What is Fascism? (Political Philosophy)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 25 янв 2020
- A description of the philosophy behind Italian Fascism from the writings of Giovanni Gentile and Benito Mussolini. An explanation of the philosophy of state corporations and the rejoicing in violence.
Sponsors: João Costa Neto, Dakota Jones, Thorin Isaiah Malmgren, Prince Otchere, Mike Samuel, Daniel Helland, Mohammad Azmi Banibaker, Dennis Sexton, kdkdk, Yu Saburi, Mauricino Andrade, Diéssica, Will Roberts, Greg Gauthier, Christian Bay, Joao Sa, Richard Seaton, Edward Jacobson, isenshi, and √2. Thanks for your support!
Donate on Patreon: / carneades
Buy stuff with Zazzle: www.zazzle.com/carneades
Follow us on Twitter: @CarneadesCyrene / carneadescyrene
Information for this video gathered from The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, The Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Macmillan), The Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy and more!
Finally someone giving an actual definition of fascism and not the plain old 'fascism is when racism' thank you very much for this well detailed video my friend.
Thanks! It is always frustrating when people use terms with a real technical meanings inaccurately.
"Fascism is when an older boy at school gives you a wedgie and stuffs you in a locker while shouting 'NERDS!' ... Thank you for attending my TEDx Talk, my book is on sale in the lobby."
@@somerando8615 That made me giggle.
In 5 words or less, Fascism is socialism with racism.
@@overthis fr
Fantastic job. It’s refreshing to hear someone speak about fascism objectively rather than cutting bits out and presenting a boogeyman.
I'm an AntiFascists, and I totally agree! Even if you're not a fascist or even if you hate fascism, it's so important to properly know what fascism ACTUALLY is!
There's so many AntiFascists and centrists who have no idea what fascism actually is. It really annoyes me
@@Transandgothic indeed. We must educate ourselves. We have run the word to the ground and is loosing meaning. We will not be able tp recognize fascism when it knocks on our door.
@Morocco Mole for the educational part, yeah. It's good that they made a proper and educational video. But tbh, Trump is bad
The term "fascist", especially in recent times, has become a catch all term used by some as a label against others they disagree with. They rely more on the ugliness associated with the term rather than properly representing it as it should be.
@@Transandgothic Here is your main error. Fascism "was" not Fascism is. It was an Italian Catholic anti communist movement. That is why extremist communist organizations were labeled Antifa. Telling us you are an anti-fascist is an admission that you are a communist. This is the biggest tell on the planet of who has sold out to Marxist ideology. By the way there are NO Nazis left either. Both movements ended 80 years ago. They have been using the accusation of fascism as a rallying cry to promote communism. Just try to deny the obvious. I bet you even have a copy of the Communist Manifesto and Das Capital.
Fascism is when racism
Communism is when government
Capitalism is when money
Thankyou!
You are the first of many video's i found that treats the subject objectively.
You should have defined what "state" means in the views of Mussolini, Gentile, Mosley, etc.
The term "state," in the doctrine of fascism, is not synonymous with "government." Rather, the fascist definition of state is an organic and changing body. I believe it was Gentile who gives the example, in his writing, of the American colonists. He describes how the colonists in 1775 had their own culture, dialect, attitudes, and traditions that were unique from the British. In this sense, the "state" of America, embodied in the people, was present before America had a government or even before it had declared itself independent from the British.
Later you mentioned how there are no checks and balances on the leader of a fascist nation. This isn't true either. In Italy, there was a King and a council of fascists who acted as two separate checks on Mousilini; in Britain Oswald Mosely proposed that every few years each British citizen could vote on recalling their leader.
It's also important to keep in mind that fascism, being inherently nationalist, will vary on how it is practiced in each country. This is why in Italy, a more collectivist cultured nation, Mussolini wrote about the rejection of individualism; whereas in Great Britain, a much more materialistic and individualistic cultured nation, Oswald Mosley rejected many of the socialistic views of Mussolini and embarrassed individualism.
Overall this was the best video I've seen depicted fascism, even better than most professors' lectures on the topic. Well done, lad!
Preston Marlo you are very informed. What books do recommend to read. I’d like to learn more about this philosophy.
@@po3-doc159 A super fast and easy read is Oswald Mosley's "Fascism: 100 Questions Asked and Answered." I would definitely start there. "The Doctrine of Fascism" by Mussolini is pretty good and you can find it for free online. "The Philoshpy of Fascism" by Mario Gentile is good too.
If you're American you'll probably relate much more to Mosley, so I'd suggest checking out more of his work.
@@JohnnyCrack Great, thanks for the recommendations!
how would you describe both US political parties?
@@po3-doc159 I am not a fascist because I consequentially reject it due to its incompleteness in scope, however, it does achieve more than communism, with less at that. So to provide you with value, the best place to learn Fascism is HEGEL. However, this will be a close to impossible undertaking, as you would have to also wrestle with all his other contemporaries and distorted adaptations of his view.
In many ways, we live in a distorted Hegel's world. The doctrines of both Communism and Fascism have roots in Hegel's system..although as I already mentioned, these are distorted variations of said view.
Absolute Materialism of Marx and Engels which birthed modern communism vs the Actual Idealism (which I always held to be absolute materialism in disguise anyways) of Giovani Gentiles and Carl Schmitt under the influence of Sporales which birthed Fascism and modern Nationalism.
Even worse, the rampant run off of greed-fueled capital in today's world is a result of the omission of Hegel's grand system, as he is most infamously skipped in many intellectual expenditures of time past. The extremists of capitalism such as Libertarians, anarchists, and Objectivists uphold Aristotle and reject Kant, and in effect Plato. This said rejection of Kant also posits a rejection of Hegel by virtue of association. Of course, the critique and rejection of Kant and Hegel is based on the objection of the rationalization of idealism over materialism (which I find insufficient to explain our world as we perceive it).
Of course all this distorted and limiting ideologies have proven to be insufficient despite the overbearing overconfidence many of said ideologies' apologists display (including myself). While Hegel's system is itself incomplete, none of the others even comes close in its scope of assessment and address of many of life's inquiries, which is all due to his unbridled rigor
(the apologist in me here)
Are u reading my mind? because this is exactly what i was questioning!! thank you for the video
“Next time someone calls you a fascist...”
Can’t say I’ve been accused of that, but incredible video nonetheless. Thank you for putting this together.
You will be.
The left has this anti semetic thing going on now. It was fashionable to call rightist fascists and nazis and boot them off twitter. It's ur turn now it seems. Don't worry. Well get there.
Since "the will of the people" is an important concept here, you should make a video on that next. Because that in and of itself is a very debatable (and interesting) concept.
Rousseau's general will in "On the Social Contract" is probably one of the best Treatise written on the will of the people
I noticed that’s a common trend amongst Marx’s works as well. I wish Marx, Engles, Giovanni Gentile, Benito Mussolini, and Adolf Hitler could sit down at some cafe or pub and just speak about their philosophies to each other.
Imagine all of them working together on some philosophy group project to make some hybrid of all of their ideologies. That would be a fascinating read
@@aaronlandry3934 Nazbol?
@@DLCguy It’s a tough call as to what that hybrid would resemble, though it would likely overlap most in Marx’s dictatorship phase of Communism. I say this, because Marx saw this as a stepping stone to Communism without a state.
Personally though, no, I’m definitely not a Nazi nor am I a Communist. I’m a Libertarian actually, but I find these philosophies to be foreign, though fascinating to consider.
"Democracy is based on the will of the people. It just happens that the people are retarded"
- a very wise man
Oh, this fully descriptive style is perfect. You're my favourite philosophy channel.
It will be interesting to see something about modern political philosophy theories like republicanism, luck egalitarianism and bleeding heart libertarianism.
P. S. (Tarski book on logic is great, thanks for advice)
@@thotslayer9914 what does it mean?
@@thotslayer9914 such a strange question :). No, I'm neoclassical liberal and my institutional views on economics is strongly right wing, more than, I don't even sure, that I would prefer Bernie over Trump(as I would do with any other dem candidate).
@@thotslayer9914 in my perspective, there are two policies, in which Bernie is better than other dems: weaker gun regulations and net neutrality support. Anyway, I'm from Eastern Europe and I'm surely not an expert in us politics.
@@thotslayer9914 no, I'm not. As I said, I'm neoclassical liberal. It's about using modern high liberal justification to justify right libertarian institutions with safety net.
And yeah, Left-libertarianism has two different meanings. First: any anti-authoritarian left, especially left anarchists(the old meaning). And second, which is modern academic meaning based on works of Hillel Steiner and Peter Valentine: libertarianism, which presuppose that land is in collective property of all humanity and that there are self-ownership. Its something like Georgism with Nozick premises.
@@thotslayer9914 yeah, I'll be right libertarian there
Also, Gentile I consider to be the Martin Heidegger of Italy, in how he was once a world famous philosopher who wrote on the Philosophy of Art (which is also the title of his book on the matter), Metaphysics, Logic, Epistemology and Ethics in his Theory of Mind as Pure Act and was an outspoken critic of Pseudo-philosophy and the scientism of the Positivists. Then he joined the Italian fascists like Heidegger joining the German Nazis. Although, his last work Genesis and Structure of Society was one of his last Neo-Hegelian works before he was assassinated after saving intellectuals from Nazi execution in Florence.
Thank you I've been trying to understand these 1900s political philosophies and you sir are a gold mine
Glad to help!
I wish you would have talked about their syndicalism and actualism aspect
An important note, fascism believes might makes right, not might is right. Therefore fascism is not about forms of domination for the sake of domination in and of itself. Additionally fascism believes in righteous violence, not just violence for the sake of it.
High Carneades, can you make some videos about postmodernism philosophy?
Great source for world building, thanks for the content
Fantastic scholarly explanation. Scary stuff
Good explanation of a difficult subject.
I sincerely appreciate the unbiased, academic approach to this topic. It's key to remember this things as they were not just how they were. That said I find it difficult to understand why Fascism was wides spread in the 20's and 30's, even in Gentile's description it sounds fundamentally autocratic
This is a very well done video; well researched, very interesting and well put together. I do however feel that the title is a tad bit misleading; the meaning of words change overtime depending on how they are used by ordinary people. This video does a great job of summarising the early etymology of the term 'fascism', but it neglects to consider the impact of other fascist countries, Germany in particular, and the practice of Fascism, on the common understanding, as well as new associations. For example, one thing that is associated with fascism is the idea of a return to a fictionalized previous 'greatness', that has been stolen from that country in some way. This is something both Hi*ler and Moussolini espoused, and to me it feels negligent to leave that out of a video entitled 'What is Fascism?'. You did qualify this near the beginning, but to me that only reenforces the contradiction. Personally, I feel like something more like 'The Original Philosophy of Fascism' or something along those lines might be more apt. That is of course just my opinion, and I very much do appreciate the video none the less. Thank you :)
_'... the meaning of words change overtime depending on how they are used by ordinary people.'_ Therein is a problem. Whether by sloppiness, laziness, stupidity, motivated reasoning, and/or political smears the definition may be changed. We end up with Humpty Dumpty's 'When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean-neither more nor less.' A purpose of words is to be more than a collection of noises to make a racket. Hopefully they convey meaning with a great deal of precision and, better still, done efficiently. Kind of difficult to have a discussion about fascism when every participant is working with a different definition. The discussion ends up being a squabble of meaning.
Now, I think a way forward is to differentiate Mussolinism from Hitlerism, Francoism, and any other fascist movement as long as they differ in a way. It's done for Marxism, Leninism, Stalinism, and Maoism. I've even come across Castroism, Chavezism, and Maduroism. And this is done for the many churches of Christianity and the sects of Buddhism. I suspect why it isn't done because it's easier for opponents of the right to bundle these all together. The origin of this bundle-them-all-together gambit is the USSR which didn't want to use the words National Socialist for the German leadership because it didn't want its own Soviet people thinking about another kind of socialism.
This video provides a much-better-than-average introduction to the essential principles of fascism. The fact that it doesn't exhaustively investigate all of the implications of these principles is understandable in a presentation likely intended as a succinct preamble to the ideology's fundamentals. It might have been helpful, though, to have offered brief mention of the technical philosophical concepts that underpin fascism-since the video is billed as concerning itself with fascism's "political philosophy."
As described in that "bible of fascism," Giovanni Gentile and Benito Mussolini's The Doctrine of Fascism, the ideology is established upon a mongrel mix of metaphysically idealist, metaphysically materialist, and metaphysically Heraclitean premises, with an emphasis on metaphysical idealism and its socially organismic implications. The organicist theses undercut the individual's rights and freedoms, while the materialist and Heraclitean postulates provide rationales for political violence. Although such abstractions can seem like so much academic esoterica, understanding political ideologies in terms of their basic philosophical concepts (metaphysical idealism, metaphysical materialism, etc.) can help us recognize these ideologies when they represent themselves, as they invariably will, under new names and labels.
Thanks! An interesting approach. You are correct that this is a basic overview attempting to simply get the basic principles out there. That said, I think a video on the metaphysics of fascism would be fascinating.
Noice video, although I would have liked to see the examples of Portugal, Span and Austrofascism as well.
Geez, do you know how hard it is to find an explanation this clear?
Blame leftists who call anyone slightly right of them fascist statists, lol. Politically illiterate, whiny babies.
Fascism and Divine right seem to have common points
The Divine right of rule can be thought of in terms of the ruler in question conforming to and capitalizing upon reality, including higher levels of reality than are apparent in the mundane. Violence, and the correct application of it, is a fundamental component of this reality. On a purely material level, violence is the supreme authority from which all authority is derived, however we can bring in a spiritual perspective of violence by incorporating an understanding of the warrior experience as a supreme form of asceticism, sacrificing all lesser pleasures to the achievement of victory. This is readily observable in traditional sources such as the Hindu Bhagavad Gita, the Viking notion of Valhalla, as well as Confucian and Taoist notions of hierarchy and the mandate of heaven in ancient China. Even Christianity has the notion of Just War and Christ as a warrior, and of course crusaders and knights who were sanctioned by the papacy and christian kingdoms in communion with Rome respectively.
@HanselManCan
Both depend on dogma and fantasy to control the masses and impose authoritarian rule.
Roger Griffin frames it somewhat along this line with his definition of fascism as Palingenetic Ultranationalism.
Of course, it was an Italian Catholic political philosophy. It had nothing to do with the right except that is was extremely anticommunist. That is why extremist communist organizations were labeled Antifa.
@@stevelenores5637
Nothing to do with conservatism (the right) you say, so what was it ?
Beautiful
Holup.
Good job
Thanks! And thanks for watching!
Well here we are ... 2020
@@diii5358 nah. It's global.
Beautifully explained , Thanks
Will you ever cover Mosley's British Fascism?
@Ignem Veni Mittere Just wondering
Great video, this really opened my eyes to the true meaning of fascism. It was always hard to understand since people basically would say Nazism = Fascism
Nazism was a form of fascism
I think you missed important parts of the fascist ideology, such as rejecting happiness, material wealth and "the easy life" as desirable political goals. Gentile and Mussolini also integrated the philosophy of 'actual idealism' into their ideology, rejecting materialism and instead espousing a more spiritual view humanity and of history. Another part of fascist thinking is that the focus is on solving the problems of the present rather than working towards more "utopian" goals.
Without including any of this one gets a definition of Fascism which is far too broad. Fascism isn't simply embracing state corporations or merely a celebration of violence and while this video explains fascism better than many other videos, I fear that some viewers will end up with a oversimplified view of what fascism is.
"Without including any of this one gets a definition of Fascism which is far too broad."
These videos are designed to cover philosophy and ideological concepts in broad strokes.
"rejecting happiness, material wealth and "the easy life" as desirable political goals" who told you this was a fascist idea? It's quite the opposite. in the 1920s the Fascists promised wealth for the nation. Yeah, they praised humility and sacrifice, but in a traditional way. Like the soviet union or nazi germany did. They praised the "struggle of the workers". Typical of socialist-derived populist movements.
"spiritual view of humanity" what?
"state corporations". You british people don't udnerstand that the term "corporation" in Italian has nothing to do with modern anglo-saxon meaning of corps as private businesses.
Corporations in Italy were more similar to unions or "soviets" in THEORY.
@@freedomordeath89 By spiritual view of humanity, he means metaphysical Idealism. Just as Marxism is built on the Materialist philosophy that one's consciousness is a fundamentally product of their material environment, Fascism is built on the Idealist philosophy that one's material environment is fundamentally a product of their consciousness and that "Geist" as Hegel called it (which roughly translates to Mind or Spirit) is a totality, with nothing external to or independent of Spirit. Fascism is built upon the same Hegelianism as Marxism, but rather than rejecting Hegel's Absolute Idealism for Materialism as Marx did, Giovanni Gentile maintained Hegel's Absolute Idealism and produced his own philosophical system of Idealism which he built Fascism off of called Actual Idealism. I would say that not all Idealism is Fascistic but all Fascism is Idealist. Same with the Commies. Not all Materialism is Marxist, but all Marxism is Materialist, and both Marxism and Fascism are Hegelian.
@HanselManCan oh yeah, I, the Italian with a University PhD in Fascist History... I am the one that is wrong... Right...
@@IndustrialMilitia you are going too much into theoretical philosophy. That stuff wasn't really discussed. Only a few of the original theorists may have thought that
Thank you.. watched this in early oct 2022.. there is a new govt in italy whom some have called fascists.. was really useful to understand a bit of what the term means.. thank you
Do you have a source for your writings?
I list sources in the description. I am generally pulling from major tertiary sources (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Oxford Companion to Philosophy, Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, The Collier-Macmillian/Thomson-Gale Encyclopedia of Philosophy, the Cambridge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, etc.). I think the Thomson-Gale Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2006, 2nd ed., vol 3) was my main source for this one, with support from Routledge (1998, vol. 3).
I wonder how many of us are highschool students who have to write summarys of this shit every night
That Crown and Coat of Arms is not a fascist symbol. Yes it was used during Mussolini's rule, but this is the symbol of the Italian monarchy of House of Savoy.
I would rather use the fasces for the symbol of fascism
Interestingy, U.S. Mercury head dimes had a fasces on the reverse face.
I honestly just looked it up when I was watching a clip from Rick and Morty of Rick going through Fascism Versions of himself as a Teddy Bear or a Tasty Shrimp
You missed an important part of describing the ideology that is central to fascist philosophy. That the central ideology was crating a mythological origin story of the state and to tie that origin story with some type of religious ideology, therefore creating the myth that the project of fascism is ordained. We see this in different forms with the shinto aspects of the Japanese Empire of WW2, as well as the Catholic influence of Italy's and Spain's Fascist states. Even Hitler's Nazis utilized Norse myths to give Germany some of its mythical origin story. So, when fascists create the ideology that is to be the central theme of the state, it always has a racial and religious superiority attached to it.
I’m guessing because this has more to do with the historical execution of fascism rather than the underlying philosophy?
Actually fascism is against religions, Mussolini had to sign a treaty with the Vatican because of the power that religion had in Italy to reduce it. The mythological origin of Italy was found in the Roman republic/empire.
Mussolini didn't like religion because he didn't consider it important, but he kept the religious part of Italian culture as it was a tradition of the Italian people
@@italiangigachad6332 no the anti religious bias was dictated by Hitler, as a way of placating his antisemitism. Rather than target race, which the fascists were opposed to, due to their influence of actualism, they instead targeted religion.
The central ideology did not have to be "mythologized", it had been a part of national narratives long before Fascism existed.
That is because he may have missed reading Julius Evola
Fascism is a word that people call those who tell them "No."
I love your videos but in this one the pronunciation of Italian ruins the experience a bit.
In particular the letter 'e' is never mute (as it can be in French) so "Gentile" has an 'e' sound at the end (pronounced similar to the sound in "may"; certainly not as the 'e' in "me", that sound is 'i' in Italian)
I don't think might makes right, but as Mao said “might makes victory”.
Consider the various wars for independence that required violence.
Rhetoric has been shown many times to not always be reliable, especially if the dominant benefit materially from a situation. All you can ask for is their pity, and states rarely change as a result of sympathy.
Violence is a tool that can be used as an expression of the will of the people are at least some of the people.
Franz Fanon gives a really good defense of political violence in his book “wretched of the earth".
State repression is pretty normal, we just don't call it that, we call them laws.
One problem with Fanon's defense of use of violence, is that it's not very well defined. Violence is a very broad definition that needs to be clarified to make good a defense of it. That is also the case of armed self-defense in the case of the Civil Rights movement to the Suffragettes movement which included such acts of armed self-defense. Also, rhetoric is best used when it goes hand-in-hand with armed self-dense, in order to make the state bow down to the oppressed. An example of this is how Bobby F. Williams appealed to picketing to demand desegrigation of public pools, libraries, schools and jobs in 1957 in Monroe County, North Carolina, and white supremacists showing up to harass his party. So he took up guns to defend his people and himself and forced city council to bow to his demands.
A label based on a strangers opinion of another, usually a negative term for something they don't like. Next question
Its important to understand what something is before deciding to oppose it.
Trade lives for a week?
At 6 minutes, your explanation of how Mussolini saw fascism and political violence as the legitimizing element of whether a government was in the right or wrong sounds exactly like the Chinese Mandate of Heaven. Like the idea of a state is in the right until the People are pissed off enough to overthrow it is exactly what the Mandate of Heaven is. That is really interesting!
I think there may also be concerns that those corporations part of the state are still not themselves representative of the people who work for the corporations. There's still a boss and there's still workers, but the workers have no democratic say, and that can create huge structural problems for the society, especially if the corporation is a large and influential centralized power within the state. And what this unaccountable power can do internationally then is no longer properly regulated.
Good point. There are deep concerns when it comes to fascism about the ability of the elites to exercise power over everyone else (given the unit of freedom is the state not the people).
Corporations in Fascism are public agencies. And one (even if late) element of Fascism is Socializzation, in which the workers have a word to say. Fascism passes Socialism and denies Capitalism, putting the means of production (both public or private) at the Nation service, and thus public, undermining egoistic exploitation and behaviours
@@didonegiuliano3547 Are 'public' and 'centralized' not different? What prevents elites, people who control centralized power, from not making mistakes on account of their own personal ego? Are they just inherently better through either primarily genetics or nurture? What mechanisms keep in check their agency, their ability to act? Why would a corporation be preferable to say a worker cooperative for these large institutions which is by nature democratic?
Under Fascism, Labour is unified under a single front subservient to the state, as is business. Depending on different factors such as the constraints of a war or the emergence of various societal ills from inequality, the state will either rule in favor or against labor, based entirely on pragmatic material conditions. Fascist economic policy is dynamic depending on the needs of the society.
@@tariqnasneed3857 or who controls society, right? and you could also argue that if the unit of freedom is the nation then in our current globalized system such a state would be alienated and thus restricted, even if it had a very strong military in an age of nukes it ultimately wouldn't matter
This give us a much more detailed understanding instead of people using the word so loosely, which I'm guilty of. Thank you for this video I appreciate being corrected most def.
I do see characteristics of Facsim in America from the perspective of Gentiles version when it comes to the merger of State and Corporations and how they are controlling the flow of wealth from various directions killing off capitalist competition, which appears that this merger of State and Major Corporations will absorb small businesses etc . I see some of Mussolini as well concerning violence propaganda and more nationalist policies
No problem. Thanks for watching. Good summation of the main points. I think it is challenging as fascism includes elements of the traditional American "left" (more government run services as opposed to private sector solutions) as well as the American "right" (stronger military, more isolationist).
@@CarneadesOfCyrene I agree and thanks again
No dude. YOu guys don't understand what we italians mean with Corporation.
The word corporation is a MEDIEVAL term. We don't use it to describe "businesses and economic cartels" like YOU do in the british world. You guys are not understanding things properly because you are applying the wrong definitions.
Corporations in Fascist lingo were more similar to UNIONS of workers, or SOVIETS (assemblies of workers).
You are mislead by the MODERN BRITISH TRANSLATION OF THE TERM.
You are thinking about rich industrialists talking with State burocrats on a table. That's not what a fascist corporations was (in theory). Fascist corporations were supposed to be unions of workers and employers of a certain sector that would solve problems and manage their interests and production WITH the collaboration of the State.
Basically it's socialism.
Instead you are thinking about crony capitalism. The opposite.
It has nothing to do with the current USA situation.
What you mean with Corporation is wrong. They are not private businness, but kinda public Trade Unions. So this has nothing to do with America.
Having corporations in your government especially ours the United States it's the corporations calling the shots and the people loose control of the government we can't oversee them PROPAGANDA IS being pumped to the masses now it's opened the door to COMMUNISM I am witnessing my country being hijacked
As if the common man has any influence over how laws are made.
Where is the splooge drinking ghost though?
Thanks, now I finally have a clear understanding of fascism
It is more misleading than correct. You should read on your own, comparing Marxism and Gentile's philosophy. Then compare Bernie Sanders' policies with Mussolini policies. Fascism was through and through socialism, as the members all believed, including 1/3 of the Jewish Italian before 1938.
I have a serious question (may sound frivolous to someone more educated than me). If fascism is essentially the reduction of the people to simply units of the State to be used in whatever way the State deems fit, and also includes the use of violence to enforce that principle, then what's the difference between Hitler's Germany and Stalin's USSR? The only true difference I can see is that Stalin insisted the State actually own everything, while fascism is satisfied with simply controlling everything. The deeper principle seems to be the same; forceful collectivism.
Little differences. These 3 movements (NatSoc-Fascism-Communism) are all derived by Socialism. All share alot of common points about authoritarianism, collectivism, absolute power of the State/Party. But they hate each others so they don't like when you compare them. It's like when Catholics and protestants fight over minor differences. They are both christians in the end.
Same with marxists and natSoc/fascists.
Freedom you seem to ignore class struggle while analyzing these movements. That's like ignoring the ball while analyzing football.
@@freedomordeath89
Good summary, which is why fascism is in fact, a left-wing ideology. Because it is about collectivism and authoritarianism. The left doesn’t understand that it was elites on the left following World War III that crafted fascism as a right wing ideology to distract people from the failures and the horrors of communism. These idiots with BLM and antifa carried these communist symbols and scream about fascism while ignoring that the number of people killed in the name of fascism was a drop in the bucket compared to communism. And really it wasn’t fascist ideology that killed all those people, but Germany’s incorporating Racism into fascism, which is actually part of fascism. It was just the Germans that did that. And of course the final piece of the puzzle is that if you had to choose between fascism and communism, although they’re both terrible, they’re both evil they’re both authoritarian, everyone would choose fascism over communism. At least, in a fascist country you can own your own house you can own and run a business. At least you can have some type ofmetal class existence. Yes, it’s completely controlled by the government but when you look at communism 99.9% of the people live in abject poverty and you have an ultra ultra ultra wealthy & untitled.1%.
That shield with the crown above it was the emblem of The Kingdom Of Italy, which was formed back in The 19th Century; it's not a 'Fascist symbol'. You should have instead used the Fasces, as that is the true symbol of Fascism.
Great video!
Gentile was to Mussolini what Engels was to Marx.
Thanks!
Ok, violent opposition between states probably isn't good (unless one or more parties is completely failed and its citizenry (meaning non-military) are suffering as a result), but what about friendly competition in good faith? Afterall, good fences make good neighbour's? Oh wait, I just found out that the writer of that poem (Mending Fences) wasn't a fan of that ideology, but maybe he was wrong? Lol.
Fascinating
Finally a unbiased definition
this is the clearest video that defines fascism i have seen, thanks.
Thanks! I'm glad to help. It is an often misinterpreted concept.
@@CarneadesOfCyrene and i hate that it is, because online political discourse has become the left calling people on the right fascists, and the right calling people on the right communists.
Do anybody know info about per 1920 fascism or connection to Rome ?
This is the same position. Mussolini seized power in Italy in 1922, and based his philosophy on that of Gentile.
I'd like to hear about Julius Evola's influence on fascism too.
Very insignificant. Although he had a reasonable influence on Italian fascists from the 1960's - 80's in the 'years of led'
Evola was the looney neighbor of fascism, nobody took him seriously and the guy didn't even believe the things he wrote. If I remember right, he was actually an antifascist (somehow).
He’s not a fascist and actively criticize Fascism
Do you think Gentile's philosophy has roots in Carl Menger's "Subjective Theory of Value", that stumped Marx's "Labor Theory of Value"?... it would make sense, seeing that Austrian economists argued the state cannot efficiently plan for the subjective preferences of consumers.
Was LTV really Marx's theory? From what I gather, Marx only used LTV, along with Adam Smith, and it wasn't the only route to get to the same conclusions. If a socialist heard someone say that value is subjective, heres what they tend to respond with:
Yes, value is subjective, but who transforms resources into objects with these subjective traits? You can throw as much money as you want at a tree, but that wont make it a chair. Besides, how much did that chair make, that it wouldn't if it simply stood as a block of wood? You earned the company that money, and they returned a wage. This wage will always be less than what you provide, or else the company wouldn't make a profit. (You can find this exact equation in Das Kapital, if you read it.) Value is subjective, but money isn't.
Typically, at this point, the capitalist concedes this misunderstanding. But they still typically have a response:
A capitalist provides for a company by taking on risk and management. This legitimizes the pay they get in return.
The Socialist has two responses to this. One i find unsatisfying and one I understand. We'll start with the bad one:
A worker still takes on there own risk. A lumber worker is much more likely to straight up die than its boss. Plus, if a worker decides to work at one company at the expense of another job opportunity, and their choice goes under, they've just lost their own bet.
Capitalists don't tend to catch on to the problem here, in my experience. A capitalist doesn't need to argue that a worker doesn't really risk anything, they just need to argue that since an entrepreneur risks something, they should have the right to refuse a deal.
Now, heres the more convincing argument from a socialist:
The working class tends to take on this exact kind of risk. A large portion of the working class holds debt. (they tend to argue that all of capitalist history either involves either debt or slavery) Its not the individual capitalist that's at fault, but the system. We want to eliminate the need for entrepreneurship in the first place.
This changes the goal of the debate to whether Socialisms a viable alternative, or if there is a viable alternative. If there is not one which doesn't involve what is seen by socialists as leeches, then these practices are necessary and probably good.
@@digaddog6099 Yes, Marxists love to point out that LTV was first founded by Adam Smith. Marx made it the foundation of his philosophy, unlike Adam Smith.
If you abolish entrepenuership, you abolish innovation. You will run into the economic calculation problem that Mises and Hayek argued. A few people in government do not have the knowledge of the millions of people that make up markets. It's far more inneficient. If you abolish profit motive, you will never be able to determine the most efficient allocation of resources. This is what the profit motive does.
Price is a communication tool that signals scarcity in an economy. Therefor, A socialist planner will not be able to determine the most efficient allocation of resources like the free market does. There is no profit motive to drive the market toward the most efficient allocation of resources using price signals for supply and demand of a good or service. This was Mises's Socialist Impossibility Theory.
As far as risk for the worker, what is the risk of not working? Starvation? Life is predicated on survival. You see this in nature. It is science.
I agree, we need to fix the system. Public debt is a form of slavery, brought on by governments and central banks who create money out of thin air. That is not capitalism however. That is government central planning.
@@digaddog6099 What socialists don't understand is that nature is cruel. They operate under the assumption that life is or should be free from suffering. Anything less is always product of theft by the greed or lack of empathy of other people. They believe they must equalize the cosmos.
A socialist operates under their own fear that they cannot be self-sufficient. You see this in nature. Antelopes herd together to be statistically less likely to be picked off by a predator. Monkeys will commonly join up to mob attack the dominant alpha male of a pack.... and this is the behavior of socialism. Look at the "Red Terror" of the Bolsheviks, for example.
Property Rights are the most enlightened philosophy man has discovered. The idea was founded by the British and led to the abolishment of slavery around the world. It allows individuals to have inalienable god given right and to "own" oneself. Conflict exists in the world because there is scarcity. Property rights are the only means to rectify the conflict of scarce resources among individuals. What socialism and government does, is aggress on the property rights of individuals for their constituents. It's a form of theft.
Please don't confuse what I am saying with crony capitalism or maliciously obtained wealth.
@@digaddog6099 Lastly, Marx was foundationally incorrect with LTV. This was because Marx only focused on production. Economies are not production driven, but consumption driven. You can spend all your time making a mud-pie, but that doesn't mean there is any demand for pie's made out of mud. When there are either no price signals, or distorted price signals from price controls, entrepenuers cannot efficiently identify demand for a good or service in an economy.. so you end up with inneficient production of goods.
@@chesterg.791 'The problem with this argument is that Marx was very clear that labor has to be useful labor to create value. Yet he didn’t think that is was this usefulness that creates value. Labor has been doing useful things for millennia. All societies are made up of useful labor. Marx calls this useful labor that makes up a society “social labor”. The organization of this social labor differs from society to society. In a capitalist society this social labor is organized through the commodity exchange: the products of labor are assigned market values and the fluctuations of these values coordinate the social labor process. This is a way of organizing social labor unique to capitalism and it has all sorts of unique properties that other forms of social labor don’t have. The usefulness of labor is not what is specific to capitalism. Value is. Hence, usefulness is not what Marx interested in talking about. Value is.'
Tl;dr: A commodity must have use-value, this is made explicit in Chapter 1 of Capital.
A based idea
I just want to know if fascism is far left or right. The books I have on the subject says its a far left ideology. But Wikipedia says its a far right movement
The problem is that it is a bit of both. Fascism includes elements of the far left: state ownership of enterprise, state control of business, and the far right: militarism, rejection of multilateralism, authoritarian control of personal freedoms. If political views are more a circle than a line, then Fascism is where the far left and the far right meet on the other side of the circle.
A syncretic third position against liberal capitalist democracy and Marxist internationalist materialism, left and right and neither at the same time.
Great video! This appears to be a philosophy that justify the attacks on the less fortunate!!
Totalitarianism in general
Of the corporations & billionaires, by the corporations and billionaires, for the corporations and billionaires
I can tell you one thing, fascism is definitely not whatever SJWs are calling it.
Quite you fascist! Lol
sjw policies ARE fascist policies.....funny, hey?
@National Collectivist when you can cancel people for their speech, you are the fascists, when you demand I use your pronouns, that is authoritarian fascism, when big tech and global companies collude the government, and "fortify" elections, that is Mussolini's Fascism....
And Communism is not what you call it you idiott
@@richardwebb9532 it’s authoritarian fascism to demand to be acknowledged for who you are? If you said your name was Fred but I said nah your name is Ted you would call that authoritarian fascism? F***king idiott
Wow at your comment section.
How about Civil Judgements awarded to Wealth business owners or Failing Business owners that emplployes people, Rather Than a single person who was actually wronged but he employees noone?
Or, Ermark Federal Funds for a single person going to past Collections that were Taken care of but are Still allowed to collect Through a new law to collect past debts, by Date Debit was Reported not date debit was established.
Just for the record: it's Gentile - with the final e being pronounced (Italian: dʒenˈtiːle), not "Genteel".
Thanks! I am notoriously bad at pronouncing names.
Imagine how many lives would have been saved if fascism would have won?
So would that make Tsukasa, from the anime Dr. Stone, a fascist?
Where are you reading this from and cite your sources.
In the description of every video I have a list of some of the sources I use. This specifically draws some from the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, and the Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, though the primary source is the MacMillan Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2nd Edition).
Politician's & partisans are very good at convincing one system is better than another but the systems design means nothing when the people in control are corrupt & not putting there country & its citizens first. The only thing that really matters is if your country's system's is bearing good fruit. If in your system all you have is chaos & lawlessness & people focusing on emotions & peer pressure it doesn't matter what its labeled.
I agree with your underlying point that Mussolini's Italy wasn't as tied up in scientific race theory but it's a stretch to say that racism wasn't an important part of the ideology. Fascism seeks colonial expansion and there are lots of examples of anti-African racism to facilitate that goal in Italian fascism. While it may not have been the fanatical anti-Semitism of Hitler, I do think you may have bent the rod a bit too far in other other direction in your presentation.
Dude, the entire video is a skewing the point so that right-wingers can pretend they're not fascist.
The video is assuming Fascism was an idea for one moment that didn't evolve in the last century. He's definitely avoiding facts.
Its the No True Scotsman Fallacy to protect conservatives.
AKA...In Decentralization We Trust!
Italy should have been neutral in world war 2
Based on this discussion, China with its current regime, compared with itself two decades ago, is closer to Fascism ideology even though Chinese Communist Party CCP openly denounces Fascism. China has a party leader who makes himself potentially a life long leader. All individual economic and cultural activities are strongly regulated by CCP for the purpose of the state. And this generation of Chinese is much more nationalism than ever. The only aspect that makes China not Fascism is it does not advocates racism.
More like North Korea
Im proud to say im the 1000th like :)
Awesome. Thanks!
Every video on the definition of fascism confuses me further as they are all different
Haters mannnn they gata define it for people lol
i believe its pronounced gentile with an L sound like Lagoon or Like.
Hmmm a slight flaw in this video, Socialism wasn't necessarily about the working class. That was Marxism. Socialism pre-dates Marxism.
Under this mindset the SATE choose which Religion is the best for the STATE. This has happened in the past in Europe it was called the Dark Ages.
True, the technical definition of fascism in the context of political policy and or action (e.g. Italy, Spain) is not exactly the same as the pejorative use of fascist (authoritarian, nationalistic, glorification of war and might). However, when someone uses the word in the context of a pejorative it's pretty obvious what they are getting at. In a similar way when someone uses the word dog in the pejorative they aren't claiming that you have fur, a tail, and 42 teeth.
There's also the political 'playbook' meaning of the term fascist. That is also a perfectly reasonable usage of the term. In fact, it is more useful because it is based on actions instead of guesses about internal motivations. Frankly, most leaders who are fascist in that sense are probably amoral social manipulators who don't have much of a coherent political philosophy at all.
One could argue that is just a particularly effective and common sub-flavor of exploiting authoritarian (as in psychology) followers, but most people don't know the sociological meaning of authorizatian either... So it doesn't really help.
Dogs have 42 teeth, not 43.
@@svenulfskjaldbjorn5401 true 😂 sorry, typo.
@@svenulfskjaldbjorn5401 I've corrected it. Thanks. 👍
It seems you made typing errors at the end of the second last page entitled "Concerns" - It's probably worth editing the video to fix it. Thanks for the rest though!
Why would you use the shield of the House of Savoy as a symbol for fascism
Because it was on the flag of Italy during Mussoulini's time in power. It is to show that this video is focusing on Italian Fascism. Yes, it was used before the rise of fascism, but it is still strongly associated with fascist Italy.
@@CarneadesOfCyrene it (the sabaud shield) was used for centuries before fascism. The flag of Italy during ww2 (or at least before 1943) was the flag of the Kingdom of Italy, used I believe since 1861. It is not a fascist symbol by any means, or at least not explicitly so. If you were looking for fascist symbols you could have used the flag of the RSI (Italian Social Republic, the German puppet state created for Mussolini after he escaped) or the fascio littorio. Please note that I'm not saying this out of sympathy for the monarchy or for fascism, but because classifying that flag as fascist is simply erroneous.
A Latin & Catholic interpretation of the bourgeois state.
Fascist and proud
Cringe
Better than acting like conservatives love liberty
@@mattpike1465A list of conservatives you believe favor an omniscient central govt, if you please. Fascism is of the Left.
So Gentile definitely was radical on his own lol
I thought fascism was taking everybody at face value. Guess I'll find out.
It is incorrect to state that fascism didn't have a racial component. What about this?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifesto_of_Race
One problem is that the term "fascism" is sometimes used to refer to the narrowly defined philosophical position promoted by Mussolini and Gentile as I do here. Philosophers that use the term in this way distinguish it from "Nazism" as a completely different view. Other political theorists call many different positions fascism, distinguishing between Nazism (which did have a racial component) and Italian Fascism (which did not). In this video I take the first tract, using "fascism" to refer only to the view espoused by Gentile and Mussolini (e.g. Italian Fascism), distinguishing this from "Nazism".
To your point about the manifesto, fascism as a philosophical doctrine did not have a racial component (and so even if Nazism is included under a broader umbrella of fascism, the racial component is merely incidental: it is an inherent component of Nazism to be sure, but not all types of fascism broadly defined). Here's the Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Thomas Gale, 2nd Edition, Volume 3, page 554) which takes a similar definition of fascism as I do, restricting it to Italian Fascism as distinct from Nazism.
"Mussolini rejected the racism that was so central a feature of Nazi teaching in Germany. "The people" he wrote, "is not a race but a people historically perpetuating itself; a multitude united by an idea." It must be recorded in favor of fascism that it never taught race hatred, and even when Mussolini entered into the war on Hitler's side and introduced anti-Semetic legislation to please his ally, the Italian fascist were far from zealous in the enforcement of the laws against Jews."
While individual fascists may have been racist, and nations that espoused fascism may have passed racist laws, that does not mean that fascism is inherently racist (in the same way that democracies, or supporters of democracy passing racist laws does not make democracy racist).
Here's the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy (vol. 3 page 562) which does call both views fascism, but notes the lack of racism in the Italian variety: "Nazism, for instance, saw the basis of the community as lying in 'blood', whereas Italian Fascism saw nationalism more in terms of cultures. Thus, early fascism had no serious anti-Semetic side or developed racial theory" Even if you include Nazism in the broader umbrella of fascism, that does not make racism an intrinsic component of fascism, rather simply a component of some kinds of fascism.
Fascism: National
National Socialism: Racial
the will of the state is nationalizam and its just culture americans are patriots croats for example are nationalists so here fascism has a higher chance of coming back
I believe in fascism but in social philosophy, because it is a idea of reuniting the people and prioritize the national economy, livelihood and pride to said country.
Or
I should say that fascism is the best national ideology but political science concern
That ultimately depends on whether your society is dependent on international trade or not.
@Kermit21 Lol, they're reigns were ruinous. Please remember how Hitler and Mussolini ended.
@Kermit21 They ruined a great deal of Europe and caused untold misery and damage including their own countries. Their ends were justified.
Fascism does not require that the individual be totally subsumed under the state as if the interests of the constituent parts were irrelevant to the interest of the whole, rather the purpose of the state in fascism is to synthesize the interests of all individuals and collectives toward a common end, not the mere subordination of minorities to the will of the majority in liberal democracies. One of the primary goals of fascism is the advancement of virtue in it's components. and because only the truly virtuous are capable of higher forms of life and liberty, fascism is a philosophy of greater life and liberty than it's competitors.
One of the best ways to understand the fascism is to compare and contrast it with competing ideologies, such as communism and liberalism. Fascism and communism both advocate collectivism, including a worker ownership stake in the means of production, this is in contrast to the atomistic individualism that epitomizes liberalism. Both Fascism and liberalism both recognize the reality of inequality, as opposed to the ideologically possession of equality promoted by communism. Both liberalism and communism are fundamentally materialist political philosophies, whereas fascism recognizes that spiritual and idealist ontologies are essential for just and proper governance and guide the direction of history in ways beyond purely material factors. The only ideologies that are honest about their views of violence are pacifism and fascism, and pacifists don't build anything. Liberalism and communism both assert that they are entirely peaceful and that their apparent violence is only a defense against aggression from their opponents. These are lies. Both bourgeoisie exploitation and proletarian revolution are violence. Fascism, by contrast admits to it's violence. It alone transparently uses the force of the state to align all individuals and organizations under it's influence toward that goal which it has defined by synthesizing all their interests in light of virtue, by reference to the true, the good, and the beautiful.
If you're explaining Plato's Republic, which is a proto-fascism, I would understand it, but Plato's ideal state is a decentralized league of city states ruled by philosopher kings, who give exiles the option of running to one of the other cities. Fascism is concerned with cultural and/or racial purity, authoritarianism and its end goal is autarchy or self-sustainability of the state, for the purpose of endless warfare. It's not about virtue at all. Also, what do you mean by violence? Because that's a broad definition like justice and equality. Liberals and communists say they are peaceful, because they do not endorse waging aggressive violence, and advocate self-defense. E.g. the liberals act only when another state attacks them in a just war or defensive war while communists act in self-defense when it is the super-rich mistreating them.
I should point out that Nietzsche himself was an actual liberal, who misunderstood Darwinian evolution, and ignored how non-human animals have a moral sense and altruism as explained by Darwin. Not to mention that his Overman is in fact a rich man, which is giving the finger to the poor. And to associate Fascism with Nietzschean analysis is not just a disservice to Nietzsche though, but it is falling into the stereotype that Nietzsche is a fascist, when he's anti-reactionary, anti-statist, anti-racist and anti-authoritarian. Fascism should never be giving a bone thrown to it, as it is designed to be authoritarian.
@@CosmoShidan fascism has nothing to do with plato's republic. there may be some surface similarities, however the key difference is plato's desire to deceive people into doing what the philosopher kings see as right. In fascism nobody has to be deceived. The process of choosing the actions of the state is made entirely transparent to the people, and they all have an opportunity to have their voice heard.
Racial and ethnic purity are good because they allow the people to have solidarity on something besides class distinctions, but they are not absolutely necessary so long as there is some sort of national unity that can bind the people together. As for exiles, they can go to other countries all they like. I want EVERYONE to have a state they can call their own and that acts in their interests. Oswald Mosley agrees.
Autarky should indeed be the goal of every nation. Having to rely on other nations puts you into debt or otherwise leaves you unprepared should war break out. And perpetual war is neither possible nor desirable. Fascist nations did not really initiate war as you have been told. Germany for example simply wanted back the territory that was unjustly ripped away from it by the Treaty of Versailles. They wouldn't have even had to invade Poland if the British hadn't given them the war guarantee, which made them beligerent towards Germany and the Germans living in Poland. As such the British forced Hitler's hand.
And despite that guarantee, the UK only declared war on Germany when they invaded Poland, but not the Soviets. It's almost like Churchill had a special grudge against Germany despite the fact that the soviets were the far larger threat, which was only stopped because Gemany realized they'd been caught in a war on two fronts again.
If you think liberalism only goes to war in response to aggression against it's state you're delusional. All the wars in the middle east have been in furtherance of the influence of liberalism and money power. This is why communists justifiably call it imperial, though not in the traditional sense. Liberalism is even more belligerent than fascism, but it does so for entirely material reasons. Communists likewise use excuses like class struggle as a pretext for their violence. The USSR probably would have claimed it was liberating the nations it invaded if Germany hadn't stopped it. Liberalism and communism are only peaceful when they are weak. When they have the strength to expand they do. Stalin was gathering that strength in pure military power to conquer Europe when Germany invaded. Liberalism used thisas propaganda to achieve a moral strength that kicked it's military production into overdrive.
I'm well aware of what Nietzsche thought, which is why didn't bother mentioning him, so not really sure why you are. He is irrelevant to fascism itself, however his work might have influenced National Socialist Germany. Fascism itself originated with the Italians and each nation that adopts it puts its own distinct flavor into it. The Mosleyite fascism in Britain is not identical to the Falange of Spain or the Iron Guard of Romania.
@Kono it would be bad if I didn't. I am a fascist after all, mostly following after Mosley.
@@sethapex9670 "fascism has nothing to do with plato's republic. there may be some surface similarities, however the key difference is plato's desire to deceive people into doing what the philosopher kings see as right. In fascism nobody has to be deceived. The process of choosing the actions of the state is made entirely transparent to the people, and they all have an opportunity to have their voice heard."
When you have society that practices Eugenics, discards disabled babies, censors free speech, determines who's role it is for society's sake, and despises democracy, then it's fascist in this sense.
"Racial and ethnic purity are good because they allow the people to have solidarity on something besides class distinctions, but they are not absolutely necessary so long as there is some sort of national unity that can bind the people together. As for exiles, they can go to other countries all they like. I want EVERYONE to have a state they can call their own and that acts in their interests. Oswald Mosley agrees."
Nationalism is ONLY justified by an oppressed people, especially in the Americas and Australia, be they Black, Brown, Indigenous, or Asian. White people have no such claim since they are the privileged classes.
"Autarky should indeed be the goal of every nation. Having to rely on other nations puts you into debt or otherwise leaves you unprepared should war break out. And perpetual war is neither possible nor desirable. Fascist nations did not really initiate war as you have been told. Germany for example simply wanted back the territory that was unjustly ripped away from it by the Treaty of Versailles. They wouldn't have even had to invade Poland if the British hadn't given them the war guarantee, which made them beligerent towards Germany and the Germans living in Poland. As such the British forced Hitler's hand.
And despite that guarantee, the UK only declared war on Germany when they invaded Poland, but not the Soviets. It's almost like Churchill had a special grudge against Germany despite the fact that the soviets were the far larger threat, which was only stopped because Gemany realized they'd been caught in a war on two fronts again."
Yes they did, and they did not have the ability to be self-sufficient because they had no oil, which is what the goal of the war was, and they pretty much lost the war before it began. German could NOT win the war. AT ALL.
"If you think liberalism only goes to war in response to aggression against it's state you're delusional. All the wars in the middle east have been in furtherance of the influence of liberalism and money power. This is why communists justifiably call it imperial, though not in the traditional sense. Liberalism is even more belligerent than fascism, but it does so for entirely material reasons. Communists likewise use excuses like class struggle as a pretext for their violence. The USSR probably would have claimed it was liberating the nations it invaded if Germany hadn't stopped it. Liberalism and communism are only peaceful when they are weak. When they have the strength to expand they do. Stalin was gathering that strength in pure military power to conquer Europe when Germany invaded. Liberalism used thisas propaganda to achieve a moral strength that kicked it's military production into overdrive."
Fascism is belligerent because it's entire ideology is based on a desire for endless war. The symbol for fascism, the fasci, a roped battle-ax with logs around it, is the symbol of a culture of warfare, because it indicates that the means of production are tied to war by the logs and ropes the ax is surrounded and bound by. Ergo, Fascism is all about war, power and imperialism. Also, the wars in Western Asia have fascism in creeping into their societies, such as the antisemitism present. Not to mention how Iran is structured after Plato's Republic. Also, define which model of liberalism is imperialistic if you want to make your case. Same goes for your definition of communism. I doubt you will as you are an anti-intellectual piece of crap.
"I'm well aware of what Nietzsche thought, which is why didn't bother mentioning him, so not really sure why you are. He is irrelevant to fascism itself, however his work might have influenced National Socialist Germany. Fascism itself originated with the Italians and each nation that adopts it puts its own distinct flavor into it. The Mosleyite fascism in Britain is not identical to the Falange of Spain or the Iron Guard of Romania."
The reason I brought him up is because your falsehoods is appropriating his rhetoric. And fascism in every case has the same tenets: cultural and/or racial purity, a love of masculinity, desire for a culture of warfare, imperialism, and authoritarianism over democracy. There is no way Fascism is a sustainable system as when you have a system that is based around might makes right, it's doomed to self-destruct. Now go back and crawl from the cesspool you came out of you piece of bat guano.
@@CosmoShidan It seems to me that you just have an anti-white bias that is preventing you from engaging in an honest exploration of ideas. Every single one of your arguments were non sequiturs or otherwise incredibly fallacious and anyone who has not spent years in some university indoctrination program can see it.
I'm glad that there isn't a swastika and a picture of Donald trump in the thumbnail
As much as people accuse Trump of fascism, it is a distinct position. Trump was very anti-globalist, isolationist, and in many ways pro-violence (all fascist traits). However, he was also pro-market competition and against government control of industry (policies that are very anti-fascist). Fascism is a difficult position to understand because it does not fit clearly on a modern "left" vs "right" spectrum.
I appreciate your contribution, but I think you left out or failed to elaborate on several important aspects of fascism such as:
[1] it’s belief in a mythological past of greatness that has fallen and can only be restored by a violent and authoritarian traditionalist state that enforces collaboration between the social classes for the purpose of national conflict.
[2] Fascism’s opportunism by which I mean the abandoning of principals for power’s sake, Mussolini and Hitler with their blackshirted Squadristis and brownshirted Sturmabteilungs both made alliances with Conservatives, Monarchists and Religionists in order to obtain initial coalition governance and thereby preventing the state from falling into the hands of the Social Democrats or God forbid(to them that is) the Socialists. Let us also remember the facts that Mussolini and Hitler both fell into the pockets of business cartels and that during their governance Capitalists experienced record profit making.
[3] Imperialism: Lebensraum and Il Nuovo Impero are both inseparable from their ideologies tying directly into point one.
[4] segregationism: while Hitler of course believed in racial castes Mussolini believed in civilizational castes for Mussolini saw history as the battle between states rather than as Hitler did the struggles between bloodlines.
[5] Dictatorship against the Left: in his book “The Brown Book of the Reichstag Fire and Hitler Terror” by Otto Katz the author proves undeniably that the Reichstag fire was purposefully set but the Hitlerites in order to manufacture and fake emergency to claim the Communists had begun their revolution against the then still coalition state, the most damming evidence of which is the fact that the escape tunnel which the purporters utilized led from the Reichstag to the ministerial residence of Joseph Goebbels who was Hitler’s second in command and the fact that the Dutch communist blamed for the Reichstag fire had no credible association with any communist organization anywhere. Also the first concentration camp was built for communists and other political oppositionists.Mussolini’s Squadristis originated from angered Conservative Would War One veterans itching to have street battles with Communists and Social Democrats, and so they did quite often as the gang of rightist thugs they were.
As to the "long peace" following WWII...while no worldwide conflagration occurred, war still occupied several parts of the globe, and the UN, WTO...either played a part in its existence (Korea) or was able to do squat to stop it (numerous Arab/Isreali wars).
How funny that I realize that my country is kinda exercising some fascism principles after watching this vid ...
so one leader have all power and kills off all people who arent his type of people and trys to unite those people. Thats what i understood mussolini meant.
Words don't have inherent meanings that exist outside of how they're used and understood. Gentile's definition isn't necessarily more useful than Lenin's, for instance.
4
Whats even the point of this comment? It's just some clever deconstruction of language with no other value than to crush any meaning. An intellectual sledgehammer that can only ruin, not build.
This is a very stupid comment with absolutely no point, as you said applies to EVERYTHING,
"Gentile": Pronounce: gen-tee-lay. 😊
And what happens when multilateral institution becomes fascist?
Regarding the general nature of modern fascism, unlike many other, you got correct the critical role of Gentile --- particularly his metaphor of the organs of the human body and their collective functioning similarities with the workings of state fascism --- and Gentile's relationship [read: partnership] with Mussolini; further, you hit on the inherent brutal nature of fascism, fired with intense nationalism --- my country, right or wrong --- and its stifling suppression of unalienable rights.
What makes them unalienable? Wasn't the fact that they were taken away so easily kind of counter this claim? Maybe people believe that they should be unalienable, but morality does not affect metaphysics.
Guess everyone has A Opinion on the Subject ..But Forcing People to believe in Something they Dont Beil in is what ?
Interesting... Would you agree modern China's economic system fits these definitions? In this way fascism is less of a defined system and more of a manifestation of a political phenomenon that can inherent different traits based on the cultures it appears in. China's socialist model seems to have many similarities to fascist corporatism. In a way, fascism seems to be a non-historical materialist take on socialism. Mussolini himself was a marxian socialist before his political race, no?
There's far too many private businesses for China for it to be regarded as fascist or socialist.
Yes China is fascist
Based on his entire life: Mussolini never actually believed in Socialism.
He just liked to cherry pick and wanted attention and fame. He was expelled from the party, and then created a new one that showed his true beliefs.
Mussi was always against Equality and was always a Nationalist. 2 things complete anti-Socialist.
He also wrote a book explaining his terrible ideas. And then, of course, all of the terrible things he did while in charge.
His Socialist days and his Fascist rule are both proofs of his war mongering. It's why he was kicked out of the Socialist party; for being in favor of WW1 for weird Nationalist reasons.
So, with a proper analysis, we can see how empty it is to even think Mussokini was ever actually down for Socialim.. he never believed in the core ideals and just wanted to rise up in ranks and be in charge.. as he later proved.
@@lococomrade3488
"Never was". Reminds me of how cults address ex-converts.
@@Adeptus_Mechanicus Seems like you'll refuse to accept a proper analysis to keep your own worldview.
That's definitely far more cultish than being able to define things.
If:
A = 1
B = 2
C = 3
Then:
A =/= 3
It's pretty simple.
But please, do explain what you were trying to imply or infer stating Mussolini (the creator of Fascism [extreme right wing Nationalism]) was once in a Socialist party.