Really appreciated this lecture. I loved how you walked through much of 20th-21st century "continental philosophy" through the lens of history; and surely the defeat of fascism and reconstruction of the world flowed through the defeat of fascism (including the Cold War and decolonization). You really demonstrated how almost "rhizomatic" all of these philosophical streams are when it comes to political thought and should not be categorized as fascist per se. I'm frustrated when people categorize fascism as merely a "praxis". Aside from it becoming a term used to denote sadistic authoritarianism in normal speech; the term fascist is often used to describe a method of obtaining power as if demogogey, putsches, coup d'etats, hyper nationalism, war mongering, scapegoating, etcetera did not exist in human society long before fascism. That's one reason people wrongly call Donald Trump, Boris Johnson, Modhi,, etcetera as fascist. Fascism has a particular structure of the State defined explicitly as totalitarian without apology. If a political force or movement is not aiming for totalitarianism as an end, its not fascism. It might not be good, it may cause as much evil (take Belgium imperialism in the Congo), but if it's not totalitarian as an end, fascism its not. There are also particular ends that this totalitarian state form takes, including naked warfare as a positive good rather than necessary evil that I appreciate you touching on in going over the parts of Nietzsche German fascists appropriated (without looking at his hatred of the State being a dead thing, hardly advocating a totalitarian State). The essay The Doctrine of Fascism by Mussolini is probably the best historical document that best defines what it is. It was co-authored a Hegelian Philosopher, Giovanni Gentile; I've stopped reading too much into the fact that he was a Hegelian, like many do who try to play idea history too crudely. But it really should be taught more in political science, political philosophy, and history classes to avoid confusion on what Fascism really is; 90% of it is defined there clear as day. Thank you again for publishing these on RUclips, I enjoy your lectures; very much.
I liked this presentation because it isn’t afraid to highlight the ambiguity of political ideologies. The world is full of amateur politicians today and being absolute about ideas leaves you a hypocrite
Good lecture. At 3:57 I don't think the painter Monet was a fascist. He died in 1926. Earlier he supported Dreyfus against the nationalists during the Dreyfus Affair. Is there something else about Monet?
Sir apka bahot bahot shukriya k ap apne lectures share krte hain hamare sath.. The way you explain the difficult issues of economics is very interesting and simple ❤keep it up
I like listening to ure English lectures. English seems to come naturally to u. I've seen how u seem to struggle with Urdu as thats the vernacular of the common man.
Absolutely Brilliant!! Isn't ironic that the intellectual force, that underpins fascist ideology, the master race, the will to power, ideas of the new super man, etc was a cripple!? Please forgive me for being so crude but he brings to mind, my notion of an incel.
Fascism mesns you use your power, well, anger to get own relief, favor, benefits lile to fulfill sex desire, make money by corrupt, trying to take over weak or powerless but if they have better social or superior life style etc otherwise fasvisiim does not apply.
@@HallyVee did you watch the lecture? The central component is “will above everything”, specifically including morality. A father might be described as being an authoritarian for instituting a harsh punishment to teach his child a lesson, this would have nothing to do with the father’s will dominating the child.
Best lecture on Fascism on the internet. Hands down!
This guy is just the best lecturer. Hands down.
This lecture is an example of why I subscribed. Thank you.
Really appreciated this lecture.
I loved how you walked through much of 20th-21st century "continental philosophy" through the lens of history; and surely the defeat of fascism and reconstruction of the world flowed through the defeat of fascism (including the Cold War and decolonization). You really demonstrated how almost "rhizomatic" all of these philosophical streams are when it comes to political thought and should not be categorized as fascist per se.
I'm frustrated when people categorize fascism as merely a "praxis". Aside from it becoming a term used to denote sadistic authoritarianism in normal speech; the term fascist is often used to describe a method of obtaining power as if demogogey, putsches, coup d'etats, hyper nationalism, war mongering, scapegoating, etcetera did not exist in human society long before fascism. That's one reason people wrongly call Donald Trump, Boris Johnson, Modhi,, etcetera as fascist.
Fascism has a particular structure of the State defined explicitly as totalitarian without apology. If a political force or movement is not aiming for totalitarianism as an end, its not fascism. It might not be good, it may cause as much evil (take Belgium imperialism in the Congo), but if it's not totalitarian as an end, fascism its not. There are also particular ends that this totalitarian state form takes, including naked warfare as a positive good rather than necessary evil that I appreciate you touching on in going over the parts of Nietzsche German fascists appropriated (without looking at his hatred of the State being a dead thing, hardly advocating a totalitarian State).
The essay The Doctrine of Fascism by Mussolini is probably the best historical document that best defines what it is. It was co-authored a Hegelian Philosopher, Giovanni Gentile; I've stopped reading too much into the fact that he was a Hegelian, like many do who try to play idea history too crudely. But it really should be taught more in political science, political philosophy, and history classes to avoid confusion on what Fascism really is; 90% of it is defined there clear as day.
Thank you again for publishing these on RUclips, I enjoy your lectures; very much.
I liked this presentation because it isn’t afraid to highlight the ambiguity of political ideologies. The world is full of amateur politicians today and being absolute about ideas leaves you a hypocrite
"But working with your countrymen is communism!"
Thank you for uploading this! What an insightful lecture!
Good lecture.
At 3:57 I don't think the painter Monet was a fascist. He died in 1926. Earlier he supported Dreyfus against the nationalists during the Dreyfus Affair.
Is there something else about Monet?
Great work Dr Rahman!
Sir apka bahot bahot shukriya k ap apne lectures share krte hain hamare sath..
The way you explain the difficult issues of economics is very interesting and simple ❤keep it up
Excellent lecture. Thank you
Really, I loved his lecture. 🌝👍
Good lord . . . Dr. you rock bro!
I like listening to ure English lectures. English seems to come naturally to u. I've seen how u seem to struggle with Urdu as thats the vernacular of the common man.
instead of taking lectures of medicine I am here understanding about fascism.
Always the best
You never mentioned mill was inspired by von humbolt....
Oscar Wilde wrote: "The English are written about in the Bible. The meek shall inherit the Earth."
law / justice ?? as well as .. law /.. legal?? are not the same.. ( no one owns the truth capital T.. we all have our own truth, small t. .. a quote )
Bliss
Absolutely Brilliant!! Isn't ironic that the intellectual force, that underpins fascist ideology, the master race, the will to power, ideas of the new super man, etc was a cripple!?
Please forgive me for being so crude but he brings to mind, my notion of an incel.
Watching this I have no idea how you came to this conclusion
would be great to do this again but without all the digressions, garbled order, and loss of focus.
Fascism mesns you use your power, well, anger to get own relief, favor, benefits lile to fulfill sex desire, make money by corrupt, trying to take over weak or powerless but if they have better social or superior life style etc otherwise fasvisiim does not apply.
Not even close, no. This would be closest to authoritarianism. Utilizing force as desired without restraint from morals.
@@HallyVee did you watch the lecture? The central component is “will above everything”, specifically including morality. A father might be described as being an authoritarian for instituting a harsh punishment to teach his child a lesson, this would have nothing to do with the father’s will dominating the child.