ADDENDUM: Fascism is a controversial topic. What I hope to have presented here is, however, a nonpartisan description of generic fascism based on authoritative academic sources and the general consensus among these sources. These sources are listed in the video’s description. This video exists to provide a framework for understanding and identifying fascist movements (and the situations in which they thrive). It is not a narrative history of fascist philosophy. It is not a critique on any current political movements. There is a correction I'd like to make for this video: At 3:14, this video shows the Spanish Primo de Rivera in front of a Mexican flag. This was, of course, a mistake. I don't feel this fundamentally changes the message of the video in any way, but I am sorry for the error. Economics of Fascism There is some disagreement amongst scholars on whether fascism has a recognizable economic system. The sources used in making this video unanimously agree that fascism has no such system, and that various fascist leaders did not work towards a common economic goal. Some scholars, additionally, argue that fascism is characterized by an lack of economic goals entirely. I have listed sources on screen during this video to substantiate certain economic descriptions, because this topic specifically is liable to some disagreement. Totalitarianism as the Goal of Fascism Fascism’s unifying aim is not a totalitarian system. No fascist regime has ever put forth a cohesive, complex enough plan to enact complete totalitarianism. Even Nazi germany is not widely recognized as totalitarian by political historians. Nazis as fascists The widespread scholarly consensus is that National Socialists were fascist. In recent years, there has been a movement saying that the Nazis were not fascist. I do not personally agree with this movement, and nor do the vast majority of academic sources I’ve found. If you would like to learn more about this, I suggest Ryan Chapman's video on the subject: The Nazis Weren't Fascist? (ruclips.net/video/0gfYbEk6rBY/видео.html&ab_channel=RyanChapman) As always, thank you for watching. I love you all
The "movement" trying to rebrand the Nazis as non-fascist is largely lead by....well...fascists. They're trying to get away from historic fascism so they can sell you on future fascism.
If fascists don't have an economic goal, it's because their economic goal was the status quo. The already stablished economic system. Capitalism's emergency button that they use every time there's a crisis and they must repress a worker revolution at all costs. They put up a theater to blame the current crisis in everything but the current mode of production.
It should probably be mentioned that 'fasces' has more cultural significance to Italians than merely a bundle of sticks. It was a tool for the 'lictors' (enforcers) of ancient Roman authority figures to administer corporal punishment at will. It is a symbol not only of unity, but of strength, power, and the regimentation of society.
@@pierren___ yes i understand that is your point however your point isnt valid to op's comment. he just added an extra fun fact on an educational video and you got mad because it doesnt change your day to day life. you are the insufferable person here.
@@rabbiezekielgoldberg2497 yeah that's probably not a good idea, most people with an open mind that try reading that material tend to grow to agree with the authors, and we can't have that because they're evil wypipo
Socialists are very clear about what they claim is fascism - its supposed to be capitalism with the mask off. It's naked exploitation of the proletariat. So what are socialist states like? Workers are ruthlessly exploited to profit a socialist elite. All property is controlled b a socialist aristocracy. Rural workers are forced onto socialist-run plantations and kept there against their will. An entire secret police apparatus is maintained to keep workers from escaping. Anon who makes note of this is labeled as art of the "far right" and harassed. Socialists who left Marxism in the 1930s and 1940s were right. These people are Left fascists. Now theyre all thats left of the socialists. Left fascism is what socialism has been since the rise of Lenin.
As a kid I was totally astonished as to how people in the past could let themselves be persuaded and manipulated to an extent such as this, but now i just accept that it's human nature to follow what is commonly accepted in their environment. I've shut myself away from society, from people just because I'm afraid of ignorance as I've experienced plenty of in my life. It's beyond depressing, and I really don't know what to do, because it's obvious that I'm powerless against something like our own nature.
@@junglejustice1783 And what exactly does that self-sacrifice matter? It only makes you more miserable in the immediate now and for the foreseeable future.
@ wow, thanks, never thought of that. Crazy. Yes you’re right, nothing has inherent value. You make your own values, and that’s all that really matters. This comment is like stating that “space has no air” or “water is liquid”.
Your narration is just the right side of monotone as to be calm, clear but not dull. Your content lives up to your thumbnails. Engaging and not patronising, free from gimmicks. Nice work.x
There is a mistake in minute 3:15 you said "Mexican fascism" but the person on the right is José Antonio Primo de Rivera. He was a spanish fascism representant that founded La falange española, not mexican. Good video btw
@@pandysnufkin it is typically either considered fascist or pseudo fascist due to the existing similarities, and the fact that the ideas of falangism were primarily inspired by Italian Fascism.
bro.... you realize that 95% of the information in this video is incorrect? Find better educators than some youtube shmuck. This is historically illiterate. There are several archivists these days that present only factual information. Typically found on gab
I'm italian and here in Italy we talk a lot about Fascism expecially in school because it's a thing that has touched us in the past and it's unequivocally part of our country's history. I'm really happy to see a content on youtube that's about this theme, well written edited and with a lot of cool informations. Keep it up man
@@lasersummit7895agreed. Looking at what we have today. A form of fascism-lite is exactly what we need, in the UK anyway. But it’s too late, the rot is seeping out of the cities now.
Si beh guarda, non sono qui a giudicare i gusti elettorali che una persona può avere perchè non è proprio il luogo ma onestamente penso che le persone che hanno votato per la maggiore siano state boomer, e quelli che si trovano a metà tra quello e i millenial quindi comunque il sistema era un po' diverso a partire dall'istruzione. Ovviamente parere mio quindi ci sta che uno la possa pensare diversamente@@tommasoastaldi2513
He said Fascism hit humanity harder than any other movement, but clearly that dubious award would go to Communism. And one of the most sinister things about Communism is the number of apologists in the West that it has. Hitler could only have dreamed about having the body count of Mao.
the uniformity in the quality, and the clear, uncompromised artistic vision in each of his videos make them more than worth the watch. in 25 minutes, this single video has given me more information on the topic of fascism than the majority of my classes have prior. fantastic work on these.
Maybe I just haven’t scrolled far enough, but I’m glad these comments aren’t cherry picking statements in the video to try to villify the side they disagree with while providing zero actual proof.
"Everything within the state, everything for the state, nothing without the state." Done, defined it for you, if you wanna know what that all entails, go watch an actual video about fascism, every ideology can be summed up as to their core belief in one sentance, and if someone claims it cannot, it tells you that the person does not understand the ideology at all.
@@vonvonvonvonvonvonvonvonvo7009 "Everything within the state, everything for the state, nothing without the state." nah thats not fascism, it can be any authoritarian ideology like communism wtf
@@justcallmehaterik worth noting that in actual communism the state isnt actually supposed to even exist, and is meant to only act in an adminstrative role until power, land and resources have been adequately distributed among equal communes, thus the name Communism. Communism as we've seen it, be it the soviets, the chinese or cubans, has been what some would call "red fascism", aka fascism dressed up with the pretense of socialist ideology.
@@justcallmehaterik No, it is not, this shows your disregard for why people do what they do, Fascism believes that the State itself is a moral being and that it speaks for all the people of the nation. Nazis do NOT view it this way, they use the state as an apparatus to enact the 'aryan morals' instead. Communists do NOT view it this way, they use the state as a 'stepping stone to true communism'. Just as how every other form of dictatorships and authoritarian rule do not view it this way, they all operate with the state as a tool to perform their own morality, Fascists view the state itself as THE morality and everything should be to further the state, not some other form of moral like "racial purity" or "communist utopia" or "my own personal gain" This can all very easily be seen in the words spoken by the people themselves, as Adolf ranted and raved about how the "germans were weak" and "the germans have betrayed me" just because he was losing, while Mussolini's final words as he was being hung by italians were "I hope one day that the Italian people will love me", this clearly shows a RADICALLY different outset on the world. And no, I am not a fascist, I just have a liking for reality as it is the best ward against these ideologies.
This is incredibly informative. I was watching another video essay that mentioned fascism. Then i started thinking about what i learned about fascism in highschool. All that came to mind was Mussolini, Hitler and the term: Extreme Nationalism. I was struggling to technically define fascism to myself. I was going to open chrome and type in fascism while i was scrolling youtube, and this video showed up. Fantastic sequence of events. Great video so far.
@@HorsesOnYTfascism făsh′ĭz″əm noun A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, a capitalist economy subject to stringent governmental controls, violent suppression of the opposition, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government. Oppressive, dictatorial control. From The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition.
Dude, you need to change that fact at 3:16. José Antonio Primo de Rivera was a Spanish fascist who never ruled a thing (yet his father was a so called "soft" dictator in the early 20's). Not Mexican whatsoever, man. Please
Phenomenal video Michael. It feels so enlightening and calming so I have been falling asleep watching it often, this is not to say that it is in any way boring, but that it ailed fears that we might live in a world where the propaganda is stronger than the truth and the fairness of society. The information being accessible still shows how precious the study and writing of history and politics(same thing different times).
Fascism is fascinating to me because it is founded on conflict while having the paradoxical goal or guarantee of a future fascist utopia - which in reality never comes to pass precisely because of the reliance on perpetual conflict.
i still don’t see why this is treated as facsist lore almost, while ignored as a major tool in the actions of almost all dictatorships in particular but also the more extreme authoritarian regimes. It’s basically just at its core a more extreme take on the political process of scapegoating and diverting attention to some type of generally either vulnerable minority group or belief system, or a more hyperbolic and metaphorical arch enemy, usually in the form of an entire country, religion, economic system or class and of course race. Almost all of these types of eternal fights have been seen in post ww2 non democratic regimes (although even the US, and Western Europe did so to a smaller degree with communism and concepts like 1st world vs 2nd world, the difference is these did not stand as official state enforced beliefs and often got challenged by opposition within the west, and at least allowed discourse, it’s also evident for countries like mine bordering the iron curtain and now bordering Russia that communist expansion WAS a severe threat as the soviets wanted our arse very much) The main example i see as almost fascistic levels of this victimising and warlike nationalist indoctrination that are still never called out for it much, are the Islamic, socialist states of the 60s, and the state capitalist theocracies of modernity, in regards to either Jews, The “collective west” and of course non believers, as a less known example. Will the main obvious example is cult of personality type communist regimes, mostly Mao who went as far as warring with Chinas own traditions and cultural heritage, ie tearing down palaces, massive renaming campaigns removing old roots, and cultural revolution declaring a simply ludicrous war on “anti revolutionary” elements including Intellectualism, Rightism, traditionalism(mostly targeting religious beliefs) and other stuff targeting basically anyone who threatened maos power under a guise of this. The reason I go into so much detail btw is because through those examples and ideas I simply cannot see the difference between fascism and other regimes that seem to avoid that political label based on either religion or political compass leaning… i think the lack of any clear understanding of what fascism is besides the fascists own explanation and definition, and of course the facsist states and actions of ww2. But even then I’ve seen people claim Imperial Japan in ww2 WASNT fascist because Fascists have to be white supremacists apparently… yeah the definition needs work
My understanding is that this is why it's so important for us to be diligent and not let our society give in to entropy. Once the other systems start failing a sizeable enough chunk of the population, especially if they hold majority, than more and more fascism starts sounding appealing. I worry that a lot of these factors are present in modern America. I really hope both parties can step away from the edge so to speak of each extreme. The more the left and right are divided, the more it feels like they idealize fascist tools towards eachother
What a magnificent production. You are so delicate, dedicated and subtle with the concepts, that anyone who doesn't see the logical and rational middle ground might be almost not willing to see it. I congratulate you once again on your work. Education has such an important role to play in helping us build a better world, but education without criteria is meaningless, and I think you play precisely that: to nurture judgement, tolerance, understanding, and a broader vision of the human being and society. The last minutes are delicious, I had to stop the video and ask myself: am I missing something around me, am I really aware of what could be happening? It was phenomenal, thank you so much!
Every video you post is amazing, Michael. So well made and your explanations are perfect. Thank you for creating such captivating content!! I'm glad I found you awhile back.
The mischaracterization of Lenins idea is quite silly. Lenin didnt want to "set democracy aside", but questioned the truthfulness of an idea of democracy in which decisions were influenced by a wealthy minority.
You could know it was going to be liberal garbage by the uttering of the phrase "only then can we realistically keep fascism out of our modern systems of governance". Characterizing fascism as something that can be warded off by knowing what it is and not a consequence of keeping the system functioning. It is the only alternative to socialization of production, and if you're afraid of the red bogey man it's the only way you can prevent the workers from seizing power, so if you like capitalism, fascism is your last resort.
Horses didn't go into Lenin's reasoning but Lenin certainly did want to set democracy aside. The installation of a temporary authoritarian regime while society is restructured is a fundamental tenet of his political philosophy. Democracy had to be set aside for this to happen.
@Geebenezer not at all! You see, this here is an instance of the very problem Marxists discuss to exhaustion: democracy, or any other concept for the sake of the argument, only exists while instances in reality. That is to say, democracy can only be defined by its occurrences in history, or more precisely by the transition between those. Thus, Lenin is proposing we transit from the currently existing definition of democracy - one that is objectively failed and more akin to a "plutocracy" - and establish a new one, based on a larger base and which is more based on true merit. Any regime is as authoritarian as it concentrates power. That's cause power IS authoritarian (don't buy into Arendt silly ideas of legitimate power). The only way to have a, eg, non-authoritarian State, is to let the majority take the current State and dissolve it, which didn't happen in the USSR, I might agree, but not cause of Lenin's ideas.
@@Geebenezer No no no no. Lenin definitely did not want to set democracy aside. In fact Russua was a Czarist Autocracy before he took over, so what demoracy exactly was he setting aside?🧞♂️ Authoritarianism was not a core tenant of Marxism-Leninism, in fact Lenin and his Bolsheviks, as far as coherent Leftists are concerned did a pretty extrordinary job in building socialism and making it as compatible with Marxism as he did. Now due to the pressures of reactionary counter-attacks things under Lenin's leadership definitely tightened up, but it was either that or let the revolution be collapsed. Many Leftists believe he made the correct calls, for the most part anyways. Now he wasn't perfect, & his successor - Stalin, definitely tried his best to undo Lenin's mistakes, but he himself (Josef that is) made blunders of his own. With that said, Lenin definitely was not some rogue actor doing things outside of Karl Marx's teachings. Indeed, Marx and Engels did say that communism would be preceded by a "Dictatorship of the Proletariat". Now that is TRUE democracy as far as I'm concerned. The 99% in their multitudes run the society they live in. But maybe you disagree & believe this way of thinking by Marx and Engels is also fundamentally anti-democratic I don't know. Now its a dictatorship in that it denies civil liberties to that CLASS called the Bourgeoisie by denying them the right to OWN and control literally EVERYTHING. But I honestly find that to be perfectly acceptable. Anyways, Lenin refined it (hence its "Marxism-Leninism") into the "Dictatorship of the Vanguard of the Proletariat". In simple terms - the Communist Party. Now if I have to choose between a worker's state controlled by a worker's party or a liberal "democracy" more committed to the aesthetics of democracy than substance then I'll happily choose the former & dare I say its definitely more democratic than the latter. I digress. Btw, ALL this discounts how just about every country with a state is authoritarian in one way or another (& that's every country in the world period). Is this a justification for authoritarianism? You go figure. But you know, in the USSR you could own things of your own, including your own car, but you couldn't own a town's water supply. You could accumulate a LOT of money through a talent or highly valuable labour of one sort or another, but you couldn't use that money to steal the labour of others and extract great personal profits from it. All this is technically "Authoritarian", but its definitely democratic. But again, I digress. For me the infuriating thin is how you guys regard the enemies of the USSR at this time as "democracies". Yet these "Capitalist Democracies" that existed during Lenin's administration felt perfectly at home inflicting brutal colonial violence upon Africa, Asia & Latin America with little regard for democracy. How is that not fundamentally authoritarian? So lemme get this straight, building & maintaining your society throughout trans-oceanic slavery is not authoritarian, but denying power to a few rich elite is? Wow 😐
I can’t tell you how much I enjoy the cadence, tonality and precision of your speech. Your voice is just soothing enough to allow for ease of listening while bringing the content to the forefront. Thank you for your interesting videos and the variety of subject matter! Wether you have ties to a fancy restaurant or no, I imagine myself seated at a table with a view, enjoying a Cabernet, while listening to “Smooth subjects with the Horses guy”.
Loved the video, but I always feel like people forget the single most successful fascist regime in history. They always mention Hitler in Germany and Mussolini in Italy, but the only fascist dictatorship that lasted well after WW2 was Francisco Franco's in Spain. He was allies with the other two mentioned dictators and managed to still be in power until his death in 1975. That is almost 40 years of uninterrupted fascist dictatorship Edit: Ok, I didn't know that Franco being fascist or not was such a controversial topic. In Spain we have a word for people that lean towards the right political wing and usually are keen to Franco's ideologies: "facha". It's a word directly derived from "fascista" or fascist. Idk how his regime was viewed from outside of Spain, but here it's pretty clear that it was, at least, a semi-fascist dictatorship. Maybe it was not exactly the same fascism as that from the book, but it was clearly based on it and it was modified to the extend that it let him stay in power for that long.
Hi - thanks for this comment. I'm glad you brought this up. This is what my research showed on the subject of Franco: Despite using some fascist methods, Franco is not widely agreed to have been a fascist. In fact, most scholars would agree that the Franco regime was not fascist. While close in many ways, Franco's regime held ties to the church and did not mass mobilize in the way traditional fascists do. Franco also saw himself as restoring Spain to some former version of glory. Fascists look to revolutionize a nation and create something entirely new and unprecedented. Hope that's helpful! Thanks for watching.
Very good point. I'm old enough to have hitch-hiked through Franco's Spain. Got picked up by the Guardia for sleeping by the roadside! Their uniforms were straight out of WW2 - all leather, jackboots, and guns. They didn't brutalise me or anything - just let me out in the morning. It was all fine - they didn't even seem angry - if anything, they were amused! French cops (ostensibly non-fascist) were much worse. I'm also glad that Horses mentions the BUF (the British Union of Fascists). It is something that is not mentioned here in the UK much at all. But it should not be forgotten.
@@HorsesOnYT Interesting. didn't the fascists in italy had a myth of a once great italian people that dated from the roman empire? And that's where they derive the eagle symbol from? and they were just trying to make Italy great again or something like that? And for a system that manages to have the support of the masses. Wouldn't it make sense for it to adapt to the reality of these masses. Catholicism being a very strong institution for the spanish people of the time? To me franco's regime was clearly fascist. So was salazar's in portugal, all the latin american dictatorships, and recent political movements in countries like the USA (trump), UK (johnson), France (le pen), Italy (meloni (with several ties to the fascist party)), hungary (orban), turkey (erdogan), Brazil (bolsonaro), argentine (milei) and several others. If they're not a carbon copy of the fascist party of italy, "neofascist" wouldn't be too much of a stretch in my opnion.
@@ciro_costa i think you are using fascism way too broadly, perhaps more like authoritarian or conservative. combining trump and mussolini is dishonest, same as combining bernie and Pol pot.
@@lonle6506 Fair. But the characteristics are there. The appeal to an idealistic time that came before. The mass appeal. The reactionarism. Combat of labour rights. Cult of "god, nation and family". The list goes on.
As a historian specialized in nazism and grand son of a woman who was in the Hitler's youths, I salute the clarity and objectivity of your video! I would just add that fascism takes its roots in the denial of the Enlightment philosophy and French Revolution social order, as the beginning of the social and moral decline. It's really important to know that in order to understand why they hated individualism, democracy and why tehy were not using reason and bending science to fit their emotionnaly convincing narrative.
Fascism takes rook in Enlightment philosophy. Revolution, nationalism, socialism "end of history" all originate within it. "third way" comes from Haegelian synthesis
"Not using reason and bending science" Sounds more like our current elites. They hated individualism and democracy because they saw what it would lead to, and they were right
I’ve gone a lot further down this rabbit hole, some time after this video, but I’ve got to admit I still think this is a pretty solid introduction to understanding Fascism. Unfortunately this doesn’t actually get us over the fact that the term has become politicized and we can essentially no longer use it to describe anything in our modern era, no matter how accurate it may prove to be. Fascism is, complicated, and somewhat subjective. In some ways I think it’s arbitrary, which is why I’ve come to prefer the idea of “fascistic” ideas: concepts or ideologies which share the goals or structures of notably fascist practices. It’s not likely we will ever be able to describe something as having been “truly fascist” ever again, but I do believe we can still hold productive discourse on the matter by discussing those things that approach it.
*Fascism however, has a very clear and concise definition. People are just ignorant these days and spend their time on the internet instead of reading history books.*
Best video I’ve seen in awhile. Reminds me that there is actual skill and dedication in people rather than mindrotting TikTok and RUclips videos. Nice one!
The book series Dune did a great job at displaying what a fascist regime looks like, creating the rise of a messianic figure who intentionally/unintentionally creates a system which combines religion, mysticism, and law that sweeps through their sci-if universe Lot of themes talked about in this video essay are reflected in the books, from cult of personality to exploring the effect it has on people swept up in the awe of what’s happening to their government, and worth a read if you want to experience an interesting take, not to mention a cool sci-fi world
The hand at 1:32 was instantly recognizable to me as a System of a Down fan. Of course for those unaware, while the hand was used as their album art for their debut self-titled album, the hand originates from an anti-fascist poster, and System of a Down are a very anti-fascist, political band. (see their song BYOB for example)
anti fascists are fasciists. this video is mentally weak and afraid to make a point. fascism and communism are almost the same, except fasciism doesn't own but only controls. Fascism and communism are central power systems, which make them both leftist. Right wingers want small government, no centralization and self defence being more important than having a police state like leftist regimes. Woke isa fasciist tool like hating jews was for Germany. It's identity politics. In canada we had banks freeze accounts for political opinions. tHe video maker here maybe is too afraid to understand his side is fasciist. In Canada we have a merger of banks, government, media, and corporations. We have a government that funds the media and controls the algorithms of the whole internet here./ Fasciism isn't so hard to understand. Anyone trying to make it difficult to understand is trying to fool you.
I feel like all my cousins watched this video and then came to thanksgiving dinner like they had some sort of doctorate in political science lol. Great video. Made for a very intriguing lunch break.
Well damn the algorithm. I recently searched for videos on this exactly and didn't find quite what I was looking for. Then I happened on you because of videos on completely different topics, and there this was the whole time. Anyway, thank you for it. Just the explainer I was looking for.
half of my final year in my history degree was a study of european fascism and fascism in the modern world and i have to say seeing the likes of payne and griffin appear in your analysis really lends credence to your words. Youve clearly done the legwork on research, top notch mate. one thing id argue on though, when i was doing my paper on it i interpreted palingenetic not as revolutionary but as reactionary. a rebirth from the perceived attacks upon society i.e franco and his propaganda that the catholic church in spain was under attack and as we see today with fascists espousing views against the perceived attacks on "society" by equal rights movements. Calling palingeneticism revolutionary just wasnt how i would define it.
I guess you could define palingeneticism as both reactionary and revolutionary (if that’s not an oxymoron). Fascists don’t just oppose social progress and reform, but they actively seek to revert society to an idealised, distant past through revolutionary methods (ie. paramilitary violence). I might be reaching there though, I haven’t properly studied fascism since Christmas
@@willkp50 revolution is difficult to define, just like fascism. certainly the debate has never been settled- even among tendencies like anarchism or marxism, which place the idea of revolution at the very center of their theories, there is always internal disagreement over what defines both revolution and reactionary counterrevolution. its probably worth noting that none of these left wing movements consider a military coup to be revolutionary, while fascists absolutely would, with the reigns of state power trading hands (albeit outside of the lawful channels) instead of being defeated and dismantled. Franco's regime was absolutely a partially successful military coup, and both Hitler and Mussolini undermined the governments they belonged to from within and both were able to seize power without armed conflict.
@@willkp50 "they actively seek to revert society to an idealised, distant past" I'm not sure how this is accurate? What past are they reaching for? I find the concepts of Fascism as entirely modern.
Great video. It’s important to keep things as academic as possible when appealing to a broad crowd in order to maintain the message, and you did that very well. Some people feel the need to dumb down this kind of content, but I think people are smart enough to grapple with complex ideas.
I feel like this video is saying that only historical fascists are fascists so we shouldn't be allowed to define it as a political theory or point out any similarities in today's governments.
@@JohnSmith-mc2zzI kind of got that vibe too, but idk if that was intentional or accidental.. It's concerning, especially after reading project 2025. We need to be talking about that more as it's a direct threat happening right now. I worry vids like this will only muddy the waters when facing real fascist characteristics like with project 2025 or other political issues of today. I do think people are too eager to jump towards whatever scary word is popular atm & that's very problematic on its own. However pointing out characteristics are also still important too.
@@ShinyNix86 I think if you're an avowed leftist you have an alternative definition of fascism which includes many conservatives and some liberals, in contradiction to this video. I agree the Republican agenda in our lifetime has been and will continue to be very sinister. Strangely, I think the "fascism" laid out in this video describes many self-described "Marxist-Lenninist" governments, the prime example today being China. Liberalism is under strong political attack, and people like social democrats and some anarchists are also inclined to defend it while simultaneously criticizing it.
this video is mentally weak and afraid to make a point. fascism and communism are almost the same, except fasciism doesn't own but only controls. Fascism and communism are central power systems, which make them both leftist. Right wingers want small government, no centralization and self defence being more important than having a police state like leftist regimes. Woke isa fasciist tool like hating jews was for Germany. It's identity politics. In canada we had banks freeze accounts for political opinions. tHe video maker here maybe is too afraid to understand his side is fasciist. In Canada we have a merger of banks, government, media, and corporations. We have a government that funds the media and controls the algorithms of the whole internet here./ Fasciism isn't so hard to understand. Anyone trying to make it difficult to understand is trying to fool you.
@@JohnSmith-mc2zz Modern fascists like the group Casapound take their main inspiration from the Jamahiriya of Muamar Gaddafi and talk of emulating China, and are also far more Pan-European seeing Italy as 1 part of a Europe that views the United States as the enemy of a forming Eurasia. This is very different from 20th century fascism so it’s important to focus on the core ideas
Interesting summary. I agree that there is risk to calling everything 'fascism,' and I see a similar and perhaps nearly as longstanding of a problem in the US of calling everything 'communist.' Because of this, and because of a few changes that seem to be occurring in the world as a whole, I have taken to more often using the terms 'quasi-fascist' or 'neofascist,' for ideologies largely similar to those described here, but more and more often seen without an expansionist foreign policy, making use of less obvious and less traditional forms of militarism both internally and abroad, and with autocratic governing that aligns itself more securely with capital. The point is clear that extreme nationalism is at the core of fascist ideology. Because of the 9 feelings identified toward the end as the roots of a fascist mood, I would add another corollary that seems implicit in most of the video. Fascism entails a collective societal obsession with essentialism and deservedness, based as little as possible on a person's actions, experience, or expertise (which are seen as factors that have contributed to assessments of persons' deservedness that have left the fascist behind), but rather on some biological essence that a person has or does not have irrespective of how the person engages with the world. This ties in with nationalism and someone having the proper essence of the nation, or else being seen as degenerate. It also ties in with militarism and might makes right, because these forms of strength are viewed as natural endowments rather than some experience or practiced expertise (which would make them suspect and degenerate). Fascist leaders are often seen as buffoons until they are viewed as crucially needed strongmen, as a result. Also, this key aspect of fascism encapsulates a lot of the feelings cited, because if success in life is mostly to do with whether or not one has some innate essence of the nation, and one's frustrations can be blamed on those that value actions and experience and expertise, one need not take any accountability for one's shameful failures in any rational sense (as individuals or societally). No work is needed to make life better, all that needs to occur is purification of the magical essence and further centralization of power to those deemed most deserved, with the masses agreeing to less of a role in governing in the hope of finally identifying with the elites and their success or power.
_"The point is clear that extreme nationalism is at the core of fascist ideology. "_ *Actually no, it isn't. It was extreme Statism which was at the core of the Fascist ideology. They were Statists first, nationalists second. This is explicitly stated in their "Doctrine of Fascism" for example;* _"7. Anti-individualistic, the Fascist conception is for the State; and it is for the individual only in so far as he coincides with the State, which is the conscience and universal will of man in his historical existence. It is opposed to classical liberalism, which arose as a reaction to absolutism and exhausted its historical function when the State was transformed into the conscience and will of the people. Liberalism denied the State in the interest of the particular individual; Fascism reasserts the State as the true reality of the individual. And if liberty is to be the attribute of real men, and not of abstract puppets invented by individualistic liberalism, then Fascism is for liberty, and for the only liberty which can be real, the liberty of the State and of the individual within the State. Therefore, for the Fascist, everything is in the State, and outside of it nothing human or spiritual can exist, much less have value. In this sense Fascism is totalitarian, and the Fascist State-the synthesis and unity of all values-interprets, develops, and potentiates the whole life of the people."_ _"10. This higher personality is the nation in so far as it is the State. It is not the nation that generates the State, as according to the old naturalistic concept which served as the basis of the political theories of the nation-states of the nineteenth century. Rather the nation is created by the State, which gives to the people, conscious of their moral unity, a will and therefore an effective existence. The right of a nation to independence derives not from a literary and ideal consciousness of its own being, still less from a more or less unconscious and inert acceptance of a de facto situation, but from an active consciousness, from a political will in action and ready to demonstrate its own rights: that is to say from a state already coming into being. The State, in fact, as the universal ethical will, is the creator of the right to national independence."_
I love this video, so much. Much of it isn't new information to me by now, but the merit of that information being succinctly packaged with care and purpose cannot be understated. It was emotionally moving to watch this and just reflect
Nietzsche came up, my heart stopped. Good you cleared things up. Yes, his work was utilized by the movement but they reimagined his entire philosophy, using elements that fit their message.
That is true. In my opinion Nietzsche and intellectuals in general should be cautious for the reason of misinterpretation/manipulation by others of what they have said or done. There will always be bad people and thankfully there will always be good people as well, but it pays to be mindful of how you say what you say.
@@user-nw9kk5zw2s and? H also liked dogs. It proves literally nothing. Moreover, H was never into philosophy, he wasn't clever enough, and couldn't properly utilize it. Nietzsche is an integral part of philosophy, he has nothing to do with IIWW and its atrocities. Many philosophers are adored by questionable people. Their philosophy being distorted doesn't mean it's evil. I study philosophy, and trust me, the übermenschen is not related to what people think. Nowadays, stoics are being devalued and misinterpreted by alphabros but their lack of actual passion and focus don't take from the core of the philosophy. You can read "Also sprach Zarathustra" with sensible commentary for yourself, and you'll see it has nothing to do with evil or domination. Nietzsche himself never identified with the idea of übermenschen. It's a story of loneliness, responsibility that noble knowledge Zarathustra wants to share with the world. You'll find no evil in Nietzsche's writings and people from all political spectrums acknowledge his lack of involvement in IIWW events. There were other "thinkers"involved in etho-research. I don't wanna be banned, so I won't get into it. But let the poor Friedrich be. He had a difficult life and a horrible end, we don't need to add to his issues calling him a nzi because the idea of übermenschen was misused. The same professor who taught us Marx's materialism, cried telling the story of Nietzsche loosing his ability to write, slowly becoming a prisoner of his bed 😭
This is an amazing Video! Great work! My love for wanting to understand the human condition and how current topics can play back into history and ideology has been peaked even more by some topics mentioned here!
aboslutely amazing video, as a sociology student, i can still see a lack of critical thinking towards political standpoints among the academic realm. This video is truely educational and crtical towards this sensetive topic.
If you have studied "sociology" at university and talk about the "academic realm" you're most certainly part of the most leeching worthless "intellectual" group of trash amongst society. This is not a political statement, I just hate the professional managerial class of leeches who always butt in in every discussion of ideas they cannot define or comprehend.
18:45 You're misrepresenting Spengler here, he just presented the rise of Caesar-like figures as an inevitability in a 'Zivilisation', not something hopeful or something that would revert the decay.
I appreciated the nuance of emphasizing that Oswald Spengler hated Hitler. Nietzsche too hated the statists (democracies, socialists, and others who made the state their god once they lost their faith in Chriatianity); this is why he broke off his relationship with Wagner. The Managerial Revolution that followed from The Enlightenment leading to the crisis of nihilism is exactly what Nietzsche was worried about: socialism, communism, fascism… all forms of statism resulting in 100+ million souls murdered in these social engineering schemes concocted by spiritually weak men.
This was an exceptional crystallization of an abstract idea. I feel the same yearning for simplicity as those who trade their capacity for critical thought in for an undying loyalty to a universal father figure. Every cell in my body resists this giving in though, because evil is as simple as the willingness to sit back while state-sanctioned violence happens to someone that isn't you.
Beautifully comprehensive in articulation. Fascism is the passive exploitation of Mood to facilitate Brutality in the guise of Self Preservation. Mood is constituted of sentiments. Experiences. Not as Experienced. But as historical narratives manifested into Real Life plays... As a Reminder.
I swear I learn so much from each and every video on this channel. So much amazing information all narrated and presented beautifully. Keep up the great work!
There's one thing about Fascism is they always have relationship with nostalgia as a sort of a fire to warm their palms in a never ending winter that is their nation's ever changing environment. I see this pattern in every Fascist that use the "Back then we were xyz and now we are xyz". Mosley, Adolf and Benito always look at the past as of a manual to learn from rather than a event of warning. And suprisingly they fall faster than the empires they try to imitate.
its also worth remembering that they rose faster than these empires too. in a few years germany went from bread costing 500.000 marks to building highways and cheap cars for people. also went from 6.5 mill workers out of job to 3m. if there's anything that brings downfall to any nation its expansion. they never did anyone any good. maybe the british, but thats debatable. but yes, at least adolf and benito expanded in an unapologetic manner and unsustainably too. hence why they rose quickly, but fell even quicker.
@@satriabagaskara4198 From an economic standpoint, it makes a lot of sense. They see a time when the economy was better, and push to try and reach that point. But since it’s a short-sighted strategy ideology, they push for unsustainable production in the short term instead of permanent shifts in production possibilities. There’s also the confusion of correlation vs causation: thins were better because strong men were in charge, instead of because of the years of work put into building the country to the point it was. Edit: I should specify that this is pretty speculative. I’m currently an economics 1 student, so it’s on the mind, but not really something that I have a super nuanced understanding of. If anyone who knows more would like to share, I’m always down to learn.
And yet it’s incredibly important to remember the past had, like today, a vast amount of competing viewpoints, experiences and agendas in not only the actual primary perception of the cause and effect of historical events (ie leaving out background often on things like the first crusade) but also the retelling and accurate preserving of accurate sources over censorship or propaganda of the past. Therefore if we fail to ever give the “positive” viewpoint of the past, often by focusing on the acts of elites, politicians and warlords over the largely human struggle for mere happiness and family of the common folk ie 95% of history and your ancestors, you can also risk demonising the past such as modern North American society seems to sadly be trending towards. This is, just like glorifying the past, reliant on one sidedness and hyper fixation on modern perceptions and modern false equivalence to create a narrative that pushes, in both cases, towards an insultingly ignorant and straight up false idea of the past, ruining the idea of learning from history to improve, or in the case of demonising the past, specifically demonising only certain actions and cultures within the past, almost claiming they CANNOT be learned from, except to avoid and fight against everything they supposedly stood for.
I've loved seeing your skyrocket in sub count. I subbed when you were at about 60k, which is by no means small, but it's been wild to see it shoot up so fast. Well deserved. My gf isn't very into most RUclips content, but I was able to show her your video about Hemmingway and it moved us both to tears. Keep doing what you're doing -- look forward to whatever comes in the future.
Excellent video. Very objective and nonpartisan. But I find nonpartisanship to be an appalling approach for me, personally, to uphold in this conversation-- amidst the numerous and glaring similarities with the objective description of fascism and the objective facts about the Trump regime. My thoughts during the section where the author, Horses, describes what makes something fascism: 5:33 - A utopian approach to extreme nationalism. That's "make America great again" and "deport millions/ immigrants are ruining our country" and "America is for Americans" and tariffs around the world. 6:23 - Trump appoints Elon Musk (the most elite elite, by the way) and other stalwart Trump supporters into a great many positions of power. 6:52 - Supporting violence and war: Pardoning Jan 6 rioters, claiming to use the National Guard in states that are unwilling to comply with deportation laws, expressing desires to "speed up" the genocide in Gaza by Israel 7:41 - using populist, nationalist rhetoric. (Shown elsewhere in this description, and also extremely abundant and well-known to the public.) 8:06 - Religious following: Donald Trump literally is selling a $70 bible with his name on the cover, some of his supporters use dramatic religious language to describe Trump's purpose in politics 8:20 - False rhetoric against an external group (immigrants): they're r***sts and murderers, Haitians in Springfield eating the pets, (more) 8:45 - Oh, yes. "MAGA" is the intense aesthetic symbology. 9:21 - "TRUE FASCIST REGIMES ARE MADE UP OF MEN AND PAY ALMOST NO ATTENTION TO WOMEN'S RIGHTS OR GENDER EQUALITY" I mean, nobody has questions about this one, right? Let's at least throw this up: rolling back the right to an abortion. Don't anybody pretend there aren't at least 2 extremely important and moral reasons why women need to have access to that. 9:53 - rebirth and revolutionary - make America great again insinuates a great change, a new America, that will be great unlike the America we are in now. 10:18 - LOL.... UNIQUELY COMBINES POPULISM WITH ELITISM. This is bar for bar exactly what Trump and the republican party are doing. Populist rhetoric, but tax breaks for billionaires and tariffs that make life more net expensive for consumers (everyone). Who doesn't mind more expensive goods? The elite. Who is Trump appealing to? Poor, uneducated voters.
I'd argue the first Fascist philosopher (Giovanni Gentile) was correct in his description of Fascism. Fascism is a deification of the State. In the way a theocracy would say it obeys the will of God, a Fascist would say it obeys the will of the State. This is also why Mussolini described the Fascist State as "ethical" (meaning having an ethic, not meaning good) The State is a god whom all are beholden to. It's not "ultra-nationalism" because a nation and a State are not the same thing. Far too much of this discourse has been tainted by people trying to push their political point of view onto a view which isn't their own as a way to lionize their position in contrast to their opposition
And if anyone claims that states and nations are the same thing, point out that every nation has a state, but states do not have nations. They are the government of a nation.
You mean a guy who invented Fascism knew what Fascism is? no way Fascism is just a generic bad bad man with mustache bad guy, didn't you watch the video?
@@FilipCordashey my man ever heard of something called lying? I have no idea how you are so dimwitted that you can't grasp the concept of someone lying. Either that or you are just intentionally lying yourself. Which, since you try to frame people calling fascism by what it is as "trying to paint an ideology in a bad light" seems like a big possibility. Anyways, gentile and mussolini were both nutorious liars, mussolini lied so much and switched up his statements so much that there is an entire wikipedia section just on his lying 😂. If you take mussolinis words unctitically or take gentiles words uncritically you are simply not academically enclined. Primary sources are never too be taken at face value uncritically. It's a simple rule
I think one reason why it's hard to define fascism is because it came and went quickly relative to other ideologies that were practiced, and when it did exist the system and its leaders were either working to gain power, preparing their economy for war, and then engaging in said war. Then the system was snuffed out (rightfully so). But this means that there was no extended post-war peacetime era that we can scrutinize. There wasn't a period of years where a fascist country was simply chugging along with an emphasis on economy and social development. We never really got to see all these theories that fascism was based on be put into practice on a civil level, or see whether their economy would become more nationalized or not with time, or see what traditions, attitudes and worldviews the average working person would develop over the years. And of course there's the question of how much freedom the state would allow for the individual. The fascist system we know of today simply lived and died for war's sake, and I think that limits our ability to understand the total depth of what fascism would have looked like in practice, as opposed to something like communism which existed for much longer, in many more countries, and in both war and peace-time capacities.
Spain was fascist from the late 1930's to the 1970's under Francisco Franco. After they won the civil war, the regime started off totalitarian and with a great purge of their enemies from that civil war (including liberals, social democrats, anarchists, communists, and others within their broad Spanish-Republican coalition). Initially their economics were autarkic and corporatist (not to be confused with corporatocratic). All values and opinions considered "anti-Spanish" were strongly suppressed. They did not join the Axis powers in WWII but indirectly supported them in ways that kept them officially neutral. Ultra-conservativism, Catholicism, and the image of national identity were promoted (and regional identity was strongly suppressed). They also restored the monarchy of Spain, but without sitting monarch. Economy stagnated, and under pressure of the US, IMF, and and Opus Dei technocrats in 1959 Franco's government introduced liberalization policies to the economy. The regime became less totalitarian but still massively authoritarian. Spain became the second fastest growing economy in the 1960's and early 1970's, and while it still lagged behind most of Europe, it closed part of the gap. Franco's would-be successor Luis Carrero Blanco was killed in 1973 by Basque seperatists from ETA, and when Franco died two years later, Juan Carlos became king and Spain became a constitutional monarchy. As I understand it, fascism in Spain mainly functioned as a way for those who had held power before the Second Spanish Republic (the royal family, the church, large property owning capitalists etc.), to restore/protect their positions. But I'm a complete layman, so better to just research further if you're interested in knowing more.
@@KarlSnarks Franco not only betrayed the Spanish fascists by letting anarchists kill the Falanges leader but shortly after the war banned the Falange in Spain. The guy was just a Catholic dictator.
@@lakiog1938 Antonio Primo de Rivera you mean? he was put death by the Republic, not by the anarchists specifically. Anyway, it doesn't matter if Franco 'let them do it'. Fascists are pathetic little backstabbing bitches in general. And being supported by the Catholic church does not make Franco any less of a fascist, Mussolini was also supported by the church.
I love your channel; The style, the pace, the content, the editing, the subjects and most importantly the effort you put into not showing your part of a group. It's so refreshing to see a channel thats able to talk about political/societal/philosophical subjects while not actively trying to push some stupid personnal agenda. As long as I can't tell where you belong It always keeps me guessing on what you''ll say next, as well as keeps away most the bulshit that comes with claiming to be in a group
To me, personally; Horse’s writing style is a rich, churning mixture of Jacob Geller, Machine Thinking, and LEMMiNO. His retelling of The Golden Globe Race and the subsequent disappearance of Donald Crowhurst is by far the best I’ve seen. Qxir did a video on the topic which it wasn’t bad by any means. But, last night I was hooked for the entire 45 minute run time of Horse’s video: “Madness at Sea.” It was a great watch and I would definitely recommend. (A bit long winded and brown nosey, I know. But, I just wanted to say good job and you’ve got a new subscriber.) 💪🏼😎👍🏼
Very nice, we got very similar taste in creators and their content.. I will have to check Machine thinking, since that is the only one I didn't discover yet.. Have a great day!
@@relight6931 He doesn’t have a whole lot of content; I suggest the one about how the invention of screws shaped the entire modern world. Or the one where he talks about making a perfectly flat surface with nothing to start from. How you could take three stones, A,B, and C. Something about how only rubbing A and B together wouldn’t work because they would only mate up with one another so you add the third stone as a sort of gauge letting you know that once all three stones can mate up perfectly flat and interchangeably then you can be certain they are, indeed, perfect. It’s a neat video. Don’t get me wrong, I like lots of content but these quasi-educational videos are great. I think they’re called video essays. Jacob does a lot of his essays on video games which I think is just great. His video on the Uncanny Reality of Silent Hill is probably one of his best.
Sir, yet another coming through to say, I appreciate the incredibly large amount of work that went into this video. It is becoming increasingly difficult to even find the information to create any type of video or study on this topic ( or most topics for that matter ).
If you want to learn what it is, the best 3 books are… 1. Origins and doctrine of fascism, by Giovanni Gentile 2. The philosophy of fascism, by Mario Palmeri 3. The coming corporate state, by Raven Thomson (which showed not only a syndicalist mode of production was possible for their economic ideas). Fascists were pretty prolific writers so there’s plenty of primary sources on the ideology
This is one of the most fascinating well done videos I have ever seen. I myself have been trying to define this and explain it to my wife and it is incredibly difficult. This was fantastic, thank you .
Everything about your videos is just perfect. The tone of the voice, the cadence, the visual content, every single thing is just right. Every video you put out amazes me.
I really dig the style of your video here, how it effortlessly carries us from one idea to the next. Your video makes no promises, yet it delivers us to a poignant understanding of this terrible thing that evades definition by showing us what it HAS been. Great job! I look forward to seeing more.
Fascism is a key word that people often use to discredit an argument or person. Is used as a way to silence or censor. It is ironic that the use of the word fascism as pejorative is often fascistic in the way that it silences.
Nobody seems to pick up on how fascism was a reactionary movement for its time. Liberalism got blamed for WWI and the new-kid-on-the-block Communism was looking scary. People were trying to run away from those two ideologies and fascism offered something different; a "Third Way" it often advertised. I think you hit that fascism was tailored for that time period, and name calling people that today is mostly fruitless.
Don't listen to those two idiots saying you're wrong, you were entirely correct. However, I would add a caveat that 'fashizzum' is not just about finding 'a third way', it was also a 'return to form', where it points out that the so-called 'enlightenment era' was the origin of liberalism and inevitably communism; because of their failings, we need to look back to the old ways to properly understand the world. However, it was also not a luddite style movement; embracing technological advancements. In short, it's a new dog with old tricks.
Every single time I ask for a definition for what's fascism I get 1 of 4 outcomes: 1. Get blocked. 2. Get told to use google. 3. Get told that "It can mean so many things and is such as complex topic, there are just so many different variants of fascism and you may just need to look at it from a different angle" 4. "You". Super helpful.
It hurts because most definitions of fascism found online, they include the term right wing, but if you remove that meaningless term.... You get a straight up definition of communism. Then you look up what political ideologies the founders of fascism had... and all of them were socialists with a few marxists. It's an authoritarian ideology born from socialism where the party controls both the state and the businesses so similar to communism that after the starvation period, communist nations become fascist ones.
Horses, this was so well done. This is a great counterpart to Bliss Foster’s vid “Prada: Fascism and Fashion” from a month back. I think the aesthetic dimension of fascism is fascinating, and both you and Bliss address its power. Despite my better judgement, I catch myself bewitched by the architecture, the passionate yet orderly masses of people, the violence, and the dress codes of fascist regimes. All of these elements create an atmosphere of a sublime sovereign; even though it is violent and many cases would’ve been deadly to me personally, I’m drawn in like a moth to a flame. This susceptibility makes me wonder how other women (especially queer women) who were immersed in, yet sidelined by, fascist regimes considered their place in the aesthetics of the hypermasculine atmosphere… time to do some more reading :)
That was a wonderful video, and a great analysis of a very complex topic, warning about a very dangerous thing, fascism itself, and how trivially the word is thrown around nowadays, making it lose its meaning. Coming from a country that was deeply affected by a form of fascism it annoys me greatly to see the word being thrown around to accuse others not because the other party is actually a fascist, but because the actions of that person lean in that direction, it normalizes the use that word for things not actually encompassed in the broad spectrum of fascism. Keep up the great work, I'm really glad that this video was recommended to me.
@AddictionSucks1988 Nothing racist about pointing out that a specific minority demographic has a cancerous destructive culture and that the institutional embracing of that culture is ruining our society.
So many of these "What is Fascism?" videos go for formal definitions that are rarely helpful, mainly because Fascism is not a coherent ideology like Marxism or Liberalism. Yours is the first I've seen that gets to the heart of the matter by talking about what Fascists want and how they pursue it. Writing in the first half of the 20th Century, George Orwell remarked that "Fascist" had been reduced to an epithet that could be applied to almost anyone, and proposed "bullying" as a more useful synonym. That seems to apply to the characteristics you describe,.The point is not to define Fascism but diagnose it-how these movements begin, how they come to power, and the harm they inevitably do. It's the leader principle that is most terrifying-it is the thing that makes all the other atrocities possible. Thank you for an intelligent and very practical guide to this pathology.
@@_Historia_Magistra_Vitae You'll have to explain how. There's never been two Fascist regimes that have the same program or even the same guiding principles. We can say that antisemitism or racism is inherent to Fasciam... except that most Fascist regimes are neither. We can say that expansionism is inherent... but countries like Spain never really practiced it. If there is a unifying idea, it's the leadership principle that supersedes all institutions and written law. But when you say, "our ideology is whatever the leader wants it to be," that's not an ideology, it's a cult, it's just bowing to whatever particular obsessions the leader has, whether that happens to be Lebensraum or naming the months of the year after yourself. I would go so far as to say that Führersprinzip is antithetical to ideology. An ideology binds its practitioners as much as it does its subjects. Case in point: Conservatism used to be an ideology in the United States, and if someone deviated from that ideology they would be called a Republican In Name Only. Now a RINO is simply defined as someone who isn't sufficiently submissive to the leader. The Republican party platform in 2020 was literally "Whatever Trump wants." So if today Trump says he's anti-abortion and tomorrow he's for it, no one's going to say he betrayed his party. He is the party. This is why I believe it's more useful to talk about the pathology of Fascism... viruses don't have ideologies. Neither do bullies. They just want to take over.
@@host_theghost507 _"You'll have to explain how. "_ Fascism was a totalitarian far-left, socialist 3rd position ideology based on National Syndicalism which they adapted from Georges Sorel. It rejected individualism, capitalism, liberalism/democracy, and marxism. The means of production was organized by national worker syndicals (i.e. trade unions), and the guiding philosophy of the state was Actual Idealism. Fascism was an outgrowth of Sorellian Syndicalism, which itself was an outgrowth from Marxist socialism. The idea was that society would be consolidated (i.e., incorporated) into syndicates (in the Italian context, fascio/fasci) which would be regulated by and serve as organs for the state, or "embody" the state (corpus = body). The purpose was the centralization and synchronization of society under the state, as an end unto itself. To quote Mussolini's infamous aphorism: "All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state." As created by Mussolini and Giovanni Gentile, Fascism comes from a belief that the "Stateless and Classless society" Communism calls for after its dictatorship cannot achieve Socialism, and that only the State can properly organize a Socialist Society. It cared about unity in a strong central government with society being brought together by syndicalist organizations obedient to the State.
@@host_theghost507 _"There's never been two Fascist regimes that have the same program or even the same guiding principles. "_ That is because there has been only one Fascist regime, the revolutionary syndicalist movement under Mussolini.
@@host_theghost507 _"but countries like Spain never really practiced it."_ Spain didn't have Fascism under Franco. The original Falangist movement was Neo-Fascist, but then go reformed by Franco to suit his own needs and purposes.
Spengler didn't advocate for a Caesar figure, he merely thought this is part of the cycle of history. Spengler did not believe civilization could be "saved" from itself but that it's natural cycle will be followed inevitably.
Судя по комментариям видео более чем смотрибельно и я его посмотрю, а пока не начал напишу моё определение фашизма, я разобью его на основные части: -Интегральный национализм(этнический или гражданский) -Солидаризм(примерение социальных класов, идей, групп) -Консолидация общества -Культивированный милитаризм -Национализация крупной промышленности при этом содействуя крупным предпринемателям и корпоративная экономика -Идея о возрождении нации, ну или о перестройки мира... Это я опредилил как базовые основы фашизма и мне кажется что я прав Редактировано: я посмотрел, ты потрясающий ! Больше спасибо за видео, это и вправду было очень познавательно и смотреть было очень интересно !
@@RicardoMontania…what? If you are from Spain you are spanish. Spanish is also a language though. He is Spanish as his ethnicity and origin. Mexican ≠ spanish but can mean that you speak Spanish
@@00xyres Thanks for explaining the obvious.. Being Spanish is basically just like being Mexican, but with a different accent. It’s all about linguistics. You really have to understand the nuances of dialects to grasp these things. But don’t worry, not everyone’s sharp enough to catch that and your misconception is quite common.
@@RicardoMontania no it isnt. As said Maya Mexican living here, I can confirm that what you’re saying absolutely isnt true. The similarities between Mexican and Spanish culture are based on spanish colonization and thats it. Perhaps for mestizo it may partially apply but im not explaining racial politics to someone who clearly is just trying to win an argument 💀
@00xyres Well, that’s YOUR perspective as a local, but I’m looking at it from a more global viewpoint. Sometimes it helps to step back and see the bigger picture, you know? Look, I’m just trying to simplify it for you. You don’t have to get all technical when the answer is pretty obvious. I’m talking about the general truth here, not just some niche, localized take.
the most important thinker to get a grip of fascism was Hegel. his entire philosophical project was to trace the appearance of representation. and representation is the engine of fascism: the goal of fascism is to complete the liquidation of the world into pure symbols (race, nation, sex, class, war, state, capital) all things which in their essence have no material basis but serve as means of control. as spectacles, as images.
I'm also thinking LBJ's War on Poverty and what it did to the black community, though the social definition of liberal has changed a lot since then so my understanding of high-minded liberal may be flawed.
What high minded liberal ideas did he espouse? It’s extremely easy to be a liberal when it gets you in power. The way he used his power was authoritarian and unprecedented.
I’m real big into informative YT channels, but this is better than Biographics (or any of his other channels) and I LOVE Simon. Outstanding work man, really really excited to watch more of your content.
Facism wants to remove foreign influence of its nation and is thus hard to pinpoint Pinpointing facism is hard because it prioritizes the removal of foreign influence Facism wants to remove foreign influence of its nation and is thus hard to pinpoint Pinpointing facism is hard because it prioritizes the removal of foreign influence Facism wants to remove foreign influence of its nation and is thus hard to pinpoint Pinpointing facism is hard because it prioritizes the removal of foreign influence
If anything, this is a great lesson in nuance. The anticipation of decline, strong sense of community, and nationalistic identity are all in a vacuum somewhat positive ideas, but taken to it's furthest exaggerations are what bred the evil we all remember from the 20th century. All political ideas when exaggerated can become evil in their own way, the most important aspect of doing right by all is moderation and nuance
Moderation and nuance are sadly like THE two things utterly destroyed by the modern online space and culture war/identity politics, the fact people think their ideas are made objectively correct but also objectively tied to them based on unchangeable traits (ie. black people voting dmeocrat, Christian’s being conservatives, lgbt rights being in tandem with the otherwise very broad idea of progressive liberalism…it dumbs down believers to merely people who are typecast into “beliefs” they don’t even agree with always ffs. The degeneration of actual debate, respect and philosophical ideas being mixed with economic theory etc. that once dominated western media, political discussion and even political debates (they were SO polite while still saying more damming things than said today in the UK and US debates for example) it’s just sad.
Mark of a skilled presenter: no references to modern political figures. All too easy to let one's own preferences bleed into an objective dive of a topic like this. Alienate no one, and you profit by educating everyone.
Really amazing work. Unbelievably challenging as well. To evaluate our current status in the geopolitical state of the world. I am really grateful that you did not mention current parties or movements, and instead focused on what has been understood from the past, to better inform us on the present. Really wonderful and informative video. Not that you'll necessarily read this, but being from the United States, I see a lot of layers from what was said here, intermixed between several movements in the United States. They don't all 'fit' nicely into the fascism box so to speak. One leader takes a few notes here, another leader takes a few notes there... At the end of the day, it appears elevating an unknown, revolutionary agenda above one's own rights, as well as authoritarian measures and desires, appear to separate a populist movement from a fascist one. I think this video provides a lot to think about, but that is perhaps the one question that resonates with me most. Populism is not Fascism after all. But these mechanisms and cause and effect events mirror each other in almost all movements.
@@zyyl1949Yes, but there were very minor movements lead by people such as William Dudley Pelley that shouldn’t be overlooked. Also Marcus Garvey the founder of Pan-Africanism called himself a fascist so there have been a few movements in US history
Great video, but I was really confused at the lack of mention of the Japanese regime. It differed significantly in some ways from its European counterparts (for example, finding its ideological footing in Ludendorff's _Der totale Krieg_ instead of _Mein Kampf_ ), yet still was pure fascism. Also, one of the key characteristics of fascism is famously presented as an Italian idiom of the time: _Me ne frego_ -- I don't give a damn. Your video implies populistic mass participation of the populace in politics (specifically, support of the ideology), but in reality, once in power, fascism always focused on stopping the population from participating in politics, be it Germany, Italy or Japan. I guess this supports your initial statement about fascism being amorphous, but I was still a bit confused as to why you never mentioned these famous aspects of the regimes. Cheers.
Japan was not fascist, it had some factors such as Authoritarianism, expansion via imperialism and heavy promotion of uniformity of thought and violence, but it also lacked other factors such as Paramilitarism, A single party dictatorship (the government was a coalition) and the Palingenesis or rebirth that is needed, the cult of personality was around the emperor who was a meant to be a figurehead and was portrayed as a divine being above politics. Japan was more of an example of Authoritarian conservatism.
Great work, you really hit the nail on the head. Fascism is so dangerous because it isn't really an ideology or mental framework that can be dismantled, but it is a feeling growing on the soil of some of humanities deepest emotions. Fascism is a feeling.
@@Historia.Magistra.Vitae. Did you even watch the video? If fascism was a concrete ideology it would be easily defined, yet any simple definition of fascism people throw around can be applied to many other non fascist ideologies, so they aren't really good definitions of fascism.
@Historia.Magistra.Vitae. 💀 socialism. The explicitely anti communist anti liberal ideology that invented privatization and was funded and supported by business moguls and aristocrats their entire rule are "socialists" apparently lmfao.
![BLACK BAG - Official Trailer [HD] - Only in Theaters March 14](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Du0Xp8WX_7I/mqdefault.jpg)
ADDENDUM:
Fascism is a controversial topic. What I hope to have presented here is, however, a nonpartisan description of generic fascism based on authoritative academic sources and the general consensus among these sources. These sources are listed in the video’s description.
This video exists to provide a framework for understanding and identifying fascist movements (and the situations in which they thrive). It is not a narrative history of fascist philosophy. It is not a critique on any current political movements.
There is a correction I'd like to make for this video: At 3:14, this video shows the Spanish Primo de Rivera in front of a Mexican flag. This was, of course, a mistake. I don't feel this fundamentally changes the message of the video in any way, but I am sorry for the error.
Economics of Fascism
There is some disagreement amongst scholars on whether fascism has a recognizable economic system. The sources used in making this video unanimously agree that fascism has no such system, and that various fascist leaders did not work towards a common economic goal. Some scholars, additionally, argue that fascism is characterized by an lack of economic goals entirely. I have listed sources on screen during this video to substantiate certain economic descriptions, because this topic specifically is liable to some disagreement.
Totalitarianism as the Goal of Fascism
Fascism’s unifying aim is not a totalitarian system. No fascist regime has ever put forth a cohesive, complex enough plan to enact complete totalitarianism. Even Nazi germany is not widely recognized as totalitarian by political historians.
Nazis as fascists
The widespread scholarly consensus is that National Socialists were fascist. In recent years, there has been a movement saying that the Nazis were not fascist. I do not personally agree with this movement, and nor do the vast majority of academic sources I’ve found. If you would like to learn more about this, I suggest Ryan Chapman's video on the subject: The Nazis Weren't Fascist? (ruclips.net/video/0gfYbEk6rBY/видео.html&ab_channel=RyanChapman)
As always, thank you for watching. I love you all
Ew, so... Pretentious
The "movement" trying to rebrand the Nazis as non-fascist is largely lead by....well...fascists. They're trying to get away from historic fascism so they can sell you on future fascism.
@@LscottGDwhat about it?
@@maxonmendel5757 its a reference
If fascists don't have an economic goal, it's because their economic goal was the status quo. The already stablished economic system.
Capitalism's emergency button that they use every time there's a crisis and they must repress a worker revolution at all costs.
They put up a theater to blame the current crisis in everything but the current mode of production.
It should probably be mentioned that 'fasces' has more cultural significance to Italians than merely a bundle of sticks. It was a tool for the 'lictors' (enforcers) of ancient Roman authority figures to administer corporal punishment at will. It is a symbol not only of unity, but of strength, power, and the regimentation of society.
Yeah it's also how the catholic church killed millions of people by burning them at the stake.
It is an allegory, not something that matters in every day life... i 8te people who makes deductions out of details
@@pierren___a deduction would be me pointing out that fascism shares the same root word as the f-slur and acting like that means something
@@rttnkng thats my point
@@pierren___ yes i understand that is your point however your point isnt valid to op's comment. he just added an extra fun fact on an educational video and you got mad because it doesnt change your day to day life. you are the insufferable person here.
I've gone on lots of internet searches and down many rabit holes trying to get a grip on Fascism, and it's not simple. This video is great.
you watched a 25m vid in 5 minutes? impressive
@@Aztecsoviet2.5x baby
TIK has a 5 hour video with primary sources on the topic
Just read books written by fascists.
@@rabbiezekielgoldberg2497 yeah that's probably not a good idea, most people with an open mind that try reading that material tend to grow to agree with the authors, and we can't have that because they're evil wypipo
Mom sending me to bed by 8 pm was fascism
Parents telling me to brush my teeth is an unjustifiable hierarchy
And if you don't obey and fight back it's called revolution
At least they don't send you to the shower!
Sorry if this dark joke makes anyone sad
we shall band together a show our form of ultra nationalism (stay awake till 3am)
Socialists are very clear about what they claim is fascism - its supposed to be capitalism with the mask off. It's naked exploitation of the proletariat.
So what are socialist states like? Workers are ruthlessly exploited to profit a socialist elite. All property is controlled b a socialist aristocracy. Rural workers are forced onto socialist-run plantations and kept there against their will. An entire secret police apparatus is maintained to keep workers from escaping. Anon who makes note of this is labeled as art of the "far right" and harassed.
Socialists who left Marxism in the 1930s and 1940s were right. These people are Left fascists. Now theyre all thats left of the socialists. Left fascism is what socialism has been since the rise of Lenin.
As a kid I was totally astonished as to how people in the past could let themselves be persuaded and manipulated to an extent such as this, but now i just accept that it's human nature to follow what is commonly accepted in their environment. I've shut myself away from society, from people just because I'm afraid of ignorance as I've experienced plenty of in my life. It's beyond depressing, and I really don't know what to do, because it's obvious that I'm powerless against something like our own nature.
Absolutely relatable! No worries, we introverts will someday once again get the place we deserve, just like we did before modernity hit.
You’re so intelligent. Surely you would have been the good guy fighting fascism at every turn
@@junglejustice1783 And what exactly does that self-sacrifice matter? It only makes you more miserable in the immediate now and for the foreseeable future.
I can ensure you that whatever you do in life, it won't matter. But please note, you only have one life that will ultimately end.
@ wow, thanks, never thought of that. Crazy. Yes you’re right, nothing has inherent value. You make your own values, and that’s all that really matters. This comment is like stating that “space has no air” or “water is liquid”.
Your narration is just the right side of monotone as to be calm, clear but not dull. Your content lives up to your thumbnails. Engaging and not patronising, free from gimmicks.
Nice work.x
There is a mistake in minute 3:15 you said "Mexican fascism" but the person on the right is José Antonio Primo de Rivera. He was a spanish fascism representant that founded La falange española, not mexican. Good video btw
Llorele
I don't think you can consider him a fascist. Falangism is completely different than fascism
@@pandysnufkin it is typically either considered fascist or pseudo fascist due to the existing similarities, and the fact that the ideas of falangism were primarily inspired by Italian Fascism.
hahaha, he might wanted to put Jose Antonio Urquiza and ended up putting Jose Antonio Primo de Rivera
I was wondering who that was, I'm mexican and had no idea, thanks for the clarification
dude you are so good at this. you are entirely refreshing. great work.
A couple of weeks ago you instantly became my favorite video essayist. Keep ‘em coming
Agreed 👍👍👍
bro.... you realize that 95% of the information in this video is incorrect? Find better educators than some youtube shmuck. This is historically illiterate. There are several archivists these days that present only factual information. Typically found on gab
yeah holy shit i remember 2 month ago this guy had like 10k-20k or something subscribers
The worlds most violently, destructive political ideology would be communism. That is a fact. Which ideology is responsible for the most deaths?
he doesnt even deserve 100 subs. He is teaching you all incorrect history@@headbusser1337
I'm italian and here in Italy we talk a lot about Fascism expecially in school because it's a thing that has touched us in the past and it's unequivocally part of our country's history. I'm really happy to see a content on youtube that's about this theme, well written edited and with a lot of cool informations. Keep it up man
If it werent for funny moustache fascism would be praised lol
@@lasersummit7895agreed.
Looking at what we have today.
A form of fascism-lite is exactly what we need, in the UK anyway.
But it’s too late, the rot is seeping out of the cities now.
Apparentemente le scuole non hanno avuto molto effetto🥲 guarda chi hanno eletto...
Si beh guarda, non sono qui a giudicare i gusti elettorali che una persona può avere perchè non è proprio il luogo ma onestamente penso che le persone che hanno votato per la maggiore siano state boomer, e quelli che si trovano a metà tra quello e i millenial quindi comunque il sistema era un po' diverso a partire dall'istruzione. Ovviamente parere mio quindi ci sta che uno la possa pensare diversamente@@tommasoastaldi2513
He said Fascism hit humanity harder than any other movement, but clearly that dubious award would go to Communism. And one of the most sinister things about Communism is the number of apologists in the West that it has. Hitler could only have dreamed about having the body count of Mao.
the uniformity in the quality, and the clear, uncompromised artistic vision in each of his videos make them more than worth the watch. in 25 minutes, this single video has given me more information on the topic of fascism than the majority of my classes have prior. fantastic work on these.
love ur pfp paranoull rocks!
Maybe I just haven’t scrolled far enough, but I’m glad these comments aren’t cherry picking statements in the video to try to villify the side they disagree with while providing zero actual proof.
“Fascism can’t be defined in a single sentence”
Reddit in shambles
"Everything within the state, everything for the state, nothing without the state."
Done, defined it for you, if you wanna know what that all entails, go watch an actual video about fascism, every ideology can be summed up as to their core belief in one sentance, and if someone claims it cannot, it tells you that the person does not understand the ideology at all.
@@vonvonvonvonvonvonvonvonvo7009you could definitely apply that sentence to some current non fascist countries
@@vonvonvonvonvonvonvonvonvo7009
"Everything within the state, everything for the state, nothing without the state."
nah thats not fascism, it can be any authoritarian ideology like communism wtf
@@justcallmehaterik
worth noting that in actual communism the state isnt actually supposed to even exist, and is meant to only act in an adminstrative role until power, land and resources have been adequately distributed among equal communes, thus the name Communism.
Communism as we've seen it, be it the soviets, the chinese or cubans, has been what some would call "red fascism", aka fascism dressed up with the pretense of socialist ideology.
@@justcallmehaterik No, it is not, this shows your disregard for why people do what they do, Fascism believes that the State itself is a moral being and that it speaks for all the people of the nation.
Nazis do NOT view it this way, they use the state as an apparatus to enact the 'aryan morals' instead.
Communists do NOT view it this way, they use the state as a 'stepping stone to true communism'.
Just as how every other form of dictatorships and authoritarian rule do not view it this way, they all operate with the state as a tool to perform their own morality, Fascists view the state itself as THE morality and everything should be to further the state, not some other form of moral like "racial purity" or "communist utopia" or "my own personal gain"
This can all very easily be seen in the words spoken by the people themselves, as Adolf ranted and raved about how the "germans were weak" and "the germans have betrayed me" just because he was losing, while Mussolini's final words as he was being hung by italians were "I hope one day that the Italian people will love me", this clearly shows a RADICALLY different outset on the world.
And no, I am not a fascist, I just have a liking for reality as it is the best ward against these ideologies.
I like your editing style, the tone in which you present and the material you have chosen. Good stuff
You are a phenomenal essay writer friend. Can’t believe I’ve only recently discovered your channel! You deserve so much more recognition
This, yes.
do you know what "essay" means?
@@Losangelesharvey Do you know what capitalisation means?
This is incredibly informative. I was watching another video essay that mentioned fascism. Then i started thinking about what i learned about fascism in highschool. All that came to mind was Mussolini, Hitler and the term: Extreme Nationalism. I was struggling to technically define fascism to myself. I was going to open chrome and type in fascism while i was scrolling youtube, and this video showed up. Fantastic sequence of events. Great video so far.
Quickly becoming my favourite channel on RUclips. Amazed at how prolific yet concise your work is!
Exactly what I came here to say!
I have learned so much from this channel in just a few weeks.
And artful!
His channel is awesome
I dont think that word means what you think it means.
so happy to have found your channel, it’s such a refreshing change of pace and you write beautifully. A clear appreciation for art and culture.
Cultured thug explains fascism better
This is genuinely one of the best video essays I’ve seen. Thank you for this wonderful video, can’t wait to see more from you.
❤️❤️ ty!
@@HorsesOnYT "Histories most violently destructive political ideology"? *AHEM* Communism & it's body count has entered the chat.
@@HorsesOnYTfascism
făsh′ĭz″əm
noun
A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, a capitalist economy subject to stringent governmental controls, violent suppression of the opposition, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
Oppressive, dictatorial control.
From The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition.
Dude, you need to change that fact at 3:16. José Antonio Primo de Rivera was a Spanish fascist who never ruled a thing (yet his father was a so called "soft" dictator in the early 20's). Not Mexican whatsoever, man. Please
@@7y7tartufowhat do you expect them to do? RUclips removed video annotations...
Phenomenal video Michael. It feels so enlightening and calming so I have been falling asleep watching it often, this is not to say that it is in any way boring, but that it ailed fears that we might live in a world where the propaganda is stronger than the truth and the fairness of society. The information being accessible still shows how precious the study and writing of history and politics(same thing different times).
Fascism is fascinating to me because it is founded on conflict while having the paradoxical goal or guarantee of a future fascist utopia - which in reality never comes to pass precisely because of the reliance on perpetual conflict.
i still don’t see why this is treated as facsist lore almost, while ignored as a major tool in the actions of almost all dictatorships in particular but also the more extreme authoritarian regimes. It’s basically just at its core a more extreme take on the political process of scapegoating and diverting attention to some type of generally either vulnerable minority group or belief system, or a more hyperbolic and metaphorical arch enemy, usually in the form of an entire country, religion, economic system or class and of course race.
Almost all of these types of eternal fights have been seen in post ww2 non democratic regimes (although even the US, and Western Europe did so to a smaller degree with communism and concepts like 1st world vs 2nd world, the difference is these did not stand as official state enforced beliefs and often got challenged by opposition within the west, and at least allowed discourse, it’s also evident for countries like mine bordering the iron curtain and now bordering Russia that communist expansion WAS a severe threat as the soviets wanted our arse very much) The main example i see as almost fascistic levels of this victimising and warlike nationalist indoctrination that are still never called out for it much, are the Islamic, socialist states of the 60s, and the state capitalist theocracies of modernity, in regards to either Jews, The “collective west” and of course non believers, as a less known example.
Will the main obvious example is cult of personality type communist regimes, mostly Mao who went as far as warring with Chinas own traditions and cultural heritage, ie tearing down palaces, massive renaming campaigns removing old roots, and cultural revolution declaring a simply ludicrous war on “anti revolutionary” elements including Intellectualism, Rightism, traditionalism(mostly targeting religious beliefs) and other stuff targeting basically anyone who threatened maos power under a guise of this.
The reason I go into so much detail btw is because through those examples and ideas I simply cannot see the difference between fascism and other regimes that seem to avoid that political label based on either religion or political compass leaning… i think the lack of any clear understanding of what fascism is besides the fascists own explanation and definition, and of course the facsist states and actions of ww2. But even then I’ve seen people claim Imperial Japan in ww2 WASNT fascist because Fascists have to be white supremacists apparently… yeah the definition needs work
Hmmmm, I wonder why that sounds so strangely familiar?
My understanding is that this is why it's so important for us to be diligent and not let our society give in to entropy.
Once the other systems start failing a sizeable enough chunk of the population, especially if they hold majority, than more and more fascism starts sounding appealing.
I worry that a lot of these factors are present in modern America. I really hope both parties can step away from the edge so to speak of each extreme.
The more the left and right are divided, the more it feels like they idealize fascist tools towards eachother
Sounds like communism
Yes it is founded on a conflict because it’s based on dialectical materialism. The Marxist method for solving conflicts. The term >>>THIRD
What a magnificent production. You are so delicate, dedicated and subtle with the concepts, that anyone who doesn't see the logical and rational middle ground might be almost not willing to see it. I congratulate you once again on your work. Education has such an important role to play in helping us build a better world, but education without criteria is meaningless, and I think you play precisely that: to nurture judgement, tolerance, understanding, and a broader vision of the human being and society. The last minutes are delicious, I had to stop the video and ask myself: am I missing something around me, am I really aware of what could be happening? It was phenomenal, thank you so much!
well we were too late
Every video you post is amazing, Michael. So well made and your explanations are perfect. Thank you for creating such captivating content!! I'm glad I found you awhile back.
The mischaracterization of Lenins idea is quite silly. Lenin didnt want to "set democracy aside", but questioned the truthfulness of an idea of democracy in which decisions were influenced by a wealthy minority.
Don't. Its a liberal trying to explaim Fascism. Of course the explanation will be dog💩
You could know it was going to be liberal garbage by the uttering of the phrase "only then can we realistically keep fascism out of our modern systems of governance". Characterizing fascism as something that can be warded off by knowing what it is and not a consequence of keeping the system functioning. It is the only alternative to socialization of production, and if you're afraid of the red bogey man it's the only way you can prevent the workers from seizing power, so if you like capitalism, fascism is your last resort.
Horses didn't go into Lenin's reasoning but Lenin certainly did want to set democracy aside. The installation of a temporary authoritarian regime while society is restructured is a fundamental tenet of his political philosophy. Democracy had to be set aside for this to happen.
@Geebenezer not at all! You see, this here is an instance of the very problem Marxists discuss to exhaustion: democracy, or any other concept for the sake of the argument, only exists while instances in reality. That is to say, democracy can only be defined by its occurrences in history, or more precisely by the transition between those. Thus, Lenin is proposing we transit from the currently existing definition of democracy - one that is objectively failed and more akin to a "plutocracy" - and establish a new one, based on a larger base and which is more based on true merit.
Any regime is as authoritarian as it concentrates power. That's cause power IS authoritarian (don't buy into Arendt silly ideas of legitimate power). The only way to have a, eg, non-authoritarian State, is to let the majority take the current State and dissolve it, which didn't happen in the USSR, I might agree, but not cause of Lenin's ideas.
@@Geebenezer No no no no. Lenin definitely did not want to set democracy aside. In fact Russua was a Czarist Autocracy before he took over, so what demoracy exactly was he setting aside?🧞♂️
Authoritarianism was not a core tenant of Marxism-Leninism, in fact Lenin and his Bolsheviks, as far as coherent Leftists are concerned did a pretty extrordinary job in building socialism and making it as compatible with Marxism as he did. Now due to the pressures of reactionary counter-attacks things under Lenin's leadership definitely tightened up, but it was either that or let the revolution be collapsed. Many Leftists believe he made the correct calls, for the most part anyways. Now he wasn't perfect, & his successor - Stalin, definitely tried his best to undo Lenin's mistakes, but he himself (Josef that is) made blunders of his own.
With that said, Lenin definitely was not some rogue actor doing things outside of Karl Marx's teachings. Indeed, Marx and Engels did say that communism would be preceded by a "Dictatorship of the Proletariat". Now that is TRUE democracy as far as I'm concerned. The 99% in their multitudes run the society they live in. But maybe you disagree & believe this way of thinking by Marx and Engels is also fundamentally anti-democratic I don't know. Now its a dictatorship in that it denies civil liberties to that CLASS called the Bourgeoisie by denying them the right to OWN and control literally EVERYTHING. But I honestly find that to be perfectly acceptable.
Anyways, Lenin refined it (hence its "Marxism-Leninism") into the "Dictatorship of the Vanguard of the Proletariat". In simple terms - the Communist Party. Now if I have to choose between a worker's state controlled by a worker's party or a liberal "democracy" more committed to the aesthetics of democracy than substance then I'll happily choose the former & dare I say its definitely more democratic than the latter. I digress.
Btw, ALL this discounts how just about every country with a state is authoritarian in one way or another (& that's every country in the world period). Is this a justification for authoritarianism? You go figure. But you know, in the USSR you could own things of your own, including your own car, but you couldn't own a town's water supply. You could accumulate a LOT of money through a talent or highly valuable labour of one sort or another, but you couldn't use that money to steal the labour of others and extract great personal profits from it. All this is technically "Authoritarian", but its definitely democratic. But again, I digress.
For me the infuriating thin is how you guys regard the enemies of the USSR at this time as "democracies". Yet these "Capitalist Democracies" that existed during Lenin's administration felt perfectly at home inflicting brutal colonial violence upon Africa, Asia & Latin America with little regard for democracy. How is that not fundamentally authoritarian? So lemme get this straight, building & maintaining your society throughout trans-oceanic slavery is not authoritarian, but denying power to a few rich elite is? Wow 😐
I can’t tell you how much I enjoy the cadence, tonality and precision of your speech. Your voice is just soothing enough to allow for ease of listening while bringing the content to the forefront. Thank you for your interesting videos and the variety of subject matter! Wether you have ties to a fancy restaurant or no, I imagine myself seated at a table with a view, enjoying a Cabernet, while listening to “Smooth subjects with the Horses guy”.
I suppose it must have been something other than the content.
Loved the video, but I always feel like people forget the single most successful fascist regime in history. They always mention Hitler in Germany and Mussolini in Italy, but the only fascist dictatorship that lasted well after WW2 was Francisco Franco's in Spain. He was allies with the other two mentioned dictators and managed to still be in power until his death in 1975. That is almost 40 years of uninterrupted fascist dictatorship
Edit: Ok, I didn't know that Franco being fascist or not was such a controversial topic. In Spain we have a word for people that lean towards the right political wing and usually are keen to Franco's ideologies: "facha". It's a word directly derived from "fascista" or fascist. Idk how his regime was viewed from outside of Spain, but here it's pretty clear that it was, at least, a semi-fascist dictatorship. Maybe it was not exactly the same fascism as that from the book, but it was clearly based on it and it was modified to the extend that it let him stay in power for that long.
Hi - thanks for this comment. I'm glad you brought this up.
This is what my research showed on the subject of Franco: Despite using some fascist methods, Franco is not widely agreed to have been a fascist. In fact, most scholars would agree that the Franco regime was not fascist. While close in many ways, Franco's regime held ties to the church and did not mass mobilize in the way traditional fascists do. Franco also saw himself as restoring Spain to some former version of glory. Fascists look to revolutionize a nation and create something entirely new and unprecedented.
Hope that's helpful! Thanks for watching.
Very good point. I'm old enough to have hitch-hiked through Franco's Spain.
Got picked up by the Guardia for sleeping by the roadside! Their uniforms were straight out of WW2 - all leather, jackboots, and guns. They didn't brutalise me or anything - just let me out in the morning. It was all fine - they didn't even seem angry - if anything, they were amused! French cops (ostensibly non-fascist) were much worse.
I'm also glad that Horses mentions the BUF (the British Union of Fascists). It is something that is not mentioned here in the UK much at all. But it should not be forgotten.
@@HorsesOnYT Interesting. didn't the fascists in italy had a myth of a once great italian people that dated from the roman empire? And that's where they derive the eagle symbol from? and they were just trying to make Italy great again or something like that?
And for a system that manages to have the support of the masses. Wouldn't it make sense for it to adapt to the reality of these masses. Catholicism being a very strong institution for the spanish people of the time?
To me franco's regime was clearly fascist. So was salazar's in portugal, all the latin american dictatorships, and recent political movements in countries like the USA (trump), UK (johnson), France (le pen), Italy (meloni (with several ties to the fascist party)), hungary (orban), turkey (erdogan), Brazil (bolsonaro), argentine (milei) and several others.
If they're not a carbon copy of the fascist party of italy, "neofascist" wouldn't be too much of a stretch in my opnion.
@@ciro_costa i think you are using fascism way too broadly, perhaps more like authoritarian or conservative. combining trump and mussolini is dishonest, same as combining bernie and Pol pot.
@@lonle6506 Fair. But the characteristics are there. The appeal to an idealistic time that came before. The mass appeal. The reactionarism. Combat of labour rights. Cult of "god, nation and family". The list goes on.
So happy to be here for the growth of your channel
Netanyahu really took that recipe and worked with it didnt he?
This is probably one of the best vids on fascism I've watched. You've done a service to the world
Then your bar is set pretty low.
... incredibly low ...
How many vids on fascism have you watched??
Born yesterday head-ass
@@KrSolarRay This one and... yes.
Side note, in 3:13, the mentioned "Mexican fascist" isn't Mexican, it is Jose Antonio Primo de Rivera, a Spanish falangist.
I just commented that too, I dont get how he confused him for a Mexican lol
I downvoted and stopped looking the video only for that lol
Spanish falangism seeked to unite all Hispanic countries under it
@@SVRSK he confused the names, there it was a mexican called Jose Antonio Urquiza
average gringo when they can't tell the difference between (s)pain and its former colonies
As a historian specialized in nazism and grand son of a woman who was in the Hitler's youths, I salute the clarity and objectivity of your video! I would just add that fascism takes its roots in the denial of the Enlightment philosophy and French Revolution social order, as the beginning of the social and moral decline. It's really important to know that in order to understand why they hated individualism, democracy and why tehy were not using reason and bending science to fit their emotionnaly convincing narrative.
Be careful how you use your hands when saluting.
We Dutch people still want back our bicycles
Fascism takes rook in Enlightment philosophy. Revolution, nationalism, socialism "end of history" all originate within it. "third way" comes from Haegelian synthesis
I salute u too o/
"Not using reason and bending science" Sounds more like our current elites. They hated individualism and democracy because they saw what it would lead to, and they were right
I’ve gone a lot further down this rabbit hole, some time after this video, but I’ve got to admit I still think this is a pretty solid introduction to understanding Fascism. Unfortunately this doesn’t actually get us over the fact that the term has become politicized and we can essentially no longer use it to describe anything in our modern era, no matter how accurate it may prove to be.
Fascism is, complicated, and somewhat subjective. In some ways I think it’s arbitrary, which is why I’ve come to prefer the idea of “fascistic” ideas: concepts or ideologies which share the goals or structures of notably fascist practices. It’s not likely we will ever be able to describe something as having been “truly fascist” ever again, but I do believe we can still hold productive discourse on the matter by discussing those things that approach it.
Thank you.
*Fascism however, has a very clear and concise definition. People are just ignorant these days and spend their time on the internet instead of reading history books.*
Best video I’ve seen in awhile. Reminds me that there is actual skill and dedication in people rather than mindrotting TikTok and RUclips videos. Nice one!
Deep thoughts.
The book series Dune did a great job at displaying what a fascist regime looks like, creating the rise of a messianic figure who intentionally/unintentionally creates a system which combines religion, mysticism, and law that sweeps through their sci-if universe
Lot of themes talked about in this video essay are reflected in the books, from cult of personality to exploring the effect it has on people swept up in the awe of what’s happening to their government, and worth a read if you want to experience an interesting take, not to mention a cool sci-fi world
Фанатов Дюны в комментариях встречаю больше чем фанатов "Саги о форкорсиганах" и Джоджо...
Kind of like the antifa cult.
Are you entirely braindead or just trying to start an argument for self satisfaction?@@marcshields3677
What a nonsense lol. The author of the book openly says that imperial society is totally feudalistic. Did you even read the book?
That’s not even close to the definition lol
The hand at 1:32 was instantly recognizable to me as a System of a Down fan.
Of course for those unaware, while the hand was used as their album art for their debut self-titled album, the hand originates from an anti-fascist poster, and System of a Down are a very anti-fascist, political band. (see their song BYOB for example)
Does anybody need a better reason to support fascism than this?
@@Kerithanos Fuck, u mean SOAD is amazing
anti fascists are fasciists. this video is mentally weak and afraid to make a point. fascism and communism are almost the same, except fasciism doesn't own but only controls. Fascism and communism are central power systems, which make them both leftist. Right wingers want small government, no centralization and self defence being more important than having a police state like leftist regimes. Woke isa fasciist tool like hating jews was for Germany. It's identity politics.
In canada we had banks freeze accounts for political opinions. tHe video maker here maybe is too afraid to understand his side is fasciist.
In Canada we have a merger of banks, government, media, and corporations. We have a government that funds the media and controls the algorithms of the whole internet here./
Fasciism isn't so hard to understand. Anyone trying to make it difficult to understand is trying to fool you.
I was hoping another comment would notice this 😭
1:32 SYSTEM OF A DOWN REFRENCE
We don't speak anymore of war
@@cloroxflavoredbleach9362 what’s so civil about war anyway?
I feel like all my cousins watched this video and then came to thanksgiving dinner like they had some sort of doctorate in political science lol. Great video. Made for a very intriguing lunch break.
Also, I am in love with your editing, It's like watching a mini documentary, but for FREE!
You should make more comprehensive videos like these about other political ideologies. Keep up the great work!
Like zionism !
@farahmaswadeh6245 that would actually be super interesting
Well damn the algorithm. I recently searched for videos on this exactly and didn't find quite what I was looking for. Then I happened on you because of videos on completely different topics, and there this was the whole time. Anyway, thank you for it. Just the explainer I was looking for.
half of my final year in my history degree was a study of european fascism and fascism in the modern world and i have to say seeing the likes of payne and griffin appear in your analysis really lends credence to your words. Youve clearly done the legwork on research, top notch mate. one thing id argue on though, when i was doing my paper on it i interpreted palingenetic not as revolutionary but as reactionary. a rebirth from the perceived attacks upon society i.e franco and his propaganda that the catholic church in spain was under attack and as we see today with fascists espousing views against the perceived attacks on "society" by equal rights movements. Calling palingeneticism revolutionary just wasnt how i would define it.
You’re right, there is nothing revolutionary about Fascism
I guess you could define palingeneticism as both reactionary and revolutionary (if that’s not an oxymoron). Fascists don’t just oppose social progress and reform, but they actively seek to revert society to an idealised, distant past through revolutionary methods (ie. paramilitary violence). I might be reaching there though, I haven’t properly studied fascism since Christmas
@@willkp50 revolution is difficult to define, just like fascism. certainly the debate has never been settled- even among tendencies like anarchism or marxism, which place the idea of revolution at the very center of their theories, there is always internal disagreement over what defines both revolution and reactionary counterrevolution. its probably worth noting that none of these left wing movements consider a military coup to be revolutionary, while fascists absolutely would, with the reigns of state power trading hands (albeit outside of the lawful channels) instead of being defeated and dismantled. Franco's regime was absolutely a partially successful military coup, and both Hitler and Mussolini undermined the governments they belonged to from within and both were able to seize power without armed conflict.
@@willkp50 "they actively seek to revert society to an idealised, distant past"
I'm not sure how this is accurate? What past are they reaching for? I find the concepts of Fascism as entirely modern.
@@JimbotheoneThe italians went for the roman empire and the germans for HRE and German Empire. Its called third reich for a reason.
Great video. It’s important to keep things as academic as possible when appealing to a broad crowd in order to maintain the message, and you did that very well. Some people feel the need to dumb down this kind of content, but I think people are smart enough to grapple with complex ideas.
I feel like this video is saying that only historical fascists are fascists so we shouldn't be allowed to define it as a political theory or point out any similarities in today's governments.
@@JohnSmith-mc2zzI kind of got that vibe too, but idk if that was intentional or accidental.. It's concerning, especially after reading project 2025. We need to be talking about that more as it's a direct threat happening right now. I worry vids like this will only muddy the waters when facing real fascist characteristics like with project 2025 or other political issues of today. I do think people are too eager to jump towards whatever scary word is popular atm & that's very problematic on its own. However pointing out characteristics are also still important too.
@@ShinyNix86 I think if you're an avowed leftist you have an alternative definition of fascism which includes many conservatives and some liberals, in contradiction to this video. I agree the Republican agenda in our lifetime has been and will continue to be very sinister. Strangely, I think the "fascism" laid out in this video describes many self-described "Marxist-Lenninist" governments, the prime example today being China. Liberalism is under strong political attack, and people like social democrats and some anarchists are also inclined to defend it while simultaneously criticizing it.
this video is mentally weak and afraid to make a point. fascism and communism are almost the same, except fasciism doesn't own but only controls. Fascism and communism are central power systems, which make them both leftist. Right wingers want small government, no centralization and self defence being more important than having a police state like leftist regimes. Woke isa fasciist tool like hating jews was for Germany. It's identity politics.
In canada we had banks freeze accounts for political opinions. tHe video maker here maybe is too afraid to understand his side is fasciist.
In Canada we have a merger of banks, government, media, and corporations. We have a government that funds the media and controls the algorithms of the whole internet here./
Fasciism isn't so hard to understand. Anyone trying to make it difficult to understand is trying to fool you.
@@JohnSmith-mc2zz Modern fascists like the group Casapound take their main inspiration from the Jamahiriya of Muamar Gaddafi and talk of emulating China, and are also far more Pan-European seeing Italy as 1 part of a Europe that views the United States as the enemy of a forming Eurasia. This is very different from 20th century fascism so it’s important to focus on the core ideas
The System of a Down reference in 1:34 is genius. You've earned a subscriber, great video!
Interesting summary. I agree that there is risk to calling everything 'fascism,' and I see a similar and perhaps nearly as longstanding of a problem in the US of calling everything 'communist.' Because of this, and because of a few changes that seem to be occurring in the world as a whole, I have taken to more often using the terms 'quasi-fascist' or 'neofascist,' for ideologies largely similar to those described here, but more and more often seen without an expansionist foreign policy, making use of less obvious and less traditional forms of militarism both internally and abroad, and with autocratic governing that aligns itself more securely with capital.
The point is clear that extreme nationalism is at the core of fascist ideology. Because of the 9 feelings identified toward the end as the roots of a fascist mood, I would add another corollary that seems implicit in most of the video. Fascism entails a collective societal obsession with essentialism and deservedness, based as little as possible on a person's actions, experience, or expertise (which are seen as factors that have contributed to assessments of persons' deservedness that have left the fascist behind), but rather on some biological essence that a person has or does not have irrespective of how the person engages with the world. This ties in with nationalism and someone having the proper essence of the nation, or else being seen as degenerate. It also ties in with militarism and might makes right, because these forms of strength are viewed as natural endowments rather than some experience or practiced expertise (which would make them suspect and degenerate). Fascist leaders are often seen as buffoons until they are viewed as crucially needed strongmen, as a result. Also, this key aspect of fascism encapsulates a lot of the feelings cited, because if success in life is mostly to do with whether or not one has some innate essence of the nation, and one's frustrations can be blamed on those that value actions and experience and expertise, one need not take any accountability for one's shameful failures in any rational sense (as individuals or societally). No work is needed to make life better, all that needs to occur is purification of the magical essence and further centralization of power to those deemed most deserved, with the masses agreeing to less of a role in governing in the hope of finally identifying with the elites and their success or power.
_"The point is clear that extreme nationalism is at the core of fascist ideology. "_
*Actually no, it isn't. It was extreme Statism which was at the core of the Fascist ideology. They were Statists first, nationalists second. This is explicitly stated in their "Doctrine of Fascism" for example;*
_"7. Anti-individualistic, the Fascist conception is for the State; and it is for the individual only in so far as he coincides with the State, which is the conscience and universal will of man in his historical existence. It is opposed to classical liberalism, which arose as a reaction to absolutism and exhausted its historical function when the State was transformed into the conscience and will of the people. Liberalism denied the State in the interest of the particular individual; Fascism reasserts the State as the true reality of the individual. And if liberty is to be the attribute of real men, and not of abstract puppets invented by individualistic liberalism, then Fascism is for liberty, and for the only liberty which can be real, the liberty of the State and of the individual within the State. Therefore, for the Fascist, everything is in the State, and outside of it nothing human or spiritual can exist, much less have value. In this sense Fascism is totalitarian, and the Fascist State-the synthesis and unity of all values-interprets, develops, and potentiates the whole life of the people."_
_"10. This higher personality is the nation in so far as it is the State. It is not the nation that generates the State, as according to the old naturalistic concept which served as the basis of the political theories of the nation-states of the nineteenth century. Rather the nation is created by the State, which gives to the people, conscious of their moral unity, a will and therefore an effective existence. The right of a nation to independence derives not from a literary and ideal consciousness of its own being, still less from a more or less unconscious and inert acceptance of a de facto situation, but from an active consciousness, from a political will in action and ready to demonstrate its own rights: that is to say from a state already coming into being. The State, in fact, as the universal ethical will, is the creator of the right to national independence."_
I'm consistently floored by your exceptional visual style.
ty
I love this video, so much. Much of it isn't new information to me by now, but the merit of that information being succinctly packaged with care and purpose cannot be understated. It was emotionally moving to watch this and just reflect
Nietzsche came up, my heart stopped. Good you cleared things up. Yes, his work was utilized by the movement but they reimagined his entire philosophy, using elements that fit their message.
That is true. In my opinion Nietzsche and intellectuals in general should be cautious for the reason of misinterpretation/manipulation by others of what they have said or done. There will always be bad people and thankfully there will always be good people as well, but it pays to be mindful of how you say what you say.
did you know hitler was a massive niezsche fan
@@user-nw9kk5zw2s and? H also liked dogs. It proves literally nothing. Moreover, H was never into philosophy, he wasn't clever enough, and couldn't properly utilize it. Nietzsche is an integral part of philosophy, he has nothing to do with IIWW and its atrocities. Many philosophers are adored by questionable people. Their philosophy being distorted doesn't mean it's evil. I study philosophy, and trust me, the übermenschen is not related to what people think. Nowadays, stoics are being devalued and misinterpreted by alphabros but their lack of actual passion and focus don't take from the core of the philosophy. You can read "Also sprach Zarathustra" with sensible commentary for yourself, and you'll see it has nothing to do with evil or domination. Nietzsche himself never identified with the idea of übermenschen. It's a story of loneliness, responsibility that noble knowledge Zarathustra wants to share with the world. You'll find no evil in Nietzsche's writings and people from all political spectrums acknowledge his lack of involvement in IIWW events. There were other "thinkers"involved in etho-research. I don't wanna be banned, so I won't get into it. But let the poor Friedrich be. He had a difficult life and a horrible end, we don't need to add to his issues calling him a nzi because the idea of übermenschen was misused. The same professor who taught us Marx's materialism, cried telling the story of Nietzsche loosing his ability to write, slowly becoming a prisoner of his bed 😭
please, as if we were told the truth about him. @@zogwort1522
I bet you've never even read nietzche, nietzche's logical conclusion clearly lead to fascism, that a country and people have self-determination.
This is an amazing Video! Great work! My love for wanting to understand the human condition and how current topics can play back into history and ideology has been peaked even more by some topics mentioned here!
aboslutely amazing video, as a sociology student, i can still see a lack of critical thinking towards political standpoints among the academic realm. This video is truely educational and crtical towards this sensetive topic.
He's wrong on several things in this video. Do your own research. Read Giovanni Gentile if you actually want to know what fascism is.
If you have studied "sociology" at university and talk about the "academic realm" you're most certainly part of the most leeching worthless "intellectual" group of trash amongst society. This is not a political statement, I just hate the professional managerial class of leeches who always butt in in every discussion of ideas they cannot define or comprehend.
As a sociology student how do you feel about zionism?
@@Iron_Wyvern the same giovanni gentile that was closely associated with mussolini?
@@Iron_Wyvern care to enlighten us on what those things are?
18:45 You're misrepresenting Spengler here, he just presented the rise of Caesar-like figures as an inevitability in a 'Zivilisation', not something hopeful or something that would revert the decay.
I appreciated the nuance of emphasizing that Oswald Spengler hated Hitler. Nietzsche too hated the statists (democracies, socialists, and others who made the state their god once they lost their faith in Chriatianity); this is why he broke off his relationship with Wagner. The Managerial Revolution that followed from The Enlightenment leading to the crisis of nihilism is exactly what Nietzsche was worried about: socialism, communism, fascism… all forms of statism resulting in 100+ million souls murdered in these social engineering schemes concocted by spiritually weak men.
@@seanwieland9763 Very well said.
This was an exceptional crystallization of an abstract idea.
I feel the same yearning for simplicity as those who trade their capacity for critical thought in for an undying loyalty to a universal father figure. Every cell in my body resists this giving in though, because evil is as simple as the willingness to sit back while state-sanctioned violence happens to someone that isn't you.
Beautifully comprehensive in articulation.
Fascism is the passive exploitation of Mood to facilitate Brutality in the guise of Self Preservation.
Mood is constituted of sentiments. Experiences. Not as Experienced. But as historical narratives manifested into Real Life plays...
As a Reminder.
I swear I learn so much from each and every video on this channel. So much amazing information all narrated and presented beautifully. Keep up the great work!
This video is so underrated I learned a lot from this video this feels more than a youtube video this feels like it comes out of a book
This channel is going to go far. Love your editing style, keep up the good work!
I haven’t finished but… godamn is the editing good on this video
its so good you can hear the clicks on his mouse
There's one thing about Fascism is they always have relationship with nostalgia as a sort of a fire to warm their palms in a never ending winter that is their nation's ever changing environment. I see this pattern in every Fascist that use the "Back then we were xyz and now we are xyz". Mosley, Adolf and Benito always look at the past as of a manual to learn from rather than a event of warning. And suprisingly they fall faster than the empires they try to imitate.
"Putin"
not everything in the past is bad
its also worth remembering that they rose faster than these empires too. in a few years germany went from bread costing 500.000 marks to building highways and cheap cars for people. also went from 6.5 mill workers out of job to 3m. if there's anything that brings downfall to any nation its expansion. they never did anyone any good. maybe the british, but thats debatable. but yes, at least adolf and benito expanded in an unapologetic manner and unsustainably too. hence why they rose quickly, but fell even quicker.
@@satriabagaskara4198 From an economic standpoint, it makes a lot of sense. They see a time when the economy was better, and push to try and reach that point. But since it’s a short-sighted strategy ideology, they push for unsustainable production in the short term instead of permanent shifts in production possibilities.
There’s also the confusion of correlation vs causation: thins were better because strong men were in charge, instead of because of the years of work put into building the country to the point it was.
Edit: I should specify that this is pretty speculative. I’m currently an economics 1 student, so it’s on the mind, but not really something that I have a super nuanced understanding of. If anyone who knows more would like to share, I’m always down to learn.
And yet it’s incredibly important to remember the past had, like today, a vast amount of competing viewpoints, experiences and agendas in not only the actual primary perception of the cause and effect of historical events (ie leaving out background often on things like the first crusade) but also the retelling and accurate preserving of accurate sources over censorship or propaganda of the past. Therefore if we fail to ever give the “positive” viewpoint of the past, often by focusing on the acts of elites, politicians and warlords over the largely human struggle for mere happiness and family of the common folk ie 95% of history and your ancestors, you can also risk demonising the past such as modern North American society seems to sadly be trending towards. This is, just like glorifying the past, reliant on one sidedness and hyper fixation on modern perceptions and modern false equivalence to create a narrative that pushes, in both cases, towards an insultingly ignorant and straight up false idea of the past, ruining the idea of learning from history to improve, or in the case of demonising the past, specifically demonising only certain actions and cultures within the past, almost claiming they CANNOT be learned from, except to avoid and fight against everything they supposedly stood for.
I've loved seeing your skyrocket in sub count. I subbed when you were at about 60k, which is by no means small, but it's been wild to see it shoot up so fast. Well deserved. My gf isn't very into most RUclips content, but I was able to show her your video about Hemmingway and it moved us both to tears. Keep doing what you're doing -- look forward to whatever comes in the future.
really appreciate your work, man. discovered your channel less than a month ago and it's one of my favorites already. keep up with the good work!
Excellent video. Very objective and nonpartisan. But I find nonpartisanship to be an appalling approach for me, personally, to uphold in this conversation-- amidst the numerous and glaring similarities with the objective description of fascism and the objective facts about the Trump regime.
My thoughts during the section where the author, Horses, describes what makes something fascism:
5:33 - A utopian approach to extreme nationalism. That's "make America great again" and "deport millions/ immigrants are ruining our country" and "America is for Americans" and tariffs around the world.
6:23 - Trump appoints Elon Musk (the most elite elite, by the way) and other stalwart Trump supporters into a great many positions of power.
6:52 - Supporting violence and war: Pardoning Jan 6 rioters, claiming to use the National Guard in states that are unwilling to comply with deportation laws, expressing desires to "speed up" the genocide in Gaza by Israel
7:41 - using populist, nationalist rhetoric. (Shown elsewhere in this description, and also extremely abundant and well-known to the public.)
8:06 - Religious following: Donald Trump literally is selling a $70 bible with his name on the cover, some of his supporters use dramatic religious language to describe Trump's purpose in politics
8:20 - False rhetoric against an external group (immigrants): they're r***sts and murderers, Haitians in Springfield eating the pets, (more)
8:45 - Oh, yes. "MAGA" is the intense aesthetic symbology.
9:21 - "TRUE FASCIST REGIMES ARE MADE UP OF MEN AND PAY ALMOST NO ATTENTION TO WOMEN'S RIGHTS OR GENDER EQUALITY" I mean, nobody has questions about this one, right? Let's at least throw this up: rolling back the right to an abortion. Don't anybody pretend there aren't at least 2 extremely important and moral reasons why women need to have access to that.
9:53 - rebirth and revolutionary - make America great again insinuates a great change, a new America, that will be great unlike the America we are in now.
10:18 - LOL.... UNIQUELY COMBINES POPULISM WITH ELITISM. This is bar for bar exactly what Trump and the republican party are doing. Populist rhetoric, but tax breaks for billionaires and tariffs that make life more net expensive for consumers (everyone). Who doesn't mind more expensive goods? The elite. Who is Trump appealing to? Poor, uneducated voters.
I'd argue the first Fascist philosopher (Giovanni Gentile) was correct in his description of Fascism.
Fascism is a deification of the State. In the way a theocracy would say it obeys the will of God, a Fascist would say it obeys the will of the State.
This is also why Mussolini described the Fascist State as "ethical" (meaning having an ethic, not meaning good)
The State is a god whom all are beholden to.
It's not "ultra-nationalism" because a nation and a State are not the same thing.
Far too much of this discourse has been tainted by people trying to push their political point of view onto a view which isn't their own as a way to lionize their position in contrast to their opposition
And if anyone claims that states and nations are the same thing, point out that every nation has a state, but states do not have nations. They are the government of a nation.
You mean a guy who invented Fascism knew what Fascism is? no way Fascism is just a generic bad bad man with mustache bad guy, didn't you watch the video?
@@FilipCordashey my man ever heard of something called lying?
I have no idea how you are so dimwitted that you can't grasp the concept of someone lying. Either that or you are just intentionally lying yourself. Which, since you try to frame people calling fascism by what it is as "trying to paint an ideology in a bad light" seems like a big possibility.
Anyways, gentile and mussolini were both nutorious liars, mussolini lied so much and switched up his statements so much that there is an entire wikipedia section just on his lying 😂.
If you take mussolinis words unctitically or take gentiles words uncritically you are simply not academically enclined. Primary sources are never too be taken at face value uncritically. It's a simple rule
This is nonsensical. Hans H. Hoppe is a fascist and an anarcho-capitalist.
@@FilipCordasfascism is bad
weird that needs to be said to you filip
I think one reason why it's hard to define fascism is because it came and went quickly relative to other ideologies that were practiced, and when it did exist the system and its leaders were either working to gain power, preparing their economy for war, and then engaging in said war. Then the system was snuffed out (rightfully so). But this means that there was no extended post-war peacetime era that we can scrutinize. There wasn't a period of years where a fascist country was simply chugging along with an emphasis on economy and social development. We never really got to see all these theories that fascism was based on be put into practice on a civil level, or see whether their economy would become more nationalized or not with time, or see what traditions, attitudes and worldviews the average working person would develop over the years. And of course there's the question of how much freedom the state would allow for the individual.
The fascist system we know of today simply lived and died for war's sake, and I think that limits our ability to understand the total depth of what fascism would have looked like in practice, as opposed to something like communism which existed for much longer, in many more countries, and in both war and peace-time capacities.
Spain was fascist from the late 1930's to the 1970's under Francisco Franco. After they won the civil war, the regime started off totalitarian and with a great purge of their enemies from that civil war (including liberals, social democrats, anarchists, communists, and others within their broad Spanish-Republican coalition). Initially their economics were autarkic and corporatist (not to be confused with corporatocratic). All values and opinions considered "anti-Spanish" were strongly suppressed. They did not join the Axis powers in WWII but indirectly supported them in ways that kept them officially neutral. Ultra-conservativism, Catholicism, and the image of national identity were promoted (and regional identity was strongly suppressed). They also restored the monarchy of Spain, but without sitting monarch.
Economy stagnated, and under pressure of the US, IMF, and and Opus Dei technocrats in 1959 Franco's government introduced liberalization policies to the economy. The regime became less totalitarian but still massively authoritarian. Spain became the second fastest growing economy in the 1960's and early 1970's, and while it still lagged behind most of Europe, it closed part of the gap.
Franco's would-be successor Luis Carrero Blanco was killed in 1973 by Basque seperatists from ETA, and when Franco died two years later, Juan Carlos became king and Spain became a constitutional monarchy.
As I understand it, fascism in Spain mainly functioned as a way for those who had held power before the Second Spanish Republic (the royal family, the church, large property owning capitalists etc.), to restore/protect their positions. But I'm a complete layman, so better to just research further if you're interested in knowing more.
@@KarlSnarks Franco not only betrayed the Spanish fascists by letting anarchists kill the Falanges leader but shortly after the war banned the Falange in Spain. The guy was just a Catholic dictator.
@@lakiog1938 Antonio Primo de Rivera you mean? he was put death by the Republic, not by the anarchists specifically.
Anyway, it doesn't matter if Franco 'let them do it'. Fascists are pathetic little backstabbing bitches in general. And being supported by the Catholic church does not make Franco any less of a fascist, Mussolini was also supported by the church.
I love your channel; The style, the pace, the content, the editing, the subjects and most importantly the effort you put into not showing your part of a group. It's so refreshing to see a channel thats able to talk about political/societal/philosophical subjects while not actively trying to push some stupid personnal agenda. As long as I can't tell where you belong It always keeps me guessing on what you''ll say next, as well as keeps away most the bulshit that comes with claiming to be in a group
Reddit is going to freak when they see this. Well done, sir, you win the internets today.
Nah, redditards are going to cherry pick on the mexican Primo de Rivera blunder and deflect.
To me, personally;
Horse’s writing style is a rich, churning mixture of Jacob Geller, Machine Thinking, and LEMMiNO.
His retelling of The Golden Globe Race and the subsequent disappearance of Donald Crowhurst is by far the best I’ve seen.
Qxir did a video on the topic which it wasn’t bad by any means.
But, last night I was hooked for the entire 45 minute run time of Horse’s video: “Madness at Sea.”
It was a great watch and I would definitely recommend.
(A bit long winded and brown nosey, I know. But, I just wanted to say good job and you’ve got a new subscriber.)
💪🏼😎👍🏼
Very nice, we got very similar taste in creators and their content.. I will have to check Machine thinking, since that is the only one I didn't discover yet.. Have a great day!
@@relight6931
He doesn’t have a whole lot of content; I suggest the one about how the invention of screws shaped the entire modern world. Or the one where he talks about making a perfectly flat surface with nothing to start from. How you could take three stones, A,B, and C. Something about how only rubbing A and B together wouldn’t work because they would only mate up with one another so you add the third stone as a sort of gauge letting you know that once all three stones can mate up perfectly flat and interchangeably then you can be certain they are, indeed, perfect.
It’s a neat video.
Don’t get me wrong, I like lots of content but these quasi-educational videos are great. I think they’re called video essays.
Jacob does a lot of his essays on video games which I think is just great. His video on the Uncanny Reality of Silent Hill is probably one of his best.
Sir, yet another coming through to say, I appreciate the incredibly large amount of work that went into this video.
It is becoming increasingly difficult to even find the information to create any type of video or study on this topic ( or most topics for that matter ).
Ty ❤️❤️❤️
If you want to learn what it is, the best 3 books are…
1. Origins and doctrine of fascism, by Giovanni Gentile
2. The philosophy of fascism, by Mario Palmeri
3. The coming corporate state, by Raven Thomson (which showed not only a syndicalist mode of production was possible for their economic ideas).
Fascists were pretty prolific writers so there’s plenty of primary sources on the ideology
This is one of the most fascinating well done videos I have ever seen.
I myself have been trying to define this and explain it to my wife and it is incredibly difficult. This was fantastic, thank you .
I love how this channel's censorship is none, it reveals what the subject is in its core
Everything about your videos is just perfect. The tone of the voice, the cadence, the visual content, every single thing is just right. Every video you put out amazes me.
Jose Antonio Primo de Rivera isn't a mexican fascist, he is the Spanish founder of the fascist movement in Spain, La Falange 3:16
perfect ? nah
I really dig the style of your video here, how it effortlessly carries us from one idea to the next. Your video makes no promises, yet it delivers us to a poignant understanding of this terrible thing that evades definition by showing us what it HAS been. Great job! I look forward to seeing more.
This video is good enough to be sent in for publication in an academic journal. Really fantastic.
Fascism is a key word that people often use to discredit an argument or person. Is used as a way to silence or censor. It is ironic that the use of the word fascism as pejorative is often fascistic in the way that it silences.
This video is incredible and thoughtful. Really appreciate your effort for quality like this, absolutely important especially in today’s era.
Nobody seems to pick up on how fascism was a reactionary movement for its time. Liberalism got blamed for WWI and the new-kid-on-the-block Communism was looking scary. People were trying to run away from those two ideologies and fascism offered something different; a "Third Way" it often advertised. I think you hit that fascism was tailored for that time period, and name calling people that today is mostly fruitless.
you have absolutely no idea what youre talking about
Think more before you comment
@@based_dragon_0110he does, i dont know if i want to break it down for you tbh so ill just say to agree to disagree
Don't listen to those two idiots saying you're wrong, you were entirely correct. However, I would add a caveat that 'fashizzum' is not just about finding 'a third way', it was also a 'return to form', where it points out that the so-called 'enlightenment era' was the origin of liberalism and inevitably communism; because of their failings, we need to look back to the old ways to properly understand the world. However, it was also not a luddite style movement; embracing technological advancements. In short, it's a new dog with old tricks.
It very much seemed as though fascism was a product of its time.
your editing is so captivating
What a great video i almost never comment. But this was a great video.
New favorite political commentary channel tbh.
So glad the algo boosted you to me. Instead of lukewarm manosphere garbage.
Every single time I ask for a definition for what's fascism I get 1 of 4 outcomes:
1. Get blocked.
2. Get told to use google.
3. Get told that "It can mean so many things and is such as complex topic, there are just so many different variants of fascism and you may just need to look at it from a different angle"
4. "You".
Super helpful.
It hurts because most definitions of fascism found online, they include the term right wing, but if you remove that meaningless term.... You get a straight up definition of communism. Then you look up what political ideologies the founders of fascism had... and all of them were socialists with a few marxists. It's an authoritarian ideology born from socialism where the party controls both the state and the businesses so similar to communism that after the starvation period, communist nations become fascist ones.
I prefer option 4. look and behold; here I am.
@@SolarSurfer99 "So fascism is when I'm against authoritarian governments, against discrimination, and love dogs? Nice"
@@juanrodriguez9971 choose your own adventure
I get told "Nazi Germany" and nothing else
Horses, this was so well done. This is a great counterpart to Bliss Foster’s vid “Prada: Fascism and Fashion” from a month back. I think the aesthetic dimension of fascism is fascinating, and both you and Bliss address its power.
Despite my better judgement, I catch myself bewitched by the architecture, the passionate yet orderly masses of people, the violence, and the dress codes of fascist regimes. All of these elements create an atmosphere of a sublime sovereign; even though it is violent and many cases would’ve been deadly to me personally, I’m drawn in like a moth to a flame. This susceptibility makes me wonder how other women (especially queer women) who were immersed in, yet sidelined by, fascist regimes considered their place in the aesthetics of the hypermasculine atmosphere… time to do some more reading :)
Great video, I loved the way you presented it and clearly broke it down. Keep up the great work! :)
Excelent explanation. I've never heard a better definition of such a complex and loaded word.
That was a wonderful video, and a great analysis of a very complex topic, warning about a very dangerous thing, fascism itself, and how trivially the word is thrown around nowadays, making it lose its meaning. Coming from a country that was deeply affected by a form of fascism it annoys me greatly to see the word being thrown around to accuse others not because the other party is actually a fascist, but because the actions of that person lean in that direction, it normalizes the use that word for things not actually encompassed in the broad spectrum of fascism.
Keep up the great work, I'm really glad that this video was recommended to me.
@AddictionSucks1988 Nothing racist about pointing out that a specific minority demographic has a cancerous destructive culture and that the institutional embracing of that culture is ruining our society.
damn...it sounds so based to me
@AddictionSucks1988 white
Very well presented, I enjoyed your balanced and unbiased presentation on a topic that as you mentioned is becoming a throw away line.
So many of these "What is Fascism?" videos go for formal definitions that are rarely helpful, mainly because Fascism is not a coherent ideology like Marxism or Liberalism. Yours is the first I've seen that gets to the heart of the matter by talking about what Fascists want and how they pursue it. Writing in the first half of the 20th Century, George Orwell remarked that "Fascist" had been reduced to an epithet that could be applied to almost anyone, and proposed "bullying" as a more useful synonym. That seems to apply to the characteristics you describe,.The point is not to define Fascism but diagnose it-how these movements begin, how they come to power, and the harm they inevitably do. It's the leader principle that is most terrifying-it is the thing that makes all the other atrocities possible. Thank you for an intelligent and very practical guide to this pathology.
_"mainly because Fascism is not a coherent ideology like Marxism or Liberalism."_
Except it is, very coherent ideology in fact.
@@_Historia_Magistra_Vitae You'll have to explain how. There's never been two Fascist regimes that have the same program or even the same guiding principles. We can say that antisemitism or racism is inherent to Fasciam... except that most Fascist regimes are neither. We can say that expansionism is inherent... but countries like Spain never really practiced it. If there is a unifying idea, it's the leadership principle that supersedes all institutions and written law. But when you say, "our ideology is whatever the leader wants it to be," that's not an ideology, it's a cult, it's just bowing to whatever particular obsessions the leader has, whether that happens to be Lebensraum or naming the months of the year after yourself. I would go so far as to say that Führersprinzip is antithetical to ideology. An ideology binds its practitioners as much as it does its subjects. Case in point: Conservatism used to be an ideology in the United States, and if someone deviated from that ideology they would be called a Republican In Name Only. Now a RINO is simply defined as someone who isn't sufficiently submissive to the leader. The Republican party platform in 2020 was literally "Whatever Trump wants." So if today Trump says he's anti-abortion and tomorrow he's for it, no one's going to say he betrayed his party. He is the party.
This is why I believe it's more useful to talk about the pathology of Fascism... viruses don't have ideologies. Neither do bullies. They just want to take over.
@@host_theghost507 _"You'll have to explain how. "_
Fascism was a totalitarian far-left, socialist 3rd position ideology based on National Syndicalism which they adapted from Georges Sorel. It rejected individualism, capitalism, liberalism/democracy, and marxism. The means of production was organized by national worker syndicals (i.e. trade unions), and the guiding philosophy of the state was Actual Idealism.
Fascism was an outgrowth of Sorellian Syndicalism, which itself was an outgrowth from Marxist socialism. The idea was that society would be consolidated (i.e., incorporated) into syndicates (in the Italian context, fascio/fasci) which would be regulated by and serve as organs for the state, or "embody" the state (corpus = body). The purpose was the centralization and synchronization of society under the state, as an end unto itself. To quote Mussolini's infamous aphorism: "All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state."
As created by Mussolini and Giovanni Gentile, Fascism comes from a belief that the "Stateless and Classless society" Communism calls for after its dictatorship cannot achieve Socialism, and that only the State can properly organize a Socialist Society. It cared about unity in a strong central government with society being brought together by syndicalist organizations obedient to the State.
@@host_theghost507 _"There's never been two Fascist regimes that have the same program or even the same guiding principles. "_
That is because there has been only one Fascist regime, the revolutionary syndicalist movement under Mussolini.
@@host_theghost507 _"but countries like Spain never really practiced it."_
Spain didn't have Fascism under Franco. The original Falangist movement was Neo-Fascist, but then go reformed by Franco to suit his own needs and purposes.
fascism is when people I dont like do the thing I dont like
Honestly
Fascism is when you’re either based and red pilled or based and blue pilled
@@HorsesOnYTjust ignore him. Simple mind etc
@@brosephyolonarovichstalin2915 it was a joke lol
@@brosephyolonarovichstalin2915you are the one with simple mind here
Spengler didn't advocate for a Caesar figure, he merely thought this is part of the cycle of history. Spengler did not believe civilization could be "saved" from itself but that it's natural cycle will be followed inevitably.
Correct. Unfortunately, Spengler will always be mis-characterized.
@@444-w8k hrm
Судя по комментариям видео более чем смотрибельно и я его посмотрю, а пока не начал напишу моё определение фашизма, я разобью его на основные части:
-Интегральный национализм(этнический или гражданский)
-Солидаризм(примерение социальных класов, идей, групп)
-Консолидация общества
-Культивированный милитаризм
-Национализация крупной промышленности при этом содействуя крупным предпринемателям и корпоративная экономика
-Идея о возрождении нации, ну или о перестройки мира...
Это я опредилил как базовые основы фашизма и мне кажется что я прав
Редактировано: я посмотрел, ты потрясающий ! Больше спасибо за видео, это и вправду было очень познавательно и смотреть было очень интересно !
Jose Antonio Primo de Rivera was not Mexican. He was Spanish
But mexicans speak spanish
@@RicardoMontania…what? If you are from Spain you are spanish. Spanish is also a language though. He is Spanish as his ethnicity and origin. Mexican ≠ spanish but can mean that you speak Spanish
@@00xyres Thanks for explaining the obvious.. Being Spanish is basically just like being Mexican, but with a different accent. It’s all about linguistics. You really have to understand the nuances of dialects to grasp these things. But don’t worry, not everyone’s sharp enough to catch that and your misconception is quite common.
@@RicardoMontania no it isnt. As said Maya Mexican living here, I can confirm that what you’re saying absolutely isnt true. The similarities between Mexican and Spanish culture are based on spanish colonization and thats it. Perhaps for mestizo it may partially apply but im not explaining racial politics to someone who clearly is just trying to win an argument 💀
@00xyres Well, that’s YOUR perspective as a local, but I’m looking at it from a more global viewpoint. Sometimes it helps to step back and see the bigger picture, you know? Look, I’m just trying to simplify it for you. You don’t have to get all technical when the answer is pretty obvious. I’m talking about the general truth here, not just some niche, localized take.
the most important thinker to get a grip of fascism was Hegel. his entire philosophical project was to trace the appearance of representation. and representation is the engine of fascism: the goal of fascism is to complete the liquidation of the world into pure symbols (race, nation, sex, class, war, state, capital) all things which in their essence have no material basis but serve as means of control. as spectacles, as images.
The man from the "mexican fsscist utopia" in minute 3:23 is jose antonio primo de rivera, which is spanish, not mexican
Woodrow Wilson is a textbook example of someone with high minded liberal ideas making things 10x worse.
Same with FDR. Its sickening that people treat him like a hero.
Woodrow Wilson was a monster.
I'm also thinking LBJ's War on Poverty and what it did to the black community, though the social definition of liberal has changed a lot since then so my understanding of high-minded liberal may be flawed.
What high minded liberal ideas did he espouse? It’s extremely easy to be a liberal when it gets you in power. The way he used his power was authoritarian and unprecedented.
@@HudsonValleyVHS in what way ?
Great vid! Tik put together a very solid vid as well! Def worth a watch.
I’m real big into informative YT channels, but this is better than Biographics (or any of his other channels) and I LOVE Simon.
Outstanding work man, really really excited to watch more of your content.
Hey what books were they burning? We should look into that.
Books by Jewish people , communist books , socialist books , books on sexology. Karl Marx's books were the first books burned in Germany....
Yes, seems like a certain political group is awfully similar to the NatSocs. Hmm.
@@Water_Destroys_Magnets good
@@TouringWolf42like leftists? Yes
Facism wants to remove foreign influence of its nation and is thus hard to pinpoint
Pinpointing facism is hard because it prioritizes the removal of foreign influence Facism wants to remove foreign influence of its nation and is thus hard to pinpoint
Pinpointing facism is hard because it prioritizes the removal of foreign influence Facism wants to remove foreign influence of its nation and is thus hard to pinpoint
Pinpointing facism is hard because it prioritizes the removal of foreign influence
If anything, this is a great lesson in nuance. The anticipation of decline, strong sense of community, and nationalistic identity are all in a vacuum somewhat positive ideas, but taken to it's furthest exaggerations are what bred the evil we all remember from the 20th century. All political ideas when exaggerated can become evil in their own way, the most important aspect of doing right by all is moderation and nuance
Moderation and nuance are sadly like THE two things utterly destroyed by the modern online space and culture war/identity politics, the fact people think their ideas are made objectively correct but also objectively tied to them based on unchangeable traits (ie. black people voting dmeocrat, Christian’s being conservatives, lgbt rights being in tandem with the otherwise very broad idea of progressive liberalism…it dumbs down believers to merely people who are typecast into “beliefs” they don’t even agree with always ffs. The degeneration of actual debate, respect and philosophical ideas being mixed with economic theory etc. that once dominated western media, political discussion and even political debates (they were SO polite while still saying more damming things than said today in the UK and US debates for example) it’s just sad.
Mark of a skilled presenter: no references to modern political figures. All too easy to let one's own preferences bleed into an objective dive of a topic like this. Alienate no one, and you profit by educating everyone.
Real
Really amazing work. Unbelievably challenging as well. To evaluate our current status in the geopolitical state of the world. I am really grateful that you did not mention current parties or movements, and instead focused on what has been understood from the past, to better inform us on the present. Really wonderful and informative video.
Not that you'll necessarily read this, but being from the United States, I see a lot of layers from what was said here, intermixed between several movements in the United States. They don't all 'fit' nicely into the fascism box so to speak. One leader takes a few notes here, another leader takes a few notes there... At the end of the day, it appears elevating an unknown, revolutionary agenda above one's own rights, as well as authoritarian measures and desires, appear to separate a populist movement from a fascist one. I think this video provides a lot to think about, but that is perhaps the one question that resonates with me most. Populism is not Fascism after all. But these mechanisms and cause and effect events mirror each other in almost all movements.
Huey Long was probably the closest thing to fascism in US history
@@zyyl1949Yes, but there were very minor movements lead by people such as William Dudley Pelley that shouldn’t be overlooked. Also Marcus Garvey the founder of Pan-Africanism called himself a fascist so there have been a few movements in US history
Great video, but I was really confused at the lack of mention of the Japanese regime. It differed significantly in some ways from its European counterparts (for example, finding its ideological footing in Ludendorff's _Der totale Krieg_ instead of _Mein Kampf_ ), yet still was pure fascism.
Also, one of the key characteristics of fascism is famously presented as an Italian idiom of the time: _Me ne frego_ -- I don't give a damn.
Your video implies populistic mass participation of the populace in politics (specifically, support of the ideology), but in reality, once in power, fascism always focused on stopping the population from participating in politics, be it Germany, Italy or Japan.
I guess this supports your initial statement about fascism being amorphous, but I was still a bit confused as to why you never mentioned these famous aspects of the regimes.
Cheers.
Japan was not fascist, it had some factors such as Authoritarianism, expansion via imperialism and heavy promotion of uniformity of thought and violence, but it also lacked other factors such as Paramilitarism, A single party dictatorship (the government was a coalition) and the Palingenesis or rebirth that is needed, the cult of personality was around the emperor who was a meant to be a figurehead and was portrayed as a divine being above politics. Japan was more of an example of Authoritarian conservatism.
Great work, you really hit the nail on the head. Fascism is so dangerous because it isn't really an ideology or mental framework that can be dismantled, but it is a feeling growing on the soil of some of humanities deepest emotions. Fascism is a feeling.
@@Historia.Magistra.Vitae. Did you even watch the video? If fascism was a concrete ideology it would be easily defined, yet any simple definition of fascism people throw around can be applied to many other non fascist ideologies, so they aren't really good definitions of fascism.
@Historia.Magistra.Vitae. 💀 socialism.
The explicitely anti communist anti liberal ideology that invented privatization and was funded and supported by business moguls and aristocrats their entire rule are "socialists" apparently lmfao.
Today's democracy run by jews and spiritual semites is far more dangerous for european existance than fascism
@@Historia.Magistra.Vitae.Yeah, Fascists were socialist Nazis and the right has never done anything wrong 😂
What makes it "dangerous" and not "correct"?
Excellent video my friend one of the better Videos describing an ideology I’ve seen