The one before that was pretty bad as well, it seems like people know there definition is wrong but since there isn’t a common and solid definition, they just make up whatever definition pushes their political beliefs.
I have seen people who pretend (or tried) to be fasicist. They put metal under their shoes, they yell everything. It happens in my high school. I think it means nothing has value except what group consider valueble. Is it?
The fact that Mr. Beat knows that VSauce went to the school he taught at just makes me imagine him giving Micheal a detention or something and Micheal going “I’m in trouble... or am I??” and then the music starts to play and Mr B just shakes his head.
Lol, that reminds me of that Key and Peele sketch where Neil deGrasse Tyson keeps avoiding talking to his wife by turning everything into an educational video.
If a world-wide famous person had been attending your high school, wouldn't you know about that too? I think that that would be something the high school would be proud of.
@@otakarbeinhauer not at my high school every famous or notable person ever is from New Jersey so that’s just normal at the school I went to half the girls I dated in high school have been on the news lol
I would like to change "The group is more important than the individual" to "Sacrifice individual freedom for the group to succeed against other groups"
Definitely a more workable definition than presented in the video. Still, fascism is too variable to be defined in a single sentence. Umberto Eco's essay Ur-Fascism is a good starting point.
@@alpacaofthemountain8760 I was saying that you described collectivism, wondering if you were aware. And it looks like you were. I wouldn't go as far as saying that collectivists were selfless but it depends at what collectivist type you mean but i digress. Both terms are heavily loaded and more clarification is usually needed. I don't know if you are in the mood for shooting the breeze. Besides, neither the short sentence that Beat provided nor your is close to encapsulating what fascism is and in my opinion does more harm than good. Cheers!
I thought thats what this video was, then he said he’s Mr.Beat 😭😭 i thought someone on Twitter accused Mr. Beast of being a fascist, i felt so clickbaited, then i just felt slow 🥲🥲🥲
"HOW'S IT GOING GUYS, TODAY WE ARE KILLING OVER 7MILLION PEOPLE IN BOTH FRONTS AND CAMPS ACROSS 4 CONTINENTS TO UNITE THE WORLD UNDER ONE FLAG, SMACK THAT LIKE BUTTON LIKE THE BLITZKRIEG SMACKED FRANCE AND LET'S GET ON WITH THE VIDEO"
Communists: Capitalism IS FASCISM!!! Capitalists: There is no significant difference between fascism and Communism. Both are totalitarian. Fascists: Capitalism and Communism are two sides of the Jewish Coin.
Within the first minute, the line " when I did find [an accurate definition] it was just ridiculously complex" sums up so much of the difficulty talking about it. Because yeah, it's not simple. It's convoluted and contradictory by its design. Very glad that was pointed out so early, really good video structuring!
@@johannapfelburg6286 if we are not white you are blind and funny how the most racist man of all time adolf hitler loved Mussolini so he must have thought italians were white ,you are so ignorant !!
@@cfclazio621 Hitler and Mussolini didn't really like each other, I mean it was an alliance formed out of necessity, not out of friendship, Mussolini even wanted his war to be separate from the German war. I mean hitler thought the Sioux (he never met a single member, just read a paragraph on them once), Japanese, Chinese and Greeks were honorary Aryans while he saw Italians as the lowest of white people
"Fasicsm is the idea that the group is more important then the individual". That is incomplete. You are describing collectivism in general. Facism also aggressively pursues the betterment of the group, at the cost of other groups. I see it as little more then a modern evolution of tribalism - which given humanity's past, would come natural to us.
its more of the idea that benito mousalini stated himself in the fascist doctrine that together people are stronger than apart which is where the term fascism come because of the tool the fascese (which comes from when ancient Greece went fascist from time to time and the leaders pasted it when they turned fascist)
If that was the definition East Asian culture would be considered somewhat fascist. You're right that his definition of Fascism is basically just collectivism.
Not exactly at the expense of any group. In Italy during early 20s-40s Mussolini tried to balance all political views happiness and unite all of Italy under 1 national identity no matter ur views. He also joined Hitler BC he thought the Nazis we're gonna win the war not because he agreed. Mussolini actually disliked Hitler
"Fascism is when the police are mean. The meaner the police, the Fascister it is. And when the police are really, really, mean, it is Nazism." -Benito Mussolini
I don't think Mussolini said any such thing, it doesn't make any sense. Now saying "Everything in the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state, " that is something Mussolini, Lennin and Stalin would agree completely as the foundation of their systems. Coerced conformality as the strap holding it all together.
Who the hell coined fatphobia/transphobia? And who the hell is scared of either of them??? one question also... its always said that the end goal of communism is a classless moneyless state yet ive yet to hear or see of them ever explaining how the hell that would work and im pretty sure its never actually happened??? cuba has been communist for what 50+ years and they aint implemented/ idk figured it out? Sounds pretty bullshit to me as its impossible to make a classless society in any country bigger than a mini fridge
@@finlaymcdiarmid5832 Hello, just wanted to clarify some things 1. Officially phobia has 2 different definitions: Either extreme fear of something, or an extreme dislike of something. That's where homophobia/fatphobia/transphobia comes from 2. Cuba isn't communist, but socialist. You could call all the communist countries that have existed socialist, as non of them ever got to implement communism, as we define it, even though Cuba doesn't try anymore to implement communist ideas, but just goes all in on the socialist ideas. 3. You are right in that it's almost impossible. The reason that so many people defend communism, and calls it the best possible ideology, is because on paper, it's the perfect system. But that's the problem, it's a system above all else, so it doesn't account for individualism, and it pretty much only works on paper. For it to work everyone needs hold the exact same opinions, and corruption can't be a thing, which is almost impossible. Personally I think communism is great, if you have an island society of 10-500 people, however when you're building a society of millions of people, that can't work. Hope that clarified some stuff
@@myothersoul1953"a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs." No country has established communism. Why do you think he is guilty of that fallacy?
Fascism isn't just the idea that the group is more important than the individual. It is also the idea that the group is more important than other groups. Someone who believed that "the group" to which the individual must be loyal is the entire world population would not be a fascist. They would just be a collectivist. A fascist demands loyalty not to all human beings as a group, but rather to a specific group of human beings.
Does that not pretty much characterize every major civilization in human history? Hard to imagine the Japanese being more concerned with the Chinese or the Mongols than themselves. Hard to imagine the Aztecs being more concerned about the Congolese than themselves. Just because I love my kid more than your kids doesn't mean I hate your kids.
This definition falls apart a little bit once you take into consideration all the various definitions that 'group' can have and the fact that facists don't care about the 'group' as in the collective population of their country, but rather a group within that, usually one that already has a significant concentration of power relative to the rest of the population. Furthermore facism /is/ inherently authoritarian and violent as by concentrating power and benefit onto the chosen subgroup one must at minimum reduce the relative power of all other subgroups, which is a form of political violence, and automatically creates a tiered power structure wherein the outgroups are subject to the authority of the ingroup/ruling party.
I agree, I think it would be more accurate to say that a fascist prioritizes collective identity over individual freedoms, with “identity” being the key word. Mr Beat’s definition would throw all collectivist movements under the ‘fascist’ umbrella which is obviously not accurate. Fascism is not so much concerned with the advancement of the collective well being as it is with projecting strength through uniformity, which requires establishing - and strictly enforcing - a collective identity. In that sense, Beat’s original definition “conform or else” is actually a slightly better one, though it misses that important context of WHY you must conform.
@@thebenevolentsun6575 Well, the PNF was an Italian nationalist party, so ostensibly he prioritized anyone who he felt fit into the category of ‘heir to the legacy of Rome’. But in reality he just prioritized corporations.
Marxism doesn't conceive the group as the collective population of the country, it has the oppressed Proletariat overthrowing the Bourgeoisie which has a significant concentration of power relative to the rest of the population. Same thing, just different group definitions. Fascism and Communism both require an authoritarian power structure..., how can you have a centralized planned economy without a tiered hierarchy and compelled conformality? How do you do that without the threat of violence? In the Soviet Union (and elsewhere) they had Comisars seeded in factories, rural communities, and in the military to represent the governments interests, and the power to interfere if not met. In a collectivists system, they want to know what you're doing and if you're doing what your told because everything must mesh. Communism and Fascism are just two different flavors of the same ice cream.
"Everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state." ~Mussolini The most basic definition of fascism from the man himself. I would limit the word fascism to his method of governance. This is because of their unique replacement of the Democratic legislature with one that represents groups of the state is made up of like workers and employers. The book the Doctrine of Fascism goes into fascism in philosophical detail from their own point of view, so it is useful to get a detailed definition. It really draws the lines between it and socialism, liberalism, and monarchies.
@@sandwitchi7 I don't know who could have been other than perhaps those thinkers in Italy that lead up to the idea. Mussolini want the only author of "The Doctrine of Fascism." Either way the quote is really the only good and fast defining that I've been able to find. Who would you point to as the original fascist leader and how would you define fascism?
I know for a fact that fascism in Romania originated from doctrine written in the mid and late 19th century by historians and theorists like Xenopol and A. C. Cuza. The first actual fascist movement in Romania began in 1919 and was led by Corneliu Zelea Codreanu. Although it is possible he could have taken some elements from Italian Fascism, his movement differed greatly in its philosophy and end goal. I'd suggest reading The Nest Leader's Manual and For My Legionaries, if you want to read up on Romanian Fascist doctrine. The exact origins of fascism are a bit uncertain, but I know Romania's did not come from Italian doctrine. There are similarities but it differs almost entirely on a philosophical, social and economic level. Even so, Romanian fascist doctrine could very well have originated from someone else's. I guess Mussolini's definition could be a very oversimplified definition for every Fascist sub-ideology, but there are exceptions.
You're right, and additionally, in Japan, Ikki Kita had written his 'Outline Plan for the Reorganization of Japan' years before the March on Rome or Beer Hall Putsch ever happened: www.worldfuturefund.org/Reports/Japan/Kitta.htm There have been many Fascists in other nations who may have gotten their start before the more 'famous' movements in Italy and Germany.
"Fascism is when you do based things. The more based things you do the more Fascisty it is. And when you do a real lot of based things, it's Nazism" - Benito Mussolini
Fascism already existed since the Roman Age. But Roman politics was much unique and elegantly splendid than Nazi Germany, United States and USSR combined. It was the only nation that lasted for over a thousand years, multi-culturally ethnic, and united strongly unopposed, regardless of internal and external conflicts, problems and difficulties that attempt to nearly destroy the roman empire into the brink of chaos and defeat. The Roman Empire will be remembered as the greatest empire that ever lived and be among the "Empire of all Empires".
Fascism as described by its ideological founder Giovanni Gentile, "Fascism as a consequence of its Marxian and Sorelian patrimony conjoined with the influence of contemporary Italian idealism, through which Fascist thought attained maturity, conceives philosophy as praxis." Fascism as described by the world's foremost scholar on the subject Emilio Gentile, "For Mussolini, syndicalism was the most modern embodiment of the spirit of Marxist doctrine, which he added to the myths of his Nietzschean aristocratic philosophy to reach a socialism of quality rather than quantity." It was an extremely specific ideology that had dozens of theoreticians, fortunately because of that it's pretty easy to understand once you get your head around the Hegelian part
Its a very common misconception. The communists and marxists didnt like that a essentially socialist ideology was allied with hitler so they jumbled up the definition of fascism to not resemble socialism, this is still apparent in wikipedia which gives no mention to any trace of socialism (last time i checked anyway)
@@finlaymcdiarmid5832 communists are against nationalism and are against fascists bc those tend to be the opposite of what they want which is equality while fascist tend to think they’re better than other nationalities to the point they cause genocides. Just because they’re both collectivist doesn’t mean they have the same goal which is communists want to have a world with no class, money, or state and fascist want their certain group based on nationality to be the only ones existing. Also communists want to eliminate hierarchies and fascist think they’re better than other nationalities so that also wouldn’t make any sense
@@mattrdd9 your conflating nazism with facism. There is no racialism in fascism. And communists arent against nationalism they just usually drift towards internationalism. The USSR was definitely nationalistic but they were technically internationalists. Things are very rarely clear cut and simple.
@@finlaymcdiarmid5832 nazism is fascism but for Germany and just because fascism is collectivists doesn’t mean communism is instantly also fascism. Fascism has nationalism and is very opposed to other nationalities and it’s not a big surprise if they were to have ethnic cleansing in their country. Also I’ve known communists over the internet and the one thing they hate the most is fascist because communism is about being equal and fascism leads to things that would make others think they’re better than other groups which causes racism and bigotry
@@mattrdd9 no its not. Fascism is always nationalistic communism can be or cannot be. Nazism is Based on racialism not nationalism thats just added on the top to complement it. Your argument is baseless as Mussolini was not a racist and never endeavored in racist policies, he refered to all Italians as equals.
I know I might be being pedantic, but I don’t think that the explanation covered by ‘Some More News’ is actually that incorrect. The definition he gives talks about how fascism is a reaction against the left and of socialism, Marxism and progressivism, which in many ways it historically was. Giovanni Gentile even wrote in the doctrine of fascism about how it was was in part on a rejection of Marxism and socialist values, and Mussolini himself was in part radicalised to his point of view following the views of the socialist party, including internationalism and class consciousness. This also applies to Hitler, due to his radicalisation in part due to the failed attempted socialist revolution in Germany in 1918. Even is inclusion of how fascism often found alliances with conservative and centeist.views is historically fair, as Mussolini ran his party in a coalition which included liberals and conservative nationalists and Hitler formed a coalition including national conservatives and the very enabeling act to make him Führuh was signed by Zentrum, or the center party.
Miki Boss I agree, I was going to attempt to say something similar but hot damn you said it much better than I could have. I'm also not a teacher or expert tho. So there's that.
‘Some More News’ definition is as bad as all the other ones. Fascism was more so an reaction to anti collectivist ideals such as liberalism and Libertarianism. Defining fascism is the rejection of libertarian ideals would be equally bad however. Explaining it with just look at how the axis signed an non aggregation pact with the communists and divided up Europe for example. The reason this is a bad way to define fascism is that it fits a large amount of ideas that are not fascist and also does not apply to a large amount of fascists such as left wing fascists. Frankly it a definition that is created with the purpose of vilifying the opposition in a very fascist way. All the ones Mr Beat showed as poor are similar. The closest and best other definition would probable be it is socialism, since it is a form of socialism and socialism rarely exists without at least some amount of fascism. BR
@@MartinsPrusis I think D'Souzas was actually the best. However I think it can be socialist in nature (as he was saying). Or highly protectionist corporatist in nature.
Nah, incorrect... What you are sayimg more applies to Hitler. Hitler was against Socialism. Mussolini was himself a socialist and based the foundation of his fascism on socialist principles. He actually looked evolve socialsm and looked fascism as the next step as opposed to communism being the next step to socialism. Hitler wasn't a fascist, he just admired Mussolini.
@Joseph Goebbels Could you please be more respectful? I do know that it is not exact socialsm. It was used in Nazi Germany. That socialsm defends that everything belongs to the government and there isn't any private property that works for it's own good. Left socialsm does not accept Nationalism and of course racism. They also want to exterminate religion.National socialism is more for defending the workers right against patriotic ! bourgeoisie.
@Joseph Goebbels Yea that creates the ideology called corporatism. Where everything belongs to the state but there is private property and capitalizm. So you can create a factory for your own good, but state will have right to control it in order to increase the production around the country. It also defends worker"s right and destroys class struggles. It says that workers and bourgeoise work for the same goal, natinoal economy. Unlike capitalism, workers do not get whipped by the rich class, instead it brings justice to society. This was the economy in Nazi Germany
@Joseph Goebbels I am not a fan of national socialism. National socialism brings racism. That is the whole difference. And even tho corporatism is similar to socialism, there is also private property and companies in corporatism unlike socialism. They are similar but, not the same
there can be a multi-ethnic fascist state as long as "the group" agrees with a single idea/culture and that's according to your simple definition of fascism just saying.
Historically, Fascism is the system of governance that is implemented for the purpose of enforcing communism and socialism which are social orders that determine the equitable distribution of resources for a population. Fascism is a nationalistic authoritarian system of governance. This includes nationalization and Distribution of marketable resources, such as energy and healthcare. Modern political rhetoric commonly infers a right or left difference between fascism and socialism and or communism, however in practice fascism is what is used to enforce socialism and communism. The arguments for either are mostly semantics, as an authoritarian system is necessitated to provide a motivation to sustain these orders, which are purposefully designed to economically subjugate a working population. The greatest difference between a purely fascist system and a socialist system may be how private equity is awarded or determined by merit. Private ownership of residence may be achieved and for some outside the governing establishment a greater level of prosperity may also be achieved from individual production if permitted by the state. However the state reserves the right to seize or purpose production if it is required to serve the nation. Communism insist all production is only purposed to serve the collective. Though definitions insist there is no private equity retained or distributed with communism, there is always a wealthier ruling class, as every order requires a sorted political class to determine the measures of distributions. Entitling selected individuals to enrich themselves from the productions of their subjugates or the collective. A collective is of course just another word for nation. No matter how anyone tries to spin it. There is very little difference between these systems of governance. All are a means of authoritarian economic subjugation. Slave labor states for the ruling classes. For which there are ranks. Entertainers and propagandist exist as extensions of the ruling class of every system. Ranking above educators, police and resource administrators. I don't think I should take up more space getting any deeper than that.
Personally, I find Umberto Eco's Ur-Fascism to be a good starting point when working backwards. Essentially, fascism is when ultranationalism is the primary driving force of policy.
@Krisbugajew11-11 well Eco condidered comunism as a form of fascism. He also said that Fascism is not simply tyranny: there is the idea of an ideology of imposing an ideology to a society. It's not just a warlord imposing his authority with violence.
@@XHitsugaX im sure Mussolini once stated anybody that lives in italy is italian and is cool with me basically. So i dont know were that comes from also he barely did any "purifying" historically he only deported a few thousand bourgeois jews because of pressure from hitler he actually deported enrico fermi which wasnt a very pro gamer move
You should read the article by Onar Am, titled "The radical left's surprising connection to Fascism". and in fact, Fascism is in essence collectivist, is anti-freedom/anti-individualist, anti-capitalist, using propaganda and therefore typical ideology on the left. The lies from the left that are believed by the majority of people are based on pseudo-arguments, for example that Fascism is on the right, because fascists eliminated socialists and communists.
@@tugaumakouvov7447 I don't think that fully describes what a fascist might consider collectivism. Because a fascist fundamentally defines themselves as in opposition to communism, that "collectivism" has a very specific character that has strong limits on what is considered part of the collective and what is not. Partly because as a project, at the founding of Fascism, communism, and socialism more generally, were defined by their internationalist character, and practice. In actual practice that internationalism was fragile, but fear of being subsumed by "the globalists" (to use a modern phrase) was nonetheless one of the driving factors towards creating these "national identities" where they had not, objectively existed before.
"The idea that a group is more important than the individual" is a definition of collectivism. Yes, fascism is a branch of collectivism, but so is socialism, communism etc. This is what they have in common, it's the rest of their beliefs (even though they're all surprisingly similar) that make them any different and so hateful against eachother.
They are very much different ideologies, but the origins of many fascists were socialist, which may be what some of the ideas came of. Obviously Mussolini had abandoned a lot of his socialist stuff: "Everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state." while communisms definition is stateless
@@hochimane6535 There isn't really a way to describe it, I have a few books about fascism one made by Mussolini but its difficult to explain. Mr beat wasn't exactly wrong but he could have gone more in-depth.
Well the Fascist party of Italy had a manifesto, it's not hard to search for and you can find out for yourself by reading it, not hard really is it. A quick summary is that Italy and Germany, formerly major powers were squeezed out by Anglo American Capitalism on the one hand and Soviet Communism on the other. Neither Germany or Italy wanted to be dominated by Britain/America or Russia so they developed their own alternatives which were neither Capitalist or Socialist but had some elements of both. The German version placed a great emphasis on race and the Italian version didn't mention race at all.
Willy Hill also there’s the Romanians, the legion of Michael the Archangel whom were more practicing Christians. There’s a book called For my legionaries and prison notes
"Tends to be right wing" In his research of Mussolini did he purposefully overlook his strong socialist background and his mentioning that socialism formed the basis of his fascism?
"Mussolini was the greatest man of our century, but he committed certain disastrous errors. I, who have the advantage of his precedent before me, shall follow in his footsteps but also avoid his errors." “Italian Fascism led popular organizations to an effective participation in national life, which had always been denied to the people. Before Mussolini’s rise to power, the nation was on one hand and the worker on the other, and the latter had no involvement in the former. […] In Germany happened exactly the same phenomenon, meaning, an organized state for a perfectly ordered community, for a perfectly ordered population as well: a community where the state was the tool of the nation, whose representation was, under my view, effective. I thought that this should be the future political form, meaning, the true people’s democracy, the true social democracy" Juan Perón
One thing I wish you touched on is the historical context of governments considered to be fascist. The points you outlined are not necessarily right-wing, but governments that fit those definitions & that are often cited as examples of fascist governments all do seem to match the dictionary definition. Great and thought-provoking video.
@Anon Ymous : _"... is the historical context of governments considered to be fa sc ist."_ There has been only one; the gove rnment under Mus solini in Ita ly, during the W W2 era.
@@Historia.Magistra.Vitae. that's hyper-reductive. Just because other governments weren't literally managed by a "Fascist Party" doesn't mean you can't call them fascists. There have been many fascist regimes throughout the 20th century.
I believe that the term “fascism” should be used very carefully and mostly when describing history. The idea of fascism is very broad and narrow at the same time (depending on who you ask) and is there by not a good choice for describing complex, still ongoing political movements or people. There are enough well defined words out there, which do not have such a strange and horrible history; why don’t we use them more?
@Black Star yah I agree with this response. just because a word has a lot of historical baggage doesn't mean it can't be applied to modern contexts or less extreme contexts. If a given example fits the agreed upon definition of fascism then you should use that word to describe it, at that point the only people that benefit from us choosing not to identify fascism as fascist are the fascists that don't want the stigma of fascism attached to them.
Everything you’ve said applies to literally any political science term, such as “republic” or “socialism” - when people get all pilpulistic about the “definition” of fascism (a wrongheaded way to approach the study of material systems and events anyway, just my opinion) it tends to lend unearned credence to the right-wing urge to laugh off any usage of such terminology as totally vacuous. Like the person above me, perhaps. Yes analyzing broader reactionary politics requires a relatively careful discussion that is not centered around a single red-hot word that apparently makes everyone break out in hives, but that’s already what any given reasonable discussion within political science looks like regardless
I appreciate your comment very much. I am doing my homework/due diligence to understand family and friend who are accusing Donald Trump and conservatives of being fascists. The allegation became troubling to me and as I search and listen I am not sure what conclusion to come to... I am still processing.
The idea that "the group is more important than the individual" is also what defines Rawlsian communitarians. Might have oversimplified a bit much in this one too 🤣
I think that definition isn't quite right, as it would essentially mean most parents have a fascist approach to their families (i.e. "my family is more important than me as an individual").
@@hochimane6535 yes: He defined it as "The idea that the group is more important than the individual." That's oversimplified (inexcusably so). That (collectivism) is just one aspect of fascism. Fascism specifically involves collectivism in the form of Nationalism (usually ethnonationalism). It wasn't an actual principle, rather just a means to an end. The actual desired end was unification of classes within the people and a state controlled economy with a mix of private and public production. All else was a means.
Well, fascism is all about collectvism - a big one collective that appeal to national identity. But collectivism is not what defines fascism, in fact, collectivism is pretty much in the core of modern socialism as well, but instead of a big collective, socialists tend to divide the society in multiple collectives that appeal to the class struggle aspect (an extended version of class struggle, which is not about proletariat x bourgeois anymore, but about men x women, whites x blacks, gays x straight...) . Both are enemies of individual freedom and of everything that made the west the pinacle of human civilization. Both are recipes that authoritarian and/or totalitiarian leaders follow in order to ascend to power, increase their power or to just keep their power. In short, collectivism = cancer. All dictators love it !
A friend of mine studied Central European history. What he told me was basically, Facism is a highly specific word for a broad set of characteristics. His opinion was of all the definitions of Facism he had come across, palingenetic ultranationalism was the nearest one. But even then that definition is also really broad and really specific at the same time and he felt there was issues with it. Fantastic video BTW not commenting to be a "Well actually". I just think it's important to note that regardless of the field of studies, when it comes to theories experts can have really broad and varied interpretations of the same characteristics.
Wouldn’t a more accurate source instead of friends opinion be there writings of Gentile, one of the architects of Fascist Italy. It is a form of socialism, with an emphasis on national identity. All socialist states are not fascist, but all fascist states are socialist.
@@rightousIke ridiculous premise. Easel in authorization? Stalin? pol pot? North Korea? In your head all are ‘right’ wing. In reality none of those are. All Marxist
@Humanity Galatica Besides the Bernie or Busters and wokescolds who called Liberals fascists, the "Left" uses it correctly. That's why we've been historically good at pointing out fascists. Fascists have benefited from the ignorance of the rest of the Right, historically, who can't do a simple Google search.
he still did much better than Oxford dictionary is all I am saying. Didnt like his definition either I merely enjoyed the discussion, but still the fact is that Oxford dictionary has it so wrong its like they are out of topic
@@ImNotJoshPotter fascism is an ideology that promotes extreme nationalism, social conservativism, and authoritarianism but uniquely rejects both capitalism and communism most of the time replacing it with a model called corporatism
"Everyone else has it wrong. Here's my oversimplified definition that can literally apply to half the ideologies that existed throughout history, without sources or even reasoning" Well done, sir.
As a political scientist at this point, I think his definition is wrong. Most political scholars agree that fascism is exclusively an authoritarian system of government. I can't think of any non-authoritarian fascist ideology or movement that would prove that wrong. Typically, when we do refer to it as an ideology, it is specifically to the corporatist policies that followed under Mussolini, though obviously there had been so-called proto-fascist writers in the 1800s He doesn't even site a source for that definition! That's the worst part of this video!
Take a good look at Oswald Mosley. I’d he were to create a dictatorship, the entire empire would likely fall apart due to complications with parliament. So whilst it would most likely be anocratic it would not be autocratic.
Communism is also Authoritarian as ironically is Liberalism when threatened. The crucial difference between Communism and Fascism is the Economic structure. Communists believe in the state owning everything and running everything until theoretically the State "withers" away. Fascists believe that private ownership is fine so long as the State controls the company or person for the good of the State. Fascists are Corporatists other wise known as Guild Socialism. China under Moa was Communist but modern day China is in Fact Fascist despite the ruling party being called Communist. The World Economic Forum is also Fascist in its Economic structural aspirations. Fascism it a turn of abuse but many are Fascists without intending harm to any one. Britain under the Labour party from 1945 to 1950 was really a Fascist nation. Indeed the same could be said of Britain from 1939 to 1950 which is an interesting irony. Fascism as an ideology only came to an end in 1979 under Margaret Thatcher in Britain. Thanks to Globalisation Fascism is having a renaissance as the State increasingly controls and regulates Corporations and is influenced by them eg the World Economic Forum.
@@TheDankBoi69 but Biden is hardly a cult of personality. A majority of democrats don't even want him to run again... Trump on the other hand has merchandise and stans. And if anybody within his circle had the slightest criticism of him they were expelled and made an enemy.
@@govimodo9231 I would say in some ways it's both. For instance, talking bad about the collective is forbidden, scapegoating all their problems. Using lethal force (deplatforming/ cancellation). They have a lot of parallels
Even individualism is celebrated in fascism, as long as it conforms to the "right type of individualism". I would say that fascism is taking to the extreme the position of "my group is more important than other groups"
_"Even individualism is celebrated in fascism, as long as it conforms to the "right type of individualism"."_ Actually Fascism was rather anti-individualistic ideology. It was purely a collectivist ideology.
You just explained authoritarianism. You could easily apply your oversimplified definition to communism. You need more distinctive traits of fascism in your definition.
It would’ve been more interesting if he gave Oswald Mosley some attention. He literally advocated for non-intervention and believed in the parliamentary system of the UK.
I really wish people would actually READ the fascist books. Primo de Rivera's "Codex Fascismo" lays it out pretty well for starters: - "Here is what is required by our total sense of the Patra and the state which is to serve it. That all the people of Spain, however diverse they may be, feel in harmony with an irrevocable unity of destiny. " He continues that the liberty of man is important. And every man should show respect for their countrymen and always do their best. They are allowed to do violence in self-defense, but never for no reason, etc. So, obviously, when leftists attack nationalists (which really isn't unheard of. You can still see it today, and back then communism international was even more hip than today) and they hit back it can be seen as "Fascists being violent for no reason", but really it's more complicated than just that. Of course there are aspects of fascism that I like. Often in fascist books there are things written down like: Be respectful to everyone; Be strong; Be loyal and so on. And those are requirements to become a fascist. Atleast that is what the books said. And yes, I do agree with those aspects. Does that mean I want to kill anyone or censor anyone? No, it doesn't.
@Electro_blob Hitler copied Mussolini. For example the Munich putsch. In public Mussolini associated himself with Hitler but not in private. There were some things about the Nazi party that he did not agree with, biggest disagreement was racism and Aryan supremacy. Hitler was more extreme than fascism. 'Manifesto of Race' came into being after Mussolini had entered an alliance with Hitler. Have to remember that there were Italian Jews who identified as fascist. There were some fascists who despised biological racism aka national socialism.
@@he1ar1 And in Japan, Ikki Kita had developed a Fascist Manifesto before either the Beer Hall Putsch OR the March on Rome! www.worldfuturefund.org/Reports/Japan/Kitta.htm
My great grandmother who lived under Mussolini's reign said in Italy post war the saying went, "there are two types of fascist..the fascist and the anti-fascist.".
This is exactly the issue. It comes down to a Us vs Them attitude. Either you are one of us or you are one of them. There is no middle no understanding of other ideas. It is our way or you are one of them. Very closed minded. Sound familiar? We should study this so we don't repeat it.
Yeah, what he defines in the video is collectivism, which isn't exclusive to Fascism. Hell, you can even make legitimate arguments that Fascism is individualist like Evola.
@@WaterVolt1917 not only have I watched his video twice now, but I've looked at the sources he cites and none of them are political scholars or academic papers. They are articles. This man is not only just stating an assumption but is putting out misinformation about the topic he is trying to present
I always saw Fascism as a post democracy system. One leader, one goal, one nation, one people type thing. But that could make like every Monarch in history a fascist but hey? Why not. Thank you Mr Beat. I’m still slightly confused though. Also could you do a video on the politics of Australia? I think the world needs to know how Australia works and I think it would be interesting for international viewers!
I have a couple of Patreon supporters from Australia, so heck yeah, I think that's a great idea. Still confused, though? Yes, fascism was definitely a reaction to democracy, but that's only when it was first clearly articulated. Monarchs throughout history have been fascist to certain degrees....of course. Just because Adam Smith hadn't yet defined capitalism doesn't mean it didn't exist before he did so.
@@SwfanredLotr yea a king that held no political power, zero military influence, and no legal authority. Many government transitioning out if monarchy. Have been known to keep a king for religious or political reasons. Without said king retaining any power whatsoever.
Would be facinated to hear more about what makes someone like Mr Beat comfortable saying that a dictionary definition is wrong. That's super interesting to me (this is well-meaning curiosity btw, this is not meant to be a passive aggressive criticism)
For this case specifically the definition isn’t wrong but the definition is a black and white fallacy. To me facism was never about the way government was set up. It was just the ideology first. Then whatever government and economic system is convenient to best act out that ideology.
In this case, he's a historian, and from a historical perspective, he's right. When we get to dictionaries, there are two types: prescriptivist and descriptivist. The former declares what words should mean, while the latter tries to depict how words are actually used. The OED is a descriptivist dictionary, and that's certainly how a lot of people use the word fascist. But, I think Mr Beat has a more insightful definition. I don't think it's accurate to describe fascism as "right-wing." It tends to be "anti-libertarian." It's anti-free market, anti-individual, very Orwellian and nationalist. Strongly socialist, if you happen to be a member of the right group. If we're going to talk about what fascism meant in the early 20th century when the word first appeared, Mr Beat is correct. As for what the word means now, it is "anyone you don't like."
@@danbance5799 Where are you getting the idea that fascist movements are anti-individual rather than simply deeply identitarian and authoritarian? They're usually nationalist and bigoted, but not necessarily conformist. They care if you're White or Italian or German or American, or if you oppose or disrupt their movement. They do not, however, have any particular hallmarks of collectivist cultures; like those of some Asian or indigenous American societies. Collectivists compel responsibility to their community. Fascists compel loyalty toward their identity group, their political movement, and their state.
@@duncanmacleod6274 every fascist dictator desired collectivism in their writings. All you have to do is read Bonito Mussolini’s writings. When Portugal experimented with fascism there wasn’t much of a racial component at all. In addition that is incorrect to say that some of the ancient eastern cultures you are referring to didn’t also express similar traits ( ex. various military like traditions)
"The group is more important than the invidual" is not the decription of fascism, it's literally the description of Collectivism. Here's the real definition: "An ideology based on national unity, corporatism and communitarianism". This is the only way to describe fascism as it tends to be very diverse from nation to nation or even person to person. (Also if somebody would not know, corporatism is the idea of organizing the economy in autonomous groups, such as labour unions). Also, let us not mix communitarianism with communism or communalism.
"The group is more important than the invidual" as a definition of fascism is PragerU level of bullshit. In the video, Mr Bear recaps the history of fascist origins and literally traces it to reactionary movements from about the time of the French Revolution, so the definition of Some More News as a "reaction" movement is not entirely wrong: fascist rejected liberalism, parliamentarism and democracy, and also socialism and communism
@@Tomicalify I disagree with thr idea that fascism is a reactionary idea, as originates from Italy, from the ideas of Giovanni Gentile and Benito Mussolini. Mussolini was a leftist, part of thr so called "syndicalist movement". Which following the Russian revolution was split between Communists, Social democrats and the national syndicalists, the later became the fascists. That's it. While nazism came from german "volkisch movement" which was a reactionary, traditionalist, far right movement. But fascism was not. Sure, they are synoymes today, but they were not back then.
1stly: 2 comments are invisible for me 2ndly: I would expand your definition to be; "an authoritarian ideleogy based on jingoism, national unity {nationalist collectivism}, national rebirth/revival, chauvinism, corperatism and communitarianism" As key features of fascist states has been authoritarianism and jingoism. Aswell as their chauvinistic attitudes to the nation/culture as they define it. And they often justify their actions on 'rebirth/revitalisation' rhetoric.
@@matthiuskoenig3378 well I would not say chauvinism. I mean, there have been quite a lot of fascist ideologies that promoted it, but there have been the Brazilian integralists and Spanish falangists who were not chauvinists. But to be fair, fascism such a big tent term that it's hard to explain. There are some forms of it that are crazy ideas, but some have ideas that we could learn from.
@@Erick_MC_Supernatural that the group is more important than the individual is broader that fascism, which is just an aspect of collectivism. Communism is much worse and puts a collective above individuals. both don't honestly consider individuals- but individuals who belong to a specific group. With communism, it pits one collective against the other- the bourgeoisie vs. the proletariat. With fascism, it pits the majority race against a minority race who has taking control of the majority race's country.
@@thebestofallworlds187"Race! It is a feeling not a reality. Ninety-five percent at least, is a feeling. Nothing will ever make me believe that biologically pure races can be shown to exist today. National Pride has no need for the delirium of race." -Mussolini.
Corporatism means that all corporations must fall in line with the national identity of a country, not that corporations control the government as some, usually leftists, interpret it as.
There's a RUclipsr by the name of "TIK" who goes into more detail about fascism. The one thing we tend to overlook is that Fascism grew out of opposition to Communism specifically. Definitely give that video a look.
Considering how many people use the term for anything even remotely nationalistic or right wing, even a right wing that is pretty liberal when using the world graph(along with communism for the left and yes, I'm talking about American politics), people seriously need to learn that there's a very specific definition for it. Sorry for the rant, it just gets frustrating when people who should know better are historically ignorant.
William White Agree completely and it's like the boy who cried wolf. Calling everybody conservative fascist and everybody liberal communist desensitizes people to what those words actually mean.
Rants are always appreciated. :D But yeah, I say we get people back on the write track. Words are weapons, and if people are going to use them, they ought to know the true definition when doing so. It's not too late to educate folks about the true definition of the word.
It comes from a fascio which is an instrument Roman centurions used to carry around as a sort of baton to enforce the law and instilling discipline in the legionaries
I still disagree with this definition too, that the group is more important than the individual. That’s collectivism (which people often mistake as being inherently left wing). I think the major component missing from that is the incision of an ethnic/racial group who is thought to comprise this collective, as set apart from the other ethnic groups. For the nazis, this was German. For American fascists, it’s all whites, as in white nationalism.
No, ethnicity and race isn't inherent to fascism. The difference between collectivism and fascism is that, the definition is right since fascism is a type of collectivism, but leaning right instead of being left wing. Fascism is collectivism with a heavily regulated private economy like corporatism. Most "American Fascists" are part of the missusing the word fascism. A person who's belief is solely about a superiority of race is just called a racist.
@@phildiop8248 depends what kind of fascism classical (italian) wasn't really rooted in race and was rooted in making italy #1 however socialist fascism (Germany) was rooted in the same thing as italy but a different means of getting it such as making the jews a scapegoat so no one focused on how germany made themselves #1
@@dr__llama5875 yeah, Naziism is based on race or ethnic superiority. My point was that simply fascism is not inherently since it contains a vast array of ideologies. Any ideology that is corporatist and chauvinist can be called fascism.
I think people just want everything to be about race and gender. Most folks don't give a rip, but politically charged one's do. Moral of the story is don't get sucked into politics.
It's still a little too oversimplified Mr.Beat. I understand that you don't want to complicate it too much but I think you can sprinkle in a little more detail without betraying the mission for digestibility. My happy balance characterization between depth and simplicity: • Illiberal - Rejects liberal notions of individual rights, liberty, rule of law, etc. • Hierarchical - Rejects egalitarianism. Contend with the existence of social classes. Encourages class collaboration instead of conflict. • Authoritarian - Rejects democracy and political plurality, opposition is suppressed. Autocratic; no separation of powers. Top-down governance. • Regimentation - The state has the right to enter into every facet of life. Strong grip, command, and control on the economy and of the society. • Nationalistic - One identity everyone rallies behind and fight for, attacking anything not aligned.
Brexit supporters like to remind everyone that in 2016 referendum they won by 1.9-percentage-points margin, therefore they should be in charge now (2019-2020), and everyone else is a traitor; they seem fascist to me
@@francescoduggento6981 pretty soon it will be 4 years after the referendum, and they're against a new referendum, as if the 2016 one is supposed to be valid forever - this is undemocratic
Ireneusz Pyc Brexit was never carried out in the 1st place. So much for voting having any impact at all. I guess if voting mattered we wouldnt be allowed to do it.
I am sorry, but when you say that fascism is not necessarily based on nationalism that's a major flaw. Everyone knows that Fascisms itself is born in a precise, defined historical moment; the "vittoria mutilata" is the main idea behind fascism, the rationale that Italy as a major power was betrayed by its allies after the fight and sacrifices it made in WW1. Nationalism is fundamental in Fascism. Its different with patriotism is that patriotism does not deny diplomacy. Patriots say "our country is better than the others". Fascists say " Our country is the best". This poses the fascists in a positon of staunch conflict with the others, as their nationality is the good one and the only one. If you don't start from this, you can't explain the rest and also the major points of Mussolini's regime (Mare Nostrum, the Colonial Empire etc).
The Beat says that Fascism is the idea that “the Group is more important than the individual.” Diversity, immigration, individualism, and new ideas are threats to the Group. Limited choices and strict guidance are necessary to maintain the Group (nation, race, religion...) But there’s more that makes the concept more pertinent to this era when fascistic tendencies are arising in liberal-democratic countries and more people are easily giving in to the sway of the strong, effective leader, conformance to authority, and the diminishment of freedom. Fascist government allows businesses to operate in their normal capitalist/oligopolistic manner as long as they obey the will of the state. Mussolini said that “Corporatism” was another name for “Fascism.” This works since corporations are devoid of moral responsibilities other than making money for their executives, owners, and shareholders. Before and during WW2, Germany, Italy, and Japan were effective early on because the had a strong, conforming capitalist industrial base. Businesses such as BMW, IBM, Mitsubishi, Fiat were allowed to flourish as long as they met the demands of the State. Another example is the slide from Communism to Fascism as seen in Russia and China. There’s not a lot of difference between the two in practise. Both are top-down, strict conformist ideologies. Even Communism’s vaunted egalitarianism barely existed in practise. Communism’s downfall was its state-run, top-down economic system which was notoriously ineffective in providing goods and services. Thus, it’s no surprise that a failing Communist China slid over to Fascism by simply allowing competitive businesses and capitalism to thrive under the strict oversight of the State. But God help the Chinese (or foreign) businessman in China who oversteps the State’s limitations. There has been a tendency for the economic ruling class in liberal democracies to flirt with authoritarianism/fascism to fend off the socialists under the guise of liberal elite class. The German business class thought they could control Hitler and in the US lately, the business rulers supposed they could control the latest US President. Both lost. Even liberals have succumbed to the joys of the military-industrial complex. One thing they need is a manufactured or exaggerated enemy (Russia, China, Panama, Grenada, Iraq, Iran, N Korea...). But it’s more overt as they marshal their conservative/libertarian think tanks, cable opinion news, intellectuals, and the unholy conservative coalitions of conservative religious, ideological, racist, and business factions whose only commonality is a hatred for liberal leadership. They want to do away with (deconstruct) the too controlling but snow-flake liberal state and replace it with an even more controlling robust, he-manny authoritarian state. Picture a bare chested Putin and Jong-un riding big white horses. What men they are, unlike an Obama or Trudeau.
You are mislead by the similarity between the Italian word corporazione and the English corporation that are not synonyms. A better trazlation of corporativismo would be "guildism"
The funny thing here is that Putin is just an elderly man who enjoys luxurious life while the country is ruled by his administration combined with several most powerful ministers. The strongman image is completely fake, Putin never acted as a strong leader in any way. And in the West this image is even more convincing, because Russian media is trying to sell this strongman image, which is also useful to create an impression of powerful enemy. In the time of crisis Putin just disappears from the newspapers and returns back when situation became better.
According to my grandpa, who lived in Franco's spain, fascism would be "the group is more important than the individual, but my group (Country/Nation) is inherently superior than any other, and must therefore purge whoever is "polluting" the Nation's greatness (usually a made-up bogus group) to maintain a unified and ' naturally pure' model group". All this in a corporative economy in which the sate owns the means of priduction with hirearchal structures in which in order to ascend on your job and/or get a decent salary you need to ascend in the militsry (protectors of the Nation). It usually involves the revival of a "mythical" past and imperial ambitions (to restore the country's alleged greatness). The people are mobilized against bogus groups who are conspiring against the nation to 'make it fail'. Basically: Totalitarian Ultranationalism.
You're learning a bunch of bullshit from this guy. The central tenant of fascists is that the State the ideal organization for realizing a society’s and an individual’s potential economically, socially, and even spiritually. That is a social ownership model, AKA socialism.
How about we just avoid use of the word fascist? It appears to have little consistency in the way it was used historically, and we have many other helpful terms that can actually mean something. If you need to use labels, then use terms such as social democrat, neo-Nazi, liberal, etc. We have such an abundance of words that can better articulate what we mean, so I don't think many people would sorely miss a single term.
Never would I ever think I'd see a video pointing out how Laura Ingraham, Natalie Wynn, Prager, and that disheveled guy who used to be on Cracked are all WRONG about the same thing. MAD respect, Mr. Beat! Keep those pop political pundits in line!
I'd argue that authoritarian ideologies, in practice, use collectivist ideas to disguise the appropriation of wealth and power for the use of the supreme leader(s).
I think I understand fascism a lot better now. Fascism is a word I hear a lot and everyone seems to have a different definition for. I would like to see a video like this about socialism because that is another term I hear a lot but I am not exactly sure what it means since everyone seems to have a different definition for it. That and a lot of other words that relate to political ideologies.
Well socialism began as an economic term. He basically means the redistribution of wealth in order to promote equality. Specifically, how we make stuff and trade stuff should be controlled by society as a whole rather than individuals.
Socialism did not begin as an economic term. It was called social + ism because of the earliest ideas of a perfect society where everyone works together for the best of everyone. Socialism is fundamentally defined by democratic values and equality. Then not equality in the sense that everyone is equal physically speaking. But that everyone is of equal value: We are all egocentric beings with no intrinsic value. How you form a society that tries to achieve socialism depends on who you ask. Personally I like to call my self a progressive utopian socialist. I have a concept of a perfect socialist utopia. Not as a realistic idea of how a society could be. But as a guideline to guide policy making for a better (not perfect) future.
Lindsay Manning you can read Squire’s Trial. Its 54 pages or so long, and it should give you a better understanding of fascism. This video is a lot closer to what fascism actually is but its still far from the actual truth about fascism. Its was a very good effort but still lackluster in some parts.
0:15 Hard to define fascism. 2:18 What does it mean? 2:55 Simplified definition. “Well actually...” 3:28 Revised definition. 4:23 Thomas Carlyle, Giovanni Gentile, Social Darwinism 4:55 Fasci of Revolutionary Action, The People of Italy 5:30 Fascist Stance 5:44 Bundle of Sticks, 6:02 Like socialists: 8 hrs, minimum wage, progressive tax Like Authoritarians: Black Shirts, intimidation and street violence 6:39 Recap 7:02 Frustrating misconceptions and rhetorical manipulation. 7:54 Puppets! The Felt Show 9:36 End 9:50 Lol
Yeah by the definitions given in this, the nazis were only partial facist (keeping in mind that the nazis had a group identity but also promoted and worshiped individual achievement/success.), while the soviet and chinese socalist were absolute facists demoting 99% of their people to cattle status, while the ruling oligarchy sat back and made money.
Good recap. In fact I feel that trying to get a true, more “workable” definition of F. isn’t really going to happen if you try to simplify. Truth is, most of all other moronic abuses of the F word nicely shown in the first part are made possible exactly by simplifications. Silly and self convenient simplifications. Now, why beat the same path ?
@@kyonjannis I really still have no idea what a fascist is. Maybe its just a name people call each other now like bastard? Historical it was this thing that made them less, and as such by calling them a bastard made you better then them for no other reason then in your mind you where better. With so many different definitions of what a fascist is I really think its just in history they were evil (WW2 Germany & Italy) so by calling them fascist you are just calling them evil.
Priceless !! My mind kept doing the same back-flips.....well done itemizing , and timing the exact ridiculousness, of this Mr Beat. PITY his poor students.....dumbed down comes to mind. FASCISM~ if we are united like a bundle of sticks we will be strong, and all opposition will be ruled under our AXE...........(its Roman Empire origen)......Courts & Sherrifs, K,Colombus?
Very well done, I was braced for something completely reductive but you've provided far more context then other youtubers. I've been perplexed by this word for much of my life. My father grew up under occupation in Holland and my grandfather was forced to work for the Nazi's so I've heard the stories from those who experienced it. It bothers me greatly that people conflate racism and dictatorship with fascism as these are not central to the doctrine and I'm delighted you point that out. From this and extensive reading I have broken it down to a more identifiable system of economic and bureaucratic totalitarian control which promotes corporatism as it's corner stone using dehumanising methods of administrative processes through bullying, coercion and intimidation. Nationalism does also appear to be a factor and it most certainly does seem to begin developing as a reaction to enlightenment thought. The most recent book I have read on this subject which I highly recommend is 'I you me them: desk killers in history and today' by Dan Gretton. This book provides a deeper understanding of fascism and how it could be manifesting today.
What you describe here (again) clearly indicates many aspects of today's mainstream politics and media. I agree that today's globalism is fascist in many ways
There (fortunately) hasn’t been many fascist governments over a long period of time, therefore a strong definition is only representative of the few examples. Thus the definition is more specific to Italian or German fascism, compared to general fascism as there hasn’t been many.
The problem with your definition is you could argue that socialism is the idea that the group is more important than the individual. We’ve seen that under Stalin and Mao. They weren’t fascists though.
There's a comment up there from a guy that explains almost perfectly what Fascism is really about. He lists the ideas from Mussolini's "The Doctrine of Fascism" in a nutshell
Both are collectivism. Fascism tends to be the idea that there must be a sacrifice of personal liberties so the nation can complete its goals. Communism/socialism is a collectivist movement where liberties are sacrificed for the power/capital to be spread across the population and eventually the nation state is dissolved. Problem with collectivism is that somebody is that movements tend to have leaders. Facism is ok with a leader wielding those collectivist powers for the betterment of the nation state. Communism turns to totalitarian regimes because of the collective power with essentially no direction other than “Let’s make sure everybody is getting something out of the collective”. The problem with communism is that there can’t be an agreement on what the collective should be working towards, thus strong man leaders take control as they offer some absolutes and direction that people crave.
Pretty much, not to mention that Japan would technically fall under this umbrella if you stretch it hard enough. Collective Capitalism would be bad by that logic (it does have it's downsides) but I think this can be more avoided by explaining it better.
PhD student in political theory here. It's not just hierarchy - that falls under what is formally known as elitism, and that is only one of three reactionary elements which are requisite. There is also nationalism and irrationalism. The group being more important than the individual falls under nationalism, but it is much more complex than simply the group being more important. The group is specifically the nation - a group that naturally occupies a particular plot of land who have a particular national character which is weakened by the presence of other national groups - and fascism is about the freedom of the nation, not individuals. Individuals can only gain purpose in doing things for the glory of the nation. However, this is somewhat nullified by the elitism which puts one individual above all others and, arguably the nation, which would be that dictator: Mussolini, Hitler, Hussein, Trump, Putin, etc. Their will is interpreted as the national will. You really should have pointed out who the "critics" of the group that they have historically attacked in the streets were as well. They fought socialists, Communists, and anarchists. Anti-fastische Aktion was made up of the members of the KPD and anarchists, who had been fighting each other until recently, who fought the Nazis before they had power. Mussolini's black shirts targeted socialists. The first to be thrown in a Nazi concentration camp, about 8 years before anyone else, were the Communists, socialists, and anarchists thrown into Daschau. Yet, this group would also generally be seen by your audience as putting the group before the individual due to class consciousness. You might know that Marx believed that groups made things happen but his focus was on individual actualization, as do anarchists, but your audience generally does not. Quite frankly, while Cody's rant was disorganized, I didn't see anything in it that was incorrect. Fascism is a reactionary movement that embodied the Counter-Enlightenment principles, essentially recreating monarchical absolutism with an integration of 19th century nationalism.
_"Mussolini's black shirts targeted socialists ... The first to be thrown in a Nazi concentration camp, about 8 years before anyone else, were the Communists, socialists, and anarchists thrown into Daschau. "_ Both Hitler and Mussolini targeted Marxists specifically, and other political rivals, however so did both Lenin and Stalin after the October Revolution. So your point being?
@@Historia.Magistra.Vitae. That the fact that these were their rivals that they targeted, not conservatives and liberals (though liberals were attacked ideologically by Hitler in Mein Kampf) tells you a lot about the ideology of fascists. A standard talking point from the right today is that Nazis and fascists were on the left because either they regulated what industry produced or because the Nazis used "national socialist" in their name. Both arguments are intentionally obtuse: they ensured private ownership and Hitler even saved up profits from Fanta to pay out to Coca-Cola after the war and socialist was just a term so popular in the very early 20th century that any new party threw it in. The Nazis were considered the far right radicals within the right wing coalition they were part of. Yet, these bad arguments have serious sway in America - they should be directly combatted where possible. This is where you are able to do so. It sounds like you were offended that I cast the Nazis in a bad light based on the objection you made. Whataboutism. What other possible point did you think I might be making?
@@veronicatash777 _"A standard talking point from the right today is that Nazis and fascists were on the left because either they regulated what industry produced or because the Nazis used "national socialist" in their name. "_ And they are right. Both National Socialism and Fascism were totalitarian far-left, socialist 3rd position ideologies. These are basic well known historical facts, which were known back in the WW2 era as well.
@@veronicatash777 _"they ensured private ownership "_ They didn't. In both ideologies, owning anything was conditional. National Socialism ended up abolishing private ownership rights via Reichstag fire decree on February 28, 1933. In Fascism, individual ownership rights were understood to be strictly subordinate to collective discipline. It was not the individual ownership of property that concerned Fascists, but its subordination to collective control. Property was understood to perform social functions rather than to manifest individual rights. It was clear that the conception of property as a social function was broad enough to include socialization of the means of production, should that be required by the national interests as interpreted by the state.
@@veronicatash777 _"and socialist was just a term so popular in the very early 20th century that any new party threw it in. "_ It had nothing to do with popularity. They used the word because it signified what they were advocating for; socialism on a national level. Hitler was very clear about his intentions. _“But we National Socialists wish precisely to attract all socialists, even the Communists; we wish to win them over from their international camp to the national one.”_ - Adolf Hitler , Memoirs of a Confidant (1978)
Often times, in various political discussions about the government and what policies are being implemented, or what legislation is being passed, people seem to use the term 'fascism' in such a way that to them, it apparently means "when I feel like the government is being too strict" / "when the government is being more strict than I would want it or prefer it to be."
I heard that one day in Italy there was a vote going on. And anybody raising their hand not where the vote was being done was arrested for trying to persuade the vote
![Seungmin "그렇게, 천천히, 우리(As we are)" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kAzmhLHePqU/mqdefault.jpg)
Seeing the Prager U definition of fascism makes me cringe every time.
It was pretty bad
I didn’t expect to see you here, emperor
The one before that was pretty bad as well, it seems like people know there definition is wrong but since there isn’t a common and solid definition, they just make up whatever definition pushes their political beliefs.
seeing prager u in ANY context makes me cringe. these people are fascists in every sense of the word.
I have seen people who pretend (or tried) to be fasicist. They put metal under their shoes, they yell everything. It happens in my high school. I think it means nothing has value except what group consider valueble. Is it?
The fact that Mr. Beat knows that VSauce went to the school he taught at just makes me imagine him giving Micheal a detention or something and Micheal going “I’m in trouble... or am I??” and then the music starts to play and Mr B just shakes his head.
Lol, that reminds me of that Key and Peele sketch where Neil deGrasse Tyson keeps avoiding talking to his wife by turning everything into an educational video.
😂 you have a imaginative mind lol
@@zoyadulzura7490 hilarious. I've actually never seen it but now I'm going to.
If a world-wide famous person had been attending your high school, wouldn't you know about that too? I think that that would be something the high school would be proud of.
@@otakarbeinhauer not at my high school every famous or notable person ever is from New Jersey so that’s just normal at the school I went to half the girls I dated in high school have been on the news lol
At first I thought this said is Mr.Beast a fasict
same
I read Mr. Bean.
He's a fascist General of the 9 year old army
Pewdiepie subs are the superior race and Mr.Beast is just trying to show the NON sub race
Same.
I would like to change "The group is more important than the individual" to "Sacrifice individual freedom for the group to succeed against other groups"
Definitely a more workable definition than presented in the video. Still, fascism is too variable to be defined in a single sentence. Umberto Eco's essay Ur-Fascism is a good starting point.
@@bladdnun3016 >Eco
Collectivism
@@janespright yeah because there is a MASSIVE difference between "hey I don't want to be selfish" and FASCISM
@@alpacaofthemountain8760 I was saying that you described collectivism, wondering if you were aware. And it looks like you were. I wouldn't go as far as saying that collectivists were selfless but it depends at what collectivist type you mean but i digress. Both terms are heavily loaded and more clarification is usually needed. I don't know if you are in the mood for shooting the breeze. Besides, neither the short sentence that Beat provided nor your is close to encapsulating what fascism is and in my opinion does more harm than good. Cheers!
The PragerU one reminded me of when they said Hitler wasn’t a nationalist because he wasn’t born in Germany lol. So cringe.
"Democrats are the real fascists because they said that American is one big family."
yeah, wasn't he australian?
@@potatoheadpokemario1931 Austrian 🇦🇹 I believe yes.
@@potatoheadpokemario1931
Australian Hitler
No. No. He's got a point
NGL, I thought it said "Is Mr. Beast a fascist?"
I thought thats what this video was, then he said he’s Mr.Beat 😭😭 i thought someone on Twitter accused Mr. Beast of being a fascist, i felt so clickbaited, then i just felt slow 🥲🥲🥲
"HOW'S IT GOING GUYS, TODAY WE ARE KILLING OVER 7MILLION PEOPLE IN BOTH FRONTS AND CAMPS ACROSS 4 CONTINENTS TO UNITE THE WORLD UNDER ONE FLAG, SMACK THAT LIKE BUTTON LIKE THE BLITZKRIEG SMACKED FRANCE AND LET'S GET ON WITH THE VIDEO"
@@S3b0rg If we get to 1 million like in this video i will declare war on the USA.
Fr
You made me laugh.
"Everything in the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state."
-Benito Mussolini
It looks like Communism for me.
Nice bait 👍
Communists: Capitalism IS FASCISM!!!
Capitalists: There is no significant difference between fascism and Communism. Both are totalitarian.
Fascists: Capitalism and Communism are two sides of the Jewish Coin.
@@DreamlessSleepwalker you're dumb
@@DreamlessSleepwalker We are all Fascists.
Within the first minute, the line " when I did find [an accurate definition] it was just ridiculously complex" sums up so much of the difficulty talking about it. Because yeah, it's not simple. It's convoluted and contradictory by its design. Very glad that was pointed out so early, really good video structuring!
I'd say it's best to listen to people who have lived under fascism and written about it; examples being Umberto Eco and Vicente Navarro
Or read actual fascist literature.
@@sonsvensson2652 Why trust the word of snakes?
@@veemie8148 You holf communist thinkers like Marx and Engels to the same regard?
@@veemie8148 Because it's their own ideology that they understand better than anyone.
Ah, bundle-of-sticks-ism
Another Jreg fan?
@@yahyachothia Who isn't
@@sporeau1006 People who don't understand irony
J R E G
@@RedScotland i cant tell if this is ironic but i also havent watched the video
"Creating a white homeland? I just want to build a new Roman Empire!"
- Benito Mussolini (2020)
"wait don't kill them. They're not white, they're Italian!"
Johann Äpfelburg lol I liked that part from the documentary as well lol. They must have meant they werent colonizers.
@@johannapfelburg6286 if we are not white you are blind and funny how the most racist man of all time adolf hitler loved Mussolini so he must have thought italians were white ,you are so ignorant !!
@@cfclazio621 Hitler and Mussolini didn't really like each other, I mean it was an alliance formed out of necessity, not out of friendship, Mussolini even wanted his war to be separate from the German war. I mean hitler thought the Sioux (he never met a single member, just read a paragraph on them once), Japanese, Chinese and Greeks were honorary Aryans while he saw Italians as the lowest of white people
🙃🙃🙃🙃
"Fasicsm is the idea that the group is more important then the individual". That is incomplete. You are describing collectivism in general. Facism also aggressively pursues the betterment of the group, at the cost of other groups. I see it as little more then a modern evolution of tribalism - which given humanity's past, would come natural to us.
its more of the idea that benito mousalini stated himself in the fascist doctrine that together people are stronger than apart which is where the term fascism come because of the tool the fascese (which comes from when ancient Greece went fascist from time to time and the leaders pasted it when they turned fascist)
Yea makes sense. Just with the added bells and whistles of modern industry and modern cultural evolutions.
If that was the definition East Asian culture would be considered somewhat fascist. You're right that his definition of Fascism is basically just collectivism.
If only the "betterment of the group" wasn't always a misnomer under Fascism
Not exactly at the expense of any group. In Italy during early 20s-40s Mussolini tried to balance all political views happiness and unite all of Italy under 1 national identity no matter ur views. He also joined Hitler BC he thought the Nazis we're gonna win the war not because he agreed. Mussolini actually disliked Hitler
"Fascism is when the police are mean. The meaner the police, the Fascister it is. And when the police are really, really, mean, it is Nazism." -Benito Mussolini
This made me laugh
@@Dothwa Ask 'Some More News'.
He and 'Renegade-Cut' have the Best on this Topic.
@Helzhangstudiosofficial It is satire.
and the Blue Meanine
I don't think Mussolini said any such thing, it doesn't make any sense. Now saying "Everything in the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state, " that is something Mussolini, Lennin and Stalin would agree completely as the foundation of their systems. Coerced conformality as the strap holding it all together.
a list of words that you need to prove you understand before using
1. any word ending in ist or phobic
2. communist/socialist
3. fascist/nazi
Who the hell coined fatphobia/transphobia? And who the hell is scared of either of them??? one question also... its always said that the end goal of communism is a classless moneyless state yet ive yet to hear or see of them ever explaining how the hell that would work and im pretty sure its never actually happened??? cuba has been communist for what 50+ years and they aint implemented/ idk figured it out? Sounds pretty bullshit to me as its impossible to make a classless society in any country bigger than a mini fridge
@@finlaymcdiarmid5832 Hello, just wanted to clarify some things
1.
Officially phobia has 2 different definitions: Either extreme fear of something, or an extreme dislike of something. That's where homophobia/fatphobia/transphobia comes from
2.
Cuba isn't communist, but socialist. You could call all the communist countries that have existed socialist, as non of them ever got to implement communism, as we define it, even though Cuba doesn't try anymore to implement communist ideas, but just goes all in on the socialist ideas.
3.
You are right in that it's almost impossible. The reason that so many people defend communism, and calls it the best possible ideology, is because on paper, it's the perfect system. But that's the problem, it's a system above all else, so it doesn't account for individualism, and it pretty much only works on paper. For it to work everyone needs hold the exact same opinions, and corruption can't be a thing, which is almost impossible. Personally I think communism is great, if you have an island society of 10-500 people, however when you're building a society of millions of people, that can't work.
Hope that clarified some stuff
@@phil385 " as we define it " Mr Beat has a great video on logical fallacies, you should look it up. One is called the no true scrotman fallacy.
@@myothersoul1953"a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs."
No country has established communism. Why do you think he is guilty of that fallacy?
@@finlaymcdiarmid5832 a lot of human history involved classless and moneyless societes
For a moment I read "Is Mr. *Bean* a fascist?" and I was like waaa???
That would be awesome
He will be, if Rowan Atkinson plays Hitler in Peaky fookin Blinders S6
I thought it said Mr. Beast..
@@thatpoorsandersy32yearsago36 same...
@@thatpoorsandersy32yearsago36 same
Fascism isn't just the idea that the group is more important than the individual. It is also the idea that the group is more important than other groups. Someone who believed that "the group" to which the individual must be loyal is the entire world population would not be a fascist. They would just be a collectivist. A fascist demands loyalty not to all human beings as a group, but rather to a specific group of human beings.
This makes more sense. Collectivist is for *the* greater group.
Fascist is for *a* group they think is better than any other group.
Not group, but the state. Individuals are not important until they associate themselves with the state.
"All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state"
© Benito Mussoliny
(Sorry for my English)
@@-grey no that's supremacism
Does that not pretty much characterize every major civilization in human history? Hard to imagine the Japanese being more concerned with the Chinese or the Mongols than themselves. Hard to imagine the Aztecs being more concerned about the Congolese than themselves. Just because I love my kid more than your kids doesn't mean I hate your kids.
I think your definition starts to be clunky. In its promotion Fascism has to be the in group for Fascism to work, as it's a political idea.
This definition falls apart a little bit once you take into consideration all the various definitions that 'group' can have and the fact that facists don't care about the 'group' as in the collective population of their country, but rather a group within that, usually one that already has a significant concentration of power relative to the rest of the population. Furthermore facism /is/ inherently authoritarian and violent as by concentrating power and benefit onto the chosen subgroup one must at minimum reduce the relative power of all other subgroups, which is a form of political violence, and automatically creates a tiered power structure wherein the outgroups are subject to the authority of the ingroup/ruling party.
(edited)
I agree, I think it would be more accurate to say that a fascist prioritizes collective identity over individual freedoms, with “identity” being the key word. Mr Beat’s definition would throw all collectivist movements under the ‘fascist’ umbrella which is obviously not accurate. Fascism is not so much concerned with the advancement of the collective well being as it is with projecting strength through uniformity, which requires establishing - and strictly enforcing - a collective identity. In that sense, Beat’s original definition “conform or else” is actually a slightly better one, though it misses that important context of WHY you must conform.
What group did Mussolini prioritize?
@@thebenevolentsun6575 Well, the PNF was an Italian nationalist party, so ostensibly he prioritized anyone who he felt fit into the category of ‘heir to the legacy of Rome’. But in reality he just prioritized corporations.
Marxism doesn't conceive the group as the collective population of the country, it has the oppressed Proletariat overthrowing the Bourgeoisie which has a significant concentration of power relative to the rest of the population. Same thing, just different group definitions. Fascism and Communism both require an authoritarian power structure..., how can you have a centralized planned economy without a tiered hierarchy and compelled conformality? How do you do that without the threat of violence? In the Soviet Union (and elsewhere) they had Comisars seeded in factories, rural communities, and in the military to represent the governments interests, and the power to interfere if not met. In a collectivists system, they want to know what you're doing and if you're doing what your told because everything must mesh. Communism and Fascism are just two different flavors of the same ice cream.
"Everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state."
~Mussolini
The most basic definition of fascism from the man himself. I would limit the word fascism to his method of governance. This is because of their unique replacement of the Democratic legislature with one that represents groups of the state is made up of like workers and employers.
The book the Doctrine of Fascism goes into fascism in philosophical detail from their own point of view, so it is useful to get a detailed definition. It really draws the lines between it and socialism, liberalism, and monarchies.
Except Mussolini wasnt the first fascist or the "father" of Fascism and its doctrine.
@@sandwitchi7 I don't know who could have been other than perhaps those thinkers in Italy that lead up to the idea. Mussolini want the only author of "The Doctrine of Fascism." Either way the quote is really the only good and fast defining that I've been able to find. Who would you point to as the original fascist leader and how would you define fascism?
I know for a fact that fascism in Romania originated from doctrine written in the mid and late 19th century by historians and theorists like Xenopol and A. C. Cuza. The first actual fascist movement in Romania began in 1919 and was led by Corneliu Zelea Codreanu. Although it is possible he could have taken some elements from Italian Fascism, his movement differed greatly in its philosophy and end goal. I'd suggest reading The Nest Leader's Manual and For My Legionaries, if you want to read up on Romanian Fascist doctrine.
The exact origins of fascism are a bit uncertain, but I know Romania's did not come from Italian doctrine. There are similarities but it differs almost entirely on a philosophical, social and economic level. Even so, Romanian fascist doctrine could very well have originated from someone else's.
I guess Mussolini's definition could be a very oversimplified definition for every Fascist sub-ideology, but there are exceptions.
@@sandwitchi7 Fascism is Romanian? Yeah try another one
You're right, and additionally, in Japan, Ikki Kita had written his 'Outline Plan for the Reorganization of Japan' years before the March on Rome or Beer Hall Putsch ever happened:
www.worldfuturefund.org/Reports/Japan/Kitta.htm
There have been many Fascists in other nations who may have gotten their start before the more 'famous' movements in Italy and Germany.
"Fascism is when you do based things. The more based things you do the more Fascisty it is. And when you do a real lot of based things, it's Nazism" - Benito Mussolini
Pretty based definition.
Based? Based of wha-
"Fascism is when the government does stuff that makes you not free and the government is mean" - Giovanni Gentile
I hope you're joking. Nazism is not Fascism. Nazism is just a shitty socialism based on pseudo science.
And I'm not Joking.
@@NEM0.01 I did base this comment on one of the top comments on this video: ruclips.net/video/qdY_IMZH2Ko/видео.html
Things have really taken a turn for the worst on the muppets show.
lol Don't worry! No muppet was harmed during the making of this episode.
agree he fuck up all the video with the muppets show I dislke coz of that
Fascism already existed since the Roman Age. But Roman politics was much unique and elegantly splendid than Nazi Germany, United States and USSR combined.
It was the only nation that lasted for over a thousand years, multi-culturally ethnic, and united strongly unopposed, regardless of internal and external conflicts, problems and difficulties that attempt to nearly destroy the roman empire into the brink of chaos and defeat.
The Roman Empire will be remembered as the greatest empire that ever lived and be among the
"Empire of all Empires".
@@trollfacenationalist3653
Well, besides the socially acceptable pedophilia and stuff.
Ehhhhhhhhhh........................
The muppets were facist by this definition, believing in the collective group rather than promoting individualism such as Miss Piggy and Gonzo
To fight fascism, we first must understand what is the true meaning of fascism
Ok so watch the damn video and stop talking ( I’m a facist stop talking and thinking now)
Read Sorel and mosley and you find fascism is adaptation of marxism.
Fascism as described by its ideological founder Giovanni Gentile, "Fascism as a consequence of its Marxian and Sorelian patrimony conjoined with the influence of contemporary Italian idealism, through which Fascist thought attained maturity, conceives philosophy as praxis."
Fascism as described by the world's foremost scholar on the subject Emilio Gentile, "For Mussolini, syndicalism was the most modern embodiment of the spirit of Marxist doctrine, which he added to the myths of his Nietzschean aristocratic philosophy to reach a socialism of quality rather than quantity."
It was an extremely specific ideology that had dozens of theoreticians, fortunately because of that it's pretty easy to understand once you get your head around the Hegelian part
Your first mistake is suggesting we must fight it
Heck off commie.
I've been misusing the words "fascism" and "fascist", more often than not when I actually meant "authoritarian".
Its a very common misconception. The communists and marxists didnt like that a essentially socialist ideology was allied with hitler so they jumbled up the definition of fascism to not resemble socialism, this is still apparent in wikipedia which gives no mention to any trace of socialism (last time i checked anyway)
@@finlaymcdiarmid5832 communists are against nationalism and are against fascists bc those tend to be the opposite of what they want which is equality while fascist tend to think they’re better than other nationalities to the point they cause genocides. Just because they’re both collectivist doesn’t mean they have the same goal which is communists want to have a world with no class, money, or state and fascist want their certain group based on nationality to be the only ones existing. Also communists want to eliminate hierarchies and fascist think they’re better than other nationalities so that also wouldn’t make any sense
@@mattrdd9 your conflating nazism with facism. There is no racialism in fascism. And communists arent against nationalism they just usually drift towards internationalism. The USSR was definitely nationalistic but they were technically internationalists. Things are very rarely clear cut and simple.
@@finlaymcdiarmid5832 nazism is fascism but for Germany and just because fascism is collectivists doesn’t mean communism is instantly also fascism. Fascism has nationalism and is very opposed to other nationalities and it’s not a big surprise if they were to have ethnic cleansing in their country. Also I’ve known communists over the internet and the one thing they hate the most is fascist because communism is about being equal and fascism leads to things that would make others think they’re better than other groups which causes racism and bigotry
@@mattrdd9 no its not. Fascism is always nationalistic communism can be or cannot be. Nazism is Based on racialism not nationalism thats just added on the top to complement it. Your argument is baseless as Mussolini was not a racist and never endeavored in racist policies, he refered to all Italians as equals.
I know I might be being pedantic, but I don’t think that the explanation covered by ‘Some More News’ is actually that incorrect. The definition he gives talks about how fascism is a reaction against the left and of socialism, Marxism and progressivism, which in many ways it historically was. Giovanni Gentile even wrote in the doctrine of fascism about how it was was in part on a rejection of Marxism and socialist values, and Mussolini himself was in part radicalised to his point of view following the views of the socialist party, including internationalism and class consciousness. This also applies to Hitler, due to his radicalisation in part due to the failed attempted socialist revolution in Germany in 1918. Even is inclusion of how fascism often found alliances with conservative and centeist.views is historically fair, as Mussolini ran his party in a coalition which included liberals and conservative nationalists and Hitler formed a coalition including national conservatives and the very enabeling act to make him Führuh was signed by Zentrum, or the center party.
Miki Boss I agree, I was going to attempt to say something similar but hot damn you said it much better than I could have.
I'm also not a teacher or expert tho. So there's that.
One day, there might be a fascist left dude as a dicktator. See what I did there?
‘Some More News’ definition is as bad as all the other ones. Fascism was more so an reaction to anti collectivist ideals such as liberalism and Libertarianism. Defining fascism is the rejection of libertarian ideals would be equally bad however. Explaining it with just look at how the axis signed an non aggregation pact with the communists and divided up Europe for example.
The reason this is a bad way to define fascism is that it fits a large amount of ideas that are not fascist and also does not apply to a large amount of fascists such as left wing fascists.
Frankly it a definition that is created with the purpose of vilifying the opposition in a very fascist way.
All the ones Mr Beat showed as poor are similar. The closest and best other definition would probable be it is socialism, since it is a form of socialism and socialism rarely exists without at least some amount of fascism.
BR
@@MartinsPrusis I think D'Souzas was actually the best. However I think it can be socialist in nature (as he was saying). Or highly protectionist corporatist in nature.
Nah, incorrect... What you are sayimg more applies to Hitler. Hitler was against Socialism. Mussolini was himself a socialist and based the foundation of his fascism on socialist principles. He actually looked evolve socialsm and looked fascism as the next step as opposed to communism being the next step to socialism. Hitler wasn't a fascist, he just admired Mussolini.
Fascism and National Socialism are different things. They are similar, but not the same.
national socialsm has RACISM. and socialsim lmao
@Joseph Goebbels Could you please be more respectful? I do know that it is not exact socialsm. It was used in Nazi Germany. That socialsm defends that everything belongs to the government and there isn't any private property that works for it's own good. Left socialsm does not accept Nationalism and of course racism. They also want to exterminate religion.National socialism is more for defending the workers right against patriotic ! bourgeoisie.
@Joseph Goebbels Yea that creates the ideology called corporatism. Where everything belongs to the state but there is private property and capitalizm. So you can create a factory for your own good, but state will have right to control it in order to increase the production around the country. It also defends worker"s right and destroys class struggles. It says that workers and bourgeoise work for the same goal, natinoal economy. Unlike capitalism, workers do not get whipped by the rich class, instead it brings justice to society. This was the economy in Nazi Germany
@Joseph Goebbels I am not a fan of national socialism. National socialism brings racism. That is the whole difference. And even tho corporatism is similar to socialism, there is also private property and companies in corporatism unlike socialism. They are similar but, not the same
@Joseph Goebbels No, Nationalsocialism is a own ideology based in different values than Fascism. Please...
When I was in school, fascism was taught as "A one party system" which was designed to increase a nation's military readiness in response to WW1.
They just taught it as the bad Italian party.
there can be a multi-ethnic fascist state as long as "the group" agrees with a single idea/culture and that's according to your simple definition of fascism just saying.
There cant be any multi ethnic nation without an overwhelming super majority of the dominant ethnicity regardless of fascistic leadership
Historically, Fascism is the system of governance that is implemented for the purpose of enforcing communism and socialism which are social orders that determine the equitable distribution of resources for a population.
Fascism is a nationalistic authoritarian system of governance. This includes nationalization and Distribution of marketable resources, such as energy and healthcare.
Modern political rhetoric commonly infers a right or left difference between fascism and socialism and or communism, however in practice fascism is what is used to enforce socialism and communism. The arguments for either are mostly semantics, as an authoritarian system is necessitated to provide a motivation to sustain these orders, which are purposefully designed to economically subjugate a working population.
The greatest difference between a purely fascist system and a socialist system may be how private equity is awarded or determined by merit. Private ownership of residence may be achieved and for some outside the governing establishment a greater level of prosperity may also be achieved from individual production if permitted by the state. However the state reserves the right to seize or purpose production if it is required to serve the nation.
Communism insist all production is only purposed to serve the collective.
Though definitions insist there is no private equity retained or distributed with communism, there is always a wealthier ruling class, as every order requires a sorted political class to determine the measures of distributions. Entitling selected individuals to enrich themselves from the productions of their subjugates or the collective. A collective is of course just another word for nation.
No matter how anyone tries to spin it. There is very little difference between these systems of governance. All are a means of authoritarian economic subjugation. Slave labor states for the ruling classes. For which there are ranks. Entertainers and propagandist exist as extensions of the ruling class of every system. Ranking above educators, police and resource administrators.
I don't think I should take up more space getting any deeper than that.
@Xeta multi ethnically, no.
@Xeta because people naturally divide and form in group communities in segregation and advocate for the group's rights, dividing the nation
@Xeta I'm not arguing for a free market.
Personally, I find Umberto Eco's Ur-Fascism to be a good starting point when working backwards. Essentially, fascism is when ultranationalism is the primary driving force of policy.
palinogenetic is important in fascism. The point is that the country needs to achieve pure nationalism through rebirth and cleansing.
I don't really think you understood what Eco said.
@Krisbugajew11-11 well Eco condidered comunism as a form of fascism. He also said that Fascism is not simply tyranny: there is the idea of an ideology of imposing an ideology to a society. It's not just a warlord imposing his authority with violence.
@@XHitsugaX im sure Mussolini once stated anybody that lives in italy is italian and is cool with me basically. So i dont know were that comes from also he barely did any "purifying" historically he only deported a few thousand bourgeois jews because of pressure from hitler he actually deported enrico fermi which wasnt a very pro gamer move
You should read the article by Onar Am, titled "The radical left's surprising connection to Fascism". and in fact, Fascism is in essence collectivist, is anti-freedom/anti-individualist, anti-capitalist, using propaganda and therefore typical ideology on the left. The lies from the left that are believed by the majority of people are based on pseudo-arguments, for example that Fascism is on the right, because fascists eliminated socialists and communists.
the idea that the group is more important than the individual is literally the definition of what collectivism is
Yes. Read mussolini, he sees fascism as collectivist.
Just not left-wing, but same
@@jajauxhal7846 Yes, all fascists are collectivists but not all collectivists are fascists.
Exactly, so fascism. Fascism is just racist communism.
@@tugaumakouvov7447 I don't think that fully describes what a fascist might consider collectivism. Because a fascist fundamentally defines themselves as in opposition to communism, that "collectivism" has a very specific character that has strong limits on what is considered part of the collective and what is not. Partly because as a project, at the founding of Fascism, communism, and socialism more generally, were defined by their internationalist character, and practice. In actual practice that internationalism was fragile, but fear of being subsumed by "the globalists" (to use a modern phrase) was nonetheless one of the driving factors towards creating these "national identities" where they had not, objectively existed before.
@@tugaumakouvov7447 right, but then we still need to pin down what distinguishes fascists from other collectivists
"The idea that a group is more important than the individual" is a definition of collectivism. Yes, fascism is a branch of collectivism, but so is socialism, communism etc. This is what they have in common, it's the rest of their beliefs (even though they're all surprisingly similar) that make them any different and so hateful against eachother.
@@sefisyara5961 that's why they are dangerous.
There's no way human will think similarly, we have our own interests.
So crazy how they all intermingle and evolve from each other.
They are very much different ideologies, but the origins of many fascists were socialist, which may be what some of the ideas came of. Obviously Mussolini had abandoned a lot of his socialist stuff: "Everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state." while communisms definition is stateless
@DownWithTheImperialists You're mixing up Communism and Socialism. Socialism was generally a statist ideology back then.
Pretty sure you defined collectivism, which was a trait fascism shared with many other ideologies at its peak.
Can you explain it better?
@@hochimane6535 me?.
Yeah, I'm curious
@@hochimane6535 There isn't really a way to describe it, I have a few books about fascism one made by Mussolini but its difficult to explain. Mr beat wasn't exactly wrong but he could have gone more in-depth.
@@yigglyyetard3043 why is there always some spa with that profile pic in literally every political comment section?
Well the Fascist party of Italy had a manifesto, it's not hard to search for and you can find out for yourself by reading it, not hard really is it. A quick summary is that Italy and Germany, formerly major powers were squeezed out by Anglo American Capitalism on the one hand and Soviet Communism on the other. Neither Germany or Italy wanted to be dominated by Britain/America or Russia so they developed their own alternatives which were neither Capitalist or Socialist but had some elements of both. The German version placed a great emphasis on race and the Italian version didn't mention race at all.
Willy Hill also there’s the Romanians, the legion of Michael the Archangel whom were more practicing Christians. There’s a book called For my legionaries and prison notes
What about the British fascists though
@@Seeanwheresmyjumper Mosley had a book you can easily find a pdf of that was a FAQ for fascism
Thank god someone has read a bit on the topic.
"Tends to be right wing"
In his research of Mussolini did he purposefully overlook his strong socialist background and his mentioning that socialism formed the basis of his fascism?
"First the fatherland, then the Movement, then the men"
- Juan Domingo Perón
"Mussolini was the greatest man of our century, but he committed certain disastrous errors. I, who have the advantage of his precedent before me, shall follow in his footsteps but also avoid his errors."
“Italian Fascism led popular organizations to an effective participation in national life, which had always been denied to the people. Before Mussolini’s rise to power, the nation was on one hand and the worker on the other, and the latter had no involvement in the former. […] In Germany happened exactly the same phenomenon, meaning, an organized state for a perfectly ordered community, for a perfectly ordered population as well: a community where the state was the tool of the nation, whose representation was, under my view, effective. I thought that this should be the future political form, meaning, the true people’s democracy, the true social democracy"
Juan Perón
@@elmascapo6588 fascist*
@@elmascapo6588 which isnt socialism lmao
@@elmascapo6588 hitler imprisoned all communists and socialists before he even touched the jews...
@@elmascapo6588 he killed them for being socialist
One thing I wish you touched on is the historical context of governments considered to be fascist. The points you outlined are not necessarily right-wing, but governments that fit those definitions & that are often cited as examples of fascist governments all do seem to match the dictionary definition.
Great and thought-provoking video.
@Anon Ymous : _"... is the historical context of governments considered to be fa sc ist."_
There has been only one; the gove rnment under Mus solini in Ita ly, during the W W2 era.
@@Historia.Magistra.Vitae. that's hyper-reductive. Just because other governments weren't literally managed by a "Fascist Party" doesn't mean you can't call them fascists. There have been many fascist regimes throughout the 20th century.
I believe that the term “fascism” should be used very carefully and mostly when describing history. The idea of fascism is very broad and narrow at the same time (depending on who you ask) and is there by not a good choice for describing complex, still ongoing political movements or people. There are enough well defined words out there, which do not have such a strange and horrible history; why don’t we use them more?
@Black Star yah I agree with this response. just because a word has a lot of historical baggage doesn't mean it can't be applied to modern contexts or less extreme contexts. If a given example fits the agreed upon definition of fascism then you should use that word to describe it, at that point the only people that benefit from us choosing not to identify fascism as fascist are the fascists that don't want the stigma of fascism attached to them.
All the people..., throughout all the years..., that have used fascist as a slur, without knowing what it is, do not have the right to redefine it.
Everything you’ve said applies to literally any political science term, such as “republic” or “socialism” - when people get all pilpulistic about the “definition” of fascism (a wrongheaded way to approach the study of material systems and events anyway, just my opinion) it tends to lend unearned credence to the right-wing urge to laugh off any usage of such terminology as totally vacuous. Like the person above me, perhaps. Yes analyzing broader reactionary politics requires a relatively careful discussion that is not centered around a single red-hot word that apparently makes everyone break out in hives, but that’s already what any given reasonable discussion within political science looks like regardless
I appreciate your comment very much. I am doing my homework/due diligence to understand family and friend who are accusing Donald Trump and conservatives of being fascists. The allegation became troubling to me and as I search and listen I am not sure what conclusion to come to... I am still processing.
“The idea that the group is more important than the individual.”
Guess I’m a fascist then...
Also with that definition, all marxists are fascism as they promote the group above the individual.
That should be the definition of Collectivism, not Fascism.
There's a lot of people that are ideologically close to fascism and don't even know it.
@@aleczaender I would say that Fascism is a more extreme form of Collectivism.
That is a very flawed definition as far as I know
The idea that "the group is more important than the individual" is also what defines Rawlsian communitarians. Might have oversimplified a bit much in this one too 🤣
I thought exactly the same. This definition is still oversimplified.
This is an extreme misreading of Rawls
Oh god yeah it's WAY too reductive, to a point where practically any ideology could be grouped in with it, it totally just eliminates any nuance too.
@@dudeman5303 every ideology besides lineralism
It also defines most of Reddit.
I think that definition isn't quite right, as it would essentially mean most parents have a fascist approach to their families (i.e. "my family is more important than me as an individual").
True. That means I'm fascist as well
I don’t think that these ideas can be applied outside of a racial, national, or cultural group. That is required for it to be facism.
I thought the thumbnail said “is mr beast a fascist?” 😂😂😂
@S̶c̷r̴ip̶̝͘të̵́d̸̔ - 『TGI』 no
@S̶c̷r̴ip̶̝͘të̵́d̸̔ - 『TGI』 I'm by no means lib
Wtf. Mr. Beast based!?
@ཊꖦƬGПꖦཏ S̶c̷r̴ip̶̝͘të̵́d̸̔ so you're alt right?
>Spends ten minutes defining fascism.
>Actually defines collectivism.
Could you explain it better?
@@hochimane6535 yes:
He defined it as "The idea that the group is more important than the individual." That's oversimplified (inexcusably so). That (collectivism) is just one aspect of fascism. Fascism specifically involves collectivism in the form of Nationalism (usually ethnonationalism). It wasn't an actual principle, rather just a means to an end. The actual desired end was unification of classes within the people and a state controlled economy with a mix of private and public production. All else was a means.
Well, fascism is all about collectvism - a big one collective that appeal to national identity.
But collectivism is not what defines fascism, in fact, collectivism is pretty much in the core of modern socialism as well, but instead of a big collective, socialists tend to divide the society in multiple collectives that appeal to the class struggle aspect (an extended version of class struggle, which is not about proletariat x bourgeois anymore, but about men x women, whites x blacks, gays x straight...) .
Both are enemies of individual freedom and of everything that made the west the pinacle of human civilization. Both are recipes that authoritarian and/or totalitiarian leaders follow in order to ascend to power, increase their power or to just keep their power.
In short, collectivism = cancer. All dictators love it !
So what exactly is fascism?
You do know you can just read the fuckers book right?
I read the title as “is MrBeast a Fascist?”
First Last me too hahaha
First Last lmao same
sammemememeeee
Bro I did that too lmao
"Stop quoting the shit that I didn't said"- Benito Mussolini
Also Sun Tzu
A friend of mine studied Central European history. What he told me was basically, Facism is a highly specific word for a broad set of characteristics. His opinion was of all the definitions of Facism he had come across, palingenetic ultranationalism was the nearest one. But even then that definition is also really broad and really specific at the same time and he felt there was issues with it.
Fantastic video BTW not commenting to be a "Well actually". I just think it's important to note that regardless of the field of studies, when it comes to theories experts can have really broad and varied interpretations of the same characteristics.
Wouldn’t a more accurate source instead of friends opinion be there writings of Gentile, one of the architects of Fascist Italy. It is a form of socialism, with an emphasis on national identity. All socialist states are not fascist, but all fascist states are socialist.
@@vinnyfrancone3567 No because authoritarianism is more closely aligned with fascism.
@@rightousIke ridiculous premise. Easel in authorization? Stalin? pol pot? North Korea? In your head all are ‘right’ wing. In reality none of those are. All Marxist
Lenin. Ypo
@@rightousIke Lenin. Typo
This comment has been edited so you won't see how it got so many likes.
No, it's mostly the Right who constantly misuse it. You can't both sides this shit.
Lol.
@Humanity Galatica Besides the Bernie or Busters and wokescolds who called Liberals fascists, the "Left" uses it correctly. That's why we've been historically good at pointing out fascists. Fascists have benefited from the ignorance of the rest of the Right, historically, who can't do a simple Google search.
:)
@@mateo255 thing is trump isn't a dictator so you can't really call him a fascist
Other peoples personal definitions are wrong, proceeds to give personal definition
@M.0rgazm I dont know if his definition is wrong or not, but the Oxford dictionary's definition was terribly wrong and dangerously at that
@@NoOne-kx2hk he defined utilitarianism dead on rather than fascism
he still did much better than Oxford dictionary is all I am saying. Didnt like his definition either I merely enjoyed the discussion, but still the fact is that Oxford dictionary has it so wrong its like they are out of topic
@@NoOne-kx2hk can you define it in a sentence?
@@ImNotJoshPotter fascism is an ideology that promotes extreme nationalism, social conservativism, and authoritarianism but uniquely rejects both capitalism and communism most of the time replacing it with a model called corporatism
"Everyone else has it wrong. Here's my oversimplified definition that can literally apply to half the ideologies that existed throughout history, without sources or even reasoning"
Well done, sir.
Why are you mad?
@@EventuallyTM he's not he's just pointing out that mr beat is a horseshoe centrist that probably thinks communist is fascism
@@EventuallyTM because hes right and that video sucked
youre right but still better than contzra points
The definition that it's when "the group is more important than the individual" sounds more like Communism
The puppet show was unexpected, but highly appreciated!
Glad you liked it!
As a political scientist at this point, I think his definition is wrong. Most political scholars agree that fascism is exclusively an authoritarian system of government. I can't think of any non-authoritarian fascist ideology or movement that would prove that wrong. Typically, when we do refer to it as an ideology, it is specifically to the corporatist policies that followed under Mussolini, though obviously there had been so-called proto-fascist writers in the 1800s
He doesn't even site a source for that definition! That's the worst part of this video!
i got a good definition that best describes fascism. it's self made but you might like
True, there are people who claim to believe in libertarian fascism but I think that's an oxymoron much like libertarian socialism.
Take a good look at Oswald Mosley. I’d he were to create a dictatorship, the entire empire would likely fall apart due to complications with parliament. So whilst it would most likely be anocratic it would not be autocratic.
Communism is also Authoritarian as ironically is Liberalism when threatened. The crucial difference between Communism and Fascism is the Economic structure. Communists believe in the state owning everything and running everything until theoretically the State "withers" away. Fascists believe that private ownership is fine so long as the State controls the company or person for the good of the State. Fascists are Corporatists other wise known as Guild Socialism. China under Moa was Communist but modern day China is in Fact Fascist despite the ruling party being called Communist. The World Economic Forum is also Fascist in its Economic structural aspirations. Fascism it a turn of abuse but many are Fascists without intending harm to any one. Britain under the Labour party from 1945 to 1950 was really a Fascist nation. Indeed the same could be said of Britain from 1939 to 1950 which is an interesting irony. Fascism as an ideology only came to an end in 1979 under Margaret Thatcher in Britain. Thanks to Globalisation Fascism is having a renaissance as the State increasingly controls and regulates Corporations and is influenced by them eg the World Economic Forum.
@@ManiacMayhem7256 What is it?
“Fascism is just communism but Gay”
-Joseph Stalin
"Communism is just Fascism but poor"
- Adolf Hitler (no really)
@@Azoonaloc13 and also you're confusing nazism as fascism classic move
@@mcwaff8661
whooooooooshh
@Iblis König ive literally written an academic summary on mein kampf you dumbass
Fascism hates people who are of the "gay" variety. Do you know how many LGBTQ+ people were killed under Fascism? 15,000, max!
I once got called a fascist for expressing my opinion on a youtube short.
Men now a days are tired of Liberty, men now a days want rule by the few.
-Benito Mussolini 1923
Benito should "tell that to Kanjiclub" -- Star Wars: The Force Awakens.
Hey vsause mr beat here
What is facism
I should have done that. lol
Facism? Do you mean fascism
Or is it ?
At first I didn't understand a single thing you said. But then the puppets came out and I understood everything. Thanks Mr. Beat!
It kinda looked the way MAGA was going
@@govimodo9231 nah I think it's more like the woke left wing
@@TheDankBoi69 then you don’t understand fascism. At all.
@@TheDankBoi69 but Biden is hardly a cult of personality. A majority of democrats don't even want him to run again... Trump on the other hand has merchandise and stans. And if anybody within his circle had the slightest criticism of him they were expelled and made an enemy.
@@govimodo9231 I would say in some ways it's both. For instance, talking bad about the collective is forbidden, scapegoating all their problems. Using lethal force (deplatforming/ cancellation). They have a lot of parallels
Even individualism is celebrated in fascism, as long as it conforms to the "right type of individualism". I would say that fascism is taking to the extreme the position of "my group is more important than other groups"
_"Even individualism is celebrated in fascism, as long as it conforms to the "right type of individualism"."_
Actually Fascism was rather anti-individualistic ideology. It was purely a collectivist ideology.
@@Historia.Magistra.Vitae. yeah, that's exactly what Mr. Beat says, but we agree to disagree.
@@mister_chispa : What is there to disagree exactly?
Drinking game: everytime you hear "ism" do a shot
I'll Turn into alcoholism.
Then deadism.
Eventually buriedism.
You just explained authoritarianism. You could easily apply your oversimplified definition to communism.
You need more distinctive traits of fascism in your definition.
Agreed, he focused too much on the "instruments" of enforcement, that say NOTHING about the ideology itself and were used by others too.
It would’ve been more interesting if he gave Oswald Mosley some attention. He literally advocated for non-intervention and believed in the parliamentary system of the UK.
You mean, “You need more distinctive traits of fascism in your definition... to fit my world view.”
KeeperOfKale no mate we are not socialists what just make shit up, needs to be facts
No because communism by definition and in theory doesnt have to lead to authoritarianism
I really wish people would actually READ the fascist books. Primo de Rivera's "Codex Fascismo" lays it out pretty well for starters:
-
"Here is what is required by our total sense of the Patra and the state which is to serve it. That all the people of Spain, however diverse they may be, feel in harmony with an irrevocable unity of destiny. "
He continues that the liberty of man is important. And every man should show respect for their countrymen and always do their best. They are allowed to do violence in self-defense, but never for no reason, etc.
So, obviously, when leftists attack nationalists (which really isn't unheard of. You can still see it today, and back then communism international was even more hip than today) and they hit back it can be seen as "Fascists being violent for no reason", but really it's more complicated than just that.
Of course there are aspects of fascism that I like. Often in fascist books there are things written down like: Be respectful to everyone; Be strong; Be loyal and so on. And those are requirements to become a fascist. Atleast that is what the books said. And yes, I do agree with those aspects. Does that mean I want to kill anyone or censor anyone? No, it doesn't.
Right-wing Italians and Spaniards nearly all respect Fascism. Us in the U. S. are too cowardly and afraid to take an objective look on things.
Nice essay LOL
@Electro_blob Hitler copied Mussolini. For example the Munich putsch. In public Mussolini associated himself with Hitler but not in private. There were some things about the Nazi party that he did not agree with, biggest disagreement was racism and Aryan supremacy. Hitler was more extreme than fascism. 'Manifesto of Race' came into being after Mussolini had entered an alliance with Hitler. Have to remember that there were Italian Jews who identified as fascist. There were some fascists who despised biological racism aka national socialism.
Being honest, taking Mussolini for his word is the intellectual equivalent of buying your own snake oil.
@@he1ar1 And in Japan, Ikki Kita had developed a Fascist Manifesto before either the Beer Hall Putsch OR the March on Rome!
www.worldfuturefund.org/Reports/Japan/Kitta.htm
My great grandmother who lived under Mussolini's reign said in Italy post war the saying went, "there are two types of fascist..the fascist and the anti-fascist.".
This is exactly the issue. It comes down to a Us vs Them attitude. Either you are one of us or you are one of them. There is no middle no understanding of other ideas. It is our way or you are one of them. Very closed minded. Sound familiar? We should study this so we don't repeat it.
This video seems like it muddied the waters even more 😂
Yeah, what he defines in the video is collectivism, which isn't exclusive to Fascism. Hell, you can even make legitimate arguments that Fascism is individualist like Evola.
Misused words don’t deserve accurate definition. We simply need other words to label the concept we want to convey.
@@uncreativename9936 yeah if you make a video on fascism and don't include any political scholars you are just talking out your ass.
@@roundrockb Did you even watch the whole video?
@@WaterVolt1917 not only have I watched his video twice now, but I've looked at the sources he cites and none of them are political scholars or academic papers. They are articles. This man is not only just stating an assumption but is putting out misinformation about the topic he is trying to present
YOU JUST WANT TO CLARIFY IT SO PEOPLE KNOW YOUR VIEWS, MR BEAT OR SHOULD I SAY MR BEATO MOUSSILINI!!!!
Nah, fascism is not hip.
that was funny
Lol that was funny BUT NOT TRUE!
Exposed
@zyzz i choose communism
I always saw Fascism as a post democracy system. One leader, one goal, one nation, one people type thing.
But that could make like every Monarch in history a fascist but hey? Why not.
Thank you Mr Beat. I’m still slightly confused though.
Also could you do a video on the politics of Australia? I think the world needs to know how Australia works and I think it would be interesting for international viewers!
I have a couple of Patreon supporters from Australia, so heck yeah, I think that's a great idea.
Still confused, though? Yes, fascism was definitely a reaction to democracy, but that's only when it was first clearly articulated. Monarchs throughout history have been fascist to certain degrees....of course. Just because Adam Smith hadn't yet defined capitalism doesn't mean it didn't exist before he did so.
Fascist typically rejected monarchs. Because it was counter meritocracy.
@@jefferyallen5030 Yet Mussolini had no problem having the King around, since he let him form Goverment after the march on Rome.
@@SwfanredLotr yea a king that held no political power, zero military influence, and no legal authority. Many government transitioning out if monarchy. Have been known to keep a king for religious or political reasons. Without said king retaining any power whatsoever.
Read the doctrine of fascism. It's only 13 small pages
Would be facinated to hear more about what makes someone like Mr Beat comfortable saying that a dictionary definition is wrong. That's super interesting to me (this is well-meaning curiosity btw, this is not meant to be a passive aggressive criticism)
For this case specifically the definition isn’t wrong but the definition is a black and white fallacy. To me facism was never about the way government was set up. It was just the ideology first. Then whatever government and economic system is convenient to best act out that ideology.
In this case, he's a historian, and from a historical perspective, he's right. When we get to dictionaries, there are two types: prescriptivist and descriptivist. The former declares what words should mean, while the latter tries to depict how words are actually used. The OED is a descriptivist dictionary, and that's certainly how a lot of people use the word fascist. But, I think Mr Beat has a more insightful definition. I don't think it's accurate to describe fascism as "right-wing." It tends to be "anti-libertarian." It's anti-free market, anti-individual, very Orwellian and nationalist. Strongly socialist, if you happen to be a member of the right group.
If we're going to talk about what fascism meant in the early 20th century when the word first appeared, Mr Beat is correct. As for what the word means now, it is "anyone you don't like."
@@danbance5799 Where are you getting the idea that fascist movements are anti-individual rather than simply deeply identitarian and authoritarian? They're usually nationalist and bigoted, but not necessarily conformist. They care if you're White or Italian or German or American, or if you oppose or disrupt their movement. They do not, however, have any particular hallmarks of collectivist cultures; like those of some Asian or indigenous American societies. Collectivists compel responsibility to their community. Fascists compel loyalty toward their identity group, their political movement, and their state.
@@duncanmacleod6274 every fascist dictator desired collectivism in their writings. All you have to do is read Bonito Mussolini’s writings. When Portugal experimented with fascism there wasn’t much of a racial component at all.
In addition that is incorrect to say that some of the ancient eastern cultures you are referring to didn’t also express similar traits ( ex. various military like traditions)
@@duncanmacleod6274Really it all comes down to what defines community? In Mussolini’s eyes the country was the community
"The group is more important than the invidual" is not the decription of fascism, it's literally the description of Collectivism. Here's the real definition: "An ideology based on national unity, corporatism and communitarianism". This is the only way to describe fascism as it tends to be very diverse from nation to nation or even person to person. (Also if somebody would not know, corporatism is the idea of organizing the economy in autonomous groups, such as labour unions). Also, let us not mix communitarianism with communism or communalism.
Sounds about right.
"The group is more important than the invidual" as a definition of fascism is PragerU level of bullshit. In the video, Mr Bear recaps the history of fascist origins and literally traces it to reactionary movements from about the time of the French Revolution, so the definition of Some More News as a "reaction" movement is not entirely wrong: fascist rejected liberalism, parliamentarism and democracy, and also socialism and communism
@@Tomicalify I disagree with thr idea that fascism is a reactionary idea, as originates from Italy, from the ideas of Giovanni Gentile and Benito Mussolini. Mussolini was a leftist, part of thr so called "syndicalist movement". Which following the Russian revolution was split between Communists, Social democrats and the national syndicalists, the later became the fascists. That's it. While nazism came from german "volkisch movement" which was a reactionary, traditionalist, far right movement. But fascism was not. Sure, they are synoymes today, but they were not back then.
1stly: 2 comments are invisible for me
2ndly: I would expand your definition to be;
"an authoritarian ideleogy based on jingoism, national unity {nationalist collectivism}, national rebirth/revival, chauvinism, corperatism and communitarianism"
As key features of fascist states has been authoritarianism and jingoism. Aswell as their chauvinistic attitudes to the nation/culture as they define it. And they often justify their actions on 'rebirth/revitalisation' rhetoric.
@@matthiuskoenig3378 well I would not say chauvinism. I mean, there have been quite a lot of fascist ideologies that promoted it, but there have been the Brazilian integralists and Spanish falangists who were not chauvinists. But to be fair, fascism such a big tent term that it's hard to explain. There are some forms of it that are crazy ideas, but some have ideas that we could learn from.
3:30 ... that's not fascism, that is collectivism.
@@thebestofallworlds187 did you just ans Ur own comment
@@thebestofallworlds187 what?
@@Erick_MC_Supernatural that the group is more important than the individual is broader that fascism, which is just an aspect of collectivism. Communism is much worse and puts a collective above individuals. both don't honestly consider individuals- but individuals who belong to a specific group. With communism, it pits one collective against the other- the bourgeoisie vs. the proletariat. With fascism, it pits the majority race against a minority race who has taking control of the majority race's country.
@@thebestofallworlds187"Race! It is a feeling not a reality. Ninety-five percent at least, is a feeling. Nothing will ever make me believe that biologically pure races can be shown to exist today. National Pride has no need for the delirium of race."
-Mussolini.
Corporatization of the state and nostalgia for a perceived former glory, that's been the one line definition I've used.
Corporatism means that all corporations must fall in line with the national identity of a country, not that corporations control the government as some, usually leftists, interpret it as.
@@bernardoohigginsvevo2974 I'm using it to mean running the state like a corporation.
Anyone here after the 2024 election?
There's a RUclipsr by the name of "TIK" who goes into more detail about fascism. The one thing we tend to overlook is that Fascism grew out of opposition to Communism specifically. Definitely give that video a look.
When he said he teaches at the same school that Vsauce went to I immediately wanted to see a colab with Micheal
Mr.Beat : What is fascism?
VSauce intro starts
VSauce: Hey vsauce Michael here, I am your glorious leader please do not resist.
@@koalasandwich567 all hail Vsauce
Mr. Beat left high school the same year Vsauce entered high school
Great video Mr Beat. You broke the concept down to the simplest form. Thanks bro.
Considering how many people use the term for anything even remotely nationalistic or right wing, even a right wing that is pretty liberal when using the world graph(along with communism for the left and yes, I'm talking about American politics), people seriously need to learn that there's a very specific definition for it. Sorry for the rant, it just gets frustrating when people who should know better are historically ignorant.
William White Agree completely and it's like the boy who cried wolf. Calling everybody conservative fascist and everybody liberal communist desensitizes people to what those words actually mean.
Rants are always appreciated. :D But yeah, I say we get people back on the write track. Words are weapons, and if people are going to use them, they ought to know the true definition when doing so. It's not too late to educate folks about the true definition of the word.
Blame the terrible american education system. Heck half the stuff i know i learned myself.
I would definitely think Trump supporters are as close to neo fascist as you can
thanks maybe Same with antifa.
Fun fact: it shares the same root word as fascia-which are the stringy fibers that basically wrap around the muscle tissue and hold them together.
Same goes for that f-slur for homosexual men.
True, but what’s your point?
@@shigeru_7044 No point, just a fun fact. Nothing has to have futher meaning :)
It comes from a fascio which is an instrument Roman centurions used to carry around as a sort of baton to enforce the law and instilling discipline in the legionaries
fashion (?)
"I fuckin warned you bro, I told you."
- George Orwell, Politics and the English Language
I gasped when you pulled up an old contrapoints video at 2:00. Saw that one when it came out, long gone by now
I still disagree with this definition too, that the group is more important than the individual. That’s collectivism (which people often mistake as being inherently left wing). I think the major component missing from that is the incision of an ethnic/racial group who is thought to comprise this collective, as set apart from the other ethnic groups. For the nazis, this was German. For American fascists, it’s all whites, as in white nationalism.
No, ethnicity and race isn't inherent to fascism. The difference between collectivism and fascism is that, the definition is right since fascism is a type of collectivism, but leaning right instead of being left wing.
Fascism is collectivism with a heavily regulated private economy like corporatism.
Most "American Fascists" are part of the missusing the word fascism. A person who's belief is solely about a superiority of race is just called a racist.
@@phildiop8248 depends what kind of fascism classical (italian) wasn't really rooted in race and was rooted in making italy #1 however socialist fascism (Germany) was rooted in the same thing as italy but a different means of getting it such as making the jews a scapegoat so no one focused on how germany made themselves #1
@@dr__llama5875 yeah, Naziism is based on race or ethnic superiority. My point was that simply fascism is not inherently since it contains a vast array of ideologies. Any ideology that is corporatist and chauvinist can be called fascism.
@@phildiop8248 by that definition USA could be fascist, but its to shitty to be fascist
I think people just want everything to be about race and gender. Most folks don't give a rip, but politically charged one's do. Moral of the story is don't get sucked into politics.
Thumbnail is 🔥
i love how in another multiverse mr beat teaching micheal stevens is somewhat close to reality
It's still a little too oversimplified Mr.Beat. I understand that you don't want to complicate it too much but I think you can sprinkle in a little more detail without betraying the mission for digestibility.
My happy balance characterization between depth and simplicity:
• Illiberal - Rejects liberal notions of individual rights, liberty, rule of law, etc.
• Hierarchical - Rejects egalitarianism. Contend with the existence of social classes. Encourages class collaboration instead of conflict.
• Authoritarian - Rejects democracy and political plurality, opposition is suppressed. Autocratic; no separation of powers. Top-down governance.
• Regimentation - The state has the right to enter into every facet of life. Strong grip, command, and control on the economy and of the society.
• Nationalistic - One identity everyone rallies behind and fight for, attacking anything not aligned.
Fashizum is sayin stuff I don’t like hearing. Hashtag resist
Such bravery
@@ImNotJoshPotter That's racist Josh, and we know who you are we doxxed you
@@quinnluscinski1805 Can't you read? I'm clearly *not* Josh.
@@ImNotJoshPotter Then who are you? Doxxed.
@@ImNotJoshPotter L I T E R A L L Y R A C I S T
“The needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the few” - Spock the Fascist 😜
Brexit supporters like to remind everyone that in 2016 referendum they won by 1.9-percentage-points margin, therefore they should be in charge now (2019-2020), and everyone else is a traitor; they seem fascist to me
@@ireneuszpyc6684 They don't want to be in charge, they just want Brexit to actually happen.
@@francescoduggento6981 pretty soon it will be 4 years after the referendum, and they're against a new referendum, as if the 2016 one is supposed to be valid forever - this is undemocratic
Ireneusz Pyc Brexit was never carried out in the 1st place. So much for voting having any impact at all. I guess if voting mattered we wouldnt be allowed to do it.
That's more utilitarian than fascist, unless you're somehow implying that all utilitarianism is fascist, in which case...
Nope. Just nope.
I am sorry, but when you say that fascism is not necessarily based on nationalism that's a major flaw. Everyone knows that Fascisms itself is born in a precise, defined historical moment; the "vittoria mutilata" is the main idea behind fascism, the rationale that Italy as a major power was betrayed by its allies after the fight and sacrifices it made in WW1. Nationalism is fundamental in Fascism. Its different with patriotism is that patriotism does not deny diplomacy. Patriots say "our country is better than the others". Fascists say " Our country is the best". This poses the fascists in a positon of staunch conflict with the others, as their nationality is the good one and the only one. If you don't start from this, you can't explain the rest and also the major points of Mussolini's regime (Mare Nostrum, the Colonial Empire etc).
What if other countries people say "America is the best." Does that make them fascist even if they are leftists?
This comment section is a cesspool of either a) people who didnt watch the video or b) bots/trolls.
3:32 no, that's called collectivism.
well, that's correct (me trying to make myself the smart guy), because nationalists and fascists have the group idea on mind not indiviualism
@@henriquepedrazzi9008 But communists are also collectivist, does that mean commies are fashes? Nope
@@solberg7049 and that doesn't mean that third position ideology are communists
@@henriquepedrazzi9008 I never said they were, and I agree they are not
@All American Chutzpah how does what work out?
The Beat says that Fascism is the idea that “the Group is more important than the individual.” Diversity, immigration, individualism, and new ideas are threats to the Group. Limited choices and strict guidance are necessary to maintain the Group (nation, race, religion...)
But there’s more that makes the concept more pertinent to this era when fascistic tendencies are arising in liberal-democratic countries and more people are easily giving in to the sway of the strong, effective leader, conformance to authority, and the diminishment of freedom.
Fascist government allows businesses to operate in their normal capitalist/oligopolistic manner as long as they obey the will of the state. Mussolini said that “Corporatism” was another name for “Fascism.” This works since corporations are devoid of moral responsibilities other than making money for their executives, owners, and shareholders. Before and during WW2, Germany, Italy, and Japan were effective early on because the had a strong, conforming capitalist industrial base. Businesses such as BMW, IBM, Mitsubishi, Fiat were allowed to flourish as long as they met the demands of the State.
Another example is the slide from Communism to Fascism as seen in Russia and China. There’s not a lot of difference between the two in practise. Both are top-down, strict conformist ideologies. Even Communism’s vaunted egalitarianism barely existed in practise. Communism’s downfall was its state-run, top-down economic system which was notoriously ineffective in providing goods and services.
Thus, it’s no surprise that a failing Communist China slid over to Fascism by simply allowing competitive businesses and capitalism to thrive under the strict oversight of the State. But God help the Chinese (or foreign) businessman in China who oversteps the State’s limitations.
There has been a tendency for the economic ruling class in liberal democracies to flirt with authoritarianism/fascism to fend off the socialists under the guise of liberal elite class. The German business class thought they could control Hitler and in the US lately, the business rulers supposed they could control the latest US President. Both lost.
Even liberals have succumbed to the joys of the military-industrial complex. One thing they need is a manufactured or exaggerated enemy (Russia, China, Panama, Grenada, Iraq, Iran, N Korea...). But it’s more overt as they marshal their conservative/libertarian think tanks, cable opinion news, intellectuals, and the unholy conservative coalitions of conservative religious, ideological, racist, and business factions whose only commonality is a hatred for liberal leadership. They want to do away with (deconstruct) the too controlling but snow-flake liberal state and replace it with an even more controlling robust, he-manny authoritarian state. Picture a bare chested Putin and Jong-un riding big white horses. What men they are, unlike an Obama or Trudeau.
You are mislead by the similarity between the Italian word corporazione and the English corporation that are not synonyms. A better trazlation of corporativismo would be "guildism"
The funny thing here is that Putin is just an elderly man who enjoys luxurious life while the country is ruled by his administration combined with several most powerful ministers. The strongman image is completely fake, Putin never acted as a strong leader in any way. And in the West this image is even more convincing, because Russian media is trying to sell this strongman image, which is also useful to create an impression of powerful enemy. In the time of crisis Putin just disappears from the newspapers and returns back when situation became better.
@@endlesssolitaire731 This post aged badly…
I remember struggling to understand facism because yes, everyone had a different and overly complicated definition for it.
According to my grandpa, who lived in Franco's spain, fascism would be "the group is more important than the individual, but my group (Country/Nation) is inherently superior than any other, and must therefore purge whoever is "polluting" the Nation's greatness (usually a made-up bogus group) to maintain a unified and ' naturally pure' model group". All this in a corporative economy in which the sate owns the means of priduction with hirearchal structures in which in order to ascend on your job and/or get a decent salary you need to ascend in the militsry (protectors of the Nation). It usually involves the revival of a "mythical" past and imperial ambitions (to restore the country's alleged greatness). The people are mobilized against bogus groups who are conspiring against the nation to 'make it fail'. Basically: Totalitarian Ultranationalism.
I’m dead serious. With this guy and MrTerryHistory I’m learning more than at school
You're learning a bunch of bullshit from this guy. The central tenant of fascists is that the State the ideal organization for realizing a society’s and an individual’s potential economically, socially, and even spiritually. That is a social ownership model, AKA socialism.
How about we just avoid use of the word fascist? It appears to have little consistency in the way it was used historically, and we have many other helpful terms that can actually mean something. If you need to use labels, then use terms such as social democrat, neo-Nazi, liberal, etc. We have such an abundance of words that can better articulate what we mean, so I don't think many people would sorely miss a single term.
Never would I ever think I'd see a video pointing out how Laura Ingraham, Natalie Wynn, Prager, and that disheveled guy who used to be on Cracked are all WRONG about the same thing. MAD respect, Mr. Beat! Keep those pop political pundits in line!
"The group is more important than the individual" is true for basically every political ideology except maybe libertarianism.
It's the extreme end of colectivism.
I'd argue that authoritarian ideologies, in practice, use collectivist ideas to disguise the appropriation of wealth and power for the use of the supreme leader(s).
It's not true for the American constitution..., which at its core are the rights that protect the individual from the collective.
I think I understand fascism a lot better now. Fascism is a word I hear a lot and everyone seems to have a different definition for. I would like to see a video like this about socialism because that is another term I hear a lot but I am not exactly sure what it means since everyone seems to have a different definition for it. That and a lot of other words that relate to political ideologies.
Well socialism began as an economic term. He basically means the redistribution of wealth in order to promote equality. Specifically, how we make stuff and trade stuff should be controlled by society as a whole rather than individuals.
Lindsay Manning
Socialism is easy to define, its workers control of the means of production.
socialism brings equal amounts of poverty.
Socialism did not begin as an economic term. It was called social + ism because of the earliest ideas of a perfect society where everyone works together for the best of everyone.
Socialism is fundamentally defined by democratic values and equality. Then not equality in the sense that everyone is equal physically speaking. But that everyone is of equal value: We are all egocentric beings with no intrinsic value.
How you form a society that tries to achieve socialism depends on who you ask.
Personally I like to call my self a progressive utopian socialist. I have a concept of a perfect socialist utopia. Not as a realistic idea of how a society could be. But as a guideline to guide policy making for a better (not perfect) future.
Lindsay Manning you can read Squire’s Trial. Its 54 pages or so long, and it should give you a better understanding of fascism. This video is a lot closer to what fascism actually is but its still far from the actual truth about fascism. Its was a very good effort but still lackluster in some parts.
0:15 Hard to define fascism.
2:18 What does it mean?
2:55 Simplified definition. “Well actually...”
3:28 Revised definition.
4:23 Thomas Carlyle, Giovanni Gentile, Social Darwinism
4:55 Fasci of Revolutionary Action, The People of Italy
5:30 Fascist Stance
5:44 Bundle of Sticks,
6:02 Like socialists: 8 hrs, minimum wage, progressive tax
Like Authoritarians: Black Shirts, intimidation and street violence
6:39 Recap
7:02 Frustrating misconceptions and rhetorical manipulation.
7:54 Puppets! The Felt Show
9:36 End
9:50 Lol
Yeah by the definitions given in this, the nazis were only partial facist (keeping in mind that the nazis had a group identity but also promoted and worshiped individual achievement/success.), while the soviet and chinese socalist were absolute facists demoting 99% of their people to cattle status, while the ruling oligarchy sat back and made money.
Good recap. In fact I feel that trying to get a true, more “workable” definition of F. isn’t really going to happen if you try to simplify. Truth is, most of all other moronic abuses of the F word nicely shown in the first part are made possible exactly by simplifications. Silly and self convenient simplifications. Now, why beat the same path ?
"Me ne frego" was form Gabriele D Annunzio and the Arditi...
@@kyonjannis I really still have no idea what a fascist is. Maybe its just a name people call each other now like bastard? Historical it was this thing that made them less, and as such by calling them a bastard made you better then them for no other reason then in your mind you where better. With so many different definitions of what a fascist is I really think its just in history they were evil (WW2 Germany & Italy) so by calling them fascist you are just calling them evil.
Priceless !! My mind kept doing the same back-flips.....well done itemizing , and timing the exact ridiculousness, of this Mr Beat. PITY his poor students.....dumbed down comes to mind.
FASCISM~ if we are united like a bundle of sticks we will be strong, and all opposition will be ruled under our AXE...........(its Roman Empire origen)......Courts & Sherrifs, K,Colombus?
Very well done, I was braced for something completely reductive but you've provided far more context then other youtubers. I've been perplexed by this word for much of my life. My father grew up under occupation in Holland and my grandfather was forced to work for the Nazi's so I've heard the stories from those who experienced it. It bothers me greatly that people conflate racism and dictatorship with fascism as these are not central to the doctrine and I'm delighted you point that out. From this and extensive reading I have broken it down to a more identifiable system of economic and bureaucratic totalitarian control which promotes corporatism as it's corner stone using dehumanising methods of administrative processes through bullying, coercion and intimidation. Nationalism does also appear to be a factor and it most certainly does seem to begin developing as a reaction to enlightenment thought. The most recent book I have read on this subject which I highly recommend is 'I you me them: desk killers in history and today' by Dan Gretton. This book provides a deeper understanding of fascism and how it could be manifesting today.
What you describe here (again) clearly indicates many aspects of today's mainstream politics and media. I agree that today's globalism is fascist in many ways
Your position is very thought provoking. I'm going to look for that book. Thank you.
There (fortunately) hasn’t been many fascist governments over a long period of time, therefore a strong definition is only representative of the few examples. Thus the definition is more specific to Italian or German fascism, compared to general fascism as there hasn’t been many.
Holy shit that was literally my high school lmao. And I also know Michael Stevens’ cousin. Small world
What year did you graduate?
@@iammrbeat he never responded 😖
@@simonalioto2647 cuz he died from covid19
@@nightprowler6336 I hope your joking :(
@@nightprowler6336 maybe he never graduated
that oxford definition seems pretty on point and contextualized to human history.
The problem with your definition is you could argue that socialism is the idea that the group is more important than the individual. We’ve seen that under Stalin and Mao. They weren’t fascists though.
There's a comment up there from a guy that explains almost perfectly what Fascism is really about. He lists the ideas from Mussolini's "The Doctrine of Fascism" in a nutshell
Both are collectivism. Fascism tends to be the idea that there must be a sacrifice of personal liberties so the nation can complete its goals. Communism/socialism is a collectivist movement where liberties are sacrificed for the power/capital to be spread across the population and eventually the nation state is dissolved.
Problem with collectivism is that somebody is that movements tend to have leaders. Facism is ok with a leader wielding those collectivist powers for the betterment of the nation state. Communism turns to totalitarian regimes because of the collective power with essentially no direction other than “Let’s make sure everybody is getting something out of the collective”. The problem with communism is that there can’t be an agreement on what the collective should be working towards, thus strong man leaders take control as they offer some absolutes and direction that people crave.
Pretty much, not to mention that Japan would technically fall under this umbrella if you stretch it hard enough.
Collective Capitalism would be bad by that logic (it does have it's downsides) but I think this can be more avoided by explaining it better.
They WERE most definitely fascist
PhD student in political theory here.
It's not just hierarchy - that falls under what is formally known as elitism, and that is only one of three reactionary elements which are requisite. There is also nationalism and irrationalism. The group being more important than the individual falls under nationalism, but it is much more complex than simply the group being more important. The group is specifically the nation - a group that naturally occupies a particular plot of land who have a particular national character which is weakened by the presence of other national groups - and fascism is about the freedom of the nation, not individuals. Individuals can only gain purpose in doing things for the glory of the nation. However, this is somewhat nullified by the elitism which puts one individual above all others and, arguably the nation, which would be that dictator: Mussolini, Hitler, Hussein, Trump, Putin, etc. Their will is interpreted as the national will.
You really should have pointed out who the "critics" of the group that they have historically attacked in the streets were as well. They fought socialists, Communists, and anarchists. Anti-fastische Aktion was made up of the members of the KPD and anarchists, who had been fighting each other until recently, who fought the Nazis before they had power. Mussolini's black shirts targeted socialists. The first to be thrown in a Nazi concentration camp, about 8 years before anyone else, were the Communists, socialists, and anarchists thrown into Daschau. Yet, this group would also generally be seen by your audience as putting the group before the individual due to class consciousness. You might know that Marx believed that groups made things happen but his focus was on individual actualization, as do anarchists, but your audience generally does not.
Quite frankly, while Cody's rant was disorganized, I didn't see anything in it that was incorrect. Fascism is a reactionary movement that embodied the Counter-Enlightenment principles, essentially recreating monarchical absolutism with an integration of 19th century nationalism.
_"Mussolini's black shirts targeted socialists ... The first to be thrown in a Nazi concentration camp, about 8 years before anyone else, were the Communists, socialists, and anarchists thrown into Daschau. "_
Both Hitler and Mussolini targeted Marxists specifically, and other political rivals, however so did both Lenin and Stalin after the October Revolution. So your point being?
@@Historia.Magistra.Vitae. That the fact that these were their rivals that they targeted, not conservatives and liberals (though liberals were attacked ideologically by Hitler in Mein Kampf) tells you a lot about the ideology of fascists. A standard talking point from the right today is that Nazis and fascists were on the left because either they regulated what industry produced or because the Nazis used "national socialist" in their name. Both arguments are intentionally obtuse: they ensured private ownership and Hitler even saved up profits from Fanta to pay out to Coca-Cola after the war and socialist was just a term so popular in the very early 20th century that any new party threw it in. The Nazis were considered the far right radicals within the right wing coalition they were part of.
Yet, these bad arguments have serious sway in America - they should be directly combatted where possible. This is where you are able to do so.
It sounds like you were offended that I cast the Nazis in a bad light based on the objection you made. Whataboutism. What other possible point did you think I might be making?
@@veronicatash777 _"A standard talking point from the right today is that Nazis and fascists were on the left because either they regulated what industry produced or because the Nazis used "national socialist" in their name. "_
And they are right. Both National Socialism and Fascism were totalitarian far-left, socialist 3rd position ideologies. These are basic well known historical facts, which were known back in the WW2 era as well.
@@veronicatash777 _"they ensured private ownership "_
They didn't. In both ideologies, owning anything was conditional. National Socialism ended up abolishing private ownership rights via Reichstag fire decree on February 28, 1933. In Fascism, individual ownership rights were understood to be strictly subordinate to collective discipline. It was not the individual ownership of property that concerned Fascists, but its subordination to collective control. Property was understood to perform social functions rather than to manifest individual rights. It was clear that the conception of property as a social function was broad enough to include socialization of the means of production, should that be required by the national interests as interpreted by the state.
@@veronicatash777 _"and socialist was just a term so popular in the very early 20th century that any new party threw it in. "_
It had nothing to do with popularity. They used the word because it signified what they were advocating for; socialism on a national level. Hitler was very clear about his intentions.
_“But we National Socialists wish precisely to attract all socialists, even the Communists; we wish to win them over from their international camp to the national one.”_
- Adolf Hitler , Memoirs of a Confidant (1978)
8:23 Is that Oswald Mosley?
So if the company I work for organizes a team work excercise, they are actually fascists?
Often times, in various political discussions about the government and what policies are being implemented, or what legislation is being passed, people seem to use the term 'fascism' in such a way that to them, it apparently means "when I feel like the government is being too strict" / "when the government is being more strict than I would want it or prefer it to be."
is that not a fair judgement to make as a citizen of a nation that should reflect your values?
I heard that one day in Italy there was a vote going on. And anybody raising their hand not where the vote was being done was arrested for trying to persuade the vote