It really isn't. It's lurking under the surfice. The far right parties that had gains in the European elections. Those were literal fascist movements until 15 years ago. They still carry parts of the emblem of the fascist parties they came from. The US. Further president and Congress people have deep connections to cartoonishly bad white supermacists. The guy who unfurled the white boy summer at the Turning Points trump talk (Jack Posobiec. He's had tweeted treats to Jewish organizations about being on a list of undesirables... from Auscwitch. He still a close aide if Roger Stones, and get invited to everything.
It was before the left tried to change the definitions to suit their agenda. The scale was always about the level of government. The further left you go, the more government you have, the further right you go the less government. The far left was always Totalitarianism like North Korea for example and the far right was anarchy, with examples like the Wild Wild West or modern day Haiti. This is why people who understand politics are in the middle.
I find it's a good descriptor for more government vs. less government. The other paradigm is "centralization vs. decentralization". My cousin's left wing, but they believe the government is too top-heavy and bloated to run effectively. He believes in the old lefty "government should do for the people what the people can't do alone", but in such a way as to have many small nodes to do it with, rather than the monolithic ooze monster the federal government has become.
@@xAnonymousComedia and what makes him a fascist? Can you define it in terms of him. (Not being sarcastic or anything like that, I just didn't know how to ask)
Yeah , Corporatism actually pre-dates both capitalism and Marxism since it goes back to ancient Rome and Greece ( the idea of an organic society composed of functional corporations is even mentioned in the Christian bible , so this is a really old idea ). Mussolini wanted to go back to the corporatist systems of Medieval Europe and create an organic society of producers..💯
0:36 "The German or Zwangswirtschaft "compulsory economy" system (...) maintains private ownership of the means of production, entrepreneurship, and market exchange. (...) The government tells these seeming entrepreneurs what and how to produce, at what prices and from whom to buy, at what prices and to whom to sell. The government decrees at what wages laborers should work, and to whom and under what terms the capitalists should entrust their funds. Market exchange is but a sham. As all prices, wages and interest are fixed by the authority, they are prices, wages and interest rates in appearance only; in fact they are merely quantitative terms in the authoritarian orders determining each citizen's income, consumption and standard of living. The central board of production management is supreme; all citizens are nothing else but civil servants. This is socialism with the outward appearance of capitalism. Some labels of capitalistic market economy are retained, but they signify here something entirely different from what they mean in the market economy." - Ludwig von Mises, Planned Chaos, an excerpt from 1951 edition of Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis.
I wouldn't trust Mises to define any economic system lol. The man was about as libertarian as they come and called pretty much anything to the left of him socialist.
Franco wasnt a fascist, or a leftist, or a reactionary, or any ideology. He was a spanish nationalist and did whatever (he believed) was the best for spain. When it was convenient he placated the reactionarries, the theocrats or the falangists (the closest spanish equivalent to a fascist movement), or the technocrats or whoever. In the end he pushed the radicals away from power and by the 60s made technocrats run the economy. It was similar in Romania, the dictator Sima there used fascists in his movement to get into power and then pushed them away form reigns which sparked a civil war with Antonescou.
@@danilolabbate Nowadays anything 'certain people' don't like is viewed as fascism, even if it isn't a govt. Cos the word has just been turn into a generic insult that's been robbed of all meaning.
Post WWI and the Great Wall Street Crash saw a mass collapse of traditional conservative and capitalist parties across Europe, while at the same time traditional socialists were terrified of the tidal wave of communism sweeping Europe, which was seen as too violent and revolutionary following what happened in Russia. So many left-wing parties moved or pretended to move to the centre to appeal to both the right and left, and to distance themselves from communism. That's how nationalist socialist parties like the Nazis and Fascists were formed. What's interesting is the longer these parties stayed in power the more communist/corporatist they became. Now look at how many countries today are moving that way.
That's not really an accurate origin story for the NSDAP. They had a distinct ideology focused on national rather than class unity where the "socialism" in the title had the prefix "national" that meant it quite directly referred to something wholly different to the un-prefixed "socialism". It was solidarity of German against non-German but full capitalism within German society itself (meaning both nationally, culturally and ethnically German, so no Jews or people living abroad), so it wasn't faux socialism it was a different ideology entirely, it's as if we were talking about a buffalo oyster, which is of course not an oyster, and people started saying they are in fact oysters after all rather than just accepting it's something completely different. Support in the democratic period came from disaffected veterans and people upset with Versailles, not really either the center or Marxists who both already had a party. All this is to say there really weren't ideologically traditional socialists in the movement, it was always a nationalist ideology. While it's true that the NSDAP had a left-wing contingent prior to the night of the long knives, it was merely a more left-wing national socialist faction, which is very much NOT the same thing as a traditionally socialist faction, and said faction was certainly not purged in some act of moderation to broaden appeal, it was done to get rid of the last vestiges of potential threats to Hitler's personal rule in the SA, and to placate Hindenburg and the reichswehr in order to prevent them ousting Hitler (all on the cards due to civil disorder, you understand, not ideological difficulties). This allowed him to move forward with what the party stood for from the beginning (outlined in Mein Kampf in rather elaborate detail). So the party's ideology was not a socialist one that moderated, rather as national socialists they quite expressly had no issues with wealth and inequality in the first place provided the winners were German and part of the "Volk". So they nationalized anything foreign, jewish, anti-national or critical for the war effort, but the large German run corporations were left largely in tact, they were not seen as a problem to be solved unless they acted against the Nazi state or the war effort.
4:19 Left-wing parties are fraught with internal battles because left-wing isn't an ideology, it's a physical place turned into a metaphor for a late 1700s social consensus. "The left" is literally all the groups of people represented by those who sat on the left side of the National Assembly before and during the French Revolution. This is a large group of people with conflicting views whose only commonality was not having noble or clerical privilege (the "third estate"). The right wing was also a place: namely, the other side of the room. Again, the only commonality at the time was that they all had noble or clerical privilege (first and second estates) and thus the legal ability to veto anything anyone else wanted. Today such privileges have largely gone away, so now "the left" generally means "those who represent the interests of the oppressed" and "the right" generally means "those who represents the interests of the privileged and/or powerful". Wanting to retain power and privilege is a fairly strong unifying force, so the right tends to remain unified. The left, on the other hand, is a marriage of convenience between libertarians - people who want to take boots off people's necks - and temporarily embarrassed authoritarians who merely want a role reversal.
The architect of Fascism was an italian Philosopher named Giovanni Gentile. According to a prominent Italian historian named Benedetto Croce, he wrote that (and I quote) "...Gentile's philosophical basis for fascism was rooted in his understanding of ontology and epistemology, in which he found vindication for the rejection of individualism , and acceptance of collectivism, with the state as the ultimate location of authority and loyalty outside of which individuality had no meaning (and which in turn helped justify the totalitarian dimension of fascism)." If that does not hold many parallels with today's left, I don't know what does.
depends on what you call today's left. If you're American and o you're referring to the woke democrats, whose social ideology is a product of liberal capitalist democracy and individualism. No.
@@AlefeLucas Today’s democrats are all about power and control at ANY cost. 15 to 20 years ago they were a bit more reasonable and all they advocated was a wider safety net etc. Today is next to impossible to discern what they want besides complete and hegemonic political control and the implementation of a post-constitutional system ruled by technocrats. A Federal system such as the one we have now does not work for them because it gives people and businesses the choice to pack up and leave for other states. That explains why South Florida’s highways and streets are packed with cars with California tags. People dont like the system and leave, something democrats can not control yet. By the way, am not sure what you mean by "woke democrats, whose social ideology is a product of liberal capitalist democracy and individualism." Are you serious?
"If destiny is against us, that's worse for it", said once Mussolini. ("Se il destino è contro di noi, peggio per lui"). Well, destiny WAS against them and Mussolini was executed by the Italian partisians. But to me the most impressive part is that in nowadays Italy, many Italians believe the only mistake Mussolini did was to enter WW2. He's still admired by a surprisingly big number of Italians.
You can have this condescending "my bug brain can't comprehend" shit all you want, the fact is mussolini was doing things in 1920/30's culturally that was cosmopolitan & ALMOST game changing, all modern dictators stand on his shoulders.
@@IbnRushd-mv3fp If you call state bullism, bad economical moves and tons, tons of propaganda something "game changing", then we do agree. The vast majority of victories of Mussolini's fascism existed on paper only, fruits of fascist propaganda. When fascism had to PROVE they were an efficient and solid state, in WW2, everything went to pieces really quick. Can't fight wars with propaganda alone. To go to war you need to be the real deal, and Mussolini's regime was far from it.
Economically left-wing. Private property exists as a concession of the state as long as it serves the "public" interest. It's the "social function of private property". If your start thinking you can do anything outside the state, the state will quickly remind you that you only got there because of it and will remove you from your enterprise and replace you with a new owner who will follow the state program
Corporatism is also what America is doing. Wages are going up while inflation skyrockets and corporations pockets keep being lined with tax cuts and favorable tax code. Selective deregulation creates massive corporate frauds and crises, which the government fails to solve by merely throwing more money at it. When another crisis hits, yet another bailout with latest one being tariffs on Chinese EV vehicles.
state controlled or command economy with party top officials holding key positions in major industries in short state capitalism.. are we supposed to ignore their party names and ideology? Even their origin is in Syndicalism.
State capitalism is different from socialism. China is state capitalist but not socialist. Will you call china socialist now?@@Historia.Magistra.Vitae.
@@ShubhamMishrabro _"China is state capitalist but not socialist. "_ Wrong. China still has a socialist economy, because the government still has a tremendous amount of control over private enterprises. There are private companies that operate in China, and not everything is owned by the government; however, with a single party in power, the government is able to change the direction of the economy significantly with the stroke of a pen. Therefore, there are a lot of companies that are unsure of exactly what will happen in the future because they are at the mercy of the government.
@@Historia.Magistra.Vitae. '"state capitalism" doesn't exist' - cos I say so! Lol... There's nothing socialist about favoring corporations over workers.
This is pretty interesting, but the Italians were far less effective in their war effort than the Germans or arguably even the Japanese, who took on much bigger military and economic powers than themselves simultaneously. The economic systems of Axis Germany and Japan would be really interesting follow-ups to this, as a sort of series or trilogy. I've heard the US war economy was also incredibly interventionist during WW2 (people always throw out that "90% income tax" meme; doesn't sound realistic or plausible to me), so that would be an interesting comparison as well.
Good video , this comports with books I've read on the Fascist economy like "Italian Industrialists from Liberalism to Fascism" and "Corporatism and Fascism: the Corporatism Wave in Europe". Corporatism was popular in Europe at the time among right-wing regimes like Francisco Franco and Salazar, as well as Fascists like Mussolini as well the Catholic Church. At the time in Europe, the right-wing wasn't yet associated with capitalism and preferred government controlled economies that protected the power of the elite. 💯
_"Corporatism was popular in Europe at the time among right-wing regimes like Francisco Franco and Salazar,"_ Wrong. None of them were Right wing. All of them were part of the Far-Left, 3rd position movement. Corporatism ("corporativismo" in Italian) was also a thing only in Italy, as it was one of the cornerstone principles in Mussolini's fascism, and had to do with the way society and the economy would be organized, with state power at the head of a system of syndicates ("corporazione") representing each major industry. Mussolini's corporatist view stressed total state power over businesses as much as over individuals, via these governing industry bodies controlled by the Fascist party, in which businesses retained the responsibilities of property, but few if any of the freedoms.
_"At the time in Europe, the right-wing wasn't yet associated with capitalism and preferred government controlled economies that protected the power of the elite."_ Wrong. The only time when Capitalism wasn't associated with the Right was before and during the French Revolution. After than, when socialists claimed being on the Left instead, Capitalism has always been seen as being on the Right. Govenrment controlled economies are known as Socialist economies. After all, Socialism is an economic system where the collective (such as workers, guilds, the government etc.) either directly own or control the buildings and tools that make goods and services like farms and factories. This can be achieved through decentralized and direct worker-ownership, or through centralized state-ownership or control of the means of production.
I am impressed that someone speaks correctly about the economy. Thank you, I will likely forward people towards here when I again have people making claims without any knowledge.
@@gabrielpauna62 The "Right wing" and "left wing" in politics are so undefined and change from year to year, country to country that they are almost meaningless if the people don't know each others framework for those. This system though was conceived by a very radical socialist who was frustrated with socialism. The functions are what matter and their differences, not the names we want to give to those. 1+1=2 and I+I=II being examples of the thing being the same despite the expression used. There are many people who have very strong opinions on things they seemingly know nothing about and also people who insist on one or another way of speaking about something. This video is not a comprehensive detailed video about the economics but short and generalized enough with still enough nuance that most people should get decent enough idea from this. I do not care really what something is called as long as I can agree with the other person about what we are talking about functionally like I am using English now despite not speaking this language as my first language. I hope my explanation is understandable despite my frankly poor english skills and this language suffering as a tool with long complex explanations for things in comparison to my mothers tongue.
As I understand it what all right-wing ideologies have in common is that hierarchies are natural. They just differ on who is on top (church, monarch, billionaire, generalissimo), how you get there, and if it should be enforced or if nature should take it's course to make it so.
Actually no. Nothing to do with hierarchies or such oligarchies per se. People on the right believe that the best outcome for society is achieved when individual rights and civil liberties are paramount (individualism) and the role - and especially the power - of the government is minimized.
@@Historia.Magistra.Vitae. left-right spectrum is different from authoritarian-libertarian spectrum (and conservative-progressive). Originally the words came from Revolutionary France where the authoritarian conservative Monarchists sat on the right side of the parliament, while the republican revolutionaries sat on the left side. The competition between Capitalism-Communism has just simplified the ideologies in people's minds. Even nowdays there are both authoritarian left (communists) and authoritarian right (theocracy of Iran comes to mind), and libertarian left (anarchists) and right (anarcho-capitalists). Of course there are more ideologies than examples I gave and many ideologies are somewhere in the middle
no, there is right wing egallitarianism as libertarians believe everyone should be given the same oppurtunity to rise to the top, and there is left wing hierarchy as demonstrated in in one party marxist-lenninist states. fasicsm is authoritarian centrism.
@@ilesalmo7724 religious theocracy is left wing. christianity and islam are universalist egallitarian ideologies just like marxism. marxism is just a secular universalist religion.
@@ilesalmo7724 However the French Revolution doesn't resemble our modern day political spectrum at all. The left/right dichotomy is useless if you base it on Monarchy, which could essentially be anything. It could exert socialist goals better than any socialist democracy and it could be a better free capitalist economy than any Anarcho-Capitalist could ever do. That all would depend on the monarch. Also those Left Liberal revolutionaries are closer to modern day Right wingers. Anarcho-Capitalism would also be left wing by that definition. In fact, Capitalism, completely opposed to any authoritarian control over the economy would one of the most left wing systems.
Franco had his own reformed Falangism. Hitler had his National Socialism. Neither had anything to do with Fascism. All of them were part of the 3rd position movement though.
As one with an Econ background, I find that India's corruption is due to it's protectionism, and over regulation. Tough to find a country with more corruption.
I think the book "The Dictator's Handbook" has the right of it. Essentially, a politician's real ideology is their own political survival. If they need the support of wide swaths of the people, and can easily be removed, they will do what the people want. If they need only a few influential supporters and are hard to remove, they rule exactly the same as any other tyrant, regardless of their stated party. Every ruler dreams of pulling up the ladder behind them to ensure perpetual power, and that is why their policies change when their circumstances change.
Modern day political parties don't seem to be any better. Plenty of "right" labelled groups that do "left economic politics" and "left" labelled groups doing "right economic politics", but both still insist of their position.
People use to misuse the term for any right-wing policies they don't like or as a label for parties that are xenophobic and have an authoritarian bent. However, parties in Hungary, Germany, Russia, France, and Italy are actually pushing for similar populist economic policies that is more aligned with historical fascism than traditional conservative economics that promote economic freedom and fiscal responsibility.
And that's why there are no problems like soaring crime rates especially from the immigrants taken, like in USA, UK and Europe. Those countries are much safer than Western Europe where women can't even walk at night. Also they have much better rules and regulations. I am not joking. I am writing this comment while I am in Russia and I never felt any type of threat like stabbing, pick-pocketing, intimidating, etc. Also the infrastructure, road quality is very good(Not as compared to West). I loved it. Not supporting fascism. But this country is performing in its own way. They feel that they shouldn't be influenced from Western countries. They have their own ways to functions. But they don't listen to West that's why they are called fascists.
@@manjushagongale A) Violent crime is lower per capita from immigrants than citizens B) Crime rates in autocracies are false as criminals, police, and politicians are all on the same team. C) Your antidotes are meaningless. Every city has slums that foreigners don't visit. For example, if a visitor never leaves Manhattan, then the US feels like the safest country on earth.
All things considered hitlers stance on economics made sence for his movement since he was obsessed with applying darwinism to every aspect of society.
Ok....Il Duce was no economist. Italy attempted to become a modern Industrial Nation but with the exception of boats and Cars....was better off as an agrarian society where Coporatism could have flourished.
This will be the same guy calling centralist European parties right wing for social policies. I am glad you discovered the X Y axis are actually a spectrum, fluid changing 😂
Fascism was a curse for Italy but the lesson is not servile and the heirs of those infamities are today in government of the country. We are in economic, civil and cultural decline. I am a baby boomer and I can only suggest the path of emigration to our young people.
Im not Italian. But I ask the same question for my contry. To where? To the UK, the Germany, to Canada, to Brazil, to Japan? Every major country, except US, will struggle cause of socialist politics.
a Brit with cropped hair and suspenders discussing "the true essence fascism" ....at least he's not wearing Fred Perry, RU-vid would have banned this !
Germany under Hitler most certainly did not base the economy on crony capitalism. Factory owners and businessmen were kept around because they knew how to run a company. But they were only kept as long as state and people would benefit. A textbook example of this is Junkers, one of the most famous and important aircraft manufacturers of the day. The founder wanted to quit and instead search for more profitable business ventures. Instead of nationalizing the works, the state sort of forced Junkers back to run his own company
_" Instead of nationalizing the works, the state sort of forced Junkers back to run his own company"_ Actually they did nationalize Junkers, and pretty much the whole German industry. When Hugo Junkers declined to help the Government, the Nazis placed him under house arrest in 1934 (he died during 1935) and eventually seized control of his patents and company. Later they reorganized all industries into corporations run by members of the Nazi Party.
@@larryc1616 You have no idea what crony capitalism actually is. Being forced to run a company for the greater good regardless of whether or not you make profit has nothing at all to do with capitalism
Academy hits again - per your point, fascism as a thing, came to exist by Mussolini new party. You can't change it after the fact, that was THEIR definition of fascism at it creation. Changing definitions seems a motivation to rewrite history in an apologetic approach imo, reducing a movement and beliefs of ppl to a single person/idea. Life is complex.
They were pretty capitalist as private property was never abolished and workers wages were cut also even struggling companies where always saved, corporativism is a form of capitalism not an alternative to it. They wanted companies to obey the state and be loyal but that is not anti capitalist
_"They were pretty capitalist as private property was never abolished"_ Wrong and Wrong. They were strictly anti-capitalist and private property rights were abolished and made conditional. Individual ownership rights were understood to be strictly subordinate to collective discipline. It was not the individual ownership of property that concerned Fascists, but its subordination to collective control. Property was understood to perform social functions rather than to manifest individual rights. It was clear that the conception of property as a social function was broad enough to include socialization of the means of production, should that be required by the national interests as interpreted by the state.
_"corporativism is a form of capitalism not an alternative to it. "_ Wrong. Corporatism has absolutely nothing to do with Capitalism whatsoever. Common English linguistics mistake. Corporatism has nothing to do with businesses. Corporatism ("corporativismo" in Italian) was one of the cornerstone principles in Mussolini's fascism, and had to do with the way society and the economy would be organized, with state power at the head of a system of syndicates ("corporazione") representing each major industry. Mussolini's corporatist view stressed total state power over businesses as much as over individuals, via these governing industry bodies controlled by the Fascist party, in which businesses retained the responsibilities of property, but few if any of the freedoms.
_"They wanted companies to obey the state and be loyal but that is not anti capitalist"_ That is by definition, anti-capitalist. Also when the government has total control and can legally seize your property if it's used in a manner they dislike, it is not private property ownership. You are not the arbiter of what to do with your own stuff. You are merely a manager of your property, and merely so long as the Fascist state permits it.
.having the corporations be subservient to the state is the exact opossite of capitalism where the state is subservient to the corporations. fascists is real socialism unlike communism which is just capitalism in disguise. communism promotes internationalism and the destruction of cultures because it is a fake socialist movement lead by the international banking class. the communist countrys were run by western corporations.
In my opinion, it is both "left wing" and "right wing". And by that I mean, it is both economically collectivist and economically (collectivist) authoritarian, as well as socially collectivist and socially (collectivist) authoritarian.
@@Historia.Magistra.Vitae.it was socially far right that's why they were extreme nationalist while far left the communist were internationalist. You seem one of them who would think far right was good and all bad things were left wing only. Don't tell me hitler was internationalist
@@ShubhamMishrabro _"You seem one of them who would think far right was good and all bad things were left wing only."_ The fundamental differences between left-wing and right-wing ideologies center around the the rights of individuals vs. the power of the collective. Left-wing beliefs are based on the idea that society is best served with an expanded role for the group, for the benefit of all (collectivism). People on the right believe that the best outcome for society is achieved when individual rights and civil liberties are paramount (individualism) and the role - and especially the power - of the government is minimized.
@@murdelabop and Lewis was wrong also. Fascism was strictly anti-clerical movement, and had nothing to do with Christianity. Mussolini was a fan of Friedrich Nietzsche after all.
Fascism is controlled capitalism. Where the government has a heavy hand in the economy. Capitalism is where the government has little to no control on the economy. In this system individuals have the owners of production. Liberalism on the other hand, is a movement that seeks to tax the rich and make workers the owners of production.
@@Darkphilips-i1y _"Fascism is controlled capitalism. "_ Wrong. There is no such thing. Capitalism by definition is uncontrolled and operates under Markets, by the supply/demand principle. Meanwhile Fascism used Corporatism ("corporativismo" in Italian) , which was one of the cornerstone principles in Mussolini's fascism, and had to do with the way society and the economy would be organized, with state power at the head of a system of syndicates ("corporazione") representing each major industry. Mussolini's corporatist view stressed total state power over businesses as much as over individuals, via these governing industry bodies controlled by the Fascist party, in which businesses retained the responsibilities of property, but few if any of the freedoms.
There's no such thing as left vs right. It's always been the collective (group) vs the individual. Mussolini and mustache man fall under the group camp, along with the typical antifa, blm, dei advocate. Where they disagree is the methods to be applied for the achievements of ends which are common to both. The ends being utopia.
Even before watching it, I agree so much with just the *TITLE* of this video, I wanted to comment just to say so. This is something I *REALLY* want people to understand about Fascism. Anyways, I'll watch the video later and I may or may not agree with the presenters on what the true "essence of fascism", but I just wanted to leave this - I'm glad someone realizes that trying to say actual fascism is *closely* related to either the far-right *or* far-left in any functioning democracy is an exercise in futility. EDIT (after almost a week): So, I actually watched the video. I'd like to add the nitpick that corporatism is not a "mix" of capitalism and socialism; rather, it's a completely different system that stands on its own between the two - just like mercantilism and distributism. There isn't a single capitalist-socialist axis or spectrum along which all economic ideas fall. That said, I did actually learn something about Mussolini's specific brand of corporatism, and I think it was practically talior-made negate all of the real or imaginary advantages that corporatists claim their system has. This I'd no accident: the true essence of fascism is Statism (and national self-reliance, as stated in the video, all built on the obsession with being as willing and able as possible to prosecute Total War). If a Fascist shall use capitalism, then it must be *state* capitalism. Like wise a Fasicst's socialism must be *state* socialism and his corporatism must be *state* corporatism. Overall, I am *not* disappointed with this video. Overall, it does a good job of pointing out that Fascists tend to prefer economic systems that both the left and the Right of today would find bizarre and distasteful *at best.* I also learned some things from it. Good job!
fascism is real socialism not fake socialism like the socially liberal internationalist 'socialists' who are nothing more than tools of the capitalist class to misdirect legitimate socialist movements.
_"fascism is free market capitalism with a command economy, not socialism at all"_ You are not making any sense. Free market Capitalism and Command economy are mutually exclusive, while Command economy being part of the Socialist economic system. Fascism had nothing to do with Capitalism whatsoever and as a socialist ideology it strictly opposed it. Fascism utilized Corporatism ("corporativismo" in Italian), which was one of the cornerstone principles in Mussolini's fascism, and had to do with the way society and the economy would be organized, with state power at the head of a system of syndicates ("corporazione") representing each major industry. Mussolini's corporatist view stressed total state power over businesses as much as over individuals, via these governing industry bodies controlled by the Fascist party, in which businesses retained the responsibilities of property, but few if any of the freedoms.
@@thetruedemocraticnorth _"central planning is socialism"_ By definition it is. Socialism is an economic system where the collective (such as workers, guilds, the government etc.) either directly own or control the buildings and tools that make goods and services like farms and factories. This can be achieved through decentralized and direct worker-ownership, or through centralized state-ownership or control of the means of production.
@@thetruedemocraticnorth _" and that Hitler was not capitalist."_ By definition he wasn't, and even according to his own very words. He specifically despised Capitalism and thought it was a "Jewish ploy". At the end of the day, 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.
It wasn't Capitalism of any kind, nor was it privately owned per se. Individual ownership rights were understood to be strictly subordinate to collective discipline. It was not the individual ownership of property that concerned Fascists, but its subordination to collective control. Property was understood to perform social functions rather than to manifest individual rights. It was clear that the conception of property as a social function was broad enough to include socialization of the means of production, should that be required by the national interests as interpreted by the state. What Fascism had was called Corporatism ("corporativismo" in Italian), a socialist economic model. It was one of the cornerstone principles in Mussolini's fascism, and had to do with the way society and the economy would be organized, with state power at the head of a system of syndicates ("corporazione") representing each major industry. Mussolini's corporatist view stressed total state power over businesses as much as over individuals, via these governing industry bodies controlled by the Fascist party, in which businesses retained the responsibilities of property, but few if any of the freedoms.
@@lukemurray4950 "Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State." - while it's not _technically_ Authoritarianism (you can have a massive bureaucracy running things without a clear ruler, or even an elected government on top), in practice you pretty much have to have a dictator or people will run in too many directions. It is very similar to communism, thought. Just with much more nationalism.
@@henrikgiese6316 You are right it is centralised power is needed but it has private business enterprise and private land and property ownership. Authoritarianism would never allow such things. Fascism allows competition not combatatism but no political system allows this. Just look at the USA with J6.
@@lukemurray4950 Authoritarianism absolutely allows allows free enterprise. Authoritarianism is about "not questioning the ruler", the only thing it's strictly opposed to is democracy since voting out the ruler would require questioning him.
@@henrikgiese6316 name an authoritarian regime that allows free enterprise. I'll wait. They don't because if you have land and business you have power to control people and the society which completely defeats the purpose of "authoritarianism"
Video is incorrect, anarchy is extreme right wing ... state intervention is always left wing , most governments have a combination of freedom and control, the mote control the more left wing... its as simple as that ... Havier mile vs stalin think of it like that
No. This isn't even the original channel, but rather the English version of their Spanish channel. Simon has his own channels, he stopped being the presenter of this one a long time ago.
So Mussolini "came to power uniting.... the parties of the center and extreme right." So the Moderate Right wasn't included? Or is it that you see anything to the right of center as "extreme"? It is so tiresome to have everything conservative called "extreme right", but Communist and Greens are only called left-wing, not the "extreme left". (Have you Ever called anyone Extreme Left?) Be consistent with your name-calling or stop the name-calling altogether.
... and for obvious reasons, they don't mention the simple fact that Mussolini was a socialist and his Fascism was still on the Far-Left side of the spectrum. Being a competing and rival socialist movement to Marxism, doesn't magically make someone Right wing.
@@Historia.Magistra.Vitae. Yep, a common socialist movement that is.... hyper ethnic-nationalist, firmly traditionalist and reactionary on family values, against the emancipation of the working class, actively dismisses class conflicts alltogether, closely involved with the church. If you are to uneducated to comment on something, how about you don't comment at all?
@@pinotpinotpinot _"Yep, a common socialist movement that is.... hyper ethnic-nationalist, firmly traditionalist and reactionary on family values, against the emancipation of the working class, actively dismisses class conflicts alltogether, "_ Depends. Certainly most of them were common in Russia (Stalinism) and China (Maoism). However maybe you should remember, that socialism is not an ideology and represents no values. It's an economic system which advocates for collective direct ownership or control, of the means of production, distribution and exchange of goods.
@@pinotpinotpinot _" closely involved with the church."_ Neither Fascism nor National Socialism were. Both Hitler and Mussolini were fans of Friedrich Nietzsche and didn't believe in religions.
Fascism really can mean whatever the Anglo-Zionist who won WW2 want it to mean. Hitler was a national socialist. In his book he talks about how there were two competing factions (the nationalists and the socialists) and he combined their name when he formed his new party. He talked about how you would never be able to rid yourselves of the Marxist unions, you had to change from within. There were a lot of nationalist and monarchies during this time and the allies were doing a globalism pan Europe NWO thing. Hitler and axis countries stood in their way of this and Anglo-Zionism Pax American supremacy. WW2 was basically about who the dominant white group was going to be in Europe and by extension the word
Thank you! 99% of people don't know what fascism is and the fact that Germany in the 1930s/40s wasn't fascist but a National Socialist nation. It of course is by design because National Socialism would mean the end of the far left and far rights control. Banks would no longer be able to charge interest and the radical leftists won't be able to control the people through Totalitarianism.
"Anglo-Zionist" is a line used by those who view history through conspiratorial and anti-Semitic lenses. Historical facts and context don't matter unless it fits their hate-filled narrative of victimization.
Isn’t it fascinating that the nation of Italy is now fully committed to re-fascist itself in every way possible?! I’m just an outside observer but if I know as much as this video about el Duce, surely they experienced it and should know more… so either this video is absolute rubbish orrrrr the Italians like it that way
To be honest you are so desperate to say they weren't Communist socialist And describe it all as Corporate Corporateist But as far as I am concerned it's a distinction without a difference Mussolini was a good old-fashioned socialist And his Attitude to economicsRemind me a lot all of the next extreme version of eu economicsBritish labour British conservative over the last 4 years Swap out the obsession with the military with an obsession for green industry and happiness still alive and well on running Europe
so are anarchists right wing? No. State=Left isn't an actual belief in political science. If that was the case then literally every country is left wing
@@gabrielpauna62 So that would make Reagan left wing then. He decreased taxes but increased the police state and military spending. According to your way of thinking that would make him left wing because he increased the size of the state. Do you see how the left to right spectrum is more then authoritarian to libertarian? Also anarchists are left wing, they hate capitalism so I don't see how that is even remotely right wing. Literally go on Wikipedia if you don't have much knowledge on political science
Germany wasn't a fascist country. It was National Socialist which is very much different. Italy and Germany did not have the same system. This is why Germany suppassed Italy economically and technologically.
They certianly called themselves National Socialist. But that doesn't make them any more socialist than it makes them any less fascist. East Germany, if you recall, was also called GDR - German Democratic Republic. But it certainly wasn't Democratic. Countries are what they do, not what they call themselves.
@@krakken- _"But that doesn't make them any more socialist than it makes them any less fascist."_ By definition they were socialist, and most certainly they were not Fascist.
@@lukemurray4950 _" National socialism is not socialism. "_ Wrong. By definition it was. 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.
Fascism most certainly was Far-Left, politically and economically. It was a totalitarian far-left, socialist 3rd position ideology based on National Syndicalism which they adapted from Georges Sorel. It rejected individualism, capitalism, liberalism/democracy, and marxism. The means of production was organized by national worker syndicals (i.e. trade unions), and the guiding philosophy of the state was Actual Idealism. Fascism was an outgrowth of Sorellian Syndicalism, which itself was an outgrowth from Marxist socialism. 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 was 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." As created by Mussolini and Giovanni Gentile, Fascism comes from a belief that the "Stateless and Classless society" Communism calls for after its dictatorship cannot achieve Socialism, and that only the State can properly organize a Socialist Society. It cared about unity in a strong central government with society being brought together by syndicalist organizations obedient to the State.
@@Historia.Magistra.Vitae. "The Nordic model comprises the economic and social policies as well as typical cultural practices common in the Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden).[1] This includes a comprehensive welfare state and multi-level collective bargaining[2] based on the economic foundations of social corporatism,[3][4]"
@@PhilosophicalZombieHunter : Nothing to do with Fascist Corporatism ("corporativismo" in Italian) however, which was one of the cornerstone principles in Mussolini's fascism, and had to do with the way society and the economy would be organized, with state power at the head of a system of syndicates ("corporazione") representing each major industry. Mussolini's corporatist view stressed total state power over businesses as much as over individuals, via these governing industry bodies controlled by the Fascist party, in which businesses retained the responsibilities of property, but few if any of the freedoms.
“Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State.” - Benito Mussolini, creator of Fascism and former Socialist. Yeah, that sounds nothing like left-wing economics ...
Need to point out, that Mussolini was always a socialist. However he was a former Marxist, and then embraced National Syndicalism which he then used as the basis of Fascism.
@@peeledonion991 _"and helped corporations?"_ He most certainly didn't. On the contrary, he subjugated businesses under the goals set by the State. Also throughout the 1930s, Mussolini managed to nationalize over 75% of the Italian industry. Ah, the classic, "I'm from the government and I'm here to help".
it woulde be interessting to hear, wo this economically way of the italien fascism was copy from Peron in Argentinia. It Looks like, the did the same way of economy the next 70 Years
Reminder that neither Hitler nor Franco were Fascists, as they had their own ideologies. Only Mussolini was. All of them were devout socialists, anti-capitalists and part of the 3rd position movement.
@@sH-ed5yf : Socialism is an economic system where the collective (such as workers, guilds, the government etc.) either directly own or control the buildings and tools that make goods and services like farms and factories. This can be achieved through decentralized and direct worker-ownership, or through centralized state-ownership or control of the means of production. All of them had the latter.
@@Historia.Magistra.Vitae. exactly. And neither gitler nor Franco or Mussolini did any of that in relevant quantities. Almost the entire german economy Was private, with exceptions like Highway construction. Even the military industrial complex was private.
@@sH-ed5yf _"And neither gitler nor Franco or Mussolini did any of that in relevant quantities. "_ They nationalized their industry and brought it under Government control.
@@sH-ed5yf _"Almost the entire german economy Was private ... Even the military industrial complex was private."_ Wrong. There was nothing private in Nazi Germany. Everything was nationalized according to their "Gleichschaltung" principle, and later reorganized into corporations run by members of the Nazi Party. Junker Airplanes was a good example of this.
Err... What? There was a push by the Swedish socialist government in the '80s to bring corporations under _worker_ control (which admittedly would in practice have been pretty much state control, the absolute majority of workers have no interest in running corporations!) but that's it. It didn't really go anywhere. If anything, it's the corporations that excessive influence in how the government is run, not the other way around.
_"The same system used in the “socialist” Scandinavian countries."_ No. Scandinavian countries use Social-Democracy. Completely different thing. Corporatism ("corporativismo" in Italian) had to do with the way society and the economy would be organized, with state power at the head of a system of syndicates ("corporazione") representing each major industry. Mussolini's corporatist view stressed total state power over businesses as much as over individuals, via these governing industry bodies controlled by the Fascist party, in which businesses retained the responsibilities of property, but few if any of the freedoms.
