I really wish I had an old, paper version of a dictionary, it would really be a trip to compare the real definitions of words to the Google overlords rebranding of them today.
@@mooseontheloose-2531 Itd be better, sure, at least the realm is privately owned though a kings claim to the land is not legitimate, he did not homestead it, but still, yes, its better.
@@mooseontheloose-2531 it's very complicated since the very idea of a single axis is extremely reductive. For the economy with total laissez-faire at the extreme right... I don't know much about Pinochet, maybe it was that. But it's hard for the government to get tyrannical powers if the main idea is keeping a leash on it. I rather see a dictatorship to enforce traditional values by force. A monarchy can be anything, both the UK and Saudi Arabia are monarchies and the systems are nothing alike. Absolute monarchy, maybe, but historically it was more about centralising power at the expense of the regional nobility, than outright authoritarianism. Even in France, the king couldn't raise new taxes without the consent of delegates elected by the people (the Estates Generals), making everything a negociated compromise, making an absolute monarchy didn't change that.
*Isn't Left-wing politics more authoritarian by nature? Control how much people earn, tell people what they can and can't spend their money on, state controlled monopolies. It all sounds like ways to restrict peoples freedom.*
The Nazis did all of those and more, which just supports the truth of their socialist nature. In truth, fascism sought a third way between communism and capitalism, both of which they considered far too materialistic in nature. That's probably one of the few things they got right.
Yes. Collectivism implies authoritarianism because you cannot collectivize an entire group of people or country without there being a significant number of individuals that don’t want to be collectivized. There must be forced that is used to create total uniformity, either through coercion, or violence. In the same way, individualism implies liberty, because “forcing someone to do with their body whatever they freely wish to do, as their own master of their destiny” doesn’t make any sense. Free enslavement is an oxymoron.
The far right does the same thing. Monarchies do it by royal decrees, (heavy price control, banning of various goods and services, you need permission from the government if you want to expand beyond anything you already have because the government owns everything.) Oligarchies and aristocracies do it through all the various types of coercion. The right does it in a more roundabout way than the left, but the end result is the same. The things you described are not natural to one side or another. Governments are authoritarian by nature, the facets you mentioned are what happens when the government uses its power in excess, which both sides are capable of, and routinely do.
In theory the left is authoritarian in the economy and liberal in the social stuff (social welfare and free love) while the right it's the opposite (low taxes and traditional values). In practice the left asks for 65% of your paycheck and the right for "only" 45%, and the progressive left has gone crazy in the "suck it, you bigot" department while the right only counterattacks by defending the traditional pride flag instead of the racial one.
Because they managed to relate Na zism and Fas cism as extreme right wing ideologies just by being loud and labeling any seemingly right winger as such.
@@herbiehusker1889 no no no, that wasn't REAL socialism🤣🤣🤣 I've always found this argument particularly stupid, because even if it wasn't socialism but was just labeled as such, it's going to attract people who like socialism to the movement. So at the very least, people who joined the Nazi movement were socialists, because that's what they thought they were getting. It wouldn't make any sense to start a movement that isn't socialist and call yourself a socialist.
@@markzuckergecko621 In my experience every conversation I've had with someone that stated "that wasn't REAL socialism" not one of them had even heard of the DAF, let alone knew that the DAF was running right up until 1945!
It's curious how Stalin praised Hitler, and so did his fellow communists/socialists around the world, until Hitler invaded the Soviet Union, when overnight all of them switched 180° and declared Hitler the most evil man in the world. (Coming from Stalin, that's Richter Scale irony.) Marxism is not the polar opposite of Fascism, it's a sister ideology. Western Christians split into Catholics and Protestants over minor doctrinal differences to the point of outright literal warfare, and. Marxists and Fascists similarly were rivals, not enemies, even cooperating to invade Poland and the Baltic states.
'Besides, there is more that binds us to Bolshevism than separates us from it. There is, above all, genuine, revolutionary feeling, which is alive everywhere in Russia except where there are Jewish Marxists. I have always made allowance for this circumstance, and given orders that former Communists are to be admitted to the party at once. The petit bourgeois Social-Democrat and the trade-union boss will never make a National Socialist, but the Communist always will.' - Hitler
I’ve always loved the religion analogy because that’s what all these Socialist ideologies ultimately are; materialist religions that worship the State (and occasionally “Science” which is why we have all these “Trust the Science” sycophants running around) rather than God.
The likes of Hitler, Marx, Stalin, ect. all ran in the same social political circles. They would play chess together in their younger years and talk about their plans on how to conquer and divide the world for their one world order. These dictators and various anti Christ anti nationalist movements are funded by the same corporatists, atheist leagues, rogue think tanks, and occult lodges. Any difference between them is superficial and a cover story at best. Don't be fooled by their silver tongues.
“It is well known that Sorellian syndicalism, out of which the thought and the political method of Fascism emerged-conceived itself the genuine interpretation of Marxist communism. The dynamic conception of history, in which force as violence functions as an essential, is of unquestioned Marxist origin.” - Giovanni Gentile, the so called Philosopher of Fascism
@@vanbrighouse2912 Sure he did nothing wrong... It does not matter what Marx advocated for if Marxism always advocates for a violent revolution. Also a bit silly that he wrote a shit book (that is everything he is famous for) but then when he was older casually told his buddy: "Ah nah that stuff was wrong, but i wont officially retract it".
@Van Brighouse Marx's didn't _need_ to advocate for violence, his claim that the acquisition of wealth and commercial enterprise were literally theft from the lower classes was more than enough to incite violence.
@@vanbrighouse2912 You're confused..... or lying. Marx advocated for the terrorising of the bourgeoisie. How else are the proles gonna do that without violence?
@Van Brighouse Not Marx, the MarxISTS that came after him. Marxism was never intended to be the basis of ANY political ideology, it was merely an ECONOMIC theory and study/critique of the NATURAL progression of liberal Capitalism into ever more regulated but also (supposedly) more advanced forms of government until a theoretical future point of economic utopia as scarcity is (theoretically) slowly solved by technology and better governance. It was never meant to be used as it's own justification for forcing Capitalism into unnatural shapes soas to bring itself about more quickly, if you actually understand what Marx was writing you realize that ANY attempts to implement it via coercive policy can ONLY result in ironically PREVENTING proper "natural" Marxism from ever emerging in the first place...
@@googleandsusansucks Marxist theory isn't wrong, it's just a theory. MarxISTS and their atrocious actions are what he actually denounced on older age. The ideas themselves are morally neutral and at least vaguely correct, it's just the sort of societal outcome that can ONLY emerge naturally and painstakingly slowly alongside more efficient technologies and replacing as many flawed human politicians and administrators as possible with automated incorruptible systems not tempted by their own power and/or better people with better morales.
There was an episode of this American Life that had been glorifying a woman who was " turning in" poorly behaving men. But when they looked at her history they found that in the past she had been shaming women. On the show they were terribly puzzled why would someone who was an advocate of women have been anti-woman in the past? Yet to me it was so clear, she's a bully. When the rules were one way she bullied that way and when the rules changed she adapted and bullied that way. Those socially ostracizing today on Twitter in the past would have been doing the same thing in their Churches. Let me emphasize this, this behavior isn't merely similar it is exactly the same.
It seems that this type of person instead of considering apparent evidence staring them in the face voluntarily chooses to be confused and would prefer to remain confused rather than to seek truth. You couldn't even describe it as them remaining in their comfort zone if they are confused. It's like somebody knocking on the door and a person stuck in their chair endlessly thinking about who it could be, rather than simply answering the door. This must be what the power of rigid belief in an ideology can do to a person.
No... by definition, it is the "bundling together" of entire industries of trade workers to serve a public-private partnership between the Deepstate, and Capital. It's "right wing" because it is LITERALLY *economically* Right-Wing and the worker's interests are deprioritized. Leftist Authoritarians exist also but they do not deprioritize their workers.
The key to telling people a lie is to make the lie appealing, being told your side cannot be wrong is a hard one to break because of how appealing it is. It doesnt have to be particularly convincing a lie is people want to believe it.
"Freud thought that people wanted to sleep with their mothers and I always thought that was nonsense. But then I saw Freud's mother. Wooow!" - Bill Hicks
They're gonna ask you for Tree-Fiddy again and again until you're broke, then go to the next sap. As PT Barnum once said, There's a sucker born every minute...
The closest you could ever come to leftism not being authoritarian is if everyone just agreed to leftism. Which couldn't realistically exist on any large scale, for any meaningful period of time, because as soon as some people start to accumulate any amount of wealth, they're probably not going to willingly give it all away to degenerate slackers who just want to get fatter and stupider all day long.
The best source I've found on whether the Nazis were right or left wing is the "Hitler was a socialist" video from TIKhistory. It's a long video, 4 hours, but involves dozens of sources and gives the best analysis to date in my opinion.
Better yet, it comes from a former socialist who (according to his own admission) would normally agree with mainstream opinion if not for his research.
I have seen from several sources that believe that Nazism does not fit on the right/left scale. They have some kind of mixture and end up a little in the middle.
Belief the world contains dangers is right wing? 😑 I have encountered this at university, the idea that you don’t need a gun because nobody wants to hurt me. I agree people generally don’t want to hurt me but there is an element of society that will hurt me and I want protection from that element. These same people would also tell me how women weren’t safe to walk around at night because of sexism, thought the world was safe though.
My experience over the last 53 laps around the sun, is that if I do not look like I will F you up, someone will try to harm me and take whatever they want from me. Even though I am a muscle bound freak of nature (more power lifter than body builder) some people still want to try it. Probably because I 'look' fat, except I don't move like a fat guy. I grew up being beaten on, things taken from me, by my family, kids at school, and people I should have been able to trust. Rather than take it and try to hide from them, I got into wrestling my 8th grade year and learned to defend myself well enough that I went to the state tournament at the toughest weight class in one of the toughest states. I have been responsible for my safety for 40 years. Nobody comes to my rescue, not even in the two wars I served in. However, there is always someone, some sap or simp who is more than willing to jump in and protect a girl from everything except herself. If someone wants to disarm me, its because they fear me, and they fear what I will do when they try to control me. I live in reality, not some fairytale rainbow and unicorn jizz fantasy land.
@@googleandsusansucks if you think I am bragging, then you must be one of those weak, ineffective, insecure, and incapable types. Reality is going to crush you when you experience it.
I think because he wanted to bring Germany back to an era that he viewed as "the golden age". Not saying that's a legitimate reason for thinking of him as conservative, because it's not, and it's really not even what his goal was, his vision was really more "progressive" than "conservative" because he was aiming for a sort of utopian future, rooted in the glory days of the past.
He harkened back to a mythological German past and he made deals with the right and the Army to get into power. Of course his brand of socialism was not one based on class but on race. So crudely said, instead of Chekists checking your hands to see if they were calloused from hard work the SS measured skulls to see if you were Aryan. Only those who were considered racially German could be part of the Yahtzee state. Which makes him promoting that mythical German past understandable, because it ties into his for Germans only racism, and because it helped create an alternative ideological base for the state that was not based on Marxist theories. As for him making deals with the right, the Army and industrialists, well duh, he did not grab total power like Lenin did, so he had to make some deals with people he didn't like. Once he had total power we see the increasing collectivization of the German state. Where as a business owner you were allowed to own a business, but the state determined what you were going to produce, at what price and to who you were allowed to sell it. Or as Hitler said, I don't need to socialize the means of production, I am socializing the German people instead.
If the Nazis had been conservative, they'd have tried to restore the Kaiser and the old Prussian nobility instead of doing everything they could to crush the aristocracy. As I've said before, in practice the primary difference between Marxists and Fascists is the color of their Secret Police uniforms.
It's pretty damn funny to ask leftists *why* fascism or Nazism are right wing, in their own words. I have not once heard a coherent answer. Most of the time they just screech and accuse you of being a fascist. Because you know. Asking questions about fascism means fascism.
@@markzuckergecko621Tick History has an amazing, well sourced (and 5 hours long) video on Hitler's socialist views and politics. Well worth the time, if you have it.
@@azrael4887 I basically use his arguments all the time, I don't know anyone who makes a stronger case on how Fascism and National Socialism are left wing ideology and not right wing. Of course it doesn't convince leftists, but in all honesty I just view leftists as lunatics and hounds who can't be reasoned with anyway.
Allow me to create an unbiased list of questions, the answers to which can predict an individual's propensity for leftist authoritarianism: 1. Do you own more than two pairs of Birkenstocks? 2. Have you ever glued yourself to something in an act of protest? 3. Have you ever let out a deafening screech to drown out cogent arguments from someone you don't agree with? 4. Do you have a tenuous grasp on subjects which you feel strongly about anyway? 5. Have you ever written a treatise on toxic masculinity or the gender pay gap? 6. Are you the most tolerant and accepting person that you know? 7. Is it important to lift up minority voices, but only those minority voices with whom you agree? 8. Can children make life altering and irreversible decisions for themselves? 9. How often do you use the phrase "As a ______ of _____"? 10. Are well-documented historical events a matter of opinion?
#9 cracked me up, holy hell that's so annoying. I watch a lot of left wing content and I swear 50% of the comments start with a "as a _____" statement, because that's how these lunatics think, personal identifiers are far more relevant to them than the substance of any comment. To me, the only time that would be relevant is in a very specific topic, coming from a very specific kind of person. Maybe a video about grocery store shelves, and someone says "as a midget, I have a lot of trouble reaching the high stuff." Ok, that's valid. That is a physical difference that gives that person a legitimately different perspective of something most people may not have experience with. As far as politics, I don't give a shit if you're black, or gay, or an atheist, that doesn't make your opinion on a nebulous topic any more or less relevant.
@@markzuckergecko621 Oddly enough, this is how I pick put certain audiences to be left-wing or not. The use of personal identifiers, obsessive affirmation, and emotional lexicon are what I look for. It's rather nuanced to pick up on, but the way language is structured like so is dead give away of social values.
@@bakerboat4572 they're sad, hollow people who have to just claim some arbitrary title to make themselves sound interesting, because there's nothing actually interesting about them.
@@markzuckergecko621 I'm an atheist (or rather agnostic, I think, depending on the context) who supports many aspects of Christianity and Judaism and acknowledges their necessity in a healthy and functioning western society. I think I sort of screwed up my ability to truly believe in any spiritual practice when I was a blind believer in all things left wing (largrly because I had been told my entire life that the Nazis were right wing, and I just assumed that going as far as possible from anything rightwing meant I was in the right), but I do recognise that as the west dropped religion, we dropped the last proper safeguard of our cultural distinctions, and thereby dropped our guard and practically invited communism to begin filling the faith-void. I don't identify with anyone on the basis of being an atheist, but it's probably the only "identifier" that I can apply to myself. By my understanding of the words I'm economically a libertarian/classical liberal and culturally conservative. To be clear; I agree that those who would apply these terms to themselves like this all willy-nilly just to fit in by claiming affiliation are dumb asses looking to make themselves seem interesting.
Aydin Paladin did a piece (in great detail, as she does) on the F-Scale. Apparently early iteration of the F-Scale had left wing thought and Marxism in particular as even more authoritarian than Fascism. And of course... That didn't fit the leftists narrative, so they cooked the books and made the method blatantly slanted.
Because Fascist exists explicitly to oppose change, progress, and most importantly, Marxism. Fascism is opposed to peace, equality, and rights. These are all Left ideas Fascism opposes inherrently. Dear fuck you Rightists are stupid. If you don't believe me, ask Mussolini, he only invented the damn thing. sjsu.edu/faculty/wooda/2B-HUM/Readings/The-Doctrine-of-Fascism.pdf
@@Asto508 cuz the commenter isn’t based? People think that this quote was him spelling out his own strategy but really it was his attempt to describe some Jewish shit.
see the holocaust for the best reference/example. people believe it unquestioningly, despite the mountains of evidence that proves its more likely to be a big fat phony than a well documented event. David Cole said it best; "there's a lot of pictures of sick and starving people, which confirms the groundbreaking thesis that people got sick in the camps, but what else does it prove?"
It's the same as "toxic masculinity". Rather than simply calling out toxic behaviors (regardless of who is exhibiting them), and rather than acknowledging that masculinity can be neutral or good, it simply mashes them together to frame them as being mutually inclusive, or even one-and-the-same. As if toxicity is only "masculine", that masculinity is only "toxic", and that they are inherent and inseparable. The war on language is probably the most covert and most insidious battle being fought in the war on culture.
I've always said and will continue to say there is no such thing as "toxic masculinity". There's masculinity and there are assholes and the latter comes in both genders.
same as "nazis weren't reeeeeal socialists" ... "They can wage wars for their capitalist interests, but in the end these wars will open the way for social risings within the nations; for in the long run it is impossible that hundreds of millions of human beings should be aligned according to the interests of a few individuals. In the long run the greater interest of mankind is bound to prevail over the interests of these little plutocratic profiteers." - Adolf Hitler Jan 30, 1941
Its interesting that in the quote, he is right. It was impossible that hundreds of millions (the free world) should be aligned according to the interests of a few individuals (the core of the nazi party). The only thing wrong is at the end when, like all lefties, he is unable to recognize the tyrant in the mirror and blames rich people.
Fascists and Nazis aren't socialists: they don't want workers to own the means of production, they don't want a planned economy, they don't want democracy, they favor the rich and oppress the workers. How are they socialists?
It is right leaning in a post-monarchic european sense. But in an American context that's reversed, because we weren't a monarchy before, therefore there is no all powerful state in our past to look back on. On the contrary, going back in American history means the opposite, it means less restrictions, and more freedom, therefore in America, the ONLY authoritarian capable party, is the one who looks forward and never back.... ie the democratic party.
To call fascism right-wing makes as much if not more sense in America despite that being an asinine statement. In a feudal world, there is no all-powerful state - unlike in a republican structure when a faction becomes ascendant. The structure of monarchy puts the monarch's direct underlings as competitors. The king's gain in power reduces the duke's power, and the same is true of the reverse. To add even more conflict, the duke often has a claim of some sort to be King and wishes to supplant his leader. With a republic, a leading member of a faction is largely aligned with his faction. The party's gain is his gain, and its loss is his. Similarly, he has no want or need to supplant his leader as long as that leader still works towards the faction's goals. When the power of the dictator/president/minister/whatever increases, the power of the bureaucrats in his faction increases. Nancy Pelosi is more powerful and closer to her goals when Joe Biden is in power - not when Donald Trump is. On the monarchy side, France was not in a safe place when its vassal conquered a kingdom across the Channel.
Conceived by Leftists, derived from Leftist sources, enacted by Leftists. Yet somehow it's right wing??? Both the Fascists and the Nazis were Socialists, far left extremists. The Fascists were Marxist Socialists, the Nazis were Hegelian Socialists. Both created a Syndicalist Socialist system. Yet somehow it's right wing???
Speakong of the subversion of language and the meaning of words, "Nazi" isnt actually the short-form of the NSDAPs name. "Nazi" is a 17th century slur for Ashkenazi jews. It means "Idiot".
Because Fascist exists explicitly to oppose change, progress, and most importantly, Marxism. Fascism is opposed to peace, equality, and rights. These are all Left ideas Fascism opposes inherrently. Dear fuck you Rightists are stupid. If you don't believe me, ask Mussolini, he only invented the damn thing. sjsu.edu/faculty/wooda/2B-HUM/Readings/The-Doctrine-of-Fascism.pdf
@Max Adolf Hitler himself numerous times on Mein Kampf describes capitalism as international finance, or international jewish finance. It's strange you are unaware they described capitalism as Jewish, who were the famous moneylenders of Europe? The bankers, Jews. Ok, if every single nazi is a capitalist, then show a primary evidence for that, show some Nazis saying that they hate socialism and love capitalism. Just to help you, you can't. To say they're capitalist is to say they're in favour of international Jewish finance. Nazi economics measures were in order to create autarky and insulate German from international trade.
Ever since I heard the "aren't they all on the far right?" joke on QI, I always wondered if that was really true. What about the Nazzis was right wing when they had "Socialists" in the title?
purity, order, ethno-nationalism, discipline, tradition they were a reaction against western liberalism it's obviously not cut and dry, eg Mussolini had the first gender equity policy in the workplace but overall the categories of right and left become meaningless when you start to say Hitler is left wing or Stalin is right wing (and increasingly I do think those categories are meaningless, but separate topic)
@Max You're almost entirely wrong and here's why: *Short answer:* They weren't capitalists, they were fascists. The difference is that the state controls everything, much like in other forms of socialism. In Nazi Germany this took the form of the government being able to exert pressure on businesses to do whatever and pay whatever they wanted. Although this was more relaxed than the strictly-imposed full central planning of the USSR, it is still left of center and very far from free market trading which would be right-wing. *Long answer:* Socialism in all its forms was indeed popular, but there were competing forms of socialism, such as the international socialists (which we now refer to as communists) and the national socialists (Nazis). They did not turn on every socialist as they obviously allowed their own members to flourish, but they did purge the communists because they were the closest political competition and the Nazis didn't want to be undermined by them. In the USSR similar purges of the socialists happened after the communists took power. North Korea is not a theocratic monarchy, it's a dictatorship of the proletariat, a.k.a. a communist state. When you say that the Nazis privatized all businesses, that's incorrect in two ways: a. they didn't privatize everything and in fact nationalized certain key sectors like the unions, banking, and steel, b. the 'privatization' that occurred was in fact mostly 're-privatization' of businesses, which was actually just the Nazis seizing businesses and then placing them in the hands of their party members. In other words, it was those in government taking a private business and giving ownership of that business to the members of the ruling party, which is much closer to nationalizing them than privatizing them. The four categories of politics: 1) Democracy is not at all left-wing. In every communist country, which is indisputably emblematic of left-wing countries, there is a de-facto dictatorship, such as in China, North Korea, and the USSR. Sometimes these states pretend to be a democracy, but when there's only one candidate and anyone who doesn't vote for them is shot, like in the USSR, it is not a democracy at all. 2) Every single communist (left-wing) regime has resulted in some form of slavery for its citizens, whether that's the gulags of the USSR, the forced labor camps of Nazi Germany, North Korea literally selling its citizens into slavery as we write, and China creating slave labor conditions to win manufacturing contracts. There is also extreme inequality between the leaders of the party who live in affluence and the majority of citizens who are either starving or close to it. 3) Wanting to expand rights is not inherently left-wing. Left-wing means collectivist, in favor of state control and centralized power. This results in rights not being seen as intrinsic to the individual, but instead doled out by the state but only in the interest of the greater good, for which end those rights can be stripped at a whim. 4) This is the only point on which the Nazis can be seen to be 'right-wing' because they were in favor of national power and sovereignty rather than an international coalition of workers. Nazis are therefore: 1) left-wing due to being pro-dictatorship, 2) left-wing due to centralized state power being used to control and coerce businesses, 3) did not hate women or support inequality against women (they needed women to work in factories to make their war machine function), they were not against LGBT as several senior members of the party were gay. They did hate people of color but did so as part of the general hatred for any non-Aryan race, including white races such as the Slavs who they treated brutally. They were able to do so using a collectivist 'social justice' mentality that allowed them to group together and dehumanize their opponents, and which is intrinsically left-wing. 4) Nazis were indeed a little more right-wing than communists due to their nationalism. However, it is incorrect to say that imperialism is right-wing. The attempts to overthrow governments around the world by communists was very imperialist in nature, and communist countries also displayed imperialist tendencies, such as the USSR taking over Baltic states and trying to invade Afghanistan, as well as China's actions in Tibet and desire to take over Taiwan, and North Vietnam's communist invasion of South Vietnam. The Nazis are ultimately far-left on almost everything, which is to be expected since their doctrine was race-based socialism (fascism) rather than class-based socialism (communism).
@Max Firstly, Wikipedia is hardly to be considered a reliable historical source. Anyone can edit it, and it is often written to match the preferences of those who do. Regardless, That doesn't change the fact that the Nazis put private businesses in the hands of party members, which is very similar to nationalizing them since all the real power of decision-making comes from those in government. As you've pointed out, the government centrally controlling everything (socializing everything) is socialism. The four categories of politics: 1) Democracy is not when political power is equally distributed among everyone because that is *literally impossible.* Democracy is when people can vote to elect leaders who then implement policy that is hopefully in line with the desires of the people who elected them. I'm not sure how any of the points you mention excuse dictatorship. Yes, there was rapid industrialization in the USSR, but other countries in world managed it by buying the land from farmers, not by killing them and taking the land. There's a lot of countries with national independence from the USA that aren't the USSR. Yes the US has had problems with its democracy but to suggest that only the rich want or would benefit from tax cuts is to be ignorant of very basic economics. Yes the goal of socialism is to get rid of class systems and make everyone equal, but because it is a fundamentally flawed anti-human approach, it will always and has always failed to do so. 2) Yes, there is plenty of evidence that the people in gulags were treated as slaves or worse. You might want to start with "The Gulag Archipelago" by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. America may have a large prison population but there are key differences. a) People aren't being literally worked to death while being fed a less that starvation ration and killed at the jailor's whim in the prisons. In the USSR beatings and torture were commonplace, as was the saying "everyone out except the last man", meaning the last man to leave the cell would be shot. b) people in US prisons have been convicted of an actual crime. In the gulag system there needed to be a certain number of prisoner intakes so people were tortured until they signed a false confession. Slavery is not right-wing because the "classless society" of socialism actually creates deeper class divides and lower social mobility in practice. It was right-wingers who started the abolition movement. It was Republicans who were fighting to abolish slavery in the USA, and the Democrats who founded and ran the KKK. 3) No, leftists use rights as a tool for their political ends, whereas right-wingers believe in intrinsic rights for the individual. A higher percentage of Republicans voted in favor of the Civil Rights Acts than Democrats did. The right wing believes in the rights of women to have women-only spaces like bathrooms and changing rooms, the rights of women to have women-only sports, the rights of babies to not be killed before they're even old enough to speak on their own behalf, the right of the people living in a country to have a stable culture and not have murders and rapists and drug dealers come into the country mixed in with the crowds. It's the left wing who want to remove people's right to self-defense, their right to freedom of speech, freedom of worship and freedom of conscience. As for mass-shooters, that's not even close to being true. There's a lot of left wing mass-shooters, such as the Bernie sanders supporter who tried to kill Republican senators, and there's other types of violence as well like the black-supremacist who drove through a Christmas parade and killed people. There's also the BLM riots in which police officers, some of them black, were killed. The "social justice" mentality is the opposite of individual justice. Individual justice says that a person is only responsible for their own actions, but the "social justice" idea groups people together by their identity categories, be it race, sexuality, gender or something else. If you read the "anti-racist" writings of people like Ibram X Kendi, it's clear that their idea of "equality" is to discriminate racially to somehow make up for past racial discrimination. In other words, while claiming to be "anti-racist" they actively encourage treating people differently based on race, gender etc. Thus such ideas are fundamentally racist and sexist. If the left was only concerned with equal rights, they could have stopped when the Civil Rights Act was passed, since at that point everyone was treated equally under the law. But they didn't. They wanted to push further, and tilt the playing field in their favored direction. Just look at admissions policies in universities where Asian students have to attain a higher grade score than white students who have to have a higher score than black students. That's very obvious racial discrimination. Look at the universities that have had "no white people on campus" days. That's racial segregation, pure and simple. The left simply want to divide people by superficial differences to turn them against each other in order to generate the contradictions necessary to tear down the whole of society, so they can replace it with their communist utopia. But as we have seen throughout history *every single time,* attempting to bring about true communism results in a nightmarish dystopia instead.
State rights or individual rights? Authoritarian or libertarian? Controlled speech or free speech? Big government or small government? High taxes or low taxes? High regulation or low regulation? State control of the markets or free markets? Left or right?
“You and I are told increasingly we have to choose between a left or right. Well I'd like to suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There's only an Up or Down: Up to man's age-old dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order, or Down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. And regardless of the sincerity of their humanitarian motives, those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course.” - Ronald Reagan
They seem to imagine that there are only two options…a tyrannical father, or devouring mother. I prefer personal responsibility, and self-reliance, thanks.
It's actually really easy to place the Fascists (and Nazis) on the political scale, at least once you look at their actual policies instead of what modern socialists say were their policies. They were progressive revolutionary socialists, and broadly disagreed with the communists in only two ways. First they were nationalist (ethno-nationalists in the Nazi's case) instead of internationalist and second they were less extreme socialists. They are far left, just not quite as far left as the communists were.
Small correction, they were ultranationalists. I see it all the time that braindead lefties point to Hitler and say "See?? He was a nationalist!! Nationalism bad!!" Other than that, National Socialism (and Fascism) are quite interesting ideologies because they synthesize Left-wing praxis with "Right-wing" realities.
@@bakerboat4572 Yes, they were particularly extreme nationalists, but that isn't really the important part, they were violent because of their socialist underpinnings. And I don't know what "Right wing realities" you're talking about, because the Fascists (and Nazis) fully drank the Marxist cool-aid.
@@Si_Mondo Both the Communists and the Fascists wanted a classless society. The Fascists were less extreme in that while the Communists just murdered the rich and plundered their property, the Fascists just decided to abolish the idea of a class hierarchy and unify their people based on common nationality (or in the Nazi's case, common race). As such the wealthy were allowed to keep some of their wealth as long as they were loyal lapdogs for the regime.
Fascists and Nazis aren't socialists: they don't want workers to own the means of production, they don't want a planned economy, they don't want democracy, they favor the rich and oppress the workers. How are they socialists?
On the literary analysis piece, it made me think to high school senior english which focused on American authors, and a lot of us started to wonder why basically every book had adultery as its central theme and if that reflected on the teacher or not.
Yep. In my experience, it WAS the author being sexual due to a variety of bizarre descriptions and choice of words. The novel was 'Refuge' by Terry Tempest Williams.
The best example of authoritarian right would be imperial Japan. It has that social and traditional qualities of the right and the structure and Government of authoritarianism.
All authoritarianism is from the right, because we said so. Also, there is no center, everything outside our paradigm is far-right. Sincerely, The anti-fascist Frankfurt school.
I've been saying that the Nazis were left wing for ages. I've heard both Joe Rogan and Jordan Peterson refer to them as right wing and they are both intelligent and well read people, although I've also heard them say trump should have denounced the neo Nazis at Charlottesville (which he did multiple times) so as with everything, always take with a pinch of salt and varied personal research into a topic. That being said I've never found myself in disagreement with the lotus eaters
Most people looking into Nazi ideology tend to paint them as right of center because of the pro-nationalism stance, but really they're left of center. All authoritarian ideologies promote nationalism because it's easier to get people to do things when there's an us vs them aspect. Rightwing nationalism is more of an individual's choice to be a nationalist. Leftwing nationalism is because the collective says you are a nationalist so you are a nationalist. Fascists are dead center on the authoritarian left vs right spectrum. Nazis on the other hand are left of center to moderate left.
The short answer is "Because self-admitted communist psychologists told the world that fascism is right wing", requiring ignoring the conflict of interest in communists saying that and ignoring what the fascists themselves said about the origins of their political philosophy and development of their ideology and what actual policies they used.
Imagine thinking that communism (a democratic global society without a state, without currency and without social classes, based on collaboration and common ownership of the means of production by workers; read Marx) could be similar to fascism (a reactionary, dictatorial, racist, nationalist and imperialist state, which benefits the rich and oppresses the workers)
If anyone's interested in the topic of the philosophies and practices and differences of soclsm and fachsm then I recommend watching TIKHistory video's on the subject after finishing this one.
@@MrReubenTishkoff, not arguing, just proposing here… By that definition, the current iteration of the CCP, may be considered Fascist. The CCP are certainly not right-wing in preserving individual sovereignty.
18:10 you are absolutely correct on that I have brought up this fact with people definitions of fascism being so loosely defined that almost every government in history counts as fascist.
I direct you to marx's 'directions to activists' - "accuse your enemiies of your own crimes" it is here that one sees the reality of the 'left's' assertions of fascism against others.
Basically just imagine K-pop but with all the lyrics praising the Dear Leader and sung by people who look like they're trying to not get their family shot.
If you Google the phrase from the Doctrine of Fascism, where Mussolini describes fascism is being of the Left, Google gives you versions that either substitute “ Left” for “ right”, or they leave out “ left” altogether. The version with “ left” is from the hard copy of the only authorised translation, and can be found in images of the original translation, rather than digitised versions.
“You and I are told increasingly we have to choose between a left or right. Well I'd like to suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There's only an Up or Down: Up to man's age-old dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order, or Down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. And regardless of the sincerity of their humanitarian motives, those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course.” - RR
Because while fascists are socialists they are nationalists, and nationalism is seen as right wing. This is why when people ask why fascists would hate communists if they are both socialists, the straightforward answer is because while both are socialists, communists think the nation state has to be destroyed and subverted. This is the core conflict between the two, which you also see played between nationalist and globalist capitalists.
@@seabreeze4559, you’ve either made a individual commitment to an ethos, or your identity and values rest upon upon the collective. I’d never fight for a queen, for example. I’m no worker-bee/drone.
According to liberal academics, "more sexual deviancy" always seems to be the solution for most of life's woes. Curse my pattern recognition, I must be mistaken.
I dont think it is so much about the deviancy itself. It is more that they see people are missing something and it could never be that person missing what is in front of their face so it must be something that they have never experienced so they must fill the hole with new stuff and when the normal new stuff doesnt work then it is time for the weird new stuff, therefore degenerate behavior.
If you think both sides of politics "scapegoat" you do not really understand what "personal responsibility" means. If something's messed up that means someone messed up, not an entire group of people. make sense?
I am reminded of a discussion on twitter I had once. It was over a meme where a crowd of gray people were shaming a 'red strawman'. The thing is they argued that the symbolism on the garb didn't matter while still falling back on that the symbol is bad. I had to keep reminding them of their own omission. While the color red stuck out, the gray had its ownership. They also identified as a collectivist and when I identified as independent of party, they assumed it ment isolationist (an extremist social view where I identify no connection with my own society.). The collectivist reasoning given was that they were subject to group threat, ironically supporting the persecuting group of gray. Exponential, something ridiculously similar to injecting cultural panic into the moral framework to justify what the meme depicted (removal of the outgroup). But remember the symbols don't matter and the person identified with the mob.
@@greeley5688 A response is hair trigger? So, is there something you want to talk about or are you here just to show me your basic skills in observation?
@@greeley5688 😁 I'm glad you responded back. I hate to seem desperate. I may not be feeling charitable but still have some advice for you. Don't bring a knife to a gun fight next time you ask a question to me by name. I know your sensitive but if you're going to be participating, I recommend training some mental fortitude so your not so surprised. I actually find it quite funny you think I would identity as a bird on twitter. If birds are words your just a little wit in the garden.
Isn't it interesting that in the 1920s Sigmund Freud published his research on the human mind (ego, super ego and id) Later his nephew buys him some very nice cigars and in return he gives a copy of his book. His nephew, Edward Bernays, used this knowledge to change how companies would advertise their products by creating the idea of the 'consumer'. He also increased the effectiveness of propaganda by using the same ideas, which he also used to help push Feminism. Edward was quite a successful social engineer, he saw humans only as 'groups' or 'collectives' rather than individuals and that these 'groups' can be easily manipulated via their emotions. If that wasn't bad enough, a certain Austrian artist saw how successful these ideas were, so he used the same tactic to gain political power... Isn't that so interesting? TLDR: we got fanboys, feminists and bad ww2 men cos Sigmund Freud was too fucking cheap to buy a decent gift...
This is why I don't like Freudian psychology. Too much focus on self and internal desires, said to be ostracized by society. Just like our current political climate today.
_“If the 19th century was the century of the individual (liberalism implies individualism) we are free to believe that this is the collectivist century, and therefore the century of the State."_ -Benito Mussolini, The Doctrine of Fascism, 1932 _“His 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).”_ -Benedetto Croce, on Giovanni Gentile: co-writer of The Doctrine of Fascism Collectivism = left wing Collectivism = socialism Collectivism = fascism ERGO Socialism = left wing Fascism = left wing Also, “right wing authoritarianism” is a contradiction. The further right you go, the further AWAY from authority you go, and the CLOSER TO individual liberty you go. The furthest right you can go is anarchism. No government. No authority. Pure 100% liberty.
@@droyal18able No, that’s authoritarianism. Anarchy is no authority coercing YOU to do things with YOUR BODY that YOU don’t want to do. Anarchy is the actualization of SELF OWNERSHIP. Which is the _absolute antithesis_ of oppression.
@@Peak_Aussieman You know that WW2 was mostly, considering that the Eastern Front was where most of the fighting and dying happened, a socialist civil war between socialism based on class vs socialism based on race?
9:38 Actually, North Koreans are not precisely communist, if you look closely. - They are a totalitarian caste-based theocracy, worshiping the leader as a divine entity and are divided into divinely ordained castes based on how much their ancestors aligned with the revolution.
Sounds like communism to me. In the USSR, Stalin was essentially in the place of God and so was Mao in China, to the point where no-one dared question either of them despite obvious massive injustices and Mao's ridiculous errors.
Muh no true Scotsman argument... communism doesnt seem to be a system that can actually be implemented so we might as well strike the word out as nonsense and it should only be used in an academic sense. Of course NK isnt communist because no country has ever been communist or will be communist because the system is flawed and it will always turn into something else.
Back in the late 90s at college one of the art students had painted a huge mural in the common room, he won an award for it and had many a word written about it by local critics. I was chatting to him about it as he was a nice approachable guy and he said all the reviews were seeing things that were not intended, he painted it as he did because he liked the colours and styles, nothing more.
Because of leftist domination in media, education and culture, if far right wing is a small as possible state, market deliver most service. And far left wing the state dominated every service and no private sector. And you ask them to argue what makes fascism right wing, they say but that is what most say they are 😂 my College teacher could not explain why they were right wing, we traditionally say that, was her argument 🤷♂️😂
That translates to; "We've been brainwashed into thinking it." "Orwell was right! History would get changed." - My WW2 vet Grandfather, just after informing 11/12 year old me than the Nazis were known to be left wing in the 1930s.
No, the state always dominates every sector in every authoritarian ideology. That's the point of being authoritarian. It has authority over everyone and has its fingers in everything, because how else do you claim authority when you have independent organizations running amok? The main difference between Leftwing and Rightwing authoritarianism is how many people are ultimately in charge of the state. Leftwing authoritarianism has the collective be in charge, which is usually represented by an official party organization. Rightwing authoritarianism has exactly one person in charge, of whom is usually called a king, emperor, or caliphate. The Kingdom of England, Ming Empire, and Abbasid Caliphate were all rightwing authoritarian regimes.
@@ElementZephyr What was Mao or Stalin? You are telling me those were "right wing"? In fact, define left and right wing. Where does libertarianism fall on that spectrum?
Western socialists of the time were quite smitten with Mussolini. They saw his form of government as proof of their own philosophies. Fascism to them was pure socialism. It's what they aspired to, and right up to the point where Mussolini invaded Ethiopia, they had nothing but kind words for him. Modern socialists still love the philosophy, but they call it by other names. If you need any proof of their love of authoritarianism, just look at who was pleased with lockdowns and government meddling during covid.
The scapegoating of Christians examples were all about blaming of the weather and natural catastrophes. Where as the scapegoating of the desert tribe is of all the social problems. They're not the same.
If we go with that definition then the states that have most often been labeled communist are actually fascist and the most communist countries to have ever existed are the US, canada and the UK because they allow the most people in and give out the most money to help others in a socialist manner.
Imagine thinking that communism (a democratic global society without a state, without currency and without social classes, based on collaboration and common ownership of the means of production by workers; read Marx) could be similar to fascism (a reactionary, dictatorial, racist, nationalist and imperialist state, which benefits the rich and oppresses the workers)
Fascists and Nazis aren't socialists: they don't want workers to own the means of production, they don't want a planned economy, they don't want democracy, they favor the rich and oppress the workers. How are they socialists?
National Socialism was Left Wing and was understood to be Left Wing at the time. The Marxists switched it post WW2. If one understands the origins of Left Wing (Large government, state control) and Right Wing (Smaller government, less state control) from the French Revolution then it is clar that National Socialism and Fascism were Far Left. Far Right would be Anarchism
While that would be a much more logical way of classifying governments as more government control (which somehow always leads to it being oppressive... whodathunk?) and less government control it would paint all the parties in a bad light, so that is never going to happen. It isn't really about defining the thing correctly it is how it makes people feel because you can't manipulate things as well if the ways we define the subject matter are more objective and removed from emotion.
Fascists and Nazis aren't socialists: they don't want workers to own the means of production, they don't want a planned economy, they don't want democracy, they favor the rich and oppress the workers. How are they socialists?
Seems to me that right wing is for less government control and more freedom. Fascism, the word it comes from means bundle of rods bound by a string. It is a collectivist ideology similar to socialism. The rods represent the people and the string that binds them represents the state.
Left wing politics is about changing things. Right wing is about keeping things the same. The Nazis were a far left wing ideology that gained power so totally and completely that they then swung into a far right policy.
Tell me how a strict theocracy would work? There is a government but it is subservient to the church... doesnt that make the church the government? when the church becomes the government it isnt really the church anymore...
Based on Mussolini's writings, it seems fascists explicitly embrace and enforce hierarchy structures, while communists pretend to abolish them. Hierarchy tolerance is more of a right-wing thing, so I can see how some could see the relation.
It's quite a fascinating thing to study, really. Fascism (and National Socialism) combine Left-wing ideology and operate with Right-wing realities in mind.
@Furious Dan : _"Hierarchy tolerance is more of a right-wing thing"_ Hierarchies have nothing to do with left/right spectrum really. Literally every single ideology that advocates for any type of "govern ment" is based on a hierarchy.
Both sides love hierarchy. It is just one side feels they can move up into it, no they are destined to move up into it because they work harder, and the other side is just pissed and screaming because they aren't in it now and feels that emotional manipulation and bitching will move them up because hard work isn't going to cut it. Left and right should be more based in psychology than anything else but if we talk about it in those terms it makes everybody look bad to some degree and nobody wants to go down that road.
8:30 -- Dude! Need a cherry picked example to talk about?? Albert Speer was *NOT* a right winger. Why would a left-winger from a middle class background join a supposedly right-wing party?? SEE ALSO: Org Todt.
You do realize that people in the past have put policy before party, and have been widely known to go against their own party if their policy does not reflect that individual's priorities?
I've always thought the right wing aspect is based on European left/right wings. Compared to left wing ideologies, Fascism is probably more right wing than other forms of Socialism. Then you have that Fascism may appear to be more capitalistic than other Socialistic groups. And of course, Nationalism. But in the end, they are still 'left wing' if we go by that box grid that a lot of people like to use. At worse, you can maybe say it's on the line of left/right.
I have this argument with my Dad semi-often... I remind him that Nazi, stands for 'National *Socialist* German Workers' Party (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei) I ask him - "Do you see many right wing socialists...?" "And what about Nicola Sturgeon, shes a national socialist - is she a right winger too?" The whole left V right fascism argument reminds me of the Democrat slavery thing in America - the left realize its an incredibly bad look...so they engage in revisionism. (And some people are stupid enough to fall for it)
The argument of left wing authoritarianism vs right wing authoritarianism is a complete nonsense. If being left wing is authoritarian, which we know it is, Soviet Union and its Eastern European empire client states, China, Vietnam, North Korea etc, then surely right wing is the opposite and therefore can't be authoritarian, because the opposite of authoritarian is freedom. Find TIK's channel. It's a bit long winded but he has videos on there that totally debunk any notion that the Nazis were right wing.
Left wing is revolution, right wing is tradition. Far left is Communism, Fascism, National Socialism, etc. Far right would be monarchism, oligarchy, aristocracy, etc. Being on either end is not a good thing.
@@flammenwaffenfries3039 Communism, Fascism and National Socialism are all derivatives of socialism, (hint: it's in the fucking name,) which is left wing. Mein Kampf is Hitler laying out racial socialist philosophy and then just saying, "but it's not socialism, trust me bro." Nice cope, try harder next time. TIKhistory did a video breaking it down if you don't like my explanation.
@@Batmans_Pet_Goldfish : Why did you put monarchism to the f ar rig ht though? It's a form of a centra lized gover nment... doesn't fa r rig ht advocate for decentralization of power in general?
fascism is hard centre. every country has an "acceptable fascism" at its core, called the overton window. its by definition the centre of political discourse in a country. you may think its left wing, and you may be right, but its what the country decides as the centre.
Wrong. Fascism was a totalitarian far-left, socialist ideology based on national syndicalism which they adapted from Georges Sorel. It was an offshoot from marxism.
If you go by the Overton Window, yeah. But objective reality continues to exist independent to our acknowledgement or acceptance of it. Right wing = individualism, liberty Left wing = collectivism, authority Simple as
@@JesusFriedChrist yeah thats the most child-like simplistic view you can hold lmao. Unsrew your brain. I have news for you, you can have right-wing collectivism and left-wing individualism. If you deny that, you deny reality.
@@kotoid7004 No. No you cannot have individualism if you're a lefty, they are all about Liberation. It's all French originated garbage. It's their fucking fault.
The individual aspects of what it means to be conservative or right wing change with the times, but the core nature of what it means stays the same - that the family structure, and strong moral principles on an individual level lead to a strong nation on a collective level, and that the government should serve only as a backbone and have the least involvement in every day life as possible, while still maintaining an organized structure.
Fascism has always been left wing. The issue is thar the left is a gigantic spectrum of various ideologies, and each group thinks that they alone are Leftists and the media they control pushes their agenda. Thus same thing happened with the fall of the Soviet Union, as soon as it broke up, America Left Wing journalists, who for decades were Soviet apologists started to try and claim that Marxism was Right Wing. And the push to move towards Capitalism and democratic reforms was somehow moving to the Left.
Because they're a hell of a lot closer to fascist than anyone on the right is. They're not fascists, they're communists, or at least something similar to communist that may not have its own title yet. But there's a lot of similarities between fascism and communism.
@@markzuckergecko621 I bet to you politics is just about the thrill of labeling your opponent as "bad" and dealing with everything in detached, conceptual terms.
@@geomancer6894 no, politics is about ideas. And since it's nebulous by nature, not everything or everyone neatly fits into a labeled box. But that doesn't mean labels are completely useless, they exist for a reason, so we can get an idea about where ideas exist, and which ones are good, and which ones are bad. And leftist ideas are bad.
Why everytime people talk about the first half of the XX century dictatores always forget the portugues (Salazar, a good example of corpotism, he understud quite well if you entertain the masses with Footbol, Music (in this case Fado) and religion they become quite "docile") and Franco (Spanish one), they are some interesting study cases.
Do these two gentlemen even understand what right and left-wing mean any more? To me, there no point in even thinking about this in terms of left and right any more. There are authoritarians vs libertarians or collectivists vs individualists, etc (among other distinctions); but the distinction between left and right serves absolutely no purpose any more, I think.
Left and right wing was a stupid idea from the get go. They looked at two groups at one point in time and the stereotypes about those two groups and decided that is what makes up those groups. It had nothing to do with the actual politics of those people and everything to do with how those people acted at that time and the company they kept. It is why none of it makes sense and is still just two groups that are against each other to be against each other because they were told to be against each other... for the benefit of keeping a very few number of individuals in power. We are all playing one big game trying to get what we want out of it and the people we don't see don't really matter to us and we only "care" about them because it affects how others around us see us.
Don't think of political ideology as a spectrum, think of it as a circle: moderates, centralists, whatever you call them are at the top of the circle and as you move away from the top of the circle, i.e. become more extremist (either way, it doesn't matter), you will eventually get to the bottom. So Left and Right wing extremism is essentially the same thing. The extremists want you to do and think exactly what they tell you to and will viciously punish you for what they perceive as even the slightest transgression. Which direction they took to get there is immaterial.
An author and thinker who utterly explodes the narrative that Nazism and fascism are right-wing ideologies is A. James Gregor. His books expertly show how both Nazism and fascism are outgrowths of revolutionary socialism. In the case of Italian fascism, its origins can be directly traced back to Marxism. Mussolini himself was an orthodox Marxist and an important member of the Italian Socialist Party before moving into fascism. As for Nazism, it is based on prototypical left-wing concepts, especially in the realm of economics. Hitler himself even admitted that even though he himself was not personally a Marxist, he learned a lot from Marx's economic theories.
I think it comes from a general lack of understanding of what the terms "left-wing" and "right-wing" actually mean. Honestly, they don't seem very useful outside of their original context. When the French Estates General was called in 1789, the representatives who sat on the right side the chamber supported the monarchy, and those who sat on the left side supported revolution. Thus, the most "far-right" ideology is absolute monarchism, and the most "far-left" ideology is Jacobin republicanism. Notably, neither of those two ideologies are in any way individualist, and neither is entirely free-market capitalist or entirely equality-of-outcome socialist. Rather, "right-wing" and "left-wing" is really just a question of where the right to rule is derived from: the right believes that the right to rule comes from the will of God, while the left believes that it comes from the general will of the people. In that sense, fascism is certainly left-wing, since it was born from the ideals of the French Revolution. However, it blurs the line due to the fascist's appeal to history and at least the façade of tradition, and willingness to collaborate with the right-wing to achieve mutual goals. Though most fascist ideologues and philosophers were at least privately contemptuous of religion and the idea of God, they had no choice but to prop up such concepts to achieve their aims. Thus while fascism is fundamentally left-wing, it maintains an appearance of being right-wing and draws many of its foot-soldiers from the right-wing, resulting in such contradictions as the Wehrmacht keeping "GOTT MIT UNS" on their belt-buckles even as the National Socialists tried to establish so-called "Positive Christianity" as a religion of the race instead of as a religion of God, and the Italian fascists swearing their allegiance to King Victor Emmanuel III instead of to Duce Benito Mussolini. Of course, you may note that just about every political ideology in the modern West is just as left-wing as fascism in that sense, and as a result, "left-wing vs right-wing" is not actually a useful dichotomy in modern politics.
Haven't watched the video, but the way I see it, they have basically gone with the 'say it enough times and people start to believe it's true' approach.
Under the law in n@zi germany everything was potentially owned by the government it just was not needed by said government YET. They would pull this with companies that would not obey or toe the line, they'd nationalize them then install a party member as the new owner/CEO. They could do this with frankly anything they saw fit or wanted and the provision for this was set up in much the same wording as eminent domain laws. In short they pretended to allow private property but they really didn't as everything was legally under the potential ownership of the state. They were socialists pure and simple both economically as well as politically making them very much on the left side of the grid.
CommunismAnarcho-Capitalism lol Also i think the point of Communism is to create Nazism. Reactivism. The point of Communism is to create a reactivist conscience to agitate them into a dialectic dance with Communism haha
"the left cannot be authoritarian, because we changed the definition of authoritarianism to be exclusively right-wing"
The reality is of course the opposite. Right-wing authoritarianism is impossible.
I really wish I had an old, paper version of a dictionary, it would really be a trip to compare the real definitions of words to the Google overlords rebranding of them today.
🎯
@@mooseontheloose-2531 Itd be better, sure, at least the realm is privately owned though a kings claim to the land is not legitimate, he did not homestead it, but still, yes, its better.
@@mooseontheloose-2531 it's very complicated since the very idea of a single axis is extremely reductive.
For the economy with total laissez-faire at the extreme right... I don't know much about Pinochet, maybe it was that. But it's hard for the government to get tyrannical powers if the main idea is keeping a leash on it. I rather see a dictatorship to enforce traditional values by force.
A monarchy can be anything, both the UK and Saudi Arabia are monarchies and the systems are nothing alike. Absolute monarchy, maybe, but historically it was more about centralising power at the expense of the regional nobility, than outright authoritarianism. Even in France, the king couldn't raise new taxes without the consent of delegates elected by the people (the Estates Generals), making everything a negociated compromise, making an absolute monarchy didn't change that.
*Isn't Left-wing politics more authoritarian by nature? Control how much people earn, tell people what they can and can't spend their money on, state controlled monopolies. It all sounds like ways to restrict peoples freedom.*
The Nazis did all of those and more, which just supports the truth of their socialist nature.
In truth, fascism sought a third way between communism and capitalism, both of which they considered far too materialistic in nature. That's probably one of the few things they got right.
Yes. Collectivism implies authoritarianism because you cannot collectivize an entire group of people or country without there being a significant number of individuals that don’t want to be collectivized. There must be forced that is used to create total uniformity, either through coercion, or violence.
In the same way, individualism implies liberty, because “forcing someone to do with their body whatever they freely wish to do, as their own master of their destiny” doesn’t make any sense. Free enslavement is an oxymoron.
The far right does the same thing. Monarchies do it by royal decrees, (heavy price control, banning of various goods and services, you need permission from the government if you want to expand beyond anything you already have because the government owns everything.) Oligarchies and aristocracies do it through all the various types of coercion.
The right does it in a more roundabout way than the left, but the end result is the same.
The things you described are not natural to one side or another. Governments are authoritarian by nature, the facets you mentioned are what happens when the government uses its power in excess, which both sides are capable of, and routinely do.
@@Batmans_Pet_Goldfish AnCap is the true far right.
In theory the left is authoritarian in the economy and liberal in the social stuff (social welfare and free love) while the right it's the opposite (low taxes and traditional values).
In practice the left asks for 65% of your paycheck and the right for "only" 45%, and the progressive left has gone crazy in the "suck it, you bigot" department while the right only counterattacks by defending the traditional pride flag instead of the racial one.
Because they managed to relate Na zism and Fas cism as extreme right wing ideologies just by being loud and labeling any seemingly right winger as such.
What part of National SOCIALISM isn't socialist?
@@herbiehusker1889 no no no, that wasn't REAL socialism🤣🤣🤣
I've always found this argument particularly stupid, because even if it wasn't socialism but was just labeled as such, it's going to attract people who like socialism to the movement. So at the very least, people who joined the Nazi movement were socialists, because that's what they thought they were getting. It wouldn't make any sense to start a movement that isn't socialist and call yourself a socialist.
@@herbiehusker1889 Ask the leftists.
@@markzuckergecko621 In my experience every conversation I've had with someone that stated "that wasn't REAL socialism" not one of them had even heard of the DAF, let alone knew that the DAF was running right up until 1945!
@@herbiehusker1889 Three guesses why they refer to it as "Nazi-ism" instead.
It's curious how Stalin praised Hitler, and so did his fellow communists/socialists around the world, until Hitler invaded the Soviet Union, when overnight all of them switched 180° and declared Hitler the most evil man in the world. (Coming from Stalin, that's Richter Scale irony.)
Marxism is not the polar opposite of Fascism, it's a sister ideology. Western Christians split into Catholics and Protestants over minor doctrinal differences to the point of outright literal warfare, and. Marxists and Fascists similarly were rivals, not enemies, even cooperating to invade Poland and the Baltic states.
'Besides, there is more that binds us to Bolshevism than separates us from it. There is, above all, genuine, revolutionary feeling, which is alive everywhere in Russia except where there are Jewish Marxists. I have always made allowance for this circumstance, and given orders that former Communists are to be admitted to the party at once. The petit bourgeois Social-Democrat and the trade-union boss will never make a National Socialist, but the Communist always will.'
- Hitler
I’ve always loved the religion analogy because that’s what all these Socialist ideologies ultimately are; materialist religions that worship the State (and occasionally “Science” which is why we have all these “Trust the Science” sycophants running around) rather than God.
The likes of Hitler, Marx, Stalin, ect. all ran in the same social political circles. They would play chess together in their younger years and talk about their plans on how to conquer and divide the world for their one world order. These dictators and various anti Christ anti nationalist movements are funded by the same corporatists, atheist leagues, rogue think tanks, and occult lodges. Any difference between them is superficial and a cover story at best. Don't be fooled by their silver tongues.
Remember, Democrats, including FDR, loved Stalin and Hitler before WWII... They loved everything the Communists and Fascists did, and stood for.
@@Ashigeru47 They also praised Italian Fascism, because they also fell for the picture-perfect "workers state" propaganda.
“It is well known that Sorellian syndicalism, out of which the thought and the political method of Fascism emerged-conceived itself the genuine interpretation of Marxist communism. The dynamic conception of history, in which force as violence functions as an essential, is of unquestioned Marxist origin.”
- Giovanni Gentile, the so called Philosopher of Fascism
@@vanbrighouse2912 Sure he did nothing wrong... It does not matter what Marx advocated for if Marxism always advocates for a violent revolution.
Also a bit silly that he wrote a shit book (that is everything he is famous for) but then when he was older casually told his buddy: "Ah nah that stuff was wrong, but i wont officially retract it".
@Van Brighouse Marx's didn't _need_ to advocate for violence, his claim that the acquisition of wealth and commercial enterprise were literally theft from the lower classes was more than enough to incite violence.
@@vanbrighouse2912 You're confused..... or lying.
Marx advocated for the terrorising of the bourgeoisie. How else are the proles gonna do that without violence?
@Van Brighouse Not Marx, the MarxISTS that came after him. Marxism was never intended to be the basis of ANY political ideology, it was merely an ECONOMIC theory and study/critique of the NATURAL progression of liberal Capitalism into ever more regulated but also (supposedly) more advanced forms of government until a theoretical future point of economic utopia as scarcity is (theoretically) slowly solved by technology and better governance. It was never meant to be used as it's own justification for forcing Capitalism into unnatural shapes soas to bring itself about more quickly, if you actually understand what Marx was writing you realize that ANY attempts to implement it via coercive policy can ONLY result in ironically PREVENTING proper "natural" Marxism from ever emerging in the first place...
@@googleandsusansucks Marxist theory isn't wrong, it's just a theory. MarxISTS and their atrocious actions are what he actually denounced on older age. The ideas themselves are morally neutral and at least vaguely correct, it's just the sort of societal outcome that can ONLY emerge naturally and painstakingly slowly alongside more efficient technologies and replacing as many flawed human politicians and administrators as possible with automated incorruptible systems not tempted by their own power and/or better people with better morales.
There was an episode of this American Life that had been glorifying a woman who was " turning in" poorly behaving men. But when they looked at her history they found that in the past she had been shaming women. On the show they were terribly puzzled why would someone who was an advocate of women have been anti-woman in the past? Yet to me it was so clear, she's a bully. When the rules were one way she bullied that way and when the rules changed she adapted and bullied that way.
Those socially ostracizing today on Twitter in the past would have been doing the same thing in their Churches.
Let me emphasize this, this behavior isn't merely similar it is exactly the same.
It seems that this type of person instead of considering apparent evidence staring them in the face voluntarily chooses to be confused and would prefer to remain confused rather than to seek truth.
You couldn't even describe it as them remaining in their comfort zone if they are confused. It's like somebody knocking on the door and a person stuck in their chair endlessly thinking about who it could be, rather than simply answering the door.
This must be what the power of rigid belief in an ideology can do to a person.
Any woman attacking men is just trying to erode the support structure of better women…the feminist movement in a nutshell.
yeah virtue signals are stolen from religion
false piety
@@CoffeeConnected bruce charlton talks about this in blog and in books
I have noticed this as well.
"Why do people think fascism is right-wing?"
They don't. People who think know it's leftist. People on the left don't think.
True. Fascism, we now witness, is coming from hateful left groups!
Because they have been told it's "right wing" and never did any follow up research to verify if it is or not.
The counter argument being "We don't need to check if it's left wing because we already know it's right wing."
That’s it.
Normies gonna Normie.
No... by definition, it is the "bundling together" of entire industries of trade workers to serve a public-private partnership between the Deepstate, and Capital. It's "right wing" because it is LITERALLY *economically* Right-Wing and the worker's interests are deprioritized. Leftist Authoritarians exist also but they do not deprioritize their workers.
The key to telling people a lie is to make the lie appealing, being told your side cannot be wrong is a hard one to break because of how appealing it is.
It doesnt have to be particularly convincing a lie is people want to believe it.
"Freud thought that people wanted to sleep with their mothers and I always thought that was nonsense. But then I saw Freud's mother. Wooow!"
- Bill Hicks
lol
Strange. I once read that Freud fancied his dad.....
@@Si_Mondo
Well, he seemed to see phalluses wherever he looked, so...
Socrates and Billy the Kid were correct in branding Freud a geek.
@@raypurchase801 I'm so glad they let that story finish perfectly after only 2 movies and didn't trash it by trying to turn it into a trilogy...
wait! are there non-authoritarian Left Wing regimes? *THAT* would be a Loch Ness Monster.
They're gonna ask you for Tree-Fiddy again and again until you're broke, then go to the next sap. As PT Barnum once said, There's a sucker born every minute...
No. That would be Sasquatch riding the Loch Ness Monster.
The closest you could ever come to leftism not being authoritarian is if everyone just agreed to leftism. Which couldn't realistically exist on any large scale, for any meaningful period of time, because as soon as some people start to accumulate any amount of wealth, they're probably not going to willingly give it all away to degenerate slackers who just want to get fatter and stupider all day long.
@@herbiehusker1889 Sasquatch with Cupacabra on his shoulder riding Loch Ness Monster.
Its not a bug, its a feature!
The best source I've found on whether the Nazis were right or left wing is the "Hitler was a socialist" video from TIKhistory. It's a long video, 4 hours, but involves dozens of sources and gives the best analysis to date in my opinion.
Its in the literal name....National Socialist German Workers Party.
All Hitler did was reframe Marx's proletariat vs bourgeousie along lines of race rather than class. No different to BLM in the modern day.
Knowland Knows
_Hitler’s Socialism: ‘The Brown Bolshevik’_
ruclips.net/video/aOgbLg5Dp68/видео.html
Better yet, it comes from a former socialist who (according to his own admission) would normally agree with mainstream opinion if not for his research.
I have seen from several sources that believe that Nazism does not fit on the right/left scale. They have some kind of mixture and end up a little in the middle.
the frankfurt school f-scale is the psychological equivalent of the mice investigating themselves and finding no cheese thefts.
Belief the world contains dangers is right wing? 😑
I have encountered this at university, the idea that you don’t need a gun because nobody wants to hurt me. I agree people generally don’t want to hurt me but there is an element of society that will hurt me and I want protection from that element. These same people would also tell me how women weren’t safe to walk around at night because of sexism, thought the world was safe though.
My experience over the last 53 laps around the sun, is that if I do not look like I will F you up, someone will try to harm me and take whatever they want from me. Even though I am a muscle bound freak of nature (more power lifter than body builder) some people still want to try it. Probably because I 'look' fat, except I don't move like a fat guy.
I grew up being beaten on, things taken from me, by my family, kids at school, and people I should have been able to trust. Rather than take it and try to hide from them, I got into wrestling my 8th grade year and learned to defend myself well enough that I went to the state tournament at the toughest weight class in one of the toughest states.
I have been responsible for my safety for 40 years. Nobody comes to my rescue, not even in the two wars I served in. However, there is always someone, some sap or simp who is more than willing to jump in and protect a girl from everything except herself. If someone wants to disarm me, its because they fear me, and they fear what I will do when they try to control me.
I live in reality, not some fairytale rainbow and unicorn jizz fantasy land.
Dear leftists:
"Nobody wants to hurt you."
"Men have to be taught not to r+pe."
Pick ONE.
@@SweatyFatGuy Old but not wise. You would not brag so much if you had wisdom.
@@googleandsusansucks if you think I am bragging, then you must be one of those weak, ineffective, insecure, and incapable types. Reality is going to crush you when you experience it.
@@googleandsusansucks Evidently, you're not very good at picking up on intent.
What was conservative about Adolf Hitler exactly he was in favour of a huge collectivist state hardly a hallmark of conservatism
I think because he wanted to bring Germany back to an era that he viewed as "the golden age". Not saying that's a legitimate reason for thinking of him as conservative, because it's not, and it's really not even what his goal was, his vision was really more "progressive" than "conservative" because he was aiming for a sort of utopian future, rooted in the glory days of the past.
Nazis enacted very progressive animal rights laws early on. Just saying.
He harkened back to a mythological German past and he made deals with the right and the Army to get into power. Of course his brand of socialism was not one based on class but on race. So crudely said, instead of Chekists checking your hands to see if they were calloused from hard work the SS measured skulls to see if you were Aryan. Only those who were considered racially German could be part of the Yahtzee state. Which makes him promoting that mythical German past understandable, because it ties into his for Germans only racism, and because it helped create an alternative ideological base for the state that was not based on Marxist theories. As for him making deals with the right, the Army and industrialists, well duh, he did not grab total power like Lenin did, so he had to make some deals with people he didn't like. Once he had total power we see the increasing collectivization of the German state. Where as a business owner you were allowed to own a business, but the state determined what you were going to produce, at what price and to who you were allowed to sell it. Or as Hitler said, I don't need to socialize the means of production, I am socializing the German people instead.
Yeah he had certain social views which appealed to the working class rural voting block. This is a surface-level idea though.
If the Nazis had been conservative, they'd have tried to restore the Kaiser and the old Prussian nobility instead of doing everything they could to crush the aristocracy.
As I've said before, in practice the primary difference between Marxists and Fascists is the color of their Secret Police uniforms.
Because the left said so and dominated the debate until very recently.
Hey, that was easy 😉.
It's pretty damn funny to ask leftists *why* fascism or Nazism are right wing, in their own words. I have not once heard a coherent answer. Most of the time they just screech and accuse you of being a fascist. Because you know. Asking questions about fascism means fascism.
@@markzuckergecko621Tick History has an amazing, well sourced (and 5 hours long) video on Hitler's socialist views and politics. Well worth the time, if you have it.
@@azrael4887 I basically use his arguments all the time, I don't know anyone who makes a stronger case on how Fascism and National Socialism are left wing ideology and not right wing.
Of course it doesn't convince leftists, but in all honesty I just view leftists as lunatics and hounds who can't be reasoned with anyway.
@@TearThatRedFlagDown it's the brainwashing.
Seriously, you don't know how bad it is. And widespread.
@@azrael4887 never heard of him, just subscribed though. Thanks for the recommendation.
Allow me to create an unbiased list of questions, the answers to which can predict an individual's propensity for leftist authoritarianism:
1. Do you own more than two pairs of Birkenstocks?
2. Have you ever glued yourself to something in an act of protest?
3. Have you ever let out a deafening screech to drown out cogent arguments from someone you don't agree with?
4. Do you have a tenuous grasp on subjects which you feel strongly about anyway?
5. Have you ever written a treatise on toxic masculinity or the gender pay gap?
6. Are you the most tolerant and accepting person that you know?
7. Is it important to lift up minority voices, but only those minority voices with whom you agree?
8. Can children make life altering and irreversible decisions for themselves?
9. How often do you use the phrase "As a ______ of _____"?
10. Are well-documented historical events a matter of opinion?
#9 cracked me up, holy hell that's so annoying. I watch a lot of left wing content and I swear 50% of the comments start with a "as a _____" statement, because that's how these lunatics think, personal identifiers are far more relevant to them than the substance of any comment. To me, the only time that would be relevant is in a very specific topic, coming from a very specific kind of person. Maybe a video about grocery store shelves, and someone says "as a midget, I have a lot of trouble reaching the high stuff." Ok, that's valid. That is a physical difference that gives that person a legitimately different perspective of something most people may not have experience with. As far as politics, I don't give a shit if you're black, or gay, or an atheist, that doesn't make your opinion on a nebulous topic any more or less relevant.
Nice work Jake ....👌🏻
@@markzuckergecko621 Oddly enough, this is how I pick put certain audiences to be left-wing or not. The use of personal identifiers, obsessive affirmation, and emotional lexicon are what I look for. It's rather nuanced to pick up on, but the way language is structured like so is dead give away of social values.
@@bakerboat4572 they're sad, hollow people who have to just claim some arbitrary title to make themselves sound interesting, because there's nothing actually interesting about them.
@@markzuckergecko621
I'm an atheist (or rather agnostic, I think, depending on the context) who supports many aspects of Christianity and Judaism and acknowledges their necessity in a healthy and functioning western society.
I think I sort of screwed up my ability to truly believe in any spiritual practice when I was a blind believer in all things left wing (largrly because I had been told my entire life that the Nazis were right wing, and I just assumed that going as far as possible from anything rightwing meant I was in the right), but I do recognise that as the west dropped religion, we dropped the last proper safeguard of our cultural distinctions, and thereby dropped our guard and practically invited communism to begin filling the faith-void.
I don't identify with anyone on the basis of being an atheist, but it's probably the only "identifier" that I can apply to myself.
By my understanding of the words I'm economically a libertarian/classical liberal and culturally conservative.
To be clear; I agree that those who would apply these terms to themselves like this all willy-nilly just to fit in by claiming affiliation are dumb asses looking to make themselves seem interesting.
Aydin Paladin did a piece (in great detail, as she does) on the F-Scale. Apparently early iteration of the F-Scale had left wing thought and Marxism in particular as even more authoritarian than Fascism.
And of course... That didn't fit the leftists narrative, so they cooked the books and made the method blatantly slanted.
Well, I mean, if it speaks against communism, the test itself must be fascist right?
Do you remember which video it was?
Because Fascist exists explicitly to oppose change, progress, and most importantly, Marxism. Fascism is opposed to peace, equality, and rights. These are all Left ideas Fascism opposes inherrently. Dear fuck you Rightists are stupid. If you don't believe me, ask Mussolini, he only invented the damn thing. sjsu.edu/faculty/wooda/2B-HUM/Readings/The-Doctrine-of-Fascism.pdf
*If you repeat a lie enough times people will assume it's true.*
Why omit his name though?
@@Asto508 cuz the commenter isn’t based? People think that this quote was him spelling out his own strategy but really it was his attempt to describe some Jewish shit.
"big enough" , according Goebbels
@@creator7583 Well seems he was wrong there, all you got to do is keep lying about something. (No matter how big or small) and people will believe it.
see the holocaust for the best reference/example.
people believe it unquestioningly, despite the mountains of evidence that proves its more likely to be a big fat phony than a well documented event.
David Cole said it best; "there's a lot of pictures of sick and starving people, which confirms the groundbreaking thesis that people got sick in the camps, but what else does it prove?"
It's the same as "toxic masculinity". Rather than simply calling out toxic behaviors (regardless of who is exhibiting them), and rather than acknowledging that masculinity can be neutral or good, it simply mashes them together to frame them as being mutually inclusive, or even one-and-the-same. As if toxicity is only "masculine", that masculinity is only "toxic", and that they are inherent and inseparable.
The war on language is probably the most covert and most insidious battle being fought in the war on culture.
I've always said and will continue to say there is no such thing as "toxic masculinity". There's masculinity and there are assholes and the latter comes in both genders.
same as "nazis weren't reeeeeal socialists" ...
"They can wage wars for their capitalist interests, but in the end these wars will open the way for social risings within the nations; for in the long run it is impossible that hundreds of millions of human beings should be aligned according to the interests of a few individuals. In the long run the greater interest of mankind is bound to prevail over the interests of these little plutocratic profiteers." - Adolf Hitler Jan 30, 1941
Its interesting that in the quote, he is right. It was impossible that hundreds of millions (the free world) should be aligned according to the interests of a few individuals (the core of the nazi party).
The only thing wrong is at the end when, like all lefties, he is unable to recognize the tyrant in the mirror and blames rich people.
@@elLooto I honestly think he was more self aware than that; he knew he was a tyrant but believed to be justified in it.
Fascists and Nazis aren't socialists: they don't want workers to own the means of production, they don't want a planned economy, they don't want democracy, they favor the rich and oppress the workers.
How are they socialists?
It is right leaning in a post-monarchic european sense. But in an American context that's reversed, because we weren't a monarchy before, therefore there is no all powerful state in our past to look back on. On the contrary, going back in American history means the opposite, it means less restrictions, and more freedom, therefore in America, the ONLY authoritarian capable party, is the one who looks forward and never back.... ie the democratic party.
All powerful state? Monarchy? Yeah thats communist propaganda. We peasants lost greatly with the fall of monarchies, our liberty most of all.
To call fascism right-wing makes as much if not more sense in America despite that being an asinine statement. In a feudal world, there is no all-powerful state - unlike in a republican structure when a faction becomes ascendant. The structure of monarchy puts the monarch's direct underlings as competitors. The king's gain in power reduces the duke's power, and the same is true of the reverse. To add even more conflict, the duke often has a claim of some sort to be King and wishes to supplant his leader.
With a republic, a leading member of a faction is largely aligned with his faction. The party's gain is his gain, and its loss is his. Similarly, he has no want or need to supplant his leader as long as that leader still works towards the faction's goals. When the power of the dictator/president/minister/whatever increases, the power of the bureaucrats in his faction increases.
Nancy Pelosi is more powerful and closer to her goals when Joe Biden is in power - not when Donald Trump is. On the monarchy side, France was not in a safe place when its vassal conquered a kingdom across the Channel.
Well said.
Conceived by Leftists, derived from Leftist sources, enacted by Leftists.
Yet somehow it's right wing???
Both the Fascists and the Nazis were Socialists, far left extremists.
The Fascists were Marxist Socialists, the Nazis were Hegelian Socialists.
Both created a Syndicalist Socialist system.
Yet somehow it's right wing???
@@iambob6590 Just ignore history, and historical documents that back history up, and #Believe what Left wing propagandists tell you to believe!
Heaven forbid they'd come to the conclusion they were all raging lunatics lol
" If fascism ever comes to America it will come in the guise of liberalism "
Ronald Reagan
Can’t spell “Nazi” without “Socialist.”
@Max That's the stupidest argument i've ever heard.
Speakong of the subversion of language and the meaning of words,
"Nazi" isnt actually the short-form of the NSDAPs name.
"Nazi" is a 17th century slur for Ashkenazi jews. It means "Idiot".
Because Fascist exists explicitly to oppose change, progress, and most importantly, Marxism. Fascism is opposed to peace, equality, and rights. These are all Left ideas Fascism opposes inherrently. Dear fuck you Rightists are stupid. If you don't believe me, ask Mussolini, he only invented the damn thing. sjsu.edu/faculty/wooda/2B-HUM/Readings/The-Doctrine-of-Fascism.pdf
@Max Nazis can't be capitalist, according to them, capitalism is Jewish.
@Max Adolf Hitler himself numerous times on Mein Kampf describes capitalism as international finance, or international jewish finance.
It's strange you are unaware they described capitalism as Jewish, who were the famous moneylenders of Europe? The bankers, Jews.
Ok, if every single nazi is a capitalist, then show a primary evidence for that, show some Nazis saying that they hate socialism and love capitalism. Just to help you, you can't. To say they're capitalist is to say they're in favour of international Jewish finance.
Nazi economics measures were in order to create autarky and insulate German from international trade.
"Study shows that homeschooled children may miss out on opportunity to be a gay communist"
Ever since I heard the "aren't they all on the far right?" joke on QI, I always wondered if that was really true. What about the Nazzis was right wing when they had "Socialists" in the title?
well when they are much farther to the left of nazis, nazis look like theyre right wing.
its emperors new clothes
purity, order, ethno-nationalism, discipline, tradition
they were a reaction against western liberalism
it's obviously not cut and dry, eg Mussolini had the first gender equity policy in the workplace
but overall the categories of right and left become meaningless when you start to say Hitler is left wing or Stalin is right wing
(and increasingly I do think those categories are meaningless, but separate topic)
@Max You're almost entirely wrong and here's why:
*Short answer:* They weren't capitalists, they were fascists. The difference is that the state controls everything, much like in other forms of socialism. In Nazi Germany this took the form of the government being able to exert pressure on businesses to do whatever and pay whatever they wanted. Although this was more relaxed than the strictly-imposed full central planning of the USSR, it is still left of center and very far from free market trading which would be right-wing.
*Long answer:* Socialism in all its forms was indeed popular, but there were competing forms of socialism, such as the international socialists (which we now refer to as communists) and the national socialists (Nazis). They did not turn on every socialist as they obviously allowed their own members to flourish, but they did purge the communists because they were the closest political competition and the Nazis didn't want to be undermined by them. In the USSR similar purges of the socialists happened after the communists took power. North Korea is not a theocratic monarchy, it's a dictatorship of the proletariat, a.k.a. a communist state.
When you say that the Nazis privatized all businesses, that's incorrect in two ways:
a. they didn't privatize everything and in fact nationalized certain key sectors like the unions, banking, and steel,
b. the 'privatization' that occurred was in fact mostly 're-privatization' of businesses, which was actually just the Nazis seizing businesses and then placing them in the hands of their party members. In other words, it was those in government taking a private business and giving ownership of that business to the members of the ruling party, which is much closer to nationalizing them than privatizing them.
The four categories of politics:
1) Democracy is not at all left-wing. In every communist country, which is indisputably emblematic of left-wing countries, there is a de-facto dictatorship, such as in China, North Korea, and the USSR. Sometimes these states pretend to be a democracy, but when there's only one candidate and anyone who doesn't vote for them is shot, like in the USSR, it is not a democracy at all.
2) Every single communist (left-wing) regime has resulted in some form of slavery for its citizens, whether that's the gulags of the USSR, the forced labor camps of Nazi Germany, North Korea literally selling its citizens into slavery as we write, and China creating slave labor conditions to win manufacturing contracts. There is also extreme inequality between the leaders of the party who live in affluence and the majority of citizens who are either starving or close to it.
3) Wanting to expand rights is not inherently left-wing. Left-wing means collectivist, in favor of state control and centralized power. This results in rights not being seen as intrinsic to the individual, but instead doled out by the state but only in the interest of the greater good, for which end those rights can be stripped at a whim.
4) This is the only point on which the Nazis can be seen to be 'right-wing' because they were in favor of national power and sovereignty rather than an international coalition of workers.
Nazis are therefore: 1) left-wing due to being pro-dictatorship, 2) left-wing due to centralized state power being used to control and coerce businesses, 3) did not hate women or support inequality against women (they needed women to work in factories to make their war machine function), they were not against LGBT as several senior members of the party were gay. They did hate people of color but did so as part of the general hatred for any non-Aryan race, including white races such as the Slavs who they treated brutally. They were able to do so using a collectivist 'social justice' mentality that allowed them to group together and dehumanize their opponents, and which is intrinsically left-wing. 4) Nazis were indeed a little more right-wing than communists due to their nationalism. However, it is incorrect to say that imperialism is right-wing. The attempts to overthrow governments around the world by communists was very imperialist in nature, and communist countries also displayed imperialist tendencies, such as the USSR taking over Baltic states and trying to invade Afghanistan, as well as China's actions in Tibet and desire to take over Taiwan, and North Vietnam's communist invasion of South Vietnam.
The Nazis are ultimately far-left on almost everything, which is to be expected since their doctrine was race-based socialism (fascism) rather than class-based socialism (communism).
@Max Firstly, Wikipedia is hardly to be considered a reliable historical source. Anyone can edit it, and it is often written to match the preferences of those who do.
Regardless, That doesn't change the fact that the Nazis put private businesses in the hands of party members, which is very similar to nationalizing them since all the real power of decision-making comes from those in government. As you've pointed out, the government centrally controlling everything (socializing everything) is socialism.
The four categories of politics:
1) Democracy is not when political power is equally distributed among everyone because that is *literally impossible.* Democracy is when people can vote to elect leaders who then implement policy that is hopefully in line with the desires of the people who elected them.
I'm not sure how any of the points you mention excuse dictatorship. Yes, there was rapid industrialization in the USSR, but other countries in world managed it by buying the land from farmers, not by killing them and taking the land. There's a lot of countries with national independence from the USA that aren't the USSR.
Yes the US has had problems with its democracy but to suggest that only the rich want or would benefit from tax cuts is to be ignorant of very basic economics.
Yes the goal of socialism is to get rid of class systems and make everyone equal, but because it is a fundamentally flawed anti-human approach, it will always and has always failed to do so.
2) Yes, there is plenty of evidence that the people in gulags were treated as slaves or worse. You might want to start with "The Gulag Archipelago" by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn.
America may have a large prison population but there are key differences. a) People aren't being literally worked to death while being fed a less that starvation ration and killed at the jailor's whim in the prisons. In the USSR beatings and torture were commonplace, as was the saying "everyone out except the last man", meaning the last man to leave the cell would be shot. b) people in US prisons have been convicted of an actual crime. In the gulag system there needed to be a certain number of prisoner intakes so people were tortured until they signed a false confession.
Slavery is not right-wing because the "classless society" of socialism actually creates deeper class divides and lower social mobility in practice. It was right-wingers who started the abolition movement. It was Republicans who were fighting to abolish slavery in the USA, and the Democrats who founded and ran the KKK.
3) No, leftists use rights as a tool for their political ends, whereas right-wingers believe in intrinsic rights for the individual. A higher percentage of Republicans voted in favor of the Civil Rights Acts than Democrats did. The right wing believes in the rights of women to have women-only spaces like bathrooms and changing rooms, the rights of women to have women-only sports, the rights of babies to not be killed before they're even old enough to speak on their own behalf, the right of the people living in a country to have a stable culture and not have murders and rapists and drug dealers come into the country mixed in with the crowds. It's the left wing who want to remove people's right to self-defense, their right to freedom of speech, freedom of worship and freedom of conscience.
As for mass-shooters, that's not even close to being true. There's a lot of left wing mass-shooters, such as the Bernie sanders supporter who tried to kill Republican senators, and there's other types of violence as well like the black-supremacist who drove through a Christmas parade and killed people. There's also the BLM riots in which police officers, some of them black, were killed.
The "social justice" mentality is the opposite of individual justice. Individual justice says that a person is only responsible for their own actions, but the "social justice" idea groups people together by their identity categories, be it race, sexuality, gender or something else. If you read the "anti-racist" writings of people like Ibram X Kendi, it's clear that their idea of "equality" is to discriminate racially to somehow make up for past racial discrimination. In other words, while claiming to be "anti-racist" they actively encourage treating people differently based on race, gender etc. Thus such ideas are fundamentally racist and sexist.
If the left was only concerned with equal rights, they could have stopped when the Civil Rights Act was passed, since at that point everyone was treated equally under the law. But they didn't. They wanted to push further, and tilt the playing field in their favored direction. Just look at admissions policies in universities where Asian students have to attain a higher grade score than white students who have to have a higher score than black students. That's very obvious racial discrimination. Look at the universities that have had "no white people on campus" days. That's racial segregation, pure and simple.
The left simply want to divide people by superficial differences to turn them against each other in order to generate the contradictions necessary to tear down the whole of society, so they can replace it with their communist utopia. But as we have seen throughout history *every single time,* attempting to bring about true communism results in a nightmarish dystopia instead.
In America,
Right wing= God, Family, Country.
Left wing = State compliance for your safety and welfare.
State rights or individual rights?
Authoritarian or libertarian?
Controlled speech or free speech?
Big government or small government?
High taxes or low taxes?
High regulation or low regulation?
State control of the markets or free markets?
Left or right?
@@baldieman64 as a Southerner I believe in State rights and individual freedom.
“You and I are told increasingly we have to choose between a left or right. Well I'd like to suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There's only an Up or Down: Up to man's age-old dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order, or Down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. And regardless of the sincerity of their humanitarian motives, those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course.” - Ronald Reagan
@@druharper "The left right cadence to hell."👍👍
They seem to imagine that there are only two options…a tyrannical father, or devouring mother.
I prefer personal responsibility, and self-reliance, thanks.
It's actually really easy to place the Fascists (and Nazis) on the political scale, at least once you look at their actual policies instead of what modern socialists say were their policies. They were progressive revolutionary socialists, and broadly disagreed with the communists in only two ways. First they were nationalist (ethno-nationalists in the Nazi's case) instead of internationalist and second they were less extreme socialists. They are far left, just not quite as far left as the communists were.
Small correction, they were ultranationalists. I see it all the time that braindead lefties point to Hitler and say "See?? He was a nationalist!! Nationalism bad!!"
Other than that, National Socialism (and Fascism) are quite interesting ideologies because they synthesize Left-wing praxis with "Right-wing" realities.
"Less extreme" meaning they coopted the middles class instead of butchering them.
More sensible than the Marxists in that respect.
@@bakerboat4572 Yes, they were particularly extreme nationalists, but that isn't really the important part, they were violent because of their socialist underpinnings.
And I don't know what "Right wing realities" you're talking about, because the Fascists (and Nazis) fully drank the Marxist cool-aid.
@@Si_Mondo Both the Communists and the Fascists wanted a classless society. The Fascists were less extreme in that while the Communists just murdered the rich and plundered their property, the Fascists just decided to abolish the idea of a class hierarchy and unify their people based on common nationality (or in the Nazi's case, common race). As such the wealthy were allowed to keep some of their wealth as long as they were loyal lapdogs for the regime.
Fascists and Nazis aren't socialists: they don't want workers to own the means of production, they don't want a planned economy, they don't want democracy, they favor the rich and oppress the workers.
How are they socialists?
On the literary analysis piece, it made me think to high school senior english which focused on American authors, and a lot of us started to wonder why basically every book had adultery as its central theme and if that reflected on the teacher or not.
Yep. In my experience, it WAS the author being sexual due to a variety of bizarre descriptions and choice of words. The novel was 'Refuge' by Terry Tempest Williams.
yep and adultery as the modern romance topic e.g. english patient or love triangle polyamory e.g. twilight in 2nd and 3rd film, titanic
The best example of authoritarian right would be imperial Japan. It has that social and traditional qualities of the right and the structure and Government of authoritarianism.
All authoritarianism is from the right, because we said so. Also, there is no center, everything outside our paradigm is far-right.
Sincerely,
The anti-fascist Frankfurt school.
There's people that think Feminism is right wing. Never underestimate stupidity.
Wait, Feminism is now "right-wing"?
protecting the genetic future from deviants yeah
@@bakerboat4572
Compared to intersectionalism and gender ideology, apparently.
Feminism is literally a marxist vanguard operation
Ive talked to marxists who believed wokeness was right wing.
Tell a lie long enough, and it becomes the "truth". And we're dealing with pathological and professional liars.
I've been saying that the Nazis were left wing for ages. I've heard both Joe Rogan and Jordan Peterson refer to them as right wing and they are both intelligent and well read people, although I've also heard them say trump should have denounced the neo Nazis at Charlottesville (which he did multiple times) so as with everything, always take with a pinch of salt and varied personal research into a topic. That being said I've never found myself in disagreement with the lotus eaters
Most people looking into Nazi ideology tend to paint them as right of center because of the pro-nationalism stance, but really they're left of center. All authoritarian ideologies promote nationalism because it's easier to get people to do things when there's an us vs them aspect. Rightwing nationalism is more of an individual's choice to be a nationalist. Leftwing nationalism is because the collective says you are a nationalist so you are a nationalist. Fascists are dead center on the authoritarian left vs right spectrum. Nazis on the other hand are left of center to moderate left.
The short answer is "Because self-admitted communist psychologists told the world that fascism is right wing", requiring ignoring the conflict of interest in communists saying that and ignoring what the fascists themselves said about the origins of their political philosophy and development of their ideology and what actual policies they used.
Imagine thinking that communism (a democratic global society without a state, without currency and without social classes, based on collaboration and common ownership of the means of production by workers; read Marx) could be similar to fascism (a reactionary, dictatorial, racist, nationalist and imperialist state, which benefits the rich and oppresses the workers)
Because schooling was taken over and taught to younger generations as such.
If anyone's interested in the topic of the philosophies and practices and differences of soclsm and fachsm then I recommend watching TIKHistory video's on the subject after finishing this one.
"Fascism and communism are the marketing department of authoritarianism." - Me
Communism is the seizure, and control of production. Fascism is government collusion with production.
@@basilbaby7678 In both the government is in charge of absolutely everything. You could say in fascism they let the business owners run the places.
@@MrReubenTishkoff They let the business owners keep the title of "owner," you mean. The Party *still* made the decisions.
@@Si_Mondo yes, pretty much.
@@MrReubenTishkoff, not arguing, just proposing here…
By that definition, the current iteration of the CCP, may be considered Fascist. The CCP are certainly not right-wing in preserving individual sovereignty.
18:10 you are absolutely correct on that I have brought up this fact with people definitions of fascism being so loosely defined that almost every government in history counts as fascist.
I love Josh! Such a fun guy to listen to
I direct you to marx's 'directions to activists' -
"accuse your enemiies of your own crimes"
it is here that one sees the reality of the 'left's' assertions of fascism against others.
I feel like we’re in a second Weimar now, a tipping point to give rise to a repeat
Indeed
on purpose, to rinse and repeat central banking scam
Weimar 2 Electric Boogaloo - Now with digital currency!
My damnable curiousity drives me to want to hear North Korean K-Pop.
How much should we bet that Callum has that in his propaganda playlists?
Basically just imagine K-pop but with all the lyrics praising the Dear Leader and sung by people who look like they're trying to not get their family shot.
If you Google the phrase from the Doctrine of Fascism, where Mussolini describes fascism is being of the Left, Google gives you versions that either substitute “ Left” for “ right”, or they leave out “ left” altogether. The version with “ left” is from the hard copy of the only authorised translation, and can be found in images of the original translation, rather than digitised versions.
Mussolini broke with the left before WW1.
@@CatotheE : He never broke with the left. He broke with Marxism.
@@CatotheE Fascism was centre left. Communism was far left. Libertarianism was far right. Like all socialist politicians, Mussolini was a fraud.
“You and I are told increasingly we have to choose between a left or right. Well I'd like to suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There's only an Up or Down: Up to man's age-old dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order, or Down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. And regardless of the sincerity of their humanitarian motives, those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course.” - RR
The answer to any "why do people think...", is the schools, and the media.
Because while fascists are socialists they are nationalists, and nationalism is seen as right wing. This is why when people ask why fascists would hate communists if they are both socialists, the straightforward answer is because while both are socialists, communists think the nation state has to be destroyed and subverted. This is the core conflict between the two, which you also see played between nationalist and globalist capitalists.
Prolly a good reason to distinguish between patriotism, and nationalism.
socialism is part of the turning process TO Communism
@@basilbaby7678 no difference, you're either a traitor or not
@@seabreeze4559, you’ve either made a individual commitment to an ethos, or your identity and values rest upon upon the collective.
I’d never fight for a queen, for example.
I’m no worker-bee/drone.
@@basilbaby7678 the worker bees are all female LMAO
as for nazism, it is both national and socialist. theyre ethnocentric, but also want to upset the social order. so its centrist
I had to take a class on literary analysis. We read Critical Theory Today, and I thought that psychoanalysis was the least dumb part of the class
I would say "I hope it's not being set up as an honest or truthful methodology," but I know damn well enough to not fool myself.
According to liberal academics, "more sexual deviancy" always seems to be the solution for most of life's woes.
Curse my pattern recognition, I must be mistaken.
I dont think it is so much about the deviancy itself. It is more that they see people are missing something and it could never be that person missing what is in front of their face so it must be something that they have never experienced so they must fill the hole with new stuff and when the normal new stuff doesnt work then it is time for the weird new stuff, therefore degenerate behavior.
If you think both sides of politics "scapegoat" you do not really understand what "personal responsibility" means. If something's messed up that means someone messed up, not an entire group of people. make sense?
I am reminded of a discussion on twitter I had once. It was over a meme where a crowd of gray people were shaming a 'red strawman'. The thing is they argued that the symbolism on the garb didn't matter while still falling back on that the symbol is bad. I had to keep reminding them of their own omission. While the color red stuck out, the gray had its ownership. They also identified as a collectivist and when I identified as independent of party, they assumed it ment isolationist (an extremist social view where I identify no connection with my own society.). The collectivist reasoning given was that they were subject to group threat, ironically supporting the persecuting group of gray. Exponential, something ridiculously similar to injecting cultural panic into the moral framework to justify what the meme depicted (removal of the outgroup). But remember the symbols don't matter and the person identified with the mob.
@@greeley5688 You're very sharp for realizing that people use words in the comments section.
@@greeley5688 A response is hair trigger? So, is there something you want to talk about or are you here just to show me your basic skills in observation?
@@greeley5688 😁 I'm glad you responded back. I hate to seem desperate. I may not be feeling charitable but still have some advice for you. Don't bring a knife to a gun fight next time you ask a question to me by name. I know your sensitive but if you're going to be participating, I recommend training some mental fortitude so your not so surprised.
I actually find it quite funny you think I would identity as a bird on twitter. If birds are words your just a little wit in the garden.
Isn't it interesting that in the 1920s Sigmund Freud published his research on the human mind (ego, super ego and id)
Later his nephew buys him some very nice cigars and in return he gives a copy of his book.
His nephew, Edward Bernays, used this knowledge to change how companies would advertise their products by creating the idea of the 'consumer'.
He also increased the effectiveness of propaganda by using the same ideas, which he also used to help push Feminism.
Edward was quite a successful social engineer, he saw humans only as 'groups' or 'collectives' rather than individuals and that these 'groups' can be easily manipulated via their emotions.
If that wasn't bad enough, a certain Austrian artist saw how successful these ideas were, so he used the same tactic to gain political power...
Isn't that so interesting?
TLDR: we got fanboys, feminists and bad ww2 men cos Sigmund Freud was too fucking cheap to buy a decent gift...
This is why I don't like Freudian psychology. Too much focus on self and internal desires, said to be ostracized by society. Just like our current political climate today.
_“If the 19th century was the century of the individual (liberalism implies individualism) we are free to believe that this is the collectivist century, and therefore the century of the State."_
-Benito Mussolini, The Doctrine of Fascism, 1932
_“His 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).”_
-Benedetto Croce, on Giovanni Gentile: co-writer of The Doctrine of Fascism
Collectivism = left wing
Collectivism = socialism
Collectivism = fascism
ERGO
Socialism = left wing
Fascism = left wing
Also, “right wing authoritarianism” is a contradiction.
The further right you go, the further AWAY from authority you go, and the CLOSER TO individual liberty you go.
The furthest right you can go is anarchism.
No government. No authority. Pure 100% liberty.
I would argue anarchy is oppression by whomever has the most power.
@@Peak_Aussieman Morons arguing over who they want to be their slave master.
@@droyal18able No, that’s authoritarianism.
Anarchy is no authority coercing YOU to do things with YOUR BODY that YOU don’t want to do. Anarchy is the actualization of SELF OWNERSHIP. Which is the _absolute antithesis_ of oppression.
@@Peak_Aussieman You know that WW2 was mostly, considering that the Eastern Front was where most of the fighting and dying happened, a socialist civil war between socialism based on class vs socialism based on race?
@@chaptermasterpedrokantor1623
Leftist infighting, essentially.
9:38 Actually, North Koreans are not precisely communist, if you look closely.
- They are a totalitarian caste-based theocracy, worshiping the leader as a divine entity and are divided into divinely ordained castes based on how much their ancestors aligned with the revolution.
Sounds like communism to me. In the USSR, Stalin was essentially in the place of God and so was Mao in China, to the point where no-one dared question either of them despite obvious massive injustices and Mao's ridiculous errors.
Muh no true Scotsman argument... communism doesnt seem to be a system that can actually be implemented so we might as well strike the word out as nonsense and it should only be used in an academic sense. Of course NK isnt communist because no country has ever been communist or will be communist because the system is flawed and it will always turn into something else.
Back in the late 90s at college one of the art students had painted a huge mural in the common room, he won an award for it and had many a word written about it by local critics. I was chatting to him about it as he was a nice approachable guy and he said all the reviews were seeing things that were not intended, he painted it as he did because he liked the colours and styles, nothing more.
Because of leftist domination in media, education and culture, if far right wing is a small as possible state, market deliver most service.
And far left wing the state dominated every service and no private sector.
And you ask them to argue what makes fascism right wing, they say but that is what most say they are 😂 my College teacher could not explain why they were right wing, we traditionally say that, was her argument 🤷♂️😂
That translates to; "We've been brainwashed into thinking it."
"Orwell was right! History would get changed." - My WW2 vet Grandfather, just after informing 11/12 year old me than the Nazis were known to be left wing in the 1930s.
ie the tradition is to lie about it.
No, the state always dominates every sector in every authoritarian ideology. That's the point of being authoritarian. It has authority over everyone and has its fingers in everything, because how else do you claim authority when you have independent organizations running amok? The main difference between Leftwing and Rightwing authoritarianism is how many people are ultimately in charge of the state. Leftwing authoritarianism has the collective be in charge, which is usually represented by an official party organization. Rightwing authoritarianism has exactly one person in charge, of whom is usually called a king, emperor, or caliphate. The Kingdom of England, Ming Empire, and Abbasid Caliphate were all rightwing authoritarian regimes.
@@ElementZephyr What was Mao or Stalin? You are telling me those were "right wing"?
In fact, define left and right wing. Where does libertarianism fall on that spectrum?
Hans, are we the baddies?
Western socialists of the time were quite smitten with Mussolini. They saw his form of government as proof of their own philosophies. Fascism to them was pure socialism. It's what they aspired to, and right up to the point where Mussolini invaded Ethiopia, they had nothing but kind words for him. Modern socialists still love the philosophy, but they call it by other names. If you need any proof of their love of authoritarianism, just look at who was pleased with lockdowns and government meddling during covid.
I love this two guys!!
The scapegoating of Christians examples were all about blaming of the weather and natural catastrophes. Where as the scapegoating of the desert tribe is of all the social problems. They're not the same.
Simple. They were told it is.
Communism - international socialism.
Fascism - national socialism.
If we go with that definition then the states that have most often been labeled communist are actually fascist and the most communist countries to have ever existed are the US, canada and the UK because they allow the most people in and give out the most money to help others in a socialist manner.
Imagine thinking that communism (a democratic global society without a state, without currency and without social classes, based on collaboration and common ownership of the means of production by workers; read Marx) could be similar to fascism (a reactionary, dictatorial, racist, nationalist and imperialist state, which benefits the rich and oppresses the workers)
Fascists and Nazis aren't socialists: they don't want workers to own the means of production, they don't want a planned economy, they don't want democracy, they favor the rich and oppress the workers.
How are they socialists?
National Socialism was Left Wing and was understood to be Left Wing at the time. The Marxists switched it post WW2. If one understands the origins of Left Wing (Large government, state control) and Right Wing (Smaller government, less state control) from the French Revolution then it is clar that National Socialism and Fascism were Far Left. Far Right would be Anarchism
While that would be a much more logical way of classifying governments as more government control (which somehow always leads to it being oppressive... whodathunk?) and less government control it would paint all the parties in a bad light, so that is never going to happen. It isn't really about defining the thing correctly it is how it makes people feel because you can't manipulate things as well if the ways we define the subject matter are more objective and removed from emotion.
Fascists and Nazis aren't socialists: they don't want workers to own the means of production, they don't want a planned economy, they don't want democracy, they favor the rich and oppress the workers.
How are they socialists?
Seems to me that right wing is for less government control and more freedom. Fascism, the word it comes from means bundle of rods bound by a string. It is a collectivist ideology similar to socialism. The rods represent the people and the string that binds them represents the state.
Sometimes I glue my thumbs to my chest and pretend I'm a t-rex.
You can do it without the glue. Just pretend like your thumbs are glued to your chest, the same way you're pretending to be a T-Rex. Pro gamer tip.
@@markzuckergecko621 But that's not true transadhesivism.
@@randacnam7321 how dare you deny his lived experience? He can pretend to be a T-Rex any way he wants.
hey man
Left wing politics is about changing things.
Right wing is about keeping things the same.
The Nazis were a far left wing ideology that gained power so totally and completely that they then swung into a far right policy.
Because the Cathedral tells them so.
Wouldn't right wing authoritarianism be a strict theocracy?
Tell me how a strict theocracy would work? There is a government but it is subservient to the church... doesnt that make the church the government? when the church becomes the government it isnt really the church anymore...
My God the conservatives are doing the intellectual hard yards. Kudos, we may have a chance
Is it true that Freud saw phalluses everywhere? Or is that a phallusy?
Based on Mussolini's writings, it seems fascists explicitly embrace and enforce hierarchy structures, while communists pretend to abolish them. Hierarchy tolerance is more of a right-wing thing, so I can see how some could see the relation.
It's quite a fascinating thing to study, really. Fascism (and National Socialism) combine Left-wing ideology and operate with Right-wing realities in mind.
@Furious Dan : _"Hierarchy tolerance is more of a right-wing thing"_
Hierarchies have nothing to do with left/right spectrum really. Literally every single ideology that advocates for any type of "govern ment" is based on a hierarchy.
@@bakerboat4572 whoa, almost like a third position or something
The Party is left
Both sides love hierarchy. It is just one side feels they can move up into it, no they are destined to move up into it because they work harder, and the other side is just pissed and screaming because they aren't in it now and feels that emotional manipulation and bitching will move them up because hard work isn't going to cut it. Left and right should be more based in psychology than anything else but if we talk about it in those terms it makes everybody look bad to some degree and nobody wants to go down that road.
8:30 -- Dude! Need a cherry picked example to talk about?? Albert Speer was *NOT* a right winger. Why would a left-winger from a middle class background join a supposedly right-wing party??
SEE ALSO: Org Todt.
You do realize that people in the past have put policy before party, and have been widely known to go against their own party if their policy does not reflect that individual's priorities?
@@CorundumDevil SEE ALSO: Org Todt. Fritz Todt was assassinated internally. That's another left wing trait imo.
@@jamespfp Accurate.
I've always thought the right wing aspect is based on European left/right wings. Compared to left wing ideologies, Fascism is probably more right wing than other forms of Socialism. Then you have that Fascism may appear to be more capitalistic than other Socialistic groups. And of course, Nationalism. But in the end, they are still 'left wing' if we go by that box grid that a lot of people like to use. At worse, you can maybe say it's on the line of left/right.
I have this argument with my Dad semi-often...
I remind him that Nazi, stands for 'National *Socialist* German Workers' Party (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei)
I ask him - "Do you see many right wing socialists...?"
"And what about Nicola Sturgeon, shes a national socialist - is she a right winger too?"
The whole left V right fascism argument reminds me of the Democrat slavery thing in America - the left realize its an incredibly bad look...so they engage in revisionism. (And some people are stupid enough to fall for it)
The argument of left wing authoritarianism vs right wing authoritarianism is a complete nonsense. If being left wing is authoritarian, which we know it is, Soviet Union and its Eastern European empire client states, China, Vietnam, North Korea etc, then surely right wing is the opposite and therefore can't be authoritarian, because the opposite of authoritarian is freedom.
Find TIK's channel. It's a bit long winded but he has videos on there that totally debunk any notion that the Nazis were right wing.
Thank you have been saying this for years
Left wing is revolution, right wing is tradition.
Far left is Communism, Fascism, National Socialism, etc.
Far right would be monarchism, oligarchy, aristocracy, etc.
Being on either end is not a good thing.
Far left is national socialism? Lmao afraid not rabbi. Communism is Judaism. The NS expelled the communists and zionist banksters from Germany
From a European perspective, sure. From an American perspective, not so much.
@@Dee-nonamnamrson8718 how is it not?
@@flammenwaffenfries3039 Communism, Fascism and National Socialism are all derivatives of socialism, (hint: it's in the fucking name,) which is left wing. Mein Kampf is Hitler laying out racial socialist philosophy and then just saying, "but it's not socialism, trust me bro."
Nice cope, try harder next time.
TIKhistory did a video breaking it down if you don't like my explanation.
@@Batmans_Pet_Goldfish : Why did you put monarchism to the f ar rig ht though? It's a form of a centra lized gover nment... doesn't fa r rig ht advocate for decentralization of power in general?
20:00
viscerally reminded me of this wonderful tune
The Men That Will Not Be Blamed for Nothing - The People's Common Sense Medical Advisor
Wishful thinking probably
fascism is hard centre. every country has an "acceptable fascism" at its core, called the overton window. its by definition the centre of political discourse in a country. you may think its left wing, and you may be right, but its what the country decides as the centre.
Wrong. Fascism was a totalitarian far-left, socialist ideology based on national syndicalism which they adapted from Georges Sorel. It was an offshoot from marxism.
Hence the Third Position.
Whatever is right wing is not fixed or universal. Depending on the country, what's right wing in one country is left wing in another.
If you go by the Overton Window, yeah. But objective reality continues to exist independent to our acknowledgement or acceptance of it.
Right wing = individualism, liberty
Left wing = collectivism, authority
Simple as
I used to think that too. Then I discovered that conservatives in every culture have common themes regarding families and children.
@@JesusFriedChrist yeah thats the most child-like simplistic view you can hold lmao. Unsrew your brain. I have news for you, you can have right-wing collectivism and left-wing individualism. If you deny that, you deny reality.
@@kotoid7004 No. No you cannot have individualism if you're a lefty, they are all about Liberation. It's all French originated garbage. It's their fucking fault.
The individual aspects of what it means to be conservative or right wing change with the times, but the core nature of what it means stays the same - that the family structure, and strong moral principles on an individual level lead to a strong nation on a collective level, and that the government should serve only as a backbone and have the least involvement in every day life as possible, while still maintaining an organized structure.
Fascism has always been left wing. The issue is thar the left is a gigantic spectrum of various ideologies, and each group thinks that they alone are Leftists and the media they control pushes their agenda. Thus same thing happened with the fall of the Soviet Union, as soon as it broke up, America Left Wing journalists, who for decades were Soviet apologists started to try and claim that Marxism was Right Wing. And the push to move towards Capitalism and democratic reforms was somehow moving to the Left.
Why are people still trying to spitefully label the "other" side as the REAL fascists?
Because they're a hell of a lot closer to fascist than anyone on the right is. They're not fascists, they're communists, or at least something similar to communist that may not have its own title yet. But there's a lot of similarities between fascism and communism.
@@markzuckergecko621 I bet to you politics is just about the thrill of labeling your opponent as "bad" and dealing with everything in detached, conceptual terms.
Because rules for radicals projection is the left wings bread and butter.
@@geomancer6894 Projection, much? 'Cause that's what the left does ALL THE TIME.
@@geomancer6894 no, politics is about ideas. And since it's nebulous by nature, not everything or everyone neatly fits into a labeled box. But that doesn't mean labels are completely useless, they exist for a reason, so we can get an idea about where ideas exist, and which ones are good, and which ones are bad. And leftist ideas are bad.
Left and right doesn't matter, only up and down
Why everytime people talk about the first half of the XX century dictatores always forget the portugues (Salazar, a good example of corpotism, he understud quite well if you entertain the masses with Footbol, Music (in this case Fado) and religion they become quite "docile") and Franco (Spanish one), they are some interesting study cases.
Do these two gentlemen even understand what right and left-wing mean any more? To me, there no point in even thinking about this in terms of left and right any more. There are authoritarians vs libertarians or collectivists vs individualists, etc (among other distinctions); but the distinction between left and right serves absolutely no purpose any more, I think.
Left and right wing was a stupid idea from the get go. They looked at two groups at one point in time and the stereotypes about those two groups and decided that is what makes up those groups. It had nothing to do with the actual politics of those people and everything to do with how those people acted at that time and the company they kept. It is why none of it makes sense and is still just two groups that are against each other to be against each other because they were told to be against each other... for the benefit of keeping a very few number of individuals in power. We are all playing one big game trying to get what we want out of it and the people we don't see don't really matter to us and we only "care" about them because it affects how others around us see us.
Don't think of political ideology as a spectrum, think of it as a circle: moderates, centralists, whatever you call them are at the top of the circle and as you move away from the top of the circle, i.e. become more extremist (either way, it doesn't matter), you will eventually get to the bottom. So Left and Right wing extremism is essentially the same thing. The extremists want you to do and think exactly what they tell you to and will viciously punish you for what they perceive as even the slightest transgression. Which direction they took to get there is immaterial.
I love the intellectual debates on Lotus Eaters
It's like comparing different street gangs, there's different symbols, some minor differences in ideology but that's about it for differences
"Josh and Harry examine the recent research looking into the links between every single person active in politics and negative personality traits."
i just wanted to fix your guys video description... what you'd wrote was waaaay off the mark
An author and thinker who utterly explodes the narrative that Nazism and fascism are right-wing ideologies is A. James Gregor. His books expertly show how both Nazism and fascism are outgrowths of revolutionary socialism. In the case of Italian fascism, its origins can be directly traced back to Marxism. Mussolini himself was an orthodox Marxist and an important member of the Italian Socialist Party before moving into fascism. As for Nazism, it is based on prototypical left-wing concepts, especially in the realm of economics. Hitler himself even admitted that even though he himself was not personally a Marxist, he learned a lot from Marx's economic theories.
I think it comes from a general lack of understanding of what the terms "left-wing" and "right-wing" actually mean. Honestly, they don't seem very useful outside of their original context. When the French Estates General was called in 1789, the representatives who sat on the right side the chamber supported the monarchy, and those who sat on the left side supported revolution. Thus, the most "far-right" ideology is absolute monarchism, and the most "far-left" ideology is Jacobin republicanism. Notably, neither of those two ideologies are in any way individualist, and neither is entirely free-market capitalist or entirely equality-of-outcome socialist. Rather, "right-wing" and "left-wing" is really just a question of where the right to rule is derived from: the right believes that the right to rule comes from the will of God, while the left believes that it comes from the general will of the people.
In that sense, fascism is certainly left-wing, since it was born from the ideals of the French Revolution. However, it blurs the line due to the fascist's appeal to history and at least the façade of tradition, and willingness to collaborate with the right-wing to achieve mutual goals. Though most fascist ideologues and philosophers were at least privately contemptuous of religion and the idea of God, they had no choice but to prop up such concepts to achieve their aims. Thus while fascism is fundamentally left-wing, it maintains an appearance of being right-wing and draws many of its foot-soldiers from the right-wing, resulting in such contradictions as the Wehrmacht keeping "GOTT MIT UNS" on their belt-buckles even as the National Socialists tried to establish so-called "Positive Christianity" as a religion of the race instead of as a religion of God, and the Italian fascists swearing their allegiance to King Victor Emmanuel III instead of to Duce Benito Mussolini.
Of course, you may note that just about every political ideology in the modern West is just as left-wing as fascism in that sense, and as a result, "left-wing vs right-wing" is not actually a useful dichotomy in modern politics.
True for Europe. In the US, left = big government; right = small.
Haven't watched the video, but the way I see it, they have basically gone with the 'say it enough times and people start to believe it's true' approach.
Under the law in n@zi germany everything was potentially owned by the government it just was not needed by said government YET. They would pull this with companies that would not obey or toe the line, they'd nationalize them then install a party member as the new owner/CEO. They could do this with frankly anything they saw fit or wanted and the provision for this was set up in much the same wording as eminent domain laws. In short they pretended to allow private property but they really didn't as everything was legally under the potential ownership of the state. They were socialists pure and simple both economically as well as politically making them very much on the left side of the grid.
CommunismAnarcho-Capitalism lol Also i think the point of Communism is to create Nazism. Reactivism. The point of Communism is to create a reactivist conscience to agitate them into a dialectic dance with Communism haha
Does anybody have a link to the creativity discussion they reference at 16:56?
They've framed normality as the extreme position from the start.
U-tube is making this video impossible to watch. Constantly cutting out the sound and stopping the video.
Get a better internet connection... it isn't youtube conspiring against you. Get those nigh superstitious thoughts out of your head.