Understand Socialism, Communism, Fascism, & Nazism in 15 Minutes (Part I)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 25 พ.ค. 2017
- What's the difference between a socialist, a communist, a fascist, and a Nazi? We explain the basics of all four, starting with socialism and communism. What do they mean and what did they want? Can you trust what you know about them?
After this video, you'll be able to understand how these two political movements and philosophies are different and hopefully understand what people mean when they call themselves socialists or communists. (Part II is here - • Understand Socialism, ... )
Click the Subscribe button for new videos as they come out so you can understand the news, be an engaged citizen, and win arguments about today's topics in politics, law, and government. We explain things quickly in a way that's simple and fun.
Connect:
Facebook - / animateeducate
Google+ - plus.google.com/u/0/106533482...
Sources:
-- George Orwell, “What is Fascism?” The Tribune (1944), www.orwell.ru/library/articles...
-- John McNeill, “How Fascist is Donald Trump? There’s Actually a Formula for That,” The Washington Post (10/21/16), www.washingtonpost.com/postev...
-- Dominic Green, “The Elusive Definition of ‘Fascist’,” The Atlantic (12/18/16), www.theatlantic.com/politics/...
-- Umberto Eco, “Ur-Fascism,” The New York Review of Books (06/22/95), www.nybooks.com/articles/1995/...
-- “Manifesto of Fascist Intellectuals,” ebooklibrary (03/29/25), www.ebooklibrary.org/Articles/...
-- Benito Mussolini, “The Doctrine of Fascism,” Constitution Society (1932), www.constitution.org/tyr/musso...
-- Hamish MacDonald, “Mussolini and Italian Fascism,” Nelson Thornes (1999), p. 16-17.
-- Philip Scranton, “Fascist Italy’s Experiment With Economic Corporatism,” Bloomberg View (07/15/13), www.bloomberg.com/view/articl...
-- Kenneth W. Rendell & Samantha Heywood, “See Hitler’s Horrifying 1920 Political Platform,” Time (04/11/16), time.com/4282048/1920-hitler-p...
-- George Dvorsky, “How the Pseudoscience of Social Darwinism Nearly Destroyed Humanity,” i09 (09/13/13), io9.gizmodo.com/how-the-pseudo...
-- “The Nazi Party: Platform of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party,” Jewish Virtual Library (1933), www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/p...
-- “The Nuremberg Race Laws,” U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum (05/13/17), www.ushmm.org/outreach/en/art...
-- “What is a Fascist?” BBC Magazine (10/20/09), news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/ma...
-- “Jews in Fascist Italy: The Laws for the Defense of Race,” Jewish Virtual Library (11/11/1938), www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/t...
-- “The Manifesto of Race,” (1938), library.duke.edu/rubenstein/sc...
-- “Italy,” U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum (05/13/17), www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article....
-- Wendy A. Maier-Sarti, “Review: The Spanish Holocaust,” Reviews in History (11/2012), www.history.ac.uk/reviews/revi...
-- Albert Einstein, “Why Socialism?” Monthly Review (1949), monthlyreview.org/2009/05/01/...
-- Samuel Arnold, “Socialism,” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (05/13/17), www.iep.utm.edu/socialis/
-- “Party Platforms,” U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum (05/13/17), www.ushmm.org/educators/lesso...
-- Philip Bump, “Do You Know the Difference Between a Communist and a Socialist?” The Independent (10/25/15), www.independent.co.uk/news/wor...
-- Terence Ball & Richard Dagger, “Communism,” Encyclopedia Britannica (05/13/17), www.britannica.com/topic/comm...
-- Karl Marx & Frederich Engels, “Manifesto of the Communist Party (1848), www.marxists.org/archive/marx...
People don’t seem to know what any of these words mean anymore.
"The goal of socialism is communism"
-Vladimir Lenin
Noah Sorensen wasn’t that Marx
Suprised theres no mention of Marx's and Lenin's definition of socialism aka the Dictatorship of the Proletariat
@@NyalBurns Lenin was basically repeating Marx in a lot of works, with lengthy quotations and analysis of his writings
That's what that monster wanted you to believe
@@NyalBurns same shit
THANK YOU FOR PROVIDING SOURCES TO CHECK ON.
We need an open discussion of the differences as so many young idiots are calling everybody that they dont like a fascist.
It is ignorance of what fascism is, huge socialism the blends corporations into government. ----- Concerning Socialism and communism, aside from the propaganda as to what motivates the communitarianism, in the end, both are failed left wing governmental bodies. I remembered the previous videos, as he did not grasp that Nazi Germany was left wing socialism, The National Socialist Party founded from Marxism, and so much socialism that the German government had to intertwine corporations I to the governing body to provide all for their people, making it fascism. Socialism intertwined with large corporations is the classic definition of fascism. One has to have socialism to create fascism, and it is to the left on the political line, as it is not right wing. Nazi Germany providing a car for their people, the people's car, VW, ends with the VW and Mercedes Benz, becoming part of the German government. This huge socialism, fascism, drove Germany into bankruptcy, and fueled the blaming of immigrants and minorities, rather than blaming their failed Marxism.
Carrie Nazism is not socialism. Stop with the propaganda.
@@santouchesantouche2873 but communism socialism leads to fascism
@@alexk7880 show me where that happened
@@santouchesantouche2873 all other communist dictators became fascists extremists
I've always relied on history to show what something IS rather than what we'd LIKE it to be.
Yes, but what if all the peaceful and democratic attempts of socialism were just dismissed as not socialists (like people tend to do with most western europe republics) or crushed by abusive foreign governments (reads USA CIA) like happended to all south american attempts? When you are biased in the choosing of subjects, it is easy to proove any point.
Says a person from year 1 and now here we are.
Socialists and communists of newer generations always proclaim to have the "answers" that those in the past didn't. They are often egotistical and uneducated. Why? They deny human nature and think everything is caused by capitalism or being white.
Clear as mud, thanks.
😂
Oof gottem.
Face it nerds... a one world government will make capitalism have a true name..
There are no point for political direction debate if we live like that of gangsters social structure..
in communism,we share toilet.
Hilarious! --------- Concerning Socialism and communism, aside from the propaganda as to what motivates the communitarianism, in the end, both are failed left wing governmental bodies. I remembered the previous videos, as he did not grasp that Nazi Germany was left wing socialism, The National Socialist Party founded from Marxism, and so much socialism that the German government had to intertwine corporations I to the governing body to provide all for their people, making it fascism. Socialism intertwined with large corporations is the classic definition of fascism. One has to have socialism to create fascism, and it is to the left on the political line, as it is not right wing. Nazi Germany providing a car for their people, the people's car, VW, ends with the VW and Mercedes Benz, becoming part of the German government. This huge socialism, fascism, drove Germany into bankruptcy, and fueled the blaming of immigrants and minorities, rather than blaming their failed Marxism.
Of all the comments, yours is the one that I will remember. Thanks for the much needed laugh. Seriously, your comment puts it in perspective. I have always been an Ayn Rand fan, as she really exposed communism for what it truly was. Even in her fictional accounts, she rips them to shreads, as well as in her non fiction (Capitalism The Unknown Ideal - Ayn Rand, non fiction.) -----------------------. It is ignorance of what fascism is, huge socialism the blends corporations into government. ----- Concerning Socialism and communism, aside from the propaganda as to what motivates the communitarianism, in the end, both are failed left wing governmental bodies. I remembered the previous videos, as he did not grasp that Nazi Germany was left wing socialism, The National Socialist Party founded from Marxism, and so much socialism that the German government had to intertwine corporations I to the governing body to provide all for their people, making it fascism. Socialism intertwined with large corporations is the classic definition of fascism. One has to have socialism to create fascism, and it is to the left on the political line, as it is not right wing. Nazi Germany providing a car for their people, the people's car, VW, ends with the VW and Mercedes Benz, becoming part of the German government. This huge socialism, fascism, drove Germany into bankruptcy, and fueled the blaming of immigrants and minorities, rather than blaming their failed Marxism.
Personal property is different from Private Property.
@@CarrieDensieScoggins No.
Coming from an individual making excuses for state owning everything of any monetary value in Communist countries, pretending personal property is different. The only difference between private property, owned by the state in Communist and many Socialist nation's, as opposed to personal property that their state allows the worker/citizen enslaved to own, is that the state owns is worth money,xtheir personal affects are not worth anything, and are burned when they die. Their worn out clothes and shoes, the state is so generous, that big govt let's them keep it.
Now I'm more confused than I was
Any sane and intelligent person SHOULD be confused.
when confronted by total conviction in idiotic ideological dogma.
However, there is no harm in trying to understand this condition.
CONGRATULATIONS !
@@gc2696 Precisely. Thankfully, it is why we have elections and the contest of ideas and (even more thankfully and in too many cases, hopefully) not someone who thinks (or tells you) they have all the answers and doesn't ever want to be removed.
It is why democracies are lucky. There is a transition between one government and another that is not only bloodless, but also celebrated by everyone. This is too easily taken for granted.
Moral of the story is they are all in base the same one dictator controls the system making you believe that you're a collective. They just all has different bases that they said were the "problem"
Communism Fascism Nazism Socialism Capitalism ,
and of course Critisism
The only thing one needs to know about Marx and his “Communist Manifesto” is that Marx and his buddy Engles were actually part of the upper class and loved in luxury and comfort and NEVER worked a day in their lives. Marx just wanted to write a “great theory” because others like Darwin, Nietzche and others were coming out with new theories in the 1800s.
We see the continuance of that grans tradition in nearly all modern Marxists.
Middle/Upper class Marxists with too much shit and too much time, leading to a sense of grandeur that they know better than the poors because they've had the time to do deep study (of their own theories).
So, I guess we can just ignore him?
The best neutral definition I have heard for socialism as a political/economic system comes from the former Marxist turned free market capitalist economist Thomas Sowell. According to him, strictly in terms of its institutional mechanics rather than in terms of its hoped for goals, socialism is a political and economic system which operates in strict accordance with the following rule: “once the legal authorities have defined, combined, and assigned property rights, the subsequent recombination or interchange of those rights at the discretion of individuals shall be illegal.”
Fascism, Socialism, Communism....
Different names same disease.
This is great. I am always struggling to define things to friends- or anyone who will listen- and this really helps. Thanks.
TIK made a couple of videos on the differences. They're in-depth and he provides citations for all the information he discusses in his videos.
th-cam.com/video/qdY_IMZH2Ko/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/eCkyWBPaTC8/w-d-xo.html
You're kinda cute. And obviously not bright if you believe the trash this video peddles. Wanna date? Lol
socialism 0:51-2:23 communism 2:26-5:38
nazisim?
This is something I've always wanted to know more about so hopefully after watching this video I'll know the answer and give it a 👍
It's quite inaccurate and it's foolish for this guy to think he can present these ideas in a couple of short videos when he, himself, is politically illiterate and does not understand these concepts.
@@rebeccaharrishunt1181 isn't that so often the case on TH-cam. Everyone is an expert, even those who aren't.
Ask any 'Socialist' if they prefer 'Capitalism' or 'Communism'.
Ooh, that's a tough one. Damn
I know it’s old, but I must say, I found quite a bit of mistakes
Almost everything was inaccurate.
Whats it called/labelled when ppl just simply make decisions based on logic, critical thought and just doing whats right?
Hmm... A Logical Conclusion? I actually don't know the label.
It doesn't exist as a label or group OR more correctly, will never be allowed to exists due to the fact that a group like this will be against EVERYONE else.
The goal
Conservatism/libertarianism
deductive reasoning?
Nazis had fascism, socialism and nazism
Why not communism, socialism, capitalism, oligarchy, monarchy, theocracy, facism, nazism, anarchy?
He looks like Mario when wearing the frog suit in SMB3
My understanding of Socialism is that it is run by society (the people) in the form of elected officials (who in turn control many of the property and services on behalf of the people) but with some ownership and class structure. But with Communism there are no elections and no ownership. The government has full control without society’s input. My question (and what lead me to this video) what is the real difference between Communism and Facism and why they hate each other so much if they seem more similar to each other than say Capitalism.
What's the difference between communism and socialism, the length of the que to buy food.
I'm not convinced that the crazy hair was a coincidence..
@Cherno Stripe, Of all the comments, yours is the one that I will remember. Thanks for the much needed laugh. Seriously, your comment puts it in perspective. I have always been an Ayn Rand fan, as she really exposed communism for what it truly was. Even in her fictional accounts, she rips them to shreads, as well as in her non fiction (Capitalism The Unknown Ideal - Ayn Rand, non fiction.) -----------------------. It is ignorance of what fascism is, huge socialism the blends corporations into government. ----- Concerning Socialism and communism, aside from the propaganda as to what motivates the communitarianism, in the end, both are failed left wing governmental bodies. I remembered the previous videos, as he did not grasp that Nazi Germany was left wing socialism, The National Socialist Party founded from Marxism, and so much socialism that the German government had to intertwine corporations I to the governing body to provide all for their people, making it fascism. Socialism intertwined with large corporations is the classic definition of fascism. One has to have socialism to create fascism, and it is to the left on the political line, as it is not right wing. Nazi Germany providing a car for their people, the people's car, VW, ends with the VW and Mercedes Benz, becoming part of the German government. This huge socialism, fascism, drove Germany into bankruptcy, and fueled the blaming of immigrants and minorities, rather than blaming their failed Marxism.
Ah, this is hilarious. You take ayn rand, the woman who idolized a serial killer, as proof of your ideological superiority? She only tears capitalism to shreds in here works, and fails utterly at even understanding what socialism is. Nazi germany is right wing, and many right wing people helped it to rise and complimented it, mostly capitalists. The naizs hated socialism, and marxism in particular. Fascism is the end goal of capitalism, that much is obvious. Socialism and fascism are on opposite ends of the political spectrum, fascism has always been right wing, and you know that. ah, and there you go again, making things up. You can't even go through a single response without showing your inadequacies.
First of all, here's Hitler's understanding of socialism from his 22.07.1922 speech "Freistaat oder Sklaventum" (translation from Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich):
Whoever is prepared to make the national cause his own to such an extent that he knows no higher ideal than the welfare of the nation; whoever has understood our great national anthem, “Deutschland ueber Alles,” to mean that nothing in the wide world surpasses in his eyes this Germany, people and land - that man is a Socialist.
That is simply not how socialism is defined, therefore appealing to the mere use of the term is not an argument.
Early on there was an actual socialist wing in the NSDAP led by the Strasser brothers (e. g. Goebbels initially belonged to that wing).
In the winter of 1925/6 there was an internal debate in the party on the question of the compensation of the property expropriated from the former ruling royal houses. The Strasserite wing wanted the party to jump on the expropriation without compensation bandwagon. Hitler was strictly against this. At the Bamberg conference of 1926 Hitler's position as the absolute authority in the party was confirmed and the socialist wing lost on this issue, and, consequently, their overall influence was significantly reduced. They continued their activities for some time.
In Otto Strasser's Hitler and I (1940) he recounts a discussion with Hitler from 1930 (he published the transcript shortly after the talk and republished it in later books):
archive.org/details/HitlerAndIOttoStrasser
Adolf Hitler stiffened. ‘Do you deny that I am the creator of National-Socialism?’
‘ I have no choice but to do so. National-Socialism is an idea born of the times in which we live. It is in the hearts of millions of men, and it is incarnated in you. The simultaneity with which it arose in so many minds proves its historical necessity, and proves, too, that the age of capitalism is over.’
At this Hitler launched into a long tirade in which he tried to prove to me that capitalism did not exist, that the idea of Autarkie was nothing but madness, that the European Nordic race must organize world commerce on a barter basis, and finally that nationalization, or in Hitler and I socialization, as I understood it, was nothing but dilettantism, not to say Bolshevism.
Let us note that the socialization or nationalization of property was the thirteenth point of Hitler’s official programme.
‘Let us assume, Herr Hitler, that you came into power tomorrow. What would you do about Krupp’s? Would you leave it alone or not?’
‘Of course I should leave it alone,’ cried Hitler. ‘Do you think me crazy enough to want to ruin Germany’s great industry?’
‘If you wish to preserve the capitalist regime, Herr Hitler, you have no right to talk of socialism. For our supporters are socialists, and your programme demands the socialization of private enterprise.’
‘That word “socialism” is the trouble,’ said Hitler. He shrugged his shoulders, appeared to reflect for a moment, and then went on: ‘I have never said that all enterprises should be socialized. On the contrary, I have maintained that we might socialize enterprises prejudicial to the interests of the nation. Unless they were so guilty, I should consider it a crime to destroy essential elements in our economic life. Take Italian Fascism. Our National-Socialist State, like the Fascist State, will safeguard both employers’ and workers’ interests while reserving the right of arbitration in case of dispute.’
‘But under Fascism the problem of labour and capital remains unsolved. It has not even been tackled. It has merely been temporarily stifled. Capitalism has remained intact, just as you yourself propose to leave it intact.’
‘Herr Strasser,’ said Hitler, exasperated by my answers, ‘there is only one economic system, and that is responsibility and authority on the part of directors and executives. I ask Herr Amann to be responsible to me for the work of his subordinates and to exercise his authority over them. There Amann asks his office manager to be responsible for his typists and to exercise his authority over them; and so on to the lowest rung of the ladder. That is how it has been for thousands of years, and that is how it will always be.’
Shortly after this Otto Strasser left the party and published his manifesto "The socialists are leaving the NSDAP": www.ns-archiv.de/nsdap/sozialisten/sozialisten-verlassen-nsdap.php
Gregor remained in the party but continued losing influence at a catastrophic rate, until he and the remaining part of the socialist wing were purged during the Night of the Long Knives in 1934. From time to time the leading Nazis did use the word "socialist" after that, which however by that time was empty of meaning, a zombie-word if you will.
Wow Aidan really fkd you up good here hahaha. Slam dunk. Nice work Aidan!
Interesting and very well thought out. That being said, have you ever considered there may be something much more diabolical at play? Something that maybe the 4th Reich, which after much research, will lead one down a path of knowledge that is undescribable?
Musolinni was the only Socialist who called himself a Fascist.
an explanation like this is very dependent upon WHERE the storyteller is at politically. Obviously a Marxist would define terms quite differently than a fascist. This is so true that you can actually learn the politics of the storyteller by the WAY he defines terms. So, is there a completely objective definition of these terms?
@Sam Yaza Thank you for this! Know anywhere I can get more info like this?
@Roniixx
that ship sailed a long time ago....some people can't tell the difference between men and women...
you asking them to define political theories?
Civilization is about to enter a Dark Age.
@Roniixx
Welcome to the House of Pain
Your comments are very well put together and I was just about to add this part about religion. No form of Marxism can tolerate religion and most specifically the Judeo/Christian/Muslim religions which identify God as its highest authority. China does not tolerate even Buddhism. This could be a very long commentary, but I will stop there. Thanks.
@Murica1776 fascism is trade unionism? What? Tell that to all the unionists killed by il duce
You forgot the most important term because it is the umbrella term which all 4 fall under: collectivism!
Thanks sir
❤️From India..
4:20 - where is Il-Sung Kim?
skidadle skidodoodle
You can't understand all these in just 15 minutes. All you can do in those 15 mins is just creating misunderstandings and misconceptions.
socialism is simply the economic structure of communism.. communism is a societal philosophy of materialism .. communism and socialism often share commonailities and feed off eachother
The Bourgeoise as described by Marx, were not necessarily the rich, it was the Jews. Hitler took that queue from Marx, like many other ideas.
Now i know the differences
The volume is too low
Turn it up then?
Palash Arora maybe your phone has a problem
Excellent explanations
Good stuff...
Question:
The label "Progressive" that's used a lot in US politics mostly by the Democratic party. Is this just a new name for Socialism?
Thanks
No, it is not. Progressives are those who want higher taxes and more government spending, which may sound socialist. However, most if not all Progressives are still capitalists. Additionally, only extreme Progressives want to nationalize the means of production while many want it to stay in private hands, the way a capitalist country would. Even countries like Sweden or Denmark which are "social democracies" are still major capitalists countries.
Lastly, progressive democrats are a WING of the Democratic Party in the US. Not all Democrats are progressive, just like not all Republicans are hyper conservatives or Trumpists
Progressives are more like democratic socialists, like those in western europe.
Progressing towards Satanism from God given rights. Degradation.
Like many comments, this is the political watered down explanation. Not for education on what they are, but what they are being politically correct.
Concerning Socialism and communism, aside from the propaganda as to what motivates the communitarianism, in the end, both are failed left wing governmental bodies. I remembered the previous videos, as he did not grasp that Nazi Germany was left wing socialism, The National Socialist Party founded from Marxism, and so much socialism that the German government had to intertwine corporations I to the governing body to provide all for their people, making it fascism. Socialism intertwined with large corporations is the classic definition of fascism. One has to have socialism to create fascism, and it is to the left on the political line, as it is not right wing. Nazi Germany providing a car for their people, the people's car, VW, ends with the VW and Mercedes Benz, becoming part of the German government. This huge socialism, fascism, drove Germany into bankruptcy, and fueled the blaming of immigrants and minorities, rather than blaming their failed Marxism.
So is communism like a coup?
WE keep hearing about Socialism - but not once have I heard anyone do a direct difference between Communism and Nazism other then Nazism centers more on race - a pure race. Communism does not dwell on race - they dwell on their own complete control over every aspect of our lives. Nazi's allow land ownership while Communism does not. From what I've seen in my long life is Nazism is centered on race. Communism is centered more on full control of everything and everyone ! I ca't see how they hated each other. AS in the Bush dynasty they were both Nazi''s who funded Hitler and they are Communist also that want full control of everything and own everything including the people, and race meant nothing to them. GW Bush and Obama were great pals - that is Communism. Even though the Bush family dynasty for 6 generations supported Nazi's. So they were both.
There is so little difference between Communism and Nazism, I cannot see why they hated each other so much in WW2..
Basically Nazism is majorly into race. Communism is majorly into compete control over everything and everyone. Nazi's allowed home and land ownership. . The Communism don't' allow anyone to own anything except them at the top.
So Nazism is the lesser of the two evils. Communism is the utmost worst.
Has socialism ever happened without violent overthrow?
Socialism -- is the idea that society as a whole can be united. Marxists say this can only be achieved by removing the class struggle, which in turn can be done by removing classes as such, and that can be done by the abolishment of private property rights on means of production.
Fascists believe that this can be done without a change in the class structure, but by introducing some kind of idea that will unite all people of the country regardless of class. And that's why fascists need war or at least an external threat against which the whole society can be united. And that's why fascism means war -- because it needs it to exist.
Plus, war can bring resources when capitalism will plunge into crisis yet again.
You said communism seeks to rid of personal property. That's not true. Personal property is a home, a dog, a car, that much cherished picture of your grandparents, your toothbrush.
Communism seeks to rid a society of PRIVATE property. Not the same as personal property. Private property would be land you own but don't live on, financial investments, a privately owned business in which only the owners and investors don't equally share profit with the workers.
@Loopy you’re tripping on the meaning of private vs personal, but I’m not talking about simple words, but the concepts constructed regarding property. Btw words don’t have one static meaning. Private isn’t just an antonym for public. You’re fighting over language with a limited arsenal.
Communism wants the means of production.
Private and personal are the same thing. Just because you make a distinction doesn't mean the ideology does. Also under this logic, your front yard would be private property but your house would be personal property.
@@sounghungi lol ok
Thank you for explaining these so that people can start to think about why capitalism leads to far superior results than ANY of these models.
But even capitalism fails eventually. There are many historical societies that have shown this
@@noahlenhard7010 of course, coming from imperfect humans, no social system could work properly, though it's important to see how flawed it is, if little or much, if it's just the less of two evils, is it failing because it's flawed to the core or because it was hijacked by corporatists and technocrats? anyway, I am of the opinion that both systems were created by the same people to create the illusion of choice and divide to conquer, watch Yuri Bezmenov, he explains the agenda behind it in detail. you will be surprised. start with the video "subversion of the free world press" or "useful idiots". he made accurate predictions and it matches
Fuck capitalism eat the rich
As in the US where it has been corroded by Marxism. Our God given rights here are already being infringed by those who don't like personal freedoms.
@@noahlenhard7010 exactly. The best one is the one who survives the most and make people live the best life.
"Democracy is beautiful in theory; it is a fallacy. You Americans will see that some day" - Benito Mussolini
And he was proven wrong as Italy today is a Democracy instead of the US being Fascist.
@@jameshopkins6168 The US is getting there...With Biden
And it's socialism that's good in theory but failed everytime, no need to talk about Nazism and fascism
@@jameshopkins6168 That does not mean Democracy works, it doesn't.
this has informed me thanks
You misspoke at the end. Communists want to end private, not personal property. I'm more of a mutualist or anarcho-communist myself, so I'm not upset about the mistake but just want to clarify.
@Roniixx idk maybe instead of nation states there could be these local democratically elected worker controlled bodies. We could call them soviets for example
There is no right to personal property or even your own body in Communist countries. You drank the kool-aid.
I'm confused as to why you're saying socialist want less government? When everything is socialized it's all controlled by government creating a huge government machine with high taxes.
Most full socialists want the means of production to be owned by the workers directly as opposed to by a state.
How did Marx eat food?
That’s what you wonder after watching this?😂
He would always have food in his beard right?😂
@@DDs878 if Marx ate hotdogs, you think he would still have that hotdog juice smell in his beard?
@@oldmanjinkinsskyrim737 Eww.
Boiled or Grilled? 🤔
@@DDs878 Boiled 😂
The crazy hair joke is funny.
The Free Flow of data
@Gurnaj Virk Yeah right, you threatened me. I have already turned it into the prosecutor that you were bullying me, so nice try buddy, you just got caught.
any ideology shifts/changes definition depending on which country/time it's being implemented..
Grossly oversimplify socialism and does not distinguish it from democratic socialism which is actually capitalism with more lipstick
If so workers wonder where is the money . Who’s have it
I think you did a fine academic job with this video and are to be congratulated. It's too bad so many commentors are interested only in bitter insults, not a factual discussion.
Concerning Socialism and communism, aside from the propaganda as to what motivates the communitarianism, in the end, both are failed left wing governmental bodies. I remembered the previous videos, as he did not grasp that Nazi Germany was left wing socialism, The National Socialist Party founded from Marxism, and so much socialism that the German government had to intertwine corporations I to the governing body to provide all for their people, making it fascism. Socialism intertwined with large corporations is the classic definition of fascism. One has to have socialism to create fascism, and it is to the left on the political line, as it is not right wing. Nazi Germany providing a car for their people, the people's car, VW, ends with the VW and Mercedes Benz, becoming part of the German government. This huge socialism, fascism, drove Germany into bankruptcy, and fueled the blaming of immigrants and minorities, rather than blaming their failed Marxism.
@@CarrieDensieScoggins imagine taking shit this much at face value lmao
@@CarrieDensieScoggins literally everything you said here is wrong. Literally. Everything.
It's not an insult to say this video is wrong. In fact, it is dangerous. Dangerously wrong.
I don't disagree with everything you said but I do disagree with one thing you said and that is that Bernie Sanders argues for socialism he does not argue for socialism
He argues for social democracy
That is a fair point. American politics doesn't have a lot of socialists, so I used him as an example people would know, even though he isn't as far socialist as some.
@@animateeducate3851 fair enough
Yeah but his poilcys are mostly the same, its piecemeal strategy. why else would he spend his honey moon in the soviet union?
@@tyhoksilamaza888 his policies are mostly the same and he spent his honeymoon in the Soviet Union, therefore he's a socialist. That's not a very reasonable conclusion.
I'd see the video by Thom Hartman: "Marxism vs Communism (w/ Richard Wolff)" The use of one of Marx's quotes neglects some of his useful overarching ideas and the context and times in which he lived.
@symbolsarenotreality, No, remember the Nazi's were fascists, and they were the National Socialist Party, largest Socialist govt in history. Again, you are wrong.
th-cam.com/video/hUFvG4RpwJI/w-d-xo.html
Carrie you might want to read Mussolini's book, especially the chapter on the rejection of Marxism...
@John Carosi what were the Nazis social programs and how were they right wing?
Beisht Kione They were against unions, they allowed privatization as long as it benefited the state.
@@eggrollsoup unions are not necessarily anticapitalist though. They kind of are a part of the free market. Atleast that's the way I see it though. What's your opinion on it?
I thought I understood it all now I realise I know nowt. As far as I can gather far left and far right ie socialism & nazism are the same thing. Let me explain: if I decided to move to North Korea I'd probably be arrested/killed/used as a political pawn. Likewise the same would happen if I went back in time & moved to fascist Germany in the early 1940s. I'm not going to fare any better on either side of the political extremes and the goals seem to be the same on both sides ie treating their people poorly, forced labour, poor working conditions, lack of diversity (mainly through killing people who don't fit in)...so what is the difference? 🤔😕 I miss being a know it all twenty something, when you hit middle ages nothing makes sense anymore. Enlighten this old twit below:
Nazism is National Socialism. North Korea and 1930-40s Germany are both far left. Socialism is an umbrella term that fascism (not nazism), nazism, communism, syndicalism, utopian socialism, marxism, and other modern forms of socialism fall under. Go to TIKhistory's channel if you want an educated explanation of these terms and not some "5 minute" non-explanation of confusion.
One problem is that people think that the opposite side of socialism (far left) is some kind of far right authoritarianism, it's not. The other end of socialism is Capitalism, a free market economy that is decentralized (socialism is a centralized economy). Capitalism and Liberalism (which is the other end of the political aspect to communism or nazism or fascism which are political/economic systems) are based on individualism and freedom of individuals in society - contra the far left, authoritarian view that collectivizes people into groups or a whole group.
Fascism, Communism, Nazism and Socialism have very few differences amongst one another. They are just Superficial variations of the same Principles of Authritarianism; Dictatorship, Collectivism and Statism.
I know for a fact that in germany and other countrys were into comunism i met a jew way back that told me , he prefares comunism ,
Damn, only now, me, from the country that was believing in kommunism for so long found out that actually Marx, who wrote the idea of kommunism, was rich, and couldn't understand fully the problem of masses. Nothing to say vs. rich people, but now it seems he perverted the meaning of kommunism.
Normal kommunism can be reached, if only all members in the society become as smart as superhuman (maybe, from Nizhe), will be aviolent as, for example, Mahathma Gandi, that's the adequate view, I guess. No one said that we can't rewrite the previous parts of out theories. Yes, it won't be as the previous one. It becomes better as it becomes friendly to humanity (and not only to humanity🤷♂️)
You know, in Russia, we are preparing the project to take all the rich things from the deputies, who have been allways been living comfortably and got too much taxes from our people(especially, poor ones) with big pack of money, to push them to try how to live as a (Russian word for homeless) БОМЖ (one, who doesn't have fixed living place) with the payments from the Government such poor people usually get from our deputies😁😁😁😁
If you say fascism or being against free speech is right wing, you’re going to make people mad. Some socialist aren’t socialists, they’re idiots. Democratic socialist are socialist and they asked to quit being called socialist by Bernie Sanders
Also we can make you an eye surgeon guaranteed ... in 30 minutes flat. Jeez. 😬
@Aidan B I just told you that in order to create fascism one must first have socialism, because by definition fascism is a large socialist gov intertwined with big corporations. Socialism is left wing.
Yea but you're wrong. Was there socialism in Italy ever? You're a bad faith liar
As a Swede we have had socialism for a long time, and if there is something socialism does not do is cut the goverement. It is a huge pile of people who sit there their whole lives, not competetive or effective at all. They tax everything and has to give the people money contribution to able to afford the high taxes, and people will vote for them again afraid of loosing the contributions if some other party win the elections. And socialism always lean towards the communist way of thinking. As Margaret Thatcher once said:
“The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.”
Prussia was a city-state founded by the Order of Teutonic Knights. It is the foundation of the modern nation that would most accurately be called "United Germany". Germany is one of the younger nations on Earth, America is 100 years older than Germany. Prussia was the driving force behind the uniting of city states that is today called Germany. Prussia/United Germany is the political environment that produced Karl Marx and communism. Prussia and "United Germany" was the birthplace of communism, and the German Reich (which most people incorrectly call "Nazi Germany”) was a highly nationalist communist state. Although the Soviet Union emerged first, the German Reich was in many ways "true communism" because that political system had emerged from the original communist ideology that had emerged as the politics of "United Germany".
This is history that is intentionally suppressed these days because American “educators” want to advance the anti-American propaganda that the German Reich was "right wing". In reality, what is today called the "right" refers those who trace their political heritage to the republics of Greece, Rome, and the United States. What is today called the "left" refers to those who trace their political heritage to communism... the Soviet Union, "United Germany"/German Reich, and modern China. The only other basic form of government known to man, other than a republic (“right”) or communism (“left”), is some type of king.
This is the reason that Prussian and early German history are so confusing too people, because American “educators” intentionally teach lies about this aspect of history because they desperately want to brainwash their students into believing that Nazi Germany was "right wing". In reality, there has NEVER been a "fascist republic" or any type of "right wing evil empire". Such a thing has NEVER EXISTED!!! All such nations in modern history have been communist, or "left wing". What is taught of this history in schools is pure anti-American propaganda and is the source of confusion regarding Prussia... the birthplace of communism (“the left”)!
The whole reason that the terms "right" and "left" are used is to obscure the true nature of their origins and who each side really represents. Almost nobody would support "communism", and the communists have known this for over 100 years. They never call communism by that name. They use other names for it... "socialism", "progressive", or the very nebulous "left v right". There have only ever been three basic forms of government known to humanity. Some type of king, a republic (“right"), or communism (“left”). This is what the communists desperately don't want you to know.
Concerning Socialism and communism, aside from the propaganda as to what motivates the communitarianism, in the end, both are failed left wing governmental bodies. I remembered the previous videos, as he did not grasp that Nazi Germany was left wing socialism, The National Socialist Party founded from Marxism, and so much socialism that the German government had to intertwine corporations I to the governing body to provide all for their people, making it fascism. Socialism intertwined with large corporations is the classic definition of fascism. One has to have socialism to create fascism, and it is to the left on the political line, as it is not right wing. Nazi Germany providing a car for their people, the people's car, VW, ends with the VW and Mercedes Benz, becoming part of the German government. This huge socialism, fascism, drove Germany into bankruptcy, and fueled the blaming of immigrants and minorities, rather than blaming their failed Marxism.
You are both talking gibberish. The nazis were right wingers. Fascism is right wing. Fascism invented privatisation of companies which is so far from socialism. The nazis killed the socialists first.
@@santouchesantouche2873 yet hitler worked together with a communist lol
@@alexk7880 who did he work with?
@@santouchesantouche2873 Stalin. They had a short non aggressive pact during ww2 and there was a book of them both being parallel and how similar things they agreed on
Your definition of socialism is more like communism.
The only difference between the National Socialist Atheist fascists and the Soviet Socialist Atheist fascists was one side fought for their Fatherland the other for their Motherland. Actions > words.
Where is fascism!
The communist manifesto also said that communism is stateless. No state ever has claimed to be a representative of communism as everyone, whether anarchist or Marxist agrees communism is stateless. Also, historical socialist states on average experienced both faster growth at the same level of economic development as capitalist ones. For example, the USSR economy started off at a per capita level of wealth comparable to Latin America. After WWII it was twice as high. So despite being invaded by Germany, Italy, Hungary, Romania and Finland and Latin America being largely peaceful the USSR economy had grown multiple times as fast. When Stalin died the generals agreed upon date the USSR economy would surpass the US economy was 1980, when Khrushchev implemented pro-market reforms growth slowed but it was still estimated to surpass the US economy at least by 2013. Also, dozens of research papers, as well as research by the World Bank and separate research by the CIA proved that people in socialist countries were on average better fed, had better healthcare, education and child and elder care than capitalist countries at the same level of economic development. Parenti pointed out that by the time the USSR was illegally dissolved by a clique of corrupt, Russian officials 60% of all books in the world were Soviet. During the first five year plans it reached levels of growth as high as 30% per year, rapidly developing from at best a fourth-rate power (estimated to be militarily and economically weaker than Poland by the end of the Russian Civil War), a country as poor as the richer parts of Africa, to a world power. When exactly were they “forced” to yield to pro-market reforms?
I’ll never understand this
Socialism
50 people buy a company together and democratically choose a leader.
When they have worked and the income turns out, they share everything, equally.
Capitalism:
The same workplace and the same 50 people,
but now they are only employees,
the Capitalist can say and do whatever he wants , the workers must avoid problems
with the capitalist or get fired
And now the Income , the workers have a fixed salary,
and the Capitalist takes the rest, enough to earn a good profit for the Capitalist.
And USSR; Union of Soviet Socialist Republics , China,
Hitlers The National Socialist German Labor Party, etc have never been Socialistic,
they have had Dictatorship. But they used the name as bait for ordinary workers.
The name Socialism was a Dream for the workers.
Like The American Dream.
Dull...
lol
Lol the comments section on this one can be summarised thus: 'Everyone is an idiot, I know what the real ideology of... is.' shit video though. Communists don't believe power must be obtained through violent means. Just the overthrow of the current system. That could be by violence. Could also be by a popular uprising that can no longer be ignored. Socialism is a lovely ideal. It doesn't work in the real world. For one because Capitalism and Socialism don't really mix. Human greed will always get in the way. Bernie Sanders has some socialist principles yes but he's not such an idealoguethat he wants a socialist state. Most people when they are well informedhave a mix between socialist principles and democratic ones and a bit rightwing authoritarian ones too. This whole division America between left and right is really damaging peoples education on these issues I think. It's not black and white in the real world. This is actually democracy works. We need these different view points in a melting pot. Idealogues in power from the left or right is when you get your Mussolini's.
Hello, I don't mean to be rude, but anyone who believes that Nazi Germany was socialist is mistaken. Nazi Germany privatized many industries and actually, compared to many other European countries at the time, had a much more free market. There is a difference between socialism and national socialism.
Sold the private industries to party officials
They took factories and gave it to people who agree with them. If you didn't agree to it would be removed. The factory owner had no say into how the factory would be run. Instead the public or the state government would say how the factory would be run.
Nazi Germany also had wage control, price control, centralized bank, and labor laws for the laborers.
They were Socialist. The word privatization gets used but it's an incorrect usage of the word especially when control is removed from an individual.
China has "private" industry. lol
Lol, you're being duped
dude in the video didn't even really get it right and it only took a single googles serch to debunk😭😭 so for those to lazy "socialism is a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates by witch the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole" there boom easy
elon msuk does not allow union niethr deso bazzoes zzuckkerberg or gates.
Clear as mud.....but this is the best explanation I've found on the internet.
that's because you didn't look properly. KGB defective Yuri Bezmenov explains it in detail to all the young privileged lefties what is all about, start with the youtube video of his interview about subversion agenda and the "useful idiots"
It's also just wrong. Marx used the terms socialism and communism interchangeably. Lenin later used socialism as a term for pre-stage of communism.
To put it simply:
Communism: a classless, stateless society where the workers control the means of production.
Socialism: depending on the context, usually used either as a synonym for communism or as a term for it's pre-stage.
No communist nation has or has claimed to have achieved communism but you could call them socialist by Lenin's definition.
@@pajumusic He's merely explaining the differences, regardless of what Marx's belief was.
@@Tall-Cool-Drink yeah but he is wrong and clearly has no idea what he's talking about. He really can't explain the differences if he doesn't even understand the terms.
Caring is ethical Capitalism and provides jobs and careers. Socialism and Communism just wants everyone poor or the same to live off the State. Democracy is freedom and equality. Socialism and Communism is inherently a bad Capitalist idea that will flop the economy that is for ethical growth. I agree, Socialism and Communism is obviously Right and Left Wing State Capitalism with no real Democratic or nonprofit/profit sharing backbone to create equitable jobs and high paying careers. Living off the State and govt. does not work too well and that's all Socialism and Communism amounts to. To claim it is Anarchist is funny. I don't find it to be freedom or very antiCapitalist at all when it comes to creating equality, profit share, nonprofit funding, and Democracy.
No, no, no. Communism is not more government. It is literary a type of anarchism. What you mean are parties, that called themselves communist, but even they were calling themselves that because that was the goal they claimed wanted to achieve. It is the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, not Communistic.
Marx's opinion about state changed after the Paris commune.
No, they do not represent anything.
The Russian revolution tried to achieve socialism by actually, literary doing the same thing capitalism does (because they didn't live in capitalism, they were still in peasant state and they believe they needed capitalism as a needed step toward socialism.) So they created a similar conditions, just without private property but with state hierocracy instead. The rest is not a type of socialism, but a variety of this model without even caring about some socialist ideal. They just viewed it as a potential way of defending themselves from colonization and for rapid industrialization.
This is so wrong. Its not even 'wrong.'
Hmmm.... very good
i already knew the video was gonna be bad when i saw you included them all in the same sentence
Why everything has to have a label....
@UCAdyvGkzOPVJTblX0uHkrug It is because I know that you have redirected me to a fake page, so that you can illegally insult me with that "just a minor insult," while you work on tax payer money, bullying/abuse of a public office. I will make sure that the prosecutor takes your words seriously, as it shows your attitude toward the felonies that you are committing.
All ism is lately not human friendly at all. Only for some. Animal Farm.
I love how those who question the definition of socialism can’t agree on a definition yet state that America needs it.
Lol.....
Narcissism combined with ignorance is so fascinating.
Irony much?
The Orange Duke did you have a better definition of socialism?
Do you feel America needs it?
Show us your narcissism.
I’ll show everyone your ignorance.
Please, continue.
@@jasonjudd4 Try reading.
The Orange Duke ah, nice bob-and-weave.
You had a chance and failed.
An over-active amygdala?
Did you have a better socialism definition?
No.
Is your “irony” statement confirming my narcissism combined with ignorance statement?
Yes.
In a few years your prefrontal cortex will have developed.
@@jasonjudd4 worker controlled means of production.
Already completly wrong @ 1minute. Seriously man, learn economics. Socialism means the state controlled means of productions, Capitalism means individual means of productions. Thats it, no fluff, no BS you've just thought up in your head. Its very simple.
Give an example of the state controlling the means of production
@@nido.del.aguila2667 Thats what socialism means. Look at any socialist system around the world. It would literally take you one minute to Google research that.
@@CybreSmee isn't the United States and most of Europe highly socialized? When we talked about redistributing wealth we do it through a tax, guess what funds public schools, military, fire department, the police department, and public? All socialism
@@nido.del.aguila2667 Yup. Whats your point?
@@CybreSmee its socialism, thats my point ☝️
Ok so even if the attempt is good, the definition is half wrong and is still lacking. But hey, nice try!
Communism: its a stateless, moneyless and classless society. That's mean there's no government, no money and no class. So there's no repression happening in this society or things like that. Yes, there's no market in this society. Now, (and that's the most important part) every true communist will say that's goal is impossible to achieve (except anarchist). Our generation grew up in a capitalist society then we are condition to live in that society. That's why, they believe that communism will be achieve in the far future by other generation that will be untouched by our way of thinking, that won't be affect by a capitalist society. That's why, for us, thjey invented instead socialism. (Every country or party that call itself communist will tell you that their are not communist, but socialist: USSR, China, Vietnam, Cuba...etc).
Socialism: Socialism is a socio-economic system that want the ownership of the means of production (workplace), by the workers. So that mean the workers have a democratic control of the workplace, they vote the wage, the board of director, the investment and they receive equally the profits created by the compagny. Also, since socialism is a socio-economic system, they also want to implement social policy that will directly help the people and give them their basic necessity like a shelter, food, healthcare and things like that. (that is the regime that communist country had).
Also, communist country most of the time were more democratic that western country but that's an other talk.
The great problem of this discussion is that a lot of peacefull and democratic attempts of socialism in poor countries were destroyed by CIA in a series of coups d'etat. That was the case in Brazil and Chile for instance. I think that socialism is all about giving people equality of opportunities and preventing private abuse of any form. Everyone is in favor of these, the problem being only where to draw the line between thriving and abuse. I like to think that this line should consider that my right to secure my son's future should not prevent the future thriving of others.
Then you would be naive to not believe that the Soviets were trying to influence those countries long before the CIA did any of what they did. As a recent example, as soon as Venezuela "voted in" Hugo Chavez, Castro sent about 90k cuban shock troops to guarantee it would never fall back into free peoples hands again. It's a trend that has been flying through Latin America and Obama helped it.
...both of whom were of a certain ethnicity (that they also shared with Marx). Concidence!? Yes, yes of course it is... Sshh...
👍
Are you suggesting Marx and Hitler were both Jewish?
They are all the same
Judging from the comments here, it sure does seem like the snake biting its own tail.
You should also include nationalism.
Nationalism leans to the right
Socialism is a huge spectrum, actually. It is any situation where The State appropriates property from its people, and then disperses it out again. That's really it.
Marx was going down the road of Communism when he invoked Socialism.. he was talking about an extreme type of socialism, which would lead to communism.
It was a Collectivist, Anarchical Socialism.
Fascism is, however, a Collectivist, Hierarchical Socialism.
Socialism is a spectrum. As is Capitalism. They exist on the two ends of a single line.
Capitalism seems to invoke individualism, however there is nothing about it that says individuals have to be the lowest unit of resolution. It could be groups, of nearly any size. As long as no outside force were being used to control those groups.
I know this is weird, but I think we are being sold a few bills of goods on this one :-)
Concerning Socialism and communism, aside from the propaganda as to what motivates the communitarianism, in the end, both are failed left wing governmental bodies. I remembered the previous videos, as he did not grasp that Nazi Germany was left wing socialism, The National Socialist Party founded from Marxism, and so much socialism that the German government had to intertwine corporations I to the governing body to provide all for their people, making it fascism. Socialism intertwined with large corporations is the classic definition of fascism. One has to have socialism to create fascism, and it is to the left on the political line, as it is not right wing. Nazi Germany providing a car for their people, the people's car, VW, ends with the VW and Mercedes Benz, becoming part of the German government. This huge socialism, fascism, drove Germany into bankruptcy, and fueled the blaming of immigrants and minorities, rather than blaming their failed Marxism.
@@CarrieDensieScoggins so could you explain Josip Borz Tito's Socialism
Correct way of looking at it imo.
th-cam.com/video/hUFvG4RpwJI/w-d-xo.html
Um. No. Not even close. Fascism is right wing, not socialism. Socialism doesn't even call for state ownership by default, mate. God, come on.
This isn't very good.
NATIONAL SOCIALISM WILL NEVER DIE
ColdFusion2:17 correct me if I'm wrong but isn't neo national socialism ideas used today worldwide not being a smartass or trying to start a argument I'm actually asking a genuine question
@Null God, how wrong can you even be? You're breaking some records.
@Null h, and there you go again, making things up. You can't even go through a single response without showing your inadequacies.
First of all, here's Hitler's understanding of socialism from his 22.07.1922 speech "Freistaat oder Sklaventum" (translation from Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich):
Whoever is prepared to make the national cause his own to such an extent that he knows no higher ideal than the welfare of the nation; whoever has understood our great national anthem, “Deutschland ueber Alles,” to mean that nothing in the wide world surpasses in his eyes this Germany, people and land - that man is a Socialist.
That is simply not how socialism is defined, therefore appealing to the mere use of the term is not an argument.
Early on there was an actual socialist wing in the NSDAP led by the Strasser brothers (e. g. Goebbels initially belonged to that wing).
In the winter of 1925/6 there was an internal debate in the party on the question of the compensation of the property expropriated from the former ruling royal houses. The Strasserite wing wanted the party to jump on the expropriation without compensation bandwagon. Hitler was strictly against this. At the Bamberg conference of 1926 Hitler's position as the absolute authority in the party was confirmed and the socialist wing lost on this issue, and, consequently, their overall influence was significantly reduced. They continued their activities for some time.
In Otto Strasser's Hitler and I (1940) he recounts a discussion with Hitler from 1930 (he published the transcript shortly after the talk and republished it in later books):
archive.org/details/HitlerAndIOttoStrasser
Adolf Hitler stiffened. ‘Do you deny that I am the creator of National-Socialism?’
‘ I have no choice but to do so. National-Socialism is an idea born of the times in which we live. It is in the hearts of millions of men, and it is incarnated in you. The simultaneity with which it arose in so many minds proves its historical necessity, and proves, too, that the age of capitalism is over.’
At this Hitler launched into a long tirade in which he tried to prove to me that capitalism did not exist, that the idea of Autarkie was nothing but madness, that the European Nordic race must organize world commerce on a barter basis, and finally that nationalization, or in Hitler and I socialization, as I understood it, was nothing but dilettantism, not to say Bolshevism.
Let us note that the socialization or nationalization of property was the thirteenth point of Hitler’s official programme.
‘Let us assume, Herr Hitler, that you came into power tomorrow. What would you do about Krupp’s? Would you leave it alone or not?’
‘Of course I should leave it alone,’ cried Hitler. ‘Do you think me crazy enough to want to ruin Germany’s great industry?’
‘If you wish to preserve the capitalist regime, Herr Hitler, you have no right to talk of socialism. For our supporters are socialists, and your programme demands the socialization of private enterprise.’
‘That word “socialism” is the trouble,’ said Hitler. He shrugged his shoulders, appeared to reflect for a moment, and then went on: ‘I have never said that all enterprises should be socialized. On the contrary, I have maintained that we might socialize enterprises prejudicial to the interests of the nation. Unless they were so guilty, I should consider it a crime to destroy essential elements in our economic life. Take Italian Fascism. Our National-Socialist State, like the Fascist State, will safeguard both employers’ and workers’ interests while reserving the right of arbitration in case of dispute.’
‘But under Fascism the problem of labour and capital remains unsolved. It has not even been tackled. It has merely been temporarily stifled. Capitalism has remained intact, just as you yourself propose to leave it intact.’
‘Herr Strasser,’ said Hitler, exasperated by my answers, ‘there is only one economic system, and that is responsibility and authority on the part of directors and executives. I ask Herr Amann to be responsible to me for the work of his subordinates and to exercise his authority over them. There Amann asks his office manager to be responsible for his typists and to exercise his authority over them; and so on to the lowest rung of the ladder. That is how it has been for thousands of years, and that is how it will always be.’
Shortly after this Otto Strasser left the party and published his manifesto "The socialists are leaving the NSDAP": www.ns-archiv.de/nsdap/sozialisten/sozialisten-verlassen-nsdap.php
Gregor remained in the party but continued losing influence at a catastrophic rate, until he and the remaining part of the socialist wing were purged during the Night of the Long Knives in 1934. From time to time the leading Nazis did use the word "socialist" after that, which however by that time was empty of meaning, a zombie-word if you will.
@Null
"Socialist' I define from the word 'social; meaning in the main ‘social equity’. A Socialist is one who serves the common good without giving up his individuality or personality or the product of his personal efficiency. Our adopted term 'Socialist' has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism. Marxism is anti-property; true socialism is not. Marxism places no value on the individual, or individual effort, of efficiency; true Socialism values the individual and encourages him in individual efficiency, at the same time holding that his interests as an individual must be in consonance with those of the community. All great inventions, discoveries, achievements were first the product of an individual brain. It is charged against me that I am against property, that I am an atheist. Both charges are false.”
- Adolf Hitler.
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1468-0289.2009.00473.x
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Nazi_Germany#Privatization_and_business_ties
www.rationalrevolution.net/war/american_supporters_of_the_europ.htm
www.historytoday.com/archive/months-past/adolf-hitler-becomes-german-chancellor
www.jstor.org/stable/1841917?seq=1
economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2006/09/the_origins_of_.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Evola
larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2006/eirv33n49-20061208/eirv33n49-20061208_055-the_ugly_truth_about_milton_frie.pdf
en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Friedrich_Hayek_and_dictatorship#Quotes_about_Hayek_and_dictatorship
www.pegc.us/archive/Articles/eco_ur-fascism.pdf
www.euractiv.com/section/eu-elections-2019/news/european-conservatives-open-door-for-italys-far-right/
www.thecanary.co/trending/2019/02/04/tory-mps-give-sickening-support-to-a-white-supremacist-group/
www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/aug/19/republican-party-white-supremacists-charlottesville
“If I had been an Italian, I am sure I should have been wholeheartedly with you from start to finish in your triumphant struggle against the bestial appetites and passions of Leninism. But in England we have not yet had to face this danger in the same deadly form. We have our own way of doing things. But that we shall succeed in grappling with Communism and choking the life out of it - of that I am absolutely sure… the great mass of the people love their country and are proud of its flag and history. They do not regard these as incompatible with a progressive advance towards social justice and economic betterment.” - Churchill, statement to Journalists in Rome on 20 Jan 1927
"Communism falls on the camp of Socialism which says A violent revolution is needed to get to peaceful equality"
That is just Marx and Engels, and its a charlatan statement which shouldn't be attached to Communism. Communism means the proletariat own the means of production. (Ideally ruled by a Rational Democracy, instead of a Direct Democracy - because people are easily manipulated by the rich who own the media, and Representative Democracy is a right wing approach - which also contains the dumb populist ingredient but also adds the hidden agenda of the political parties)
@Loopy The RIght: (unconsciously) believes there's a God in Nature (outside humanity/the human spirit). Thus Natural Selection becomes important, and it manifests in the ruling of the country done "superior" individuals (this includes individuals based on race, or just "a great leader"). Thus the country has a pyramidal society with an "alpha male" (could be an individual or a private company) who's doing the ruling, and the people have absolutely no control.
The Left: (unconsciously) believes God is the human spirit, and thus its impersonal. Meaning that absolutely no individual is above the rest, and the ruling is done impersonally (by no "leader" or "Representative"). The problem (utopia) in the population that's collectively doing the ruling, is that Direct Democracy is not only a terrible way of ruling, but it also doesn't produce a leftist system (because our instinct is specific to pyramidal society animals with an alpha male on top, < this is also why the religious god is a male figure, and why believers have the universal submissive behavior of animals in front of the alpha: bowing, kneeling, crawling, offering gifts).
So basically the Left is the top layer of the psyche, and thus the ruling should be done by our consciousness, not our biased/animal layer (which is what the popular vote outputs).
Thus imo the solution for Leftism is a Rational Democracy, where the popular vote doesn't matter, there's no individuals doing the ruling, and the Gov. is an internet Forum for policy proposal with a structure based on arguments, a transparent scoring system (which takes into consideration Maslow's table of human needs). This can have policies either on a national level (like deciding on infrastucture or genera;l planing) and on a local (city) level.
Btw, i'm born in an ex "Communist/Socialist" country: Romania 1984, and while the narrative is that "people have tried Communism and it didn't work out/turned into Dictatorship", the reality is that the URSS era was just the Russian Empire winning the eastern Europe, invading (and killing actual Communists and intellectuals) and installing Russian agents and "iron fist" rulers puppets of Russia.
So there was no "people trying communism". And btw, every Dictator wants to give the impression that "Its not me, its you the people who own and rule".
@Loopy Stalin was a fascist just like Mussolini and Hitler. To put one in the camp of leftism/communism and the others as right-wingers makes no sense.
Not to mention that the Russian people were seen as "pure" among other populations.
I was trying to explain the core of leftism vs rightist. Otherwise, people get confused..sometimes saying "Hitler's nazzism is actually leftism", or "the horrors of right-wing fascism/nazism and the horrors of leftism/communism". I mean there were entire villages taken by train into Siberia and other parts of Russia, and russians injected instead, in many countries bordering Russia. To mix up the population, and from having 20% Russian population in the nearby countries, Russia could have a parliamentary presence, impose the Russification agenda, and when there's an opportunity, parts of this Russian citizens can be armed by Russia, becoming separatists, and if they get hurt then Russia has a justification to intervene directly.
The horrors of the URSS era have nothing to do with Communism or leftism, but with Imperialist Russia (or the tyranny of some Russian rulers)
fascism is not a form of socialism. I don't like both, but come know the difference
Fascism however is a form of authoritarian nationalistic ultraconservatism.
Fascism is a technical branch of socialism. An example is the Nazi party. Everytlbody thinks that fascism is alt-right but really it is the national socialist german workers party workers. So really, Nazism is extreme left.
@@chunkyhorsemilk3932 No it's not? You'd need some evidence to back that claim up.
Fascism at the core of its idea is summarized by the symbol of fascism, the bundle of sticks featuring an axe.
The symbol represents the idea of the strength of unity together with the axe symbolizing power over life and death.
So at its core fascism's rule number one is unity and conformity; "If you are not with us you're against us" and "conform or die". This, however, is often combined with strong ultranationalism especially when put into the light of the two founders of fascism, Benito Mussolini and Giovanni Gentile, both of whom were ultranationalists, strongly conservative, and strongly against anyone who did not conform to traditional national culture.
@Bloody Tornado The Nazi Party emerged from the German nationalist, racist and populist Freikorps paramilitary culture, which fought against the communist uprisings in post-World War I Germany.The party was created as a means to draw workers away from communism and into völkisch nationalism. Initially, Nazi political strategy focused on anti-big business, anti-bourgeois and anti-capitalist rhetoric, although such aspects were later downplayed in order to gain the support of industrial entities and in the 1930s the party's focus shifted to anti-Semitic and anti-Marxist theme.
@@Thor.Jorgensen the evidence is in the name Nazi.