a thing since the W W2.
1
@Jay Richardson : There are no fa sci st things about it.
1
@ptv8113 Sure. Fa s ci sm was one of them, back in the days of W W 2 when it wa s a th ing.
1
@ptv8113 : There are no bad aspects and dangerous thinking associated with a nt i-establishment... unless you are a sh ill for the establishment of course.
1
@ptv8113 : None of those things have political alignment.
1
@ptv8113 : No, just no.
1
@Robert Glinert : You do not even understand what those words even mean.
1
Nope. It's the other way around, hun... just look at Argentina right now.
1
@Marilu Muniz : C o m m i efor n ia sho uld not ev en be p art of the US A.
1
@hpe3941: Except the dude with a funny mustache was a n ati on al so ci ali st, while Mel oni certainly is not.
1
@noway1844 "So when trmp called nazis good people" Except he didn't.
1
@noway1844 ""There were good people on both sides."" Go listen to his whole statement, then come back.
1
@bersekovitch : Which you can do alre ady ... by star ting your ow n busin ess and investing in eq uipme nt.
1
@gibbogle : Milei is doing just fine atm.
1
@xuxuang8574 "Libertarianism is pro slavery." Wrong. Slavery is strictly against the Libertarian NAP.
1
@xuxuang8574 "Unbridled capitalism always leads to slavery in one form or another." Wrong. Slavery doesn't exist under Capitalism, which is based on voluntarism in the first place.
1
@Magnetroman "a libertarian country can't exist" Certainly it can. It's only a question if people allow it to exist or not.
1
@xuxuang8574 "Libertarianism just rebrands slavery and calls it voluntary. " There is no rebranding of any kind ... that is the job of socialism, you know; "War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength".
1
@xuxuang8574 "But it's quite definitely pro slavery." Wrong. It is not.
1
@xuxuang8574 "capitalism has always had slavery and always will." Wrong. Capitalism is opposed to slavery and authoritarianism in general. It is socialism, that has had slavery.
1
@xuxuang8574 "lol that's fascism, not socialism." Wrong. Nothing to do with Fascism, which incidentally was a socialist 3rd position ideology.
1
@xuxuang8574 "Now you have slavery, perfectly acceptable to libertarians" Except that is not how slavery works. Try again.
1
@Magnetroman "a libertarian country is effectively an anarchy and very vulnerable. ... Libertarians and anarchists are the same thing. " You are now confusing Libertarianism with Anarcho-Capitalism. They are not the same thing. Libertarianism in general (also Minarchism) seeks to minimize the government, not to abolish it completely. Assuming of course, that we are talking about Libertarianism in the American sense of the word, which would be more properly called as Classical Liberalism.
1
@sisuguillam5109 : How is Me loni a so ci ali st exactly?
1
Well no. 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. Libertarianism / Minarchism and all the ideologies based on Classical Liberalism are on the far-right side.
1
@Vincent Masci : Fascism if a form of socialism and Trump is not a socialist. Cope harder, loonie.
1
"but the whole point of democracy is that these systems are controlled by everyone," Wrong. The whole point of democracy is that the system is controlled by the MAJORITY. Not by everyone. It's a mob rule for a reason, that even Socrates hated it.
1
"They've even revised world history and made the rise of Nazi sm a result of far-Left social ism" Wrong. Na zism was a tota litarian far-left, socia list ideology based on ethnonationalism. This is basic W W2 history. You cannot be an advocate for centralized planning and strong government controls without being a soc ialist. That's what made Hi tler a soci alist. He may have been right of the Bolsheviks, but he was still a socialist leftist as he believed in strong central government control. Hit ler outright declared himself a socia list in Mein Kampf, just not the Mar xist international or full Soviet type. He struggled with HOW to distinguish his sociali sm from the rest of the Ma rxist crowd. You amur icans are being del usional and have no clue what you are talking about.
1
@The-Trumpliban Wrong. Almost every single thing you mentioned has no political alignment and can be either left or right. Fas cism was a totalitarian f ar-le ft, soc ialist ideology based on national syndic alism.
1
@Vincent Masci: You have no clue what you are talking about, loonie. Both Mussolini and Hitler were socialists. Socialism simply means State owned and regulated economy.
1
@Teck Yoon : lmao ... yeah how about no. Here in finland our economy is garbage. Taxes are high, wages are low. Currently nurses are having a national wide strike due to their low wages. Profits used for the good of the country? Sure, by country if you mean the State and want the citizens to be equally poor. If you are lucky to make $5k a month here, you would be considered rich and the top 5%. Most of us make around $2k a month... always makes me giggle when your socialist Bernie wants to make $15/h your minimum wage. Here its the average. 🤣
1
Quality of life? well maybe ... however it comes with a great cost. We all are equally poor. Remember that $15 minimum wage Bernie likes to talk about? Well that's pretty much the average wage you get here, after your education degrees. Our taxes are high, our wages are low. In my country, public sector health care nurses are in national wide strike now due to their low wages.
1
@T W : Greed has nothing to do with capitalism. If you think someone is greedy, you can personally create more competition and be less greedy.
1
@jimg: Nope, just nope.
1
@scott mullins: Well... in a proper capitalist society, you could put up your own medicine business that would sell medicine for people with and without insurance.
1
@Larry Roberts : If people have so much compassion and they want to take care of others ... why do you need the government to enforce it?
1
"A major element of Faci sm is culture war." Wrong. "Cult ure wa s" has nothing to do with fasc ism and fasci sm would have been against such a thing back in the day.
1
Wrong. He is the opposite of a Fascist. Cope harder.
1
@jack allen : This is li tera lly the op pos ite of fas cis m.
1
@ronspri : Except she doesn't.
1
@Y2K: Socialist economic system has never worked and never will.
1
@charadreemurr8673 : USSR employed a form of socialism, yes ... majority mob ruled work places would be a nightmare and nothing would stop the majority of taking majority of the profits also as long as they stay as the majority. Worker co-ownership can happen as of now in a capitalist society as well. Just buy a share. Not sure what the incentive to get more workers would be in such a model tho, since the more you have workers the less you, as a worker, would get... not to mention if something goes wrong, everyone takes a hit instead of just the employer / business. If the business would go bankrupt, so would you.
1
@charadreemurr8673 : such as Socrates and the rest of the intellectuals. Nation doesn't work if you turn it into an Idols competition where anything goes.
1
Not only was fa sci s m a form of s oc ial is m, it has not been a thing since the W W2.
1
@Arrow 1 : Fun fact... aMurican super rich are paying more than the rest of the whole aMuricans combined.
1
@1927su : Nobody is stopping people from creating their own businesses and paying people fairly.
1
"because we came together as groups." However there is a difference between forming groups voluntarily, and being forced to be part of a group.
1
@Ļøķį Ýøģį" Meloni's party is not a so ci ali st par ty, so they can not be fas cis ts.
1
Actually that is what far-right means. 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. Regarding far-right, it would include Libertarianism, Minarchism and any ideology based on Classical Liberalism.
1
Nope. Umberto had no clue what he was talking about and he knew nothing about fasc ism.
1
@Jake : Unchecked capitalism only turns into crony if you and your wallet allows it... that's the point of the free market after all.
1
Libertarianism is not the same thing as Anarchy, hun. Under Libertarianism, there would still be a government, army, police and national court system.
1
"In a true soci alist gover nment, there is no private property. " Actually soci alism does not care about private property per se. It only cares about who owns/con trols the means of production. A true m arxist gove rnment might want to abolish private property for sure, however that is just one of the branches of soci alism.
1
"Hell no! That is why republicans are so stu pid for being deathly afraid of soci alism. " Wrong. People with a br ain hate social ism because it means that the totali tarian colle ctive, being it a group of proletarians or the "gove rnment" will have control over every aspect of your life. It's not just about money, it's about what you can and cannot do in general. Individ ualism does not exist in socia lism, since it's all about the good of the colle ctive.
1
@spacecase8888 : There are no sc ho lars in the world who would deny that fa sc is m was a f ar-le ft ideo log y due to being a branch of so cia lis m.
1
@spacecase8888 : Incorrect. Fa scis m has nothing to do with rig ht wi ng of any kind, and libertarianism would be a "f ar-rig ht" ideology. Fa scis m arose in opposition to capitalism, liberalism/democracy, and co mmu nism. It was a political and economic ideology in which the means of production was organized by national worker syndicals (i.e. trade unions), and the guiding philosophy of the state was Actual Idealism. Fa scis m was pro-union and their corporatism was literally based on (nationalized) trade unionism. Fas cis m was an ti-wealthy since they were fighting with the proletariat against the bourgeoisie. They were an ti-property rights and only allowed businesses to have property as long as they did exactly what the state told them to do. Go read some history.
1
@spacecase8888 : Wiki art icle is inco rrect and has no basis in re ality. Simple as that. They have no cre dibil ity anymore.
1
@spacecase8888 : What "scholarly consensus" ? You mean the same a m ur ic an people who randomly changed the definition of a re ce ss io n ?
1
@spacecase8888 : I don't consider historical revisionists as scholars.
1
@bfkc111 : There is no such thing as "rig ht-wi ng fa sci st" ... fa sci sts were f ar le ft soc iali sts.
1
@Lady Vivienne: In order for the capitalism to work better and properly, you need to make your government smaller and stop it from interfering with things related to economy.
1
"David has never been poor." People in capita list countries rarely are poor. You need to visit a socia list country for that.
1
@avishevin1976 : Incorrect. The fun damen tal differences between le ft-w ing and rig ht-wi ng id eologi es center around the the rig hts of indi viduals vs. the po wer of the gove rnment. Left-wi ng beliefs are liberal in that they believe society is best served with an expanded role for the go ve rnme nt. People on the rig ht believe that the best ou tcome for society is achieved when indi vidual rights and civil libe rties are paramount and the role — and especially the power — of the go ver nme nt is minimized.
1
@avishevin1976 : Incorrect. Ri ght-wi ng wants to distance everything from the government. When it comes to fa scis m, it was a branch of so cia lis m and therefore it is contradictory for any rig ht-wi ng movement to suddenly start adopting f ar-le ft po licies.
1
@Dan R : Fa scis m has no been a thing since the ww2 Italy, hun. Co pe harder.
1
That was National Socialists, as Hugo Boss was in Germany.
1
@neilhollow1732 : Nazis were a National Socialist movement, they had nothing to do with Fascism which was an Italian movement. Both were part of the 3rd position movement though.
1
@ncwordman "They called themselves socialist to appeal to the working class. " They specifically wanted to appeal to other socialists. “But we National Socialists wish precisely to attract all socialists, even the Communists; we wish to win them over from their international camp to the national one.” “After all, that’s exactly why we call ourselves National Socialists! We want to start by implementing socialism in our nation among our Volk! It is not until the individual nations are socialist that they can address themselves to international socialism.” — Hitler: Memoirs of a Confidant (1978)
1
@ncwordman "They were not." 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. 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
@ncwordman "In fact, they sent socialists to the camps." So did every single socialist one-party dictatorship, including the Bolsheviks. Your point being?
1
@ncwordman "They had everything to do with fascism." Wrong. They had nothing to do with Fascism which was Italian ideology headed by Mussolini. National Socialism and Fascism were two fundamentally different ideologies.
1
@MrCanucklehead75 "It was a right-wing fascist movement. " Wrong. It was neither. National Soci alism was a totalitarian Far-Left, socialist 3rd position ideology based on ethnonationalism trying to supersede Marxism as the most common soci alist ideology. They had nothing to do with Right wing of any kind nor Fascism.
1
@ncwordman : There is no trolling here. Only ignorance from you people. Go read some history before commenting, from actual books. You can start from these; Fascism; [01] "La Dottrina Del Fascismo / the Doctrine of Fascism", by Mussolini and Giovanni Gentile [02] "Che cosa è il Fascismo: Discorsi e polemiche / Origins and Doctrine of Fascism", by Giovanni Gentile [03] "the Philosophy of Fascism", by Mario Palmieri [04] "Fascism: An Informal Introduction to Its Theory and Practice", by Renzo De Felice [05] "Mussolini's Intellectuals", by A. James Gregor [06] "La Camera dei Fasci e delle Corporazioni", by Rabaglietti Giuseppe & Sergio Panunzio [07] "Teoria generale dello Stato Fascista", by Sergio Panunzio [08] Any work from Emilio Gentile National Socialism; [01] "Mein Kampf" and "Second book" by Hitler [02] "Hitler's National Socialism" by Rainer Zitelmann [03] "the Vampire Economy" by Günter Reimann [04] "Omnipotent Government: The Rise of the Total State and Total War" by Ludwig Von Mises [05] "Hitler's True Believers" by Robert Gellately [06] "Backing Hitler" by Robert Gellately [07] "The Cause of Hitler's Germany" by Leonard Peikoff
1
@Chuck Stark : There was no insurrection.
1
@Daniel LaRusso: Can't have both because it doesn't work. In a capitalist society you already have strong competition in the free market. That's the point of capitalism anyways. The problem with public sector is that it cannot be strong due to the funding i.e. tax money. Then you need to have really high tax % to provide a proper public service. Here in my nordic country we have that and it's horrible. We have high taxes and low wages. Public sector nurses are in a national wide strike now because their wages are low, and since their wages are tied to tax money, it really can't get any higher either. So yeah, if you want everyone to be equally poor and have a monthly wages of $2k or less on average , go for it.
1
@Mil Dol: If it's "unaffordable" for the working class, then find a better paying job or create your own or check your expenses. Capitalism isn't greedy, some businesses may be... but those businesses would disappear tomorrow if people would stop giving money to them. So I guess people like them being greedy.
1
@Mike Perkins: "unbridled" capitalism is the only thing that actually works, and it also prevents monopolies from existing.
1
@mikeperkins3469 : What "thieves of commerce"? They are only "thieves" if you allow them and give them your money. Stop using such services and provide your own.
1
@ Sarge 420: So you are for what mod ern Chi na is doing right now?
1
@jTech50 : Wrong. It has always been fair and is the only model that is fair and provides a fair opportunity for everyone.
1
@PrestonSartorius : Wrong.
1
@Jurassic0Al : They called themselves the "third way" ... however fascism is based on socialism and socialism is just another word for State controlled economy. You cannot have capitalism with free market and economy controlled by the State at the same time.
1
@Jurassic0Al : People of today just have no clue what these terms actually mean... mostly thanks to aMurica and their propaganda media. Again, fascism is a form of socialism, it is anti-marxist just like nazism is. Marxism wants stuff to be international, while fascism and nazism wants to keep things national.
1
@lil-g4879 : Incorrect. Fascism is a form of socialism. You are making the rookie mistake of equating marxism to socialism. While marxism is socialism, it is only one of the few forms of socialism. I highly suggest reading actual history and starting from the book "the doctrine of fascism" by Mussolini and Giovanni Gentile. Actually, Giovanni himself stated that "Fascism is a form of socialism, in fact, it is its most viable form." Fascism claimed to oppose liberal capitalism, but also international socialism, hence the concept of a “third way".
1
@Old Dude: That's not how politics in general work. The fundamental differences between le ft-wi ng and rig ht-win g ideol ogies center around the the rig hts of individuals vs. the power of the gov ernm ent. L eft-wi ng beli efs are liberal in that they believe soci ety is best served with an expanded role for the gov ernm ent. People on the rig ht believe that the best outcome for society is achieved when indiv idual rights and civ il liber ties are pa ramount and the role — and espec ially the power — of the go vern me nt is mini mized.
1
Wrong. Fascis m was social ism which opposed capitalism.
1
@Michelle Warns : They certainly were socialists ... national socialists at that. They were not fascists per se. Mussolini would be very angry.
1
Wrong. It is not, since it would be against the NAP.
1
@Edward Gobbo : Nat ional socia lism, not fasc ism.
1
"Social Democracy is what works." Nope. Doesn't work either since just like socialism, it's not possible to maintain it and will collapse once you run out of other people's money... that is whats happening here in the Nordic countries atm.
1
@Austin Newman: No such thing as "late stage capitalism" ... Capitalism works just fine and is alive and well. Poor staying poor is a problem they themselves have created. Capitalism provides them equal opportunity to get rich, but they are doing something wrong or they have more expenses than income.
1
Neither have anything to do with fas cism.
1
@CxRevolutio "who financed H itler? " Centralized banks mainly, and of course Hitler's socia lism and nationalization of the industry in general.
1
@CxRevolutio "Who are the powers fasc ists defend and attack? ... What is public enemy number one for fas cists?" Na zis or fasc ists? If talking about the former, they wanted to defend their "sup erior ra ce" from both capi talist and ma rxist Je ws. If talking about the latter, they wanted to defend their nation from anyone who opposed the fas cist Italian state.
1
@CxRevolutio "Who praised Muss olini?" Lenin first, Hit ler later.
1
@Lee Kosmen: Well... that's what you get for being pro-establishment and voting for more government control instead of getting rid of it.
1
@OntoBunny "Socia lism is when the means of production is owned collectively by the workers and not by ca pital ow ners." Actually, wrong. That is marxi sm, not socia lism per se since social ism does not care about the workers or any specific group. Social ism is an economic system where the collective, such as workers or the government own/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/control of the means of production.
1
@Tyler Hackner : Capitalism has never failed and still works just fine today.
1
@Udhehf Hehcuw : Not really.
1
@django3422 "No, fasc ism was born from the ideologies of people like Gabriele D'Annunzio. People who hated sociali sm." Fas cists didn't hate socia lism. They hated ma rxism. Fascism was an outgrowth of Sorellian Syndicalism, which itself was an outgrowth from Marxi st sociali sm. The idea was that society would be consolidated (i.e., incorporated) into syndicates (in the Italian context, fascio/fasci) which would be regulated by and serve as organs for the state, or "embody" the state (corpus = body). The purpose wasn't the promotion of private interest, but the centralization and synchronization of society under the state, as an end unto itself. To quote Mussolini's infamous aphorism: "All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state." Ideologically, where the Fascists diverged from the Marxists was in their rejection of the narrative of class warfare, which they saw as utterly repudiated by the behavior of "the proletariat" during World War I, where rather than join together in a mutual overthrow of capitalism, the working class of each country stayed in lockstep with national loyalties and slaughtered their supposed foreign class brethren. Both the Fascists and Marxists despised Liberalism, and saw it as having a perverse role in atomizing the individual from society. Mussolini's favored intellectual, Giovanni Gentile, freely acknowledged Fascism' kinship with Marxism through Sorellian Syndicalism.
1
@django3422 "To be blunt, you sound like you have a very narrow and oversimplified idea of what fasci sm is." It is called a historical definition. There is no other definition.
1
@django3422 " It's an incorrect definition which looks solely at fas cism under Mussolini " Nothing incorrect about it. Fas cism only happened under Mussolini, who with the help of Giovanni Gentile, coined the term and invented the ideology in the first place.
1
@django3422 " and treats it primarily as a system of economic organisation. Your definition doesn't understand that fascism isn't a form of governance but a viral social ideology with roots..." It had nothing to do with economic organization. It was a political ideology based on social ism, national syndicalism and Hegelian philosophy. Simple as that. It rejected individualism, capitalism, liberalism/democracy, and mar xism, in which the means of production was organized by national worker syndicals (i.e. trade unions), and the guiding philosophy of the state was Actual Idealism.
1
@django3422 "Where did you learn this "historical definition" that is so lacking in basic historical context and understanding?" You can start from reading "the Doctrine of Fas cism" by Mussolini and Giovanni Gentile, where they describe their fa scist ideology.
1
@django3422 : We can talk about the realities when you first catch up and understand the basics of Fasc ism.
1
@PrestonSartorius : Just move to Cuba, since that's what you are talking about ... however the more socialist a country comes, the more exploitation you will see.
1
@Dark Maths: Socialism only appeals to authoritarians. If it would appeal to those who work, people would not leave Cuba and come America to get a job. Socialism never works and has never worked.
1
@DarkMaths : Technically democracy in any form and anywhere is inherently authoritarian ... since it's just a fancy word for majority mob rule.
1