There's a reason why they refer to themselves as 'third position'

@lloydgush

Ай бұрын

Because there's no such thing. It's just totalitarian, unionist, nationalist, socialism.

Fascism: anything I don't agree with

@badluck5647

Ай бұрын

MAGA: Biden Everyone else: Trump

@lukemurray4950

Ай бұрын

That's the democrat party but "anything I don't agree with is not fascism. It's shocking how 99% of all people don't even know what it is.

@lukemurray4950

Ай бұрын

Nobody knows what fascism is because it's just used as an insult. This is why it's only used in the West towards Western countries.

@xAnonymousComedia

Ай бұрын

@@lukemurray4950 Well, many people say Modi (from India) is a fascist.

@lukemurray4950

Ай бұрын

@@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)

Fascism is a overused term nowadays.

@devinschexnayder7440

Ай бұрын

Orwell said that fascism was overused even in the late 1940s. Always has been overused.

@DarrenRFC

Ай бұрын

So true mate. Its a meaningless term tossed around like nazi a dog whistle for the left

@msdm83

Ай бұрын

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.

@ikeu6433

Ай бұрын

I think there just happens to be a lot of it and that is why we keep hearing about it.

@devinschexnayder7440

Ай бұрын

@@ikeu6433 Not really. There is certainly a lot of authoritarianism floating around that is called fascism even though it usually isn't.

the left right dynamic isn't a good descriptor for anything.

@magicbuns4868

Ай бұрын

They are, they're good labels in some ways, it's like asking what football team do you support.

@lukemurray4950

Ай бұрын

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.

@1krani

Ай бұрын

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.

@gabrielpauna62

Ай бұрын

It's very good this guy was practicing left with policies it's pretty simple anarchy is extreme right

@haraldthi

Ай бұрын

It's a very simple simplification. The problem being we can't even agree on what it means, as it can change over time.

It's like someone looked at Capitalism & Marxism and then said "What if we combine the *worst* parts of both?"

@A-Big-Beautiful-Wall

Ай бұрын

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..💯

@vonneely1977

25 күн бұрын

@@A-Big-Beautiful-Wall I learned something new, thanks! I must examine this new info in more detail.

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.

@ArawnOfAnnwn

Ай бұрын

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.

@luigibellini811

Ай бұрын

@@ArawnOfAnnwnI completely agree, couldn’t have expressed myself better.

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

Ай бұрын

Nowadays most dictatorships are viewed as fascism. But indeed they were quite different to be categorized as a single thing.

@gloriathomas3245

Ай бұрын

the falangist weren't were nowhere near to fascism but they did ally themselves with fascist.

@2857steve

Ай бұрын

You are right Franco was a right-wing dictator. Fascism is just a form of Socialism.

@ArawnOfAnnwn

Ай бұрын

@@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.

@cristianion2056

Ай бұрын

Wrong analogy for Romania. Și was never to powerfully

Mussolini himself said "The only constant of Fascism is action".

@frocco7125

Ай бұрын

"Think with your blood"

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.

@Cuttuttlefish

19 күн бұрын

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.

15:06 Also the time when pasta was banned in italy as it took too many resources.

@MarketsDriveTheWorld

Ай бұрын

😱😤😤 Monster

Economic investigator Frank G Melbourne Australia is following this informative content cheers Frank 😊

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.

Fascism was not presented as an economic idea, even by Mussolini. This video is confused.

A country thhrives when prices fall due to an increase in production efficiency, not due to a fall in sales.

"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.

Do a video on le penns spending plans

@badluck5647

Ай бұрын

She is going to have a Liz Truss downfall

@lewis123417

Ай бұрын

@@badluck5647 yeah only with left wing spending plans

@bh4462

Ай бұрын

@@badluck5647 Ah, another TLDR news fan I see.

@badluck5647

Ай бұрын

@@bh4462 ?

@keto0303

Ай бұрын

@@bh4462 Haha, spot on. Its the TLDR wishlist

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.

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.

@AlefeLucas

Ай бұрын

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.

@jorgeundertaker2827

Ай бұрын

@@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?

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.

@Historia.Magistra.Vitae.

Ай бұрын

_" in short state capitalism.."_ Doesn't exist and is an oxymoron. It was textbook socialism.

@ShubhamMishrabro

Ай бұрын

State capitalism is different from socialism. China is state capitalist but not socialist. Will you call china socialist now?​@@Historia.Magistra.Vitae.

@Historia.Magistra.Vitae.

Ай бұрын

@@ShubhamMishrabro _"State capitalism is different from socialism. "_ Again, "state capitalism" doesn't exist. It's an oxymoron.

@Historia.Magistra.Vitae.

Ай бұрын

@@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.

@ArawnOfAnnwn

Ай бұрын

@@Historia.Magistra.Vitae. '"state capitalism" doesn't exist' - cos I say so! Lol... There's nothing socialist about favoring corporations over workers.

Thats pretty close to what Russia and China is doing recently.

@badluck5647

Ай бұрын

Russia, yes. China, in transition.

@user-hf2dr7sh4y

Ай бұрын

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.

@badluck5647

Ай бұрын

@@user-hf2dr7sh4y Tell me you don't understand economics while not saying you don't understand economics

@rhodeislandballproductions8781

Ай бұрын

Israel would be the closest

@gabrielpauna62

Ай бұрын

Yes and it's left wing policy

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

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. 💯

@Historia.Magistra.Vitae.

Ай бұрын

_"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.

@Historia.Magistra.Vitae.

Ай бұрын

_"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.

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.

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

Ай бұрын

It's still left wing, govement control and oversight is left wing it's just not maxisum

@justskip4595

Ай бұрын

@@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.

You can grow bread? Nice, what is tree called that produces is?

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.

@Historia.Magistra.Vitae.

Ай бұрын

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.

@ilesalmo7724

Ай бұрын

@@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

@Gingerphile00

Ай бұрын

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.

@Gingerphile00

Ай бұрын

@@ilesalmo7724 religious theocracy is left wing. christianity and islam are universalist egallitarian ideologies just like marxism. marxism is just a secular universalist religion.

@Historia.Magistra.Vitae.

Ай бұрын

@@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.

Fascism: where crony capitalism meets socialism

@gabrielmenezes2761

Ай бұрын

not socialism , state capitalism

@badluck5647

Ай бұрын

​@@gabrielmenezes2761Semantics. Socialism either turns into economic collapse or state capitalism in the end.

@lewis123417

Ай бұрын

​​@@gabrielmenezes2761"it's not socialism because it didn't work"

@ilyake7862

Ай бұрын

​@@gabrielmenezes2761state capitalism is an oxymoron

@FlowerPride

Ай бұрын

​@@gabrielmenezes2761socialism is state capitalism lol. State controlled domestic economics

Next video: Why India will never be a developed country.

@badluck5647

Ай бұрын

1) Protectionism. 2) Hindi nationalism 3) No allies except Russia

@MarcPagan

Ай бұрын

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.

@lukemurray4950

Ай бұрын

Cast system.

@FlowerPride

Ай бұрын

No toilet poo on street 🥺

@INFINITUMSPIRIT

Ай бұрын

Bro got cooked 💀

I don't know, if we're defining fascism in a manner that excludes both Franco and Hitler, I'm not sure we're utilizing a very useful definition.

@Historia.Magistra.Vitae.

Ай бұрын

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.

state dictating your liberty

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.

@badluck5647

Ай бұрын

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.

@dianapennepacker6854

Ай бұрын

Turns out. Life is complicated. Any party that uses "left or right" dynamics as their policies would be terrible.

@gabrielpauna62

Ай бұрын

There are no real right economic policies only left economic policies , right wing is absence of control

All things considered hitlers stance on economics made sence for his movement since he was obsessed with applying darwinism to every aspect of society.

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.

That's quite the statement there chief, economically🫡

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

@larryc1616

Ай бұрын

You just described crony capitalism

@Historia.Magistra.Vitae.

Ай бұрын

@@larryc1616 : Nothing to do with Capitalism. It was textbook socialism.

@Historia.Magistra.Vitae.

Ай бұрын

_" 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.

@Immortal..

Ай бұрын

@@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

I stopped listening to this when he stated calling Hitler a fascist. He wasn’t.

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 😂

Totalitarianism is totalitarianism regardless of what color shirt it's wearing.

@larryc1616

Ай бұрын

True, they're all the same

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.

@CesarLuisAfonsoDias

Ай бұрын

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.

@jessynixx

Ай бұрын

Bravo! Io ho 49 anni ma se ne avessi meno partirei

Can you do an episode on Petro Dollar?

There are two fasci that adorn each side of the america flag in the US House Rostrum. Not too different from the Palazzo Venezia balcony.

That AI voice is so annoying. Good thing the rest of the video is great

@murdelabop

Ай бұрын

That's not AI. That's one of the other hosts.

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

@Historia.Magistra.Vitae.

Ай бұрын

_"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.

@Historia.Magistra.Vitae.

Ай бұрын

_"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.

@Historia.Magistra.Vitae.

Ай бұрын

_"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.

@Gingerphile00

Ай бұрын

.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.

I just basically watched the Wikipedia explanation of fascist economics. This video is factually wrong.

corporatism is not a mix between capitalism and 'socialism' more accurately collectivism. it is a distinct economic system in its own right.

Why does this sound like Putin's Russia?

@manjushagongale

Ай бұрын

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.

@badluck5647

Ай бұрын

@@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.

@zollen123

Ай бұрын

Those whose don't learn from the past mistakes are dome to repeat.

@ShubhamMishrabro

Ай бұрын

​@@manjushagongale opinion isn't facts. Many western countries are safer than russia.

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

fascism is free market capitalism with a command economy, not socialism at all 😂😂😂😂

@Gingerphile00

Ай бұрын

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.

@Historia.Magistra.Vitae.

Ай бұрын

_"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

Ай бұрын

@@Historia.Magistra.Vitae. I won't waist my time with a person who believe that central planning is socialism and that Hitler was not capitalist.

@Historia.Magistra.Vitae.

Ай бұрын

@@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.

@Historia.Magistra.Vitae.

Ай бұрын

@@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.

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.

Ай бұрын

It was Far-Left. Nothing to do with Right wing of any kind.

@ShubhamMishrabro

Ай бұрын

​@@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

@Historia.Magistra.Vitae.

Ай бұрын

@@ShubhamMishrabro _" it was socially far right "_ There is no left/right for social values. They do not exist on the political spectrum.

@Historia.Magistra.Vitae.

Ай бұрын

@@ShubhamMishrabro _"that's why they were extreme nationalist while far left the communist were internationalist."_ Both are forms of collectivism.

@Historia.Magistra.Vitae.

Ай бұрын

@@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.

stalinism and maoism were the great villains of the 20th century.

@ShubhamMishrabro

Ай бұрын

Hitler too

"At least he kept the trains on time"

Italy is still a tax hell, maybe even worse so than in the 1930s.

@lucadesanctis563

Ай бұрын

Only for those poor guys who are forced to pay...

Ronald Reagan said that fascism would came to America in form of Liberalism.

@murdelabop

Ай бұрын

And 50 years earlier Sinclair Lewis said "When Fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross".

@Historia.Magistra.Vitae.

Ай бұрын

And Regan was wrong, and had no clue what either Fascism nor Liberalism means.

@Historia.Magistra.Vitae.

Ай бұрын

@@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.

@Darkphilips-i1y

Ай бұрын

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.

@Historia.Magistra.Vitae.

Ай бұрын

@@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.

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.

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.

@Historia.Magistra.Vitae.

Ай бұрын

... 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.

@pinotpinotpinot

Ай бұрын

@@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?

@Historia.Magistra.Vitae.

Ай бұрын

@@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.

@Historia.Magistra.Vitae.

Ай бұрын

@@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.

@Historia.Magistra.Vitae.

Ай бұрын

@@pinotpinotpinot _"If you are to uneducated to comment on something, how about you don't comment at all?"_ Sound like an advice you should take.

Yes, my definition of Fascism is the same as crony Capitalism.... The economy is privately owned... but controlled by the government,,,

@Historia.Magistra.Vitae.

Ай бұрын

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.

@Gingerphile00

Ай бұрын

no fascism is anti-universalism and is about the glory of the nation state, not atomized invidualism and the accumulation of profit.

@gabrielpauna62

Ай бұрын

Incorrect it's socialism, did you not listen to the video, goverment ownership and oversight , that is socialism

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!

nevertheless hitler founded Volkswagen which is europes most successful car manufacturer today

nice to see someone actually try to understand fascism instead of choosing to be willfully ignorant for political points

Fascism matches better with authoritarianism, control and legalised corruption therefore economic and social ideas are not defined

@lukemurray4950

Ай бұрын

Fascism is nothing like authoritarianism. People really have no clue what fascism is.

@henrikgiese6316

Ай бұрын

@@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.

@lukemurray4950

Ай бұрын

@@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.

@henrikgiese6316

Ай бұрын

@@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.

@lukemurray4950

Ай бұрын

@@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"

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

@gabrielpauna62

Ай бұрын

They are lied to and promised right wing goverment but get socialist ones its basically they are being lied to

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

@jessynixx

Ай бұрын

No. Left is no social classes, everybody is the same. Right is slaves and slave owners.

@Historia.Magistra.Vitae.

Ай бұрын

@@jessynixx Wrong. Left/Right dichotomy doesn't work that way.

@ArawnOfAnnwn

Ай бұрын

There are anarchist versions of socialism too. Literally anarchosocialism, anarchosyndicalism, etc.

@jessynixx

Ай бұрын

@@ArawnOfAnnwn anarco-communism.

@jessynixx

Ай бұрын

Absolutely wrong. What about anarco-communism??

Facism,a great contradiction itself

Stalin 😂 proper Marxist just wearing a different jacket 🧥!

Very far from Hitler's socialism.

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

@lukemurray4950

Ай бұрын

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.

@ShubhamMishrabro

Ай бұрын

You sound like you would support holocaust the way you portray Germany as a defender of europe from elites.

@lukemurray4950

Ай бұрын

Thank you. Germany was National Socialist not fascist. People don't know what fascism is.

@badluck5647

Ай бұрын

"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.

@Gingerphile00

Ай бұрын

@@ShubhamMishrabro save your jewish supremacist propaganda for somewhere else.

Is that AÍ narration on those quotes? If so, 🛑

@murdelabop

Ай бұрын

No, it's one of the other hosts.

that is basically what china is today

@badluck5647

Ай бұрын

More Russia than China. Xi hasn't completely shifted over to state capitalism yet.

@lamontkhoza2856

Ай бұрын

I wonder where the difference is between state capitalism and corporatism

They only way to win is to not play

im here in the usa, wondering what corporatism is lolz

Does Simon Whistler own this channel?

@ArawnOfAnnwn

Ай бұрын

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.

@MosheZrihen

Ай бұрын

@@ArawnOfAnnwn thanks! where can I find a list of channels that are exclusively Simon? He is my favorite to listen to for sure!

@ArawnOfAnnwn

Ай бұрын

@@MosheZrihen He has his own site and a Wikitubia page as well.

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

@Historia.Magistra.Vitae.

Ай бұрын

Peronism was a Neo-Fascist movement indeed, and was influenced by Mussolini's Fascism.

Your videos title is a lie you never addressed the topic

Can you do this same examination of fascist Germany?

@smileyface3956

Ай бұрын

Germany was nazi not fascist

@lukemurray4950

Ай бұрын

Germany wasn't fascist. It was National Socialist. Bug difference. This is why Germany surpassed Italy economically and technologically.

@murdelabop

Ай бұрын

Germany was National Socialist not Fascist, but the difference is mostly cosmetic.

It sounds like China.

0:03 “🇮🇹BENITO MUSSOLINI🇮🇹”

statits are all left...

@lamontkhoza2856

Ай бұрын

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

Ай бұрын

​@@lamontkhoza2856yes full right wing is anarchy

@gabrielpauna62

Ай бұрын

​it's a trend right wing and left wing means trending freedom or trending regulation

@gabrielpauna62

Ай бұрын

He is wrong ignore the comment

@lamontkhoza2856

Ай бұрын

@@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.

@krakken-

Ай бұрын

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.

@lukemurray4950

Ай бұрын

@@krakken- Your lack of understanding is truly shocking. National socialism is not socialism. The fact you made it was says everything.

@monkusaugustus4017

Ай бұрын

​@@krakken-he never claimed that national socialism is socialism, you're fighting ghosts

@Historia.Magistra.Vitae.

Ай бұрын

@@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.

@Historia.Magistra.Vitae.

Ай бұрын

@@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.

25

“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 ...

@Historia.Magistra.Vitae.

Ай бұрын

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

Ай бұрын

Brother did you now hear him explain how Mussolini depressed wages and helped corporations?😭😭

@Historia.Magistra.Vitae.

Ай бұрын

@@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".

@gabrielpauna62

Ай бұрын

​@@peeledonion991 still goverment interventions and that is socialist, you probably wrong but even so it's socialism

@peeledonion991

Ай бұрын

@@gabrielpauna62 Not socialism since his actions protected capital on the back of workers. Socialism is not when government does things.

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.

Isn't corporatism what Norway uses?

@Historia.Magistra.Vitae.

Ай бұрын

Not at all.

@PhilosophicalZombieHunter

Ай бұрын

@@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]"

@Historia.Magistra.Vitae.

Ай бұрын

@@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.

@lamontkhoza2856

Ай бұрын

Norway is a SOCIAL DEMOCRACY. Just cause governments uses taxed money to fund public stuff doesn't make it corporatist nor socialist

@PhilosophicalZombieHunter

Ай бұрын

@@Historia.Magistra.Vitae. social corporatism has nothing to do with corporatism?

Nationalist = Nazionalista

🇺🇸

That narrator for screen text is horrific

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

Ай бұрын

None of them had serios socialist polecies. They called themself this way, but they were not

@Historia.Magistra.Vitae.

Ай бұрын

@@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.

@sH-ed5yf

Ай бұрын

@@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.

@Historia.Magistra.Vitae.

Ай бұрын

@@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.

@Historia.Magistra.Vitae.

Ай бұрын

@@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.

fascist-nating ;)

👌👌

Of Stalin :)

Fascism is corporatism. The same system used in the “socialist” Scandinavian countries.

@henrikgiese6316

Ай бұрын

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.

@Historia.Magistra.Vitae.

Ай бұрын

_"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.

@Gingerphile00

Ай бұрын

neoliberalism isn't fascism. fascism is about the nation state. neo liberalism is about wealth creation for its own sake

@reddixiecrat

Ай бұрын

@@Gingerphile00 Where did you pull neoliberalism from?

You're good.