Lincoln introduced tyranny to these United States and yet he is hailed as the savior of the Union. He was friends with Karl Marx and the Forty-Eighters who tried to overthrow the nations of Europe and replace the governments with Marxist governments. Lincoln filled out his officer and NCO corps with the Forty-Eighters who fled Europe for America.
I agree, this is sloppy thinking about fascism. Because Stalin used fascism to defect from his own authoritarian state doesn't give him the right to define it. The foundational principals of Giovanni Gentile's Fascism descended from the same pedigree that birthed Stalin's Communist revolution and ultranationalism was only incidental in where they diverged. Fascists were heretics, not infidels, and failed in creating an authoritarian police state anything like the Soviets.
@@raymondjensen4603 Except Stalin was a mere General of the Red Army at the time of the Revolution. Lenin was the main leader during that drive wanting to setup his form of Communism. Stalin In the wake of the February Revolution of 1917 (the first phase of the Russian Revolution of 1917), Stalin was released from exile. He was at odds with Lenin as Stalin wanted to take the country by force, which we saw how that didn't happen! Technically Lenin owned the Revolution while Stalin was his right hand man keeping him alive and passing his orders. But we know how things turned after the Revolution, after Lenin's 3 strokes that ended up being his undoing. Stalin's form of Fascism didn't come to pass until he took power years after Lenin died, and he warred politically with Trotsky and his factionalists. Oddly enough he had to threaten to resign a few times in order to get what he wanted, even though in the end he had exile and kill most of his opposition.
What are the ideological differences between socialism, communism, national socialism and fascism - regardless of the individuals or political actors ? 🤔🙄
Socialism is not evil. Under socialism, everyone's vote counts, and the people have an active part in the decision-making process. Governments can't implement laws or regulations without the approval of the people. Does it work? Yes. In my lifetime I have seen two mills that declared bankruptcy and closed down. But the employees with the help of the union went to the bank and bought the mills and reopened them. The mills are now owned by the employees. At first it had nothing to do with making a profit, which is why the mills were shut down, because they were "unprofitable," it was about saving jobs. The employees only wanted to make their wages. But something interesting happened. Because the mills were run by the employees, they understood on the floor what was wrong, what needed to be fixed, what worked and what didn't, and they implemented the changes. Those mills are still going. When they hire a new employee, that new employee has the option to become an owner. And the mill is profitable, more so than it ever was, and those profits go back into the mill and the community, not some company's pocketbooks. Can you imagine a country wherein the people have a say on how the country is run. It would put politicians out of business.
My two favorite quotes are by Ronald Reagan who said, "If fascism ever comes to America, it will come in the name of liberalism." And second "Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power." Benito Mussolini
*Both quotes are wrong. Reagan didn't understand Liberalism nor Fascism (they were ideological enemies), and the other quote has nothing to do with Mussolini who never said such a thing, common misquote, as that quote was made up by yet another ignorant American, known as Adam McKay (there was no merger, corporatism was how they managed their socialist command economy).*
@@billieboybuddha4238 Well I know he said while we have the men & the machines we should take care of them now, a man that said what he meant and meant what he said.
This is the astounding statement I keep hearing from leftists. "We should restrict speech, but _The Experts_ can decide which speech will be banned." Every socialist argument operates on the assumption that it'll all be managed by wise people who agree with them.
The people at the top are, more often than not, disconnected with the people below them and fail to see what those people take for granted. This is human nature, a successful individual must work at remembering what life was like before they were successful. Although, some in power never had to struggle, so have no experience in the efforts that the majority go through to succeed.
Based on Mussolini’s essay on the doctrine of Fascism, fascism is communism and socialism without the delusions of leftism. He wrote that leftism is nonsensical and unobtainable, and that to create a strong nation, a strong sense of nationalism and community are needed, even at the cost of “unnecessary individual rights.” And it for that reason, that individual rights are considered “unnecessary” that I, to say it gently, do not care for fascism. But even more so, I hate socialism and communism, because those who believe in that pretend to be your friend, then destroy your rights, after getting into power. Fascism doesn’t pretend to be nice or pretty.
"We understand only the individual's capacity to make sacrifices for the community, for his fellow man." - Adolf H itler, 1933 "To be a socialist is to submit the I to the thou; socialism is sacrificing the individual to the whole." - Goebbels "We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society." - Hillary Clinton, 1993
Communism will always tend toward making more and more things illegal and putting more and more people in prison because when the costs of our individual actions are collectivized, we would have to stop people from doing anything slightly risky
You're kinda right about fascists not pretending to be "your friend". Socialist and communist revolutionary movements do like to masquerade as the champions of the working class, but once they attain enough power, they start trying to look good for the rest of the world while hiding the misery and suffering of their peasants. Fascists, on the other hand, act like brutes at first, then once they hold power, they do whatever they can to keep up appearances at home and portray a strong, victorious image to their subjects. Basically, the roles seem to reverse depending on if you're in or out of their jurisdiction. Socialists market themselves to the outside world, fascists market themselves to the inside of their own world.
Fascism was simply what the Italians called their version of socialism under Mussolini. That's it. The word was then thrown around to degrade anyone "other" by Stalin and Antifa, way back in the 30s. That's where it started being equated with Nazis, because that's who the communists didn't like (because they posed a threat). That's where we got the modern definition of fascism. The Nazis were not fascists by their own definition, they called themselves socialists. But again, they were labeled fascists by communists. The word really has lost its meaning, even way back then. It would be like calling grapefruits oranges, because you hate oranges. And eventually enough people hate grapefruits that they keep calling them oranges. While they are similar, there are differences, and the careless use of words causes confusion and lack of clarity.
Socialists really really hate it when you point out Hitler was a socialist. "It wasn't real socialism, means of productions were not nationalized, blah blah." Fascism was a derivative of socialism with a nationalist component, Mussolini's idea (who was a socialist for a long itme). Hitler added racism.
@alanklette7369 Fascism was always left. Stalin propaganda put it on the right to garner support for the war. Stalins propaganda was so good, people still repeat the lie.
@@alanklette7369 I was taught that slaves built the pyramids. Regardless, nothing you've said contradicts anything I've said. It is hard, however, to really accurately label systems of government 'left' or 'right' when they are so far beyond the scope of traditional American politics, so I'm not even going to bother.
@@Miller54K And that lie is still going on when it comes to the recent elections in Europe. The more nationalistic leftist that gained seats were all called right-wing!
Anyone who thinks Fascism and Nazism is "right-wing" has not read the Italian Fascist manifesto or Hitler's Mein Kampf. Both ideologies were essentially leftist/socialist, but with extreme nationalism thrown into the mix.
Communists and leftists in general have used the terms nazi and fascists to belittle and denigrate their opponents so much and so effectively that people just associate them with rightwing authoritarianism. We see it constantly these days. Most don't even know what they are or how to define them.
@@dannysullivan3951 _"Extreme nationalism is a hallmark of the right."_ *Wrong. Nationalism is a Leftist trait. It is a form of Collectivism, and devotion to the State which sees all other states as inferior and in competition. Right wing ideologies do not embrace Nationalism, but rather Patriotism. In all Right wing ideologies, the Individual is superior to the State. All socialist one-party dictatorships ended up being nationalist.*
Interesting. I knew an old lady for nearly 50 years of my life. She was Lithuanian. According to her, and other friends of her, dealing with Hitler's followers were a dream compared to Stalin's demonic instructions afterwards. That old lady was mt grandma. And, she made it out through it all to America with 3 young kids. Yeah Stalin and Hitler... brothers? Yeah, whatever.
I get why she would say that. They were both dictators. So, the only difference is that Hitler was a major antisemite. Whereas Stalin killed whoever he wanted, and most of these lives he took were Russian citizens.
The people who are the loudest about equity are the ones who also contribute the least to society. The people who contribute the most to communism's rise are the first people who disappear when communism is implemented! Always...
Did you never notice that the first thing a Capitalist wants is - all the little people fighting each other for a place in the pecking order - and that the last thing he wants is - a Rival. And did it never occur to you that the end state of Capitalism is - Fascism. Think about it,
The funny part is fascism was a reaction against socialism , liberalism and democracy. When it was founded in 1919 its founders were said to have "declared a war on socialism , because it had opposed nationalism" ( "The Anatomy of Fascism" , page 5 ). Fascism was basically Italian nationalism...
The cleanest "explain it to a first grader" definitions and dividing lines between the three words (communism, socialism, and fascism) that I've ever heard. Thanks.
Socialism is in very basic terms the state controlling the means of production, communism includes the left side socialism on the economic spectrum and the right wing authoritarianism on the social spectrum. what many people don't realise is that there is more than 1 political spectrum. and when they say "left wing" it is usually in reference to the political centre, not the left of the political spectrum. what would blow the minds of many Americans is that the democratic party is a right wing party, it is just not as far right as the republican party, as they are the two main political parties the centre would be the point between them, this then puts the democratic party to the left of that political centre and why it is termed as being left wing, but on the spectrum it is still a right wing party. the right likes to talk as if the left of the political centre is actually the left of the political spectrum, but that is because they don't know any better.
John, when democrats talk about redistributing the wealth/taxing the wealthy into oblivion / implementing living wage laws/taking over the banks. It seems pretty socialist to me.🤔
Because they can't speak truth. They won't say they want all the power to get very rich and immune to law & order while keeping everyone as hungry servants.
Now that's not true! There is one big difference between the National Socialist German Workers Party (Nazi) and Communism. The German socialists dressed better.
Maybe in practice, but there are some key differences to look out for so you can effectively call them out if they happen and call out those deceivers who would abuse those terms against you.
In college, my history prof broke it into a four quadrant grid: communism (no free speech, no free markets) socialism (free speech, no free markets) fascism (no free speech, free markets) capitalism (free speech, free markets)
*Your professor was wrong. Fascism had no markets, as they had a socialist Command economy. They explicitly were against any kind of a Market based economic system and economic liberalism in general. These are just few examples from their own "Doctrine of Fascism";* _"Fascism is definitely and absolutely opposed to the doctrines of liberalism, both in the political and the economic sphere."_ _"If liberalism spells individualism, Fascism spells State. The Fascist State is, however, a unique and original creation. It is not reactionary but revolutionary, in that it anticipates the solution of certain universal problems which have been raised elsewhere; in the political field by the splitting up of parties, the usurpation of power by parliaments, the irresponsibility of assemblies; in the economic field by the increasingly numerous and important functions discharged by trade unions and trade associations with their disputes and ententes, affecting both capital and labour; in the ethical field by the need felt for order, discipline, obedience to the moral dictates of the fatherland."_ _"Fascism desires the State to be strong and organic, based on broad foundations of popular support. The Fascist State lays claim to rule in the economic field no less than in others; it makes its action felt throughout the length and breadth of the country by means of its corporative, social, and educational institutions, and all the political, economic, and spiritual forces of the nation, organized in their respective associations, circulate within the State."_
Thats a skewed oversimplification. Fully free speech does not exist in any modern society. Communism and socialism are not against free speech by definition. Communism tends to be against free speech in practice. Also, ”free markets” is a sliding scale. Communism is against it in both theory and practice. Truly unregulated markets only exist where there is no government. In socialist society the government provides certain services and even if private actors are allowed, which they may or may not be, they typically stay away from this business areas because it’s difficult to compete with the government.
With socialism and communism there's free food free rent free everything but no free thinking or personal action you do what they tell you to do the elites live high the rest of the people live pour
Fascism was the Italian strain of socialism. Hitler had race based socialism, because he thought it only worked if implemented correctly by white people specifically Germans. Marx essentially the same thing too, lefties don't like to talk about that. Hitler was a communist early on as well.
Socialism can never work except where the population is unified by ethnicity. Even then, it is doomed to failure without a religious dogma that children are indoctrinated with from an early age into adulthood.
Racism was used as a tool by both the Far Left and the Nazis. Just as today they use race (this time mostly anti-white racism), gender and anything else they can drive a wedge between people with.
I don't think I have ever read such nonsense online in my life. Fascism hated Socialism Hitler hated Communism and Socialism and worked to destroy both
@@QuotidianStupidityMussolini was indeed a socialist before he developed fascism. Fascism has strong ties to socialism. In fact, I would argue it's a form of socialism with a nationalist emphasis rather than a globalist one.
You do realize actual Socialists and Communists think the Democrats are reactionary right?... and modern Ultra-Nationalists tend to side with Republicans?
@@mikitz The history is fascinating and I was largely aware of it. However, there are mostly just subtle differences to the same theme: autocracy, and submission to the state with no individual rights. The Democrats are all about that. Republicanism, however is the antithesis. Much to the chagrin of the anteefah-tards. I'm not a Republican, BTW (def not a DemocRat).
Knew and know you OG. Retired USN 20 yrs ,80s thru 90s traveled Lots different places in Hong Kong and Shanghai are shattering to witness. Instructor Navy NEC Your delivery enjoyable to hear. Good.
Well not really seeing as both major parties in the US largely represent business interests over the public interest. They both take millions in donations from large unaccountable and unelected corporations who incessantly lobby both arms of the business party that is the US political spectrum.
They all promise everything to the many. But only a few actually benefit. Capitalism has the promise that everyone CAN be successful, but that not everyone will. Socialism, Fascism, and Communism promises everyone is equal, except for those in power and everyone is equally poor.
Except the US doesn’t have pure capitalism. The US has forms of communism for instance by owning 25% of all the land in the U.S. that’s very communist. The US is very fascistwhen you consider the privatelyownedfeseralreservv pays a 6%dividndtowallstreetowners. Read the federalreservvact and educate yourself
yeah! thats why 3% of earths population owns 95% of all resourses. thats why we still have slavery, child-workers, corrupsy and so on. Because capitalism is so "free". have you ever heard about Sweden, Norway, Finland or Denmark? the most wealthiest citizens of the 70´s due to their socialism? no? yeah I thought so.
@@cheesepuff65 I wasn't born rich. But I am richer than my parents ever were and I'm doing better than my siblings. THAT is the promise of Capitalism. Capitalism gives you a reason to succeed. Communism gives you an excuse to fail.
Think of a coin with two sides: (1) Heads - Fascism (2) Tails - Communism There is no right nor left, as the coin itself, is socialism. Color it however you will, however if you spend this coin just know there are only two eventual outcomes.
no, Socialism is a watered down version of Communism... on the political spectrum is stands opposite Nationalism, which is weaker Fascism. Both extremes believe in totalitarian dictatorship.
Fascism is not by itself, it's just an aid to maintain Socialism. If Socialism were a coin, it would be of Communism (heads) and Marxism (tails). Naziism would be the coin standing on end.
Communism is the most severe mental disorder of them all. It starts with a FREE Country then devolves to "political parties" then devolves to "Democracy" then "Socialism" then "Fascism" then "Communism" and finally death.
I'm reminded of Rush Limbaugh's radio opening, when he used to introduce himself as "live on the air, amidst billowing clouds of fragrant second hand smoke. . ." - great commentary, Dennis !
Yeah Fascism has more in common with the modern Progressive wing than it does the conservative wing. Fascism is the elevation of nation and often race above the individual. Fascism economically is state run capitalism. So the government doesn’t own the means of production in fascism but they tell you how to run your business and what you can and cannot do. What you see from the progressive Democrat party today is YES a push for equity (communism) or equal outcome, but ALSO fascism from the economic standpoint as well as racial standpoint.
Last time I checked, Christian Nationalism has been fully embrassed by the conservative movement. There is no better surrogate for Fascism than Christian Nationalism.
Define Christian Nationalism. If you say it’s the love of your country, and the love of Christ then yeah I suppose there are a lot of “Christian Nationalists” in the conservative movement…and what is exactly is bad about that? 🤦♂️ see the part you seem to miss is the second part of the definition of Fascism, specifically “….above the individual.” It’s the elevation of nation and/or race ABOVE the individual. The Left doesn’t see individuals as uniquely created by God, they see groups of people separated by race, class, gender, etc and any inequality in outcome between those groups must be attributed to some external factor because the natural order of the world is to be equal (in outcome.). This is the false premise the Progressives live under. In reality, there is no such thing as perfect equality of outcome between people/groups. Trying to achieve perfect equality of outcome/communism is not only utterly foolish logically but it’s actually evil. You have God given abilities that I don’t have and will never have, and vice versa. Those differences make us able to achieve different outcomes. Not everyone is born with the same intelligence, athleticism, or work ethic/ambition. Even identical twins raised by the same parents, given the same things, same school, same Church, same everything end up being wildly different. So if identical twin INDIVIDUALS end up with different outcomes in a controlled environment, what makes the think the government can succeed in creating equal outcomes between GROUPS in an uncontrolled environment?
Good reply though not sure that fascism equals state run capitalism, as capitalism has at the heart of it the free exchange of goods and services which is not nor has been the case in most instances, I would think it more corporatism as the markets have been controlled for the most part, as they are today, and especially the market for money which is controlled by money printing and the central banks. If the money or ledger was given to the people then my view would be an authentic capitalism would transpire instead of this crony capitalism that happens now and pretends to be authentic.
janetjacks3406 is quite correct. The Left of today in almost all so-called western democracies has shifted to the fascist scheme. Every time a "law" or regulation is put in force you diminish the freedom of the individual. All the isms cited are by their nature the dominance of the State over the rights of the individual. And all of the isms spoke of here are left wing. Beware the folk who claim to care about the special rights that should be accorded "minorities" in any sense. We all know order of some semblance has to occur so that society can function. But too many laws, most of which we the people know little about, can only lead to tyranny.
COLLECTIVISM means the subjugation of the individual to a group-whether to a faith, race, class or state does not matter. Collectivism holds that man must be chained to collective action/thought for the sake of what is called “the greater good” such as controlling climate change, “for the well-being of everyone”, helping the poor, for the “vaderland”.
Yup , we see this on the right-wing with their social and cultural collectivism , which was similar to the fascist program. On the right-wing, everyone must conform to the cultural norms of the group ( especially on things like gender and orientation ) and the traditional hierarchy and erase their individuality. This is seen as defending the nation's culture , national identity and the greater good of the group from people like immigrants , minorities and LGBT people. This cultural and social collectivism still exists on the modern right-wing....
@@z2z3z45 : *Wrong. That is not how Right wing works. People on the right believe that the best outcome for society is achieved when individual rights and civil liberties are paramount (individualism) and the role - and especially the power - of the government is minimized.*
Fascism is a form of National Socialism, thought up by Gentille in the 1800s, and put into practice by Benito Mussolini, a prominent Italian socialist. While Socialism/Communism seeks to use governmental power to redistribute wealth and power on the basis of socioeconomic class, National Socialism seeks to use governmental power to redistribute wealth and power on the basis of race and ethnicity. In practice, they are evil twins, not that much different from each other. So China easily slid from Communism, trying to eliminate everyone but the working class, and promoting a worldwide revolution in favor of the working class-- to fascism, abandoning class consciousness and settling on a state run economy for members of their own party.
Mussolini rejected socialism after he was unable to reform it - he saw many flaws in it, so you can't really call him a Socialist when he tried to change it, denounced it, then fought against it.
Le's see, Stalin was a Communist, Hitler was a Socialist...not seeing much difference there (National Socialists said that Germany should rule the socialist world after the Proletariat uprising; Communists or International Socialists said the Communist Party would rule).
Giovanni Gentile was, far and above, the main architect of fascism. Gentile was a fan of Carl Marx and based fascism on the socialist/communist writings of Marx. Fascism was considered 'the socialism that will work' or 'the practical socialism.' Fascism is actually on the far left. It is not quite as far left as socialism and communism as the private sector is allowed to exist under fascism, so long as it is completely subservient to the state. This is a distinction without a difference.
I understood that private sector corporations are very intimately connected to government in a fascist state. That this intimate government/corporate connection is a symptom of fascism. Like when Justin Trudeau asked banking corporations to freeze peoples accounts and not allow them access to their own money. All without any judicial involvement. The private banks simply complied. Am I wrong?
Fascists were grifters, and the Fascism of 1919 was different to the Fascism of 1923, which itself was different to the Fascism of the 1930s and 1940s. Mussolini often changed doctrine to fit his current needs and situation, and in the very end, he began to reinstate the Fascism of 1919 in his puppet state. There are also various differences between Fascism wherever it pops up, but Fascism itself is "Third Position" because it places itself in opposition to liberal capitalists and socialists, and often has very "Right Wing" cultural attitudes while having "Left wing" economic attitudes (this is debatable due to 'Corporatism').
@@isaiah30v8 Justin Trudeau is, in many ways, a fascist. What you are talking about is what I call fascism-lite. Kind of like a lite beer. You are not wrong.
@@Macchiavillain Fascists were and have always been leftist murderers. There is nothing "right wing" about fascism. That being said, I was referring to the fascism of Giovanni. The father of fascism. Left wing - more government control/less individualism Right wing - Less government control/more individualism.
Yup. When Dennis described socialism he fascism. It's a description of a transitive relationship if A = B and B = C then A = C. They nationalized, steel, railroads, medicine, etc. You have the illusion of private property if you have to large business, but you produce what the state tells you. And there are exorbitant taxes on those because they have a massive welfare state and other wealth distribution schemes.
The difference between "fascism", "socialism", and "communism" is "time" ("all paths lead to communism", unless.....)
หลายเดือนก่อน +1
I'd argue that socialism either fails or evolves into fascism which is at least somewhat sustainable because it allows for a certain degree of free market activity. Communism however is a myth because it's essentially just socialism where the state will eventually abolish itself and equally distribute the means of production to the people. Which of course will never happen because it completely ignores the reality of human nature.
The best description of Fascism I've ever heard is, "Fascism is honest Socialism." As example, Communist China started out fully Communist, but once it allowed a large degree of free trade, it made businesses toe the line of the CCP. So unlike socialism/communism, the CCP doesn't try to have the government run businesses/enterprises/economy, it instead lets private parties run their businesses, and any especially successful businesses get members of the CCP on their boards. Socialism/Communism are doomed to fail for reasons Hayek explicates, but if they level up to Fascism, they can be marginally successful, though not nearly as successful as countries with free market economies.
They're still Fascist, they just (normally) use a light touch.
หลายเดือนก่อน +5
Pretty much this. As I've always said, Fascism is really just "Socialism-lite" in the sense that instead of the state owning and running the economy, under Fascism they allow the free market to flourish to an extent, so long as they obey the whims of the state.
No, both Fasists and Communists are dishonest socialists. Socialism means nothing but the means to establish control. Fascists are State First Communists, and Communists are International Communists. The Nazis and the Italian Fascits wanted Germany and Italy first while the Soviets wanted a global Communist Empire. This us why Stalin, a Georgian, was an acceptable leader of the Union of Socialist states, and also why Mao broke his close ties with the Soviet Union. Mao wanted Chinese Supremacy, not to join a greater Communist super state. This is why Vietnam and North Korea had closer ties to Russia than China. They knew they could never be equal partners with China, as North Korea proved when they ended needing Chinese Troops to bail them out in the Korean War. Once China dug their claws into North Korea, North Korea became a vassal state to China. Meanwhile, Vietnam has fought to stay independent of China, even to the point of strengthening ties with the hated capitalist west.
Fascism is a socialist form of government named after a fascae (Latin), which is a bundle of rods arranged around an axe handle and bound together with leather straps. It represents a cooperation of opposites to form a stronger single unit. In fascism, the government allows some selected individual private companies to operate and control. In this way, they capture the efficiency of private enterprise but tightly control the numbers of accepted companies/corporations. Those that do not cooperate with government are eliminated. Fascists support consolidation. like we have seen 2020-2024 & 2008-2016, but not business diversity. Like Dennis said, it originated in Italy prior to WWII. In Germany, Naziism was a form of fascism that included ultra-nationalist racism. Under communism, no private enterprise is allowed and all transactions are with the state.
If you believe people would be better off with a small and weak government then you need to study history. You will almost exclusively get a feudal society with warlords oppressing everyone else and no justice what so ever.
Nitpicking the exact definitions of authoritarian styles of government is a distraction. Either a government seeks to maximize the Liberty of individual citizens or it seeks to empower/enrich itself. None of the former are ever perfect to the definitions, anyway.
@@Thannoyer LOL! Politicians who care? The mass murder that occurred during the twentieth century was all under the guise of "maximizing the welfare of the citizens". Massive bureaucratic wealth transfers do very little to improve the lives of individual citizens but they do enrich politicians who "care".
To paraphrase Ayn Rand fascisim and communism (and socialism?) are not (two) opposites, but rival gangs fighting over the same territory, based on the collectivist principle that man is the rightless slave of the state.
The masses are always screwed, in every system. That does not make them slaves. Slaves cannot travel, change jobs, Andy usually not own things. Citizens in most 20th century states could, with the exception of some of the most extreme ”communist” states.
We've had plenty of Socialism in the US since Franklin Roosevelt betrayed the rich and implemented it to save us from the Depression that was created by unbridled Capitalism. What has the "body count" been in the US? Seems to be working fine here.
To the people who hate this country move to one of these places. No ? why not? Because you won't have the freedom that you have here that we All take for granted
I always understood the differences between Communism and Fascism to be pretty minimal. It comes down to who controls the means of production. Communism is the State owns everything directly. Fascism is the State runs everything through corporations, i.e. public, private cooperation. “Fascism and Communism are not two opposites, but two rival gangs fighting over the same territory based on the collectivist principle that man is the rightless slave of the state,” Ayn Rand
.... holy shoot. You are the second person I've ever encountered anywhere that understands the difference between a pro-active command economy & a re-active command economy. Broadly speaking the result is irrelevant since it's still enslavement to the regime but if we split hairs on how they handle their command economy, it is exactly as you say.
The issue is whether you believe you are justified in using the state to impose your vision of an ideal society. The details of your vision are irrelevant.
There is a commonly held belief that the political spectrum has fascism as extreme right wing and communism as extreme left wing with socialism center left and capitalism center right. But in a little book from the 1960s “ none dare call it conspiracy” it says that is incorrect and the true political spectrum is all kinds of totalitarianisms on one end and anarchy on the other. All of the above are just degrees of totalitarianism. The founding fathers understood this and attempted to frame the US with only enough govt to avoid anarchy but to stay as far as possible away from tge other end. They also realized that by human nature and group insanity that there would be a drifting toward Totalitarism unless it is deliberately kept in check. This is why they set up the checks and balances system. I believe that MAGA is an honest attempt to halt the drift that has speed up over the last few years.
Both Fascism and Communism stem from Socialism. Fascism is socialism mixed in with a strong sense of nationalism, and communism is socialism with internationalism (where national identities dont matter). Then economically, fascism allows private entreprise as long as they subdue to the centralized government, while communism just straight up do not even allow private entreprise. Then theres Nazism, which is just fascism with a strong racial component (racism). Socialism was the blue print invented by Marx (v1.0 so to speak), and then other people decades later decided to make their own v2.0 by adding things to it. And they all f*cked it up and ruined 20th century for humanity. Political ideologies are modern-day religions... and look at what religions have done to mankind in the past.
Fascism comes from the old Latin word "fascia" describing the axe surrounded by a bundle of sticks. The fascist emblem. Fascia is the sheet that surrounds a muscle - bind the muscle fibres together. I.e. the binding of the sticks (the nation/people) to the Axe (originally Mussolini, later many ,many others) Google "fascist emblem" to see pictures. I prefer Mikado or Pocky - sticks all over the place . Let's call it DECENTRALISM. I declare I am a decentralist. In fact a decentralist extremist . Let life evolve. Let the dream of control vanish. Control obsession is a disease and it is highly contagious. It is basically FEAR.
Extreme ideologies, Left or Right, in both cases require Authoritarian or Totalitarian Regimes to maintain them. The problem today, is that most people use the term Fascist incorrectly. They use Fascist in place of Authoritarian or Totalitarian Regimes. Not realizing the there are just as many cases on the Left, if not more so than the Right of Authoritarian or Totalitarian Regimes. It is hilarious when people refer to Donald Trump as Fascist, due to his close ties with Russia and North Korea. But more importantly, while many fear the extreme Right, they embrace the extreme Left. I walk the neighbourhood on a regular basis and on occasion, I see people with photos of Che or Mao on their T-Shirts, yet never anyone that might be Conservative. Why?
I am not sure if I have met many conservatives in my lifetime. My guess though, is that conservatives by nature tend to be more quiet and reserved versus the raucous “liberals” of today. I think unfortunately what I have actually encountered is not so much conservatives as much as they are apathists. I think to be conservative means you must believe something is worth saving for the future; you’ve got to have some belief in the good and reason for that belief. Rather what I see are often leftist “liberals” and then there’s people that don’t give a hoot one way or another; they care for nothing and believe in nothing. Those later people are what I call Apathists; but I think more often than not, people mistake them for conservatives in America. They don’t want to conserve anything they don’t believe in anything. This is why I am not sure if there truly are many conservatives in America. Maybe I’m way off base though. I’m just a janitor after all.
The funniest thing about the insults is that to anyone who knows who hitler was about they know he and Trump would be sworn enemies. Trump a huge Capitalist Hitler hated everything capitalism stood for
@@prestonowens4594 There are clearly many conservatives out there as can be seen by election results. They are hard to spot because, except for some with MAGA hats, most of them look completely normal. They also tend not to engage in political conversations with people wearing tied-dyed T-shirts with rainbow-colored hair. There is no point in engaging with people who are clearly demented.
you could have pointed out the socialism in the national socialism(NAZI) and that fascism is simply one possible final outcome of big government socialism
Fascism is the merger of state and corporate power. It puts all power in the hands of the leaders. Just like socialism, which is government ownership and control of the means of production. As a first rough cut, fascism = socialism + racism.
It's hard to properly describe fascism because it became a vague blanket term for many different and unrelated ideologies, plus a generic derogative term. Communism does not exist in reality on the state level. Real Nazism and real Socialism, as epitomized by Hitlerism and Stalinism respectively, are near-identical.
National Socialism is significantly different from Socialism under Stalin and his successors. The Nazis were viewed in the Western world as the last bastion against the spread of Bolshevik Communism (Stalin's Socialism) and the Germans were hailed as heroes up until war began expanding across Europe. The very treaties designed to prevent the escalation of war beyond small regional conflicts were responsible for its spread (just as NATO risks spreading war with the irresponsible defense of Ukraine).
@@gaiustacitus4242 There are only two, relatively small real differences that I see between Hitlerism and Stalinism: (1) Hitler was a lot crazier than Stalin. For example, Stalin would never invade a country if he wasn't 120% sure he could snatch a decisive victory, whereas for Hitler almost every invasion was a gamble (2) The USSR controlled vast resources within its borders such as manpower, minerals, arable land, etc., whereas the Nazi-era Germany didn't. Otherwise, both regimes are remarkably similar in their ideologies, socio-economic policies, and even symbolism
@@DimitrijDaniel You obviously haven't studied the two ideologies in detail. Nazism produced the greatest economic growth ever known to man along with remarkable social gains, which combined made Germany the envy of the world. This can never be said of Stalin's USSR. Was Hitler truly more evil than Stalin? No. For example, Hitler ordered the British spared at Dunkerque because he rightly viewed them as cousins to the German people. Had he truly been evil, then the German Wehrmacht would have been ordered to eliminate them to a man.
@@gaiustacitus4242 The "greatest economic growth ever known to man" did happen in Germany, but it was during the Adenauer era, aka "Wirtschaftwunder", which happened in the late 40s to mid-60s.
@@DimitrijDaniel Rebuilding an economy from rubble during a military occupation cannot be compared to the greatest peacetime growth in history. Germany's economic growth during the 1930s was the envy of the world, and it was made even more remarkable by the fact that it was accomplished via international barter because the banking community had been waging a financial war against Germany since 1934. This, coupled with the societal renaissance, is why Time Magazine named Adolph Hitler the "Man of the Year" for 1938.
No. It’s simple. You either want centralized government control or decentralized government control. The left/right paradigm Is meant to confuse. More importantly, it’s anachronistic and should not be used. It begins to the French Revolution because that is where everyone sat when questioning to institution of the monarchy. Those who sat to the right wanted to conserve it; those who sat to the left wanted to abolish it and be liberated from it. What your left with is that socialism is centralized government that is intended to have sufficient control over a society. Socialism requires control over every aspect of society. Now Communism and Fascism are two styles or flavors of socialism. The difference? Communists want to purify the state through is economy; fascist wants to purify the state through it’s racial or ethnic means. Communists want to abolish private property and eliminate all classes (of course, they neglect to say the state will own everything and those in power get to decide). Meanwhile the fascists want to eliminate all other minority groups or ethnic groups. Communists want economic purity; fascists want racial/ethnic purity. Why do they hate each other? Because they both require total control of a state and its political system. They are rival’s for the same piece of pie. Understand that, and it all makes sense. Get rid of left/right paradigm and it becomes clear.
Fascism is a form of socialism. NAZI meant National Socialist Party. Basically, socialism plus racism is fascism. Fascism is the merger of state and corporate power. The corporations are nominally left in private hands, but the leadership threatens the business leaders to do their will, so it amounts to government control of the means of production. Socialism is just that: the government ownership of the means of production. Individuals have no rights under socialism. Only the group matters, and the will of the leadership is taken for the will of the masses. The USSR was called communist, but it was not. USSR meant Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. They promised their people they would eventually evolve in to communism, but they never did, and never would. True communism is voluntary. Everyone works for the good of all without any government control. It is a sort of anarchy. The family is a commune. The Israeli Kibbutz or the Hippy Commune are also communist. Such things do not last long when they get over about 30 people, and could never work at the level of the nation state. But socialism is the great evil. It must be resisted wherever it raises it's ugly head. The more completely socialism is implemented, the sooner and the worse is the collapse of the economy, and the harsher it is for the poorest.
Racism (as a tool) was invented by the 'left'. As was anti-Semitism. Both were adopted by the far right (so far right they were on the left). The German National Socialist Worker's Party, the NAZIS, contrary to leftist propaganda, were not really "Nationalists", though they used Nationalism as as a tool. They were Supranationalists, what we would call Globalists today (political not solely economic). In the 1920's ANTIFA fought the Centrists so had that the NAZIS slipped in to power without much notice. Unlike the Fascists, but in common with the Socialists in the USSR, they were Totalitarian.
Fascism, Communism, and Democracy are political systems. Capitalism and Socialism and economic systems. You can have any combination of the two systems.
Why didn't this girl do like I did and just read some books? Seriously. You expect someone to explain this in a few minutes. He did a good job considering the limited format. She should check out Hillsdale College's FREE course on communism if she doesn't want to read. Honestly Marx, Lenin, and the Duce wrote some of the worst garbage I've ever read. I've actually never once met a socialist or communist who had actually read the literature. Same with Islam apologists. I've yet to talk to one who's actually read the Koran or the Hadith ( a book far worse than the already crappy Koran) It's the same with people who like to throw out the one quote they know from Hegel or Nietzsche. They never actually know anything about it.
Socialism: ABC. CBS. NBC. USA Today. NPR. Women's magazines. Communism: CNN. New York Times. Washington Post. L.A. Times. Boston Globe. San Francisco Chronicle. Fascism: MSNBC.
To add to this according to Mussolini (and he was the first I believe to use this word) Fascism was all about the state. Fascism conceives of the State as an absolute, in comparison with which all individuals or groups are relative, only to be conceived of in their relation to the State. This is why fascism is as left as it could be. No individual life is beyond the one within the state.
@@TylerJames88 I just pointed towards the definition of the inventor of the term. Defining what is left or right is easiest if as criteria you use the distribution of goods produced. In this sense fascism is left.
@bmistak19 expect that's not the definition given by Mussolini. That's merely one statement about fascism he made. He also said fascism was right wing lol he also said it was anti socialist and anti liberal meaning it's anti left wing. Keep trying though
@@TylerJames88 _"He also said fascism was right wing lol "_ *Wrong. Mussolini has never said such a thing. On the contrary, Mussolini specifically said Fascism was "Italian socialism".*
It's not. Basically I would put it like this. Theres two types of socialists, theres communists and theres social democrats (Im not talking about the democrat party in America)
@Worldmisery any book on history of economic thought will tell you that there are many more types of socialism than communism and social democracy (utopian, saint-simonian, fabian, etc)...National Socialism and Communism are arguably the worst types of socialism
@Worldmisery : *Both Communism and Fascism use socialism as the basis for their economy. Both are socialist ideologies. Social-Democracy is based on a Mixed economy system.*
He didn't explain it right. Facism is a manifestation of socialism, or rather a result of it. Mussolini was a socialist. In order to usher in a perfect socialist society, one must impliment facism. And then you can have communism. Socialism is just a midpoint on the way to communism. This comes straight from Karl Marx. So all these isms are all related
Ugh, he gets the history of ALL of those terms wrong. And he claims to be expert on these things? He certainly states his laughably simplistic, errant opinions with confidence. Socialism was originally a free market-advocating movement, against the political class monopolizing society. If he'd just been ignorant of THAT part and started with the next, I would've overlooked it. But he gets it ALL wrong. Marx hijacked the word "socialism" to use for his kind of authoritarianism, in fact the very thing that free market socialists like Proudhon, Tucker, and Spooner had opposed. So it came to mean the political class controlling the economy. This does NOT entail mom and pop businesses still existing. He gets that wrong, too. And he gets fascism ABSURDLY wrong. Fascism grew out of Marxism, through Georges Sorel, a Marxist who was among the first to say that the socialist movement should use violence to impose its will. He helped found first the syndicalist movement, which advocated forming gangs (syndicates) to impose their political will. Then he wrote a book called Reflections on Violence, where he laid the foundation for BOTH post-Marx Communism AND Fascism. Syndicalism, at that point, was part of the international socialist movement, along with the (at that time "democratic") communists. Sorel and others concluded that the international movement was failing in many countries, like France, Spain, Italy, Germany, Portugal, and Ukraine. Therefore they advocated local syndicalists seceding from the International Socialist movement, to become National Socialists. These groups were first known as National Syndicalists, then Fascist Syndicalists, then just Fascists. So fascism is, first and foremost, a form of socialism, but one that uses violence and national government power. Things he left out completely. In fact, Trotsky, then Stalin and eventually Lenin, eventually came to support the "political violence" core of fascism. That is why Max Eastman referred to Stalinism as "Superfascist".
Well , Fascism was influenced by Georges Sorel's anti-materialist revision of Marxism , not Marxism itself. Sorel revised Marxism over a period of 10 years to complete it and fix the failings of Marx's theory. His re-envisioned Marxism as a type of Manchesteran economics ( economic liberalism ) and purged its philosophically rationalist and materialist aspects and turned Marxism into a moral philosophy focused on saving civilization from decline and degeneracy. Sorel also proposed violence as a means of shaping history and combating degeneracy. Sorel's syndicalist movement would shift to the right-wing and join forces with the far-right nationalist movement of Action Françoise to form the first union of syndicalism + nationalism = National Syndicalism. This was the precursor of Italian Fascism, which combined Sorel's ideas of irrationalism , anti-materialism , anti-parliamentarianism and violence as a tool for change with the ideas of monarchist Charles Maurras' political philosophy of Maurrassime ( Integral Nationalism , Corporatism , Monarchism and an opposition to democracy , socialism and liberalism ). This pattern would repeat in Italy, as Mussolini's syndicalist movement would move to the right-wing and join forces with the far-right Italian Nationalist Association ( ANI ) to form the nationalist and syndicalist union.
@@z2z3z45 You got a lot of the details right, but you're wrong on the left/right spin: There is no sane sense in which syndicalism is "right wing" in the terminology of the past century, excluding the fraudulent propaganda term of the modern uniparty scam, where "right wing" means "not part of our globalist plundering of society". Mussolini's party, for example, was left wing, in the sense of being socialist, even by name. It was one of the two biggest socialist groups in Italy. Fasces explicitly represents collective power. Italy nationalized most industries under their industrial corporations, as did Germany, Spain, and Vichy France. It was a more effective form of socialism than the Soviet Union or China ever managed. Of course Maurras was monarchist, and in the 18th century usage of left/right in the French Parliament, the right was the side where the monarchists sit. But as I said before, pre-Marx socialism represented free markets and opposition to authoritarian control of the economy (and life in general), so in that sense Marxist "socialism" itself is all right-wing. So if we're setting that aside, and using "right wing" to mean anti-socialist, the fascists remained extremely left wing. And if we're using it to mean authoritarian, then the Sweden, the Soviet Union, and Communist China are right wing, too. Seceding from the internationale movement does not automagically make them right wing.
@@jeffkardosjr.3825 You need to read what I said more closely. I am speaking of the absolute fact that, before Marx, it meant precisely that. The word has been REDEFINED by the Marxists, to an opposite. The same thing happened to "liberal", which meant what "libertarian" now means, until about the turn of the 20th century. Pierre Joseph Proudhon, Benjamin Tucker, and Lysander Spooner all referred to themselves as socialist, while strongly advocating for economic freedom. Proudhon, for example, said that private property is essential to the cause of liberty.
So many words that we use in politics are literally words created by someone to describe their rivals. The word capitalism comes from Karl Marx’s second most famous work: “Das Kapital.” It was basically his way to describe people who he considered to be so enamored with money they were willing to harm others to attain it. That’s why encourage people to call it a free market, because that’s the part we actually care about.
Fascism is simple to understand: Italy didn’t have a single word for it, but it was referred to as corporate state, which is to say that corporations run the government. Sound eerily familiar?
*No. Corporations running the government is called Corporatocracy which is the complete opposite of Fascism. The word you were looking for is Corporatism ("corporativismo" in Italian). It was one of the cornerstone principles in Mussolini's fascism, and had to do with the way society and the economy would be organized, with state power at the head of a system of nationalized syndicates ("corporazione") representing each major industry. Mussolini's corporatist view stressed total state power over businesses as much as over individuals, via these governing industry bodies controlled by the Fascist party, in which businesses retained the responsibilities of property, but few if any of the freedoms.*
Tyranny by any other name would smell as foul.
@septembersurprise5178 sounds like James Joyce?
@@karlbyrne6021 More of a play on words of a line of Shakespeare, "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet."
@@bigredracingdog466 William Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet.
My apologies to William Shakespeare for the lack of attribution.
@@karlbyrne6021 William Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet.
My apologies to William Shakespeare for the lack of attribution.
Lincoln introduced tyranny to these United States and yet he is hailed as the savior of the Union. He was friends with Karl Marx and the Forty-Eighters who tried to overthrow the nations of Europe and replace the governments with Marxist governments. Lincoln filled out his officer and NCO corps with the Forty-Eighters who fled Europe for America.
The difference is the words they use while they trample you.
The difference is potato tomato.. All Jewish ideology.
I agree, this is sloppy thinking about fascism. Because Stalin used fascism to defect from his own authoritarian state doesn't give him the right to define it. The foundational principals of Giovanni Gentile's Fascism descended from the same pedigree that birthed Stalin's Communist revolution and ultranationalism was only incidental in where they diverged. Fascists were heretics, not infidels, and failed in creating an authoritarian police state anything like the Soviets.
This
@@raymondjensen4603 Except Stalin was a mere General of the Red Army at the time of the Revolution. Lenin was the main leader during that drive wanting to setup his form of Communism. Stalin In the wake of the February Revolution of 1917 (the first phase of the Russian Revolution of 1917), Stalin was released from exile. He was at odds with Lenin as Stalin wanted to take the country by force, which we saw how that didn't happen! Technically Lenin owned the Revolution while Stalin was his right hand man keeping him alive and passing his orders. But we know how things turned after the Revolution, after Lenin's 3 strokes that ended up being his undoing. Stalin's form of Fascism didn't come to pass until he took power years after Lenin died, and he warred politically with Trotsky and his factionalists. Oddly enough he had to threaten to resign a few times in order to get what he wanted, even though in the end he had exile and kill most of his opposition.
👏👏👏👏👏
Socialism, Fascism, Communism....just different variations of Evil.
socialism is the lesser of those evil. and other than capitalism its one of the only logical routes
What are the ideological differences between socialism, communism, national socialism and fascism - regardless of the individuals or political actors ? 🤔🙄
Socialism is not evil. Under socialism, everyone's vote counts, and the people have an active part in the decision-making process. Governments can't implement laws or regulations without the approval of the people. Does it work? Yes. In my lifetime I have seen two mills that declared bankruptcy and closed down. But the employees with the help of the union went to the bank and bought the mills and reopened them. The mills are now owned by the employees. At first it had nothing to do with making a profit, which is why the mills were shut down, because they were "unprofitable," it was about saving jobs. The employees only wanted to make their wages.
But something interesting happened. Because the mills were run by the employees, they understood on the floor what was wrong, what needed to be fixed, what worked and what didn't, and they implemented the changes. Those mills are still going. When they hire a new employee, that new employee has the option to become an owner. And the mill is profitable, more so than it ever was, and those profits go back into the mill and the community, not some company's pocketbooks.
Can you imagine a country wherein the people have a say on how the country is run. It would put politicians out of business.
@@perrybakr4252 I am a citizen of Canada & see fascism now under socialism
Three heads of hydra. Evil no matter which head pokes out.
My two favorite quotes are by Ronald Reagan who said, "If fascism ever comes to America, it will come in the name of liberalism." And second "Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power." Benito Mussolini
*Both quotes are wrong. Reagan didn't understand Liberalism nor Fascism (they were ideological enemies), and the other quote has nothing to do with Mussolini who never said such a thing, common misquote, as that quote was made up by yet another ignorant American, known as Adam McKay (there was no merger, corporatism was how they managed their socialist command economy).*
How about, who ever it said, fascists in the future will call themselfs anti-fascists?
@@billieboybuddha4238 yep I just didn't want it to get to long.
@@alfredocuomo1546 Patton said it best, We defeated the wrong enermy....im more and more convinced of this...
@@billieboybuddha4238 Well I know he said while we have the men & the machines we should take care of them now, a man that said what he meant and meant what he said.
God please help Dennis heal. We need him more than ever.
Please Lord God heal Dennis in Jesus Holy Mighty Loving Name ✝️🩸🛐
@@gregb6469 He fell and was injured very severely.
They all rely on The State having all the power. A group of intellectuals dictating to those they see as lesser people.
This is the astounding statement I keep hearing from leftists. "We should restrict speech, but _The Experts_ can decide which speech will be banned."
Every socialist argument operates on the assumption that it'll all be managed by wise people who agree with them.
Intellectuals are supposed to be smart. All we have is stupid people who have degrees and poor people who have a lot of money
@@VarianteMobile they are the experts
The people at the top are, more often than not, disconnected with the people below them and fail to see what those people take for granted. This is human nature, a successful individual must work at remembering what life was like before they were successful. Although, some in power never had to struggle, so have no experience in the efforts that the majority go through to succeed.
Except in ideal Communism, like Leninism, the State eventually withers away.
Based on Mussolini’s essay on the doctrine of Fascism, fascism is communism and socialism without the delusions of leftism. He wrote that leftism is nonsensical and unobtainable, and that to create a strong nation, a strong sense of nationalism and community are needed, even at the cost of “unnecessary individual rights.” And it for that reason, that individual rights are considered “unnecessary” that I, to say it gently, do not care for fascism.
But even more so, I hate socialism and communism, because those who believe in that pretend to be your friend, then destroy your rights, after getting into power. Fascism doesn’t pretend to be nice or pretty.
The only intelligent and accurate comment so far.
"We understand only the individual's capacity to make sacrifices for the community, for his fellow man." - Adolf H itler, 1933
"To be a socialist is to submit the I to the thou; socialism is sacrificing the individual to the whole." - Goebbels
"We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society." - Hillary Clinton, 1993
Or in short, Fascism is nationalist communism. Communism is globalist Fascism.
Communism will always tend toward making more and more things illegal and putting more and more people in prison because when the costs of our individual actions are collectivized, we would have to stop people from doing anything slightly risky
You're kinda right about fascists not pretending to be "your friend". Socialist and communist revolutionary movements do like to masquerade as the champions of the working class, but once they attain enough power, they start trying to look good for the rest of the world while hiding the misery and suffering of their peasants. Fascists, on the other hand, act like brutes at first, then once they hold power, they do whatever they can to keep up appearances at home and portray a strong, victorious image to their subjects.
Basically, the roles seem to reverse depending on if you're in or out of their jurisdiction. Socialists market themselves to the outside world, fascists market themselves to the inside of their own world.
Fascism was simply what the Italians called their version of socialism under Mussolini. That's it. The word was then thrown around to degrade anyone "other" by Stalin and Antifa, way back in the 30s. That's where it started being equated with Nazis, because that's who the communists didn't like (because they posed a threat). That's where we got the modern definition of fascism. The Nazis were not fascists by their own definition, they called themselves socialists. But again, they were labeled fascists by communists. The word really has lost its meaning, even way back then. It would be like calling grapefruits oranges, because you hate oranges. And eventually enough people hate grapefruits that they keep calling them oranges. While they are similar, there are differences, and the careless use of words causes confusion and lack of clarity.
Exactly. Fascism is on the left and they can't stand it.
Socialists really really hate it when you point out Hitler was a socialist. "It wasn't real socialism, means of productions were not nationalized, blah blah." Fascism was a derivative of socialism with a nationalist component, Mussolini's idea (who was a socialist for a long itme). Hitler added racism.
@alanklette7369 Fascism was always left. Stalin propaganda put it on the right to garner support for the war. Stalins propaganda was so good, people still repeat the lie.
@@alanklette7369 I was taught that slaves built the pyramids. Regardless, nothing you've said contradicts anything I've said. It is hard, however, to really accurately label systems of government 'left' or 'right' when they are so far beyond the scope of traditional American politics, so I'm not even going to bother.
@@Miller54K And that lie is still going on when it comes to the recent elections in Europe. The more nationalistic leftist that gained seats were all called right-wing!
Anyone who thinks Fascism and Nazism is "right-wing" has not read the Italian Fascist manifesto or Hitler's Mein Kampf. Both ideologies were essentially leftist/socialist, but with extreme nationalism thrown into the mix.
Extreme nationalism is a hallmark of the right.
Communists and leftists in general have used the terms nazi and fascists to belittle and denigrate their opponents so much and so effectively that people just associate them with rightwing authoritarianism. We see it constantly these days. Most don't even know what they are or how to define them.
Actually China and USSR were pretty much nationalistic regimes too.
Extreme nationalism shows up across the political spectrum. See the GOP and every Euro right wing party.
@@dannysullivan3951 _"Extreme nationalism is a hallmark of the right."_
*Wrong. Nationalism is a Leftist trait. It is a form of Collectivism, and devotion to the State which sees all other states as inferior and in competition. Right wing ideologies do not embrace Nationalism, but rather Patriotism. In all Right wing ideologies, the Individual is superior to the State. All socialist one-party dictatorships ended up being nationalist.*
Thirty years ago I met an old lady from Russia. She held her index fingers together and told me (in Yiddish) 'Stalin and Hitler were brothers.'
Interesting. I knew an old lady for nearly 50 years of my life. She was Lithuanian. According to her, and other friends of her, dealing with Hitler's followers were a dream compared to Stalin's demonic instructions afterwards. That old lady was mt grandma. And, she made it out through it all to America with 3 young kids. Yeah
Stalin and Hitler... brothers? Yeah, whatever.
I get why she would say that. They were both dictators. So, the only difference is that Hitler was a major antisemite. Whereas Stalin killed whoever he wanted, and most of these lives he took were Russian citizens.
The only difference was one was an international socialist the other a nationalist
And the worst of them all in relation to American liberal-facists... The latter are more dangerous
Depends what Russians you ask. Many Russians back then saw Hitler and The Germans as their liberators, and rightfully so
The people who are the loudest about equity are the ones who also contribute the least to society.
The people who contribute the most to communism's rise are the first people who disappear when communism is implemented!
Always...
When you say disappear, do you mean they flee, or they are taken by their masters once they've served their purpose
The left always turns on itself. Look at what the Dems are doing right now.
@Englishsea24
Yes!
They flee, or they are taken out by their masters once they've served their purpose!
Can't have them causing problems...
Yep that's democrats
Did you never notice that the first thing a Capitalist wants is - all the little people fighting each other for a place in the pecking order - and that the last thing he wants is - a Rival. And did it never occur to you that the end state of Capitalism is - Fascism. Think about it,
Bottom line is, that they are all evil.
Capitalism is too. It allows you to murder in the name of profit.
When I see this title, I like to think of the pep boys
@@sandasturner9529The only difference is the flag.
evil to some an angel for others
@@jmgonzales7701 depending on who benefit from the cults.
Good ideas don’t require force.
Ideas that work don't either.
Of course good ideas require force.
In fact, populist ideas require comparatively less force.
Clearly laws are a bad idea, they require force
@@INSANESUICIDE While many laws are in fact bad ideas, good laws protect rights. Defending rights is not forcing ideas on others.
@ Why do you say that?
Fascism was indeed originally an Italian version of socialism. The term fascism has made quite a journey since then 😅
The funny part is fascism was a reaction against socialism , liberalism and democracy. When it was founded in 1919 its founders were said to have "declared a war on socialism , because it had opposed nationalism" ( "The Anatomy of Fascism" , page 5 ). Fascism was basically Italian nationalism...
The cleanest "explain it to a first grader" definitions and dividing lines between the three words (communism, socialism, and fascism) that I've ever heard. Thanks.
Over the years I've probably asked about 100 self-proclaimed socialists/communists what socialism/communism is and I've gotten 100 different answers.
Socialism is in very basic terms the state controlling the means of production, communism includes the left side socialism on the economic spectrum and the right wing authoritarianism on the social spectrum.
what many people don't realise is that there is more than 1 political spectrum. and when they say "left wing" it is usually in reference to the political centre, not the left of the political spectrum. what would blow the minds of many Americans is that the democratic party is a right wing party, it is just not as far right as the republican party, as they are the two main political parties the centre would be the point between them, this then puts the democratic party to the left of that political centre and why it is termed as being left wing, but on the spectrum it is still a right wing party.
the right likes to talk as if the left of the political centre is actually the left of the political spectrum, but that is because they don't know any better.
John, when democrats talk about redistributing the wealth/taxing the wealthy into oblivion / implementing living wage laws/taking over the banks. It seems pretty socialist to me.🤔
@@johng.1703🥗
Because they can't speak truth. They won't say they want all the power to get very rich and immune to law & order while keeping everyone as hungry servants.
@@caiaccc isn't that the very definition of capitalism?
As an elderly relative said to me over 50 years ago, the only difference between these three is the spelling.
Now that's not true! There is one big difference between the National Socialist German Workers Party (Nazi) and Communism.
The German socialists dressed better.
Maybe in practice, but there are some key differences to look out for so you can effectively call them out if they happen and call out those deceivers who would abuse those terms against you.
not realy...the communism is the worse 'cos it suppress private property and even freedom of religion. Basically it strips you from all.
That person was an idiot
Your elderly relative is uneducated.😅
Praying for speedy recovery for Dennis. He is a national treasure.
I didn't know he was ill.
@@hokiesuz He fell and injured his back.
@@hokiesuz He had a terrible fall. He's not sick. He's injured.
We don’t need him
@@CrazyAlbertoKnee Most irrational people feel the same way as you. Your name says it all.
In college, my history prof broke it into a four quadrant grid: communism (no free speech, no free markets) socialism (free speech, no free markets) fascism (no free speech, free markets) capitalism (free speech, free markets)
Free market enterprise under fascist socialism? hah.
*Your professor was wrong. Fascism had no markets, as they had a socialist Command economy. They explicitly were against any kind of a Market based economic system and economic liberalism in general. These are just few examples from their own "Doctrine of Fascism";*
_"Fascism is definitely and absolutely opposed to the doctrines of liberalism, both in the political and the economic sphere."_
_"If liberalism spells individualism, Fascism spells State. The Fascist State is, however, a unique and original creation. It is not reactionary but revolutionary, in that it anticipates the solution of certain universal problems which have been raised elsewhere; in the political field by the splitting up of parties, the usurpation of power by parliaments, the irresponsibility of assemblies; in the economic field by the increasingly numerous and important functions discharged by trade unions and trade associations with their disputes and ententes, affecting both capital and labour; in the ethical field by the need felt for order, discipline, obedience to the moral dictates of the fatherland."_
_"Fascism desires the State to be strong and organic, based on broad foundations of popular support. The Fascist State lays claim to rule in the economic field no less than in others; it makes its action felt throughout the length and breadth of the country by means of its corporative, social, and educational institutions, and all the political, economic, and spiritual forces of the nation, organized in their respective associations, circulate within the State."_
@@Historia.Magistra.Vitae. Spot-on and well said.
Clever
Thats a skewed oversimplification.
Fully free speech does not exist in any modern society. Communism and socialism are not against free speech by definition. Communism tends to be against free speech in practice.
Also, ”free markets” is a sliding scale. Communism is against it in both theory and practice. Truly unregulated markets only exist where there is no government. In socialist society the government provides certain services and even if private actors are allowed, which they may or may not be, they typically stay away from this business areas because it’s difficult to compete with the government.
I wouldve also added that Socialism is older than Communism and Fascism, and is the forefather of both before they had their split.
Praying for your quick recovery and healing Dennis Prager
As he smokes a cigar...
@@DCopp- what does a cigar have to do with falling in the shower?
United Healthcare have anything to do with it ?
@DCopp America's oldest man Richard Overton at 114 still smoked cigars. You sound like you fit in with Mr Praegers descriptions here.
With socialism and communism there's free food free rent free everything but no free thinking or personal action you do what they tell you to do the elites live high the rest of the people live pour
Fascism was the Italian strain of socialism. Hitler had race based socialism, because he thought it only worked if implemented correctly by white people specifically Germans. Marx essentially the same thing too, lefties don't like to talk about that. Hitler was a communist early on as well.
Socialism can never work except where the population is unified by ethnicity. Even then, it is doomed to failure without a religious dogma that children are indoctrinated with from an early age into adulthood.
Racism was used as a tool by both the Far Left and the Nazis. Just as today they use race (this time mostly anti-white racism), gender and anything else they can drive a wedge between people with.
Hitler wasn’t a socialist, that’s incorrect, he oppressed the workers and gave the employer far more power
I don't think I have ever read such nonsense online in my life.
Fascism hated Socialism
Hitler hated Communism and Socialism and worked to destroy both
@@QuotidianStupidityMussolini was indeed a socialist before he developed fascism. Fascism has strong ties to socialism. In fact, I would argue it's a form of socialism with a nationalist emphasis rather than a globalist one.
Fascism, socialism, communism: Democrat.
You do realize actual Socialists and Communists think the Democrats are reactionary right?... and modern Ultra-Nationalists tend to side with Republicans?
I hope you do realize you just implied you're not any better than them and missed the entire point.
Fascist = Republican
Socialist = Democrat
@@mikitz The history is fascinating and I was largely aware of it. However, there are mostly just subtle differences to the same theme: autocracy, and submission to the state with no individual rights. The Democrats are all about that.
Republicanism, however is the antithesis. Much to the chagrin of the anteefah-tards.
I'm not a Republican, BTW (def not a DemocRat).
@imankhandaker6103 wrong. Facism is authoritarian rule. That's obama and biden. Stop lying
Knew and know you OG. Retired USN 20 yrs ,80s thru 90s traveled Lots different places in Hong Kong and Shanghai are shattering to witness. Instructor Navy NEC Your delivery enjoyable to hear. Good.
Socialism Obama, Fascism Biden, Communism Sanders and AOC?? WAS I CLOSE??
Not even
@dareese6778 OH yeah your right!! Left out COCONUT TREE HARRIS!!!🤣🤣🤣🤣
Me-ism, DT.
@castleanthrax1833 I know! I nailed IT!! 💯
Well not really seeing as both major parties in the US largely represent business interests over the public interest. They both take millions in donations from large unaccountable and unelected corporations who incessantly lobby both arms of the business party that is the US political spectrum.
They all promise everything to the many. But only a few actually benefit. Capitalism has the promise that everyone CAN be successful, but that not everyone will. Socialism, Fascism, and Communism promises everyone is equal, except for those in power and everyone is equally poor.
👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
Except the US doesn’t have pure capitalism. The US has forms of communism for instance by owning 25% of all the land in the U.S. that’s very communist. The US is very fascistwhen you consider the privatelyownedfeseralreservv pays a 6%dividndtowallstreetowners. Read the federalreservvact and educate yourself
yeah! thats why 3% of earths population owns 95% of all resourses. thats why we still have slavery, child-workers, corrupsy and so on. Because capitalism is so "free". have you ever heard about Sweden, Norway, Finland or Denmark? the most wealthiest citizens of the 70´s due to their socialism? no? yeah I thought so.
how does capitalism promise that everyone will be successful? you can't be rich unless you were born rich.
@@cheesepuff65 I wasn't born rich. But I am richer than my parents ever were and I'm doing better than my siblings. THAT is the promise of Capitalism. Capitalism gives you a reason to succeed. Communism gives you an excuse to fail.
Think of a coin with two sides:
(1) Heads - Fascism
(2) Tails - Communism
There is no right nor left, as the coin itself, is socialism.
Color it however you will, however if you spend this coin just know there are only two eventual outcomes.
no, Socialism is a watered down version of Communism... on the political spectrum is stands opposite Nationalism, which is weaker Fascism.
Both extremes believe in totalitarian dictatorship.
Heads: freedom
Tails: oppression.
Anyone that seeks power begins by taking it out of our hands.
Same owner: Heads they win; tails you lose. All the world’s a stage.
Fascism is not by itself, it's just an aid to maintain Socialism. If Socialism were a coin, it would be of Communism (heads) and Marxism (tails). Naziism would be the coin standing on end.
Fascism also involves the merging of centralized government with the private corporate sector.
So does every other form of socialism. That's what a totalitarian (socialist) g is.
Fascist socialism is a type of socialism, yes.
Communism is the most severe mental disorder of them all.
It starts with a FREE Country then devolves to "political parties" then devolves to "Democracy" then "Socialism" then "Fascism" then "Communism" and finally death.
I'm reminded of Rush Limbaugh's radio opening, when he used to introduce himself as "live on the air, amidst billowing clouds of fragrant second hand smoke. . ." - great commentary, Dennis !
Rather ask what are the similarities, loss of human rights, and authoritarianism.
Generally they were all the same. Total state control of life
I find them distinctly different.
@@Thannoyer Well, thats the question, do tell!
Yeah Fascism has more in common with the modern Progressive wing than it does the conservative wing. Fascism is the elevation of nation and often race above the individual. Fascism economically is state run capitalism. So the government doesn’t own the means of production in fascism but they tell you how to run your business and what you can and cannot do. What you see from the progressive Democrat party today is YES a push for equity (communism) or equal outcome, but ALSO fascism from the economic standpoint as well as racial standpoint.
Last time I checked, Christian Nationalism has been fully embrassed by the conservative movement. There is no better surrogate for Fascism than Christian Nationalism.
Define Christian Nationalism. If you say it’s the love of your country, and the love of Christ then yeah I suppose there are a lot of “Christian Nationalists” in the conservative movement…and what is exactly is bad about that? 🤦♂️ see the part you seem to miss is the second part of the definition of Fascism, specifically “….above the individual.” It’s the elevation of nation and/or race ABOVE the individual. The Left doesn’t see individuals as uniquely created by God, they see groups of people separated by race, class, gender, etc and any inequality in outcome between those groups must be attributed to some external factor because the natural order of the world is to be equal (in outcome.). This is the false premise the Progressives live under. In reality, there is no such thing as perfect equality of outcome between people/groups. Trying to achieve perfect equality of outcome/communism is not only utterly foolish logically but it’s actually evil. You have God given abilities that I don’t have and will never have, and vice versa. Those differences make us able to achieve different outcomes. Not everyone is born with the same intelligence, athleticism, or work ethic/ambition. Even identical twins raised by the same parents, given the same things, same school, same Church, same everything end up being wildly different. So if identical twin INDIVIDUALS end up with different outcomes in a controlled environment, what makes the think the government can succeed in creating equal outcomes between GROUPS in an uncontrolled environment?
Correct!
Good reply though not sure that fascism equals state run capitalism, as capitalism has at the heart of it the free exchange of goods and services which is not nor has been the case in most instances, I would think it more corporatism as the markets have been controlled for the most part, as they are today, and especially the market for money which is controlled by money printing and the central banks. If the money or ledger was given to the people then my view would be an authentic capitalism would transpire instead of this crony capitalism that happens now and pretends to be authentic.
janetjacks3406 is quite correct. The Left of today in almost all so-called western democracies has shifted to the fascist scheme. Every time a "law" or regulation is put in force you diminish the freedom of the individual. All the isms cited are by their nature the dominance of the State over the rights of the individual. And all of the isms spoke of here are left wing. Beware the folk who claim to care about the special rights that should be accorded "minorities" in any sense. We all know order of some semblance has to occur so that society can function. But too many laws, most of which we the people know little about, can only lead to tyranny.
Different name, different form of collectivism, same boot stomping on your face.
i guess people from the west dislike collectivism that much
Endlessly stomping in an effort to destroy each individual's uniqueness.
@@jmgonzales7701 They dislike when hundreds of millions of innocents gets killed by bad ideas...
@@jmgonzales7701 Certain people in the west do yes, but ask them about lbtgq abc xyz qwerty-ism
Dennis P is a treasure. I always enjoy hearing him hold forth - on any subject. Great man, wonderful insight.
COLLECTIVISM means the subjugation of the individual to a group-whether to a faith, race, class or state does not matter. Collectivism holds that man must be chained to collective action/thought for the sake of what is called “the greater good” such as controlling climate change, “for the well-being of everyone”, helping the poor, for the “vaderland”.
Yup , we see this on the right-wing with their social and cultural collectivism , which was similar to the fascist program. On the right-wing, everyone must conform to the cultural norms of the group ( especially on things like gender and orientation ) and the traditional hierarchy and erase their individuality. This is seen as defending the nation's culture , national identity and the greater good of the group from people like immigrants , minorities and LGBT people. This cultural and social collectivism still exists on the modern right-wing....
@@z2z3z45 : *Wrong. That is not how Right wing works. People on the right believe that the best outcome for society is achieved when individual rights and civil liberties are paramount (individualism) and the role - and especially the power - of the government is minimized.*
Lol...omg...try and educate yourself..@@z2z3z45
Socialism is the word between , shit and syphalis inthe oxford english dictionary
I wonder what the english dictionary says about Churchill...
Fascism is a form of National Socialism, thought up by Gentille in the 1800s, and put into practice by Benito Mussolini, a prominent Italian socialist.
While Socialism/Communism seeks to use governmental power to redistribute wealth and power on the basis of socioeconomic class, National Socialism seeks to use governmental power to redistribute wealth and power on the basis of race and ethnicity.
In practice, they are evil twins, not that much different from each other. So China easily slid from Communism, trying to eliminate everyone but the working class, and promoting a worldwide revolution in favor of the working class-- to fascism, abandoning class consciousness and settling on a state run economy for members of their own party.
Mussolini rejected socialism after he was unable to reform it - he saw many flaws in it, so you can't really call him a Socialist when he tried to change it, denounced it, then fought against it.
Interesting idea that China is really now more fascist than communist.
@@QuotidianStupidity _"I am and always will be a socialist."_ -- *Benito Mussolini*
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." - Mussolini
Praying your recovering swiftly, Dennis.
Le's see, Stalin was a Communist, Hitler was a Socialist...not seeing much difference there (National Socialists said that Germany should rule the socialist world after the Proletariat uprising; Communists or International Socialists said the Communist Party would rule).
What about Churchill and Roosevelt, what was they? Besides warmongering scumbags, that is?
Thank you for your simple definition. I will look for more of your lectures
Giovanni Gentile was, far and above, the main architect of fascism. Gentile was a fan of Carl Marx and based fascism on the socialist/communist writings of Marx. Fascism was considered 'the socialism that will work' or 'the practical socialism.' Fascism is actually on the far left. It is not quite as far left as socialism and communism as the private sector is allowed to exist under fascism, so long as it is completely subservient to the state. This is a distinction without a difference.
I understood that private sector corporations are very intimately connected to government in a fascist state. That this intimate government/corporate connection is a symptom of fascism. Like when Justin Trudeau asked banking corporations to freeze peoples accounts and not allow them access to their own money. All without any judicial involvement. The private banks simply complied. Am I wrong?
Fascists were grifters, and the Fascism of 1919 was different to the Fascism of 1923, which itself was different to the Fascism of the 1930s and 1940s. Mussolini often changed doctrine to fit his current needs and situation, and in the very end, he began to reinstate the Fascism of 1919 in his puppet state. There are also various differences between Fascism wherever it pops up, but Fascism itself is "Third Position" because it places itself in opposition to liberal capitalists and socialists, and often has very "Right Wing" cultural attitudes while having "Left wing" economic attitudes (this is debatable due to 'Corporatism').
@@isaiah30v8 Justin Trudeau is, in many ways, a fascist. What you are talking about is what I call fascism-lite. Kind of like a lite beer. You are not wrong.
@@Macchiavillain Fascists were and have always been leftist murderers. There is nothing "right wing" about fascism. That being said, I was referring to the fascism of Giovanni. The father of fascism.
Left wing - more government control/less individualism
Right wing - Less government control/more individualism.
Yup. When Dennis described socialism he fascism. It's a description of a transitive relationship if A = B and B = C then A = C. They nationalized, steel, railroads, medicine, etc. You have the illusion of private property if you have to large business, but you produce what the state tells you. And there are exorbitant taxes on those because they have a massive welfare state and other wealth distribution schemes.
The difference between "fascism", "socialism", and "communism" is "time" ("all paths lead to communism", unless.....)
I'd argue that socialism either fails or evolves into fascism which is at least somewhat sustainable because it allows for a certain degree of free market activity. Communism however is a myth because it's essentially just socialism where the state will eventually abolish itself and equally distribute the means of production to the people. Which of course will never happen because it completely ignores the reality of human nature.
The best description of Fascism I've ever heard is, "Fascism is honest Socialism." As example, Communist China started out fully Communist, but once it allowed a large degree of free trade, it made businesses toe the line of the CCP. So unlike socialism/communism, the CCP doesn't try to have the government run businesses/enterprises/economy, it instead lets private parties run their businesses, and any especially successful businesses get members of the CCP on their boards. Socialism/Communism are doomed to fail for reasons Hayek explicates, but if they level up to Fascism, they can be marginally successful, though not nearly as successful as countries with free market economies.
They're still Fascist, they just (normally) use a light touch.
Pretty much this. As I've always said, Fascism is really just "Socialism-lite" in the sense that instead of the state owning and running the economy, under Fascism they allow the free market to flourish to an extent, so long as they obey the whims of the state.
There are no countries with free market economies.
socialism lulls you into submission, fascism forces you unto subjugation, communism kills you
No, both Fasists and Communists are dishonest socialists. Socialism means nothing but the means to establish control. Fascists are State First Communists, and Communists are International Communists. The Nazis and the Italian Fascits wanted Germany and Italy first while the Soviets wanted a global Communist Empire. This us why Stalin, a Georgian, was an acceptable leader of the Union of Socialist states, and also why Mao broke his close ties with the Soviet Union. Mao wanted Chinese Supremacy, not to join a greater Communist super state. This is why Vietnam and North Korea had closer ties to Russia than China. They knew they could never be equal partners with China, as North Korea proved when they ended needing Chinese Troops to bail them out in the Korean War. Once China dug their claws into North Korea, North Korea became a vassal state to China. Meanwhile, Vietnam has fought to stay independent of China, even to the point of strengthening ties with the hated capitalist west.
Fascism is a socialist form of government named after a fascae (Latin), which is a bundle of rods arranged around an axe handle and bound together with leather straps. It represents a cooperation of opposites to form a stronger single unit. In fascism, the government allows some selected individual private companies to operate and control. In this way, they capture the efficiency of private enterprise but tightly control the numbers of accepted companies/corporations. Those that do not cooperate with government are eliminated. Fascists support consolidation. like we have seen 2020-2024 & 2008-2016, but not business diversity. Like Dennis said, it originated in Italy prior to WWII. In Germany, Naziism was a form of fascism that included ultra-nationalist racism. Under communism, no private enterprise is allowed and all transactions are with the state.
It was not Nazism but national socialism
Fantastic content!! Thanks
The measuring stick should be not some names they came up with, but how big and intrusive your government wants to be.
If you believe people would be better off with a small and weak government then you need to study history. You will almost exclusively get a feudal society with warlords oppressing everyone else and no justice what so ever.
Nitpicking the exact definitions of authoritarian styles of government is a distraction. Either a government seeks to maximize the Liberty of individual citizens or it seeks to empower/enrich itself. None of the former are ever perfect to the definitions, anyway.
There is at least one more typ of government, that which tries to maximise the welfare of the citizens.
@@Thannoyer LOL! Politicians who care? The mass murder that occurred during the twentieth century was all under the guise of "maximizing the welfare of the citizens". Massive bureaucratic wealth transfers do very little to improve the lives of individual citizens but they do enrich politicians who "care".
The most important thing to know and understand about Communism and Fascism is that they are BOTH forms of Socialism.
Exactly. I am shocked to find so many comments here that actually understand that.
@@meinking22 socialism mean control.
@@richardque4952 control/tyranny/totalitarianism/slavery, etc.... different ways of saying the same thing.
Yes, you are right.
To paraphrase Ayn Rand fascisim and communism (and socialism?) are not (two) opposites, but rival gangs fighting over the same territory, based on the collectivist principle that man is the rightless slave of the state.
This right here.
This is a great question because the person genuinely wants to know the answer, and is not smug.
Biden, Obama and Pelosi. Same, same.
You are going to see whats real evil that you, idiot, help to create. Than like every idiot you will deny and do everything idiots do.
TOUCHE!
In the end, for the people, the Plebes, absolutely no difference. Each of those systems turns the Citizenry into slaves.
The masses are always screwed, in every system. That does not make them slaves. Slaves cannot travel, change jobs, Andy usually not own things. Citizens in most 20th century states could, with the exception of some of the most extreme ”communist” states.
Whats your definition of a slave?
Absolutely brilliant man! Love Dennis Prager. ❤️🙏
I hope he heals from his injury quickly.
Same difference. They act the same way when it comes to money, war and power. Everything else is semantics or operating procedure.
Excellent explanation very clear and academic. Many thanks 👍🏻
All three are just a different means to a high body count.
thats a problem?
We've had plenty of Socialism in the US since Franklin Roosevelt betrayed the rich and implemented it to save us from the Depression that was created by unbridled Capitalism. What has the "body count" been in the US? Seems to be working fine here.
@@jmgonzales7701 When it includes you and your family is it?
@@jmgonzales7701
your mom’s a problem.
I miss Rush Limbaugh.
To the people who hate this country move to one of these places. No ? why not? Because you won't have the freedom that you have here that we All take for granted
I always understood the differences between Communism and Fascism to be pretty minimal. It comes down to who controls the means of production. Communism is the State owns everything directly. Fascism is the State runs everything through corporations, i.e. public, private cooperation. “Fascism and Communism are not two opposites, but two rival gangs fighting over the same territory based on the collectivist principle that man is the rightless slave of the state,” Ayn Rand
.... holy shoot. You are the second person I've ever encountered anywhere that understands the difference between a pro-active command economy & a re-active command economy. Broadly speaking the result is irrelevant since it's still enslavement to the regime but if we split hairs on how they handle their command economy, it is exactly as you say.
@@Archedgar "I don't want a nation of thinkers. I want a nation of obedient workers." John D. Rockefeller
@@megret1808 _"I am a socialist"_
-- *Adolf, head of the national socialist german worker's party*
it would be good to hear a bit more about this i enjoyed it easy to understand
Thank you so much Dennis for making this platform. I've learned so much since I first learned of Praguer U.
The issue is whether you believe you are justified in using the state to impose your vision of an ideal society.
The details of your vision are irrelevant.
Lincoln did. He paved the way for all of the abuses of power by the Democrats in more modern times.
They all push for equal outcomes whether by class, race, or national identity by force, which requires persecution or extermination.
Get Well Dennis!
There is a commonly held belief that the political spectrum has fascism as extreme right wing and communism as extreme left wing with socialism center left and capitalism center right. But in a little book from the 1960s “ none dare call it conspiracy” it says that is incorrect and the true political spectrum is all kinds of totalitarianisms on one end and anarchy on the other. All of the above are just degrees of totalitarianism. The founding fathers understood this and attempted to frame the US with only enough govt to avoid anarchy but to stay as far as possible away from tge other end. They also realized that by human nature and group insanity that there would be a drifting toward Totalitarism unless it is deliberately kept in check. This is why they set up the checks and balances system. I believe that MAGA is an honest attempt to halt the drift that has speed up over the last few years.
Both Fascism and Communism stem from Socialism. Fascism is socialism mixed in with a strong sense of nationalism, and communism is socialism with internationalism (where national identities dont matter). Then economically, fascism allows private entreprise as long as they subdue to the centralized government, while communism just straight up do not even allow private entreprise. Then theres Nazism, which is just fascism with a strong racial component (racism).
Socialism was the blue print invented by Marx (v1.0 so to speak), and then other people decades later decided to make their own v2.0 by adding things to it. And they all f*cked it up and ruined 20th century for humanity. Political ideologies are modern-day religions... and look at what religions have done to mankind in the past.
There is no such thing as 'nazism'. Nazi=socialist. It was just socialism.
Mostly the color of the secret police's dress uniform and the number on the form that you sign when you get shipped off to a gulag.😆
Fascism comes from the old Latin word "fascia" describing the axe surrounded by a bundle of sticks. The fascist emblem. Fascia is the sheet that surrounds a muscle - bind the muscle fibres together. I.e. the binding of the sticks (the nation/people) to the Axe (originally Mussolini, later many ,many others) Google "fascist emblem" to see pictures.
I prefer Mikado or Pocky - sticks all over the place . Let's call it DECENTRALISM. I declare I am a decentralist. In fact a decentralist extremist . Let life evolve. Let the dream of control vanish. Control obsession is a disease and it is highly contagious. It is basically FEAR.
@@thegram9207 Look on the reverse of older Winged Liberty dimes an you'll see a fascist symbol .
Thank you for this educational presentation in a short and consise format.
good to see you up and around.
The only real difference is the spelling.
Extreme ideologies, Left or Right, in both cases require Authoritarian or Totalitarian Regimes to maintain them.
The problem today, is that most people use the term Fascist incorrectly. They use Fascist in place of Authoritarian or Totalitarian Regimes. Not realizing the there are just as many cases on the Left, if not more so than the Right of Authoritarian or Totalitarian Regimes.
It is hilarious when people refer to Donald Trump as Fascist, due to his close ties with Russia and North Korea.
But more importantly, while many fear the extreme Right, they embrace the extreme Left. I walk the neighbourhood on a regular basis and on occasion, I see people with photos of Che or Mao on their T-Shirts, yet never anyone that might be Conservative. Why?
I am not sure if I have met many conservatives in my lifetime. My guess though, is that conservatives by nature tend to be more quiet and reserved versus the raucous “liberals” of today. I think unfortunately what I have actually encountered is not so much conservatives as much as they are apathists. I think to be conservative means you must believe something is worth saving for the future; you’ve got to have some belief in the good and reason for that belief. Rather what I see are often leftist “liberals” and then there’s people that don’t give a hoot one way or another; they care for nothing and believe in nothing. Those later people are what I call Apathists; but I think more often than not, people mistake them for conservatives in America. They don’t want to conserve anything they don’t believe in anything. This is why I am not sure if there truly are many conservatives in America. Maybe I’m way off base though. I’m just a janitor after all.
The funniest thing about the insults is that to anyone who knows who hitler was about they know he and Trump would be sworn enemies.
Trump a huge Capitalist
Hitler hated everything capitalism stood for
If I was a Conservative then whose photo should I wear on my shirt?
@@prestonowens4594 There are clearly many conservatives out there as can be seen by election results. They are hard to spot because, except for some with MAGA hats, most of them look completely normal. They also tend not to engage in political conversations with people wearing tied-dyed T-shirts with rainbow-colored hair. There is no point in engaging with people who are clearly demented.
@@isaiah30v8 Adam Smith or Thomas Sowell, but no liberal would even know who they are so they wouldn't take offense.
The only difference is the people they come for in the night, what class, what race, what religion
you could have pointed out the socialism in the national socialism(NAZI) and that fascism is simply one possible final outcome of big government socialism
Crystal clear explanation! I had this doubt since the word "fascist" has been recently overused and abused
Very simple explanation of these ideologies that fail politically.
Fascism was a movement that started in Italy.
Mussolini's book was authored by the "Godfather of Fascism" Giovanni Gentile- who called himself a Socialist.
Fascism is the merger of state and corporate power. It puts all power in the hands of the leaders. Just like socialism, which is government ownership and control of the means of production. As a first rough cut, fascism = socialism + racism.
Dude...
It's hard to properly describe fascism because it became a vague blanket term for many different and unrelated ideologies, plus a generic derogative term.
Communism does not exist in reality on the state level.
Real Nazism and real Socialism, as epitomized by Hitlerism and Stalinism respectively, are near-identical.
National Socialism is significantly different from Socialism under Stalin and his successors. The Nazis were viewed in the Western world as the last bastion against the spread of Bolshevik Communism (Stalin's Socialism) and the Germans were hailed as heroes up until war began expanding across Europe. The very treaties designed to prevent the escalation of war beyond small regional conflicts were responsible for its spread (just as NATO risks spreading war with the irresponsible defense of Ukraine).
@@gaiustacitus4242 There are only two, relatively small real differences that I see between Hitlerism and Stalinism: (1) Hitler was a lot crazier than Stalin. For example, Stalin would never invade a country if he wasn't 120% sure he could snatch a decisive victory, whereas for Hitler almost every invasion was a gamble (2) The USSR controlled vast resources within its borders such as manpower, minerals, arable land, etc., whereas the Nazi-era Germany didn't.
Otherwise, both regimes are remarkably similar in their ideologies, socio-economic policies, and even symbolism
@@DimitrijDaniel You obviously haven't studied the two ideologies in detail. Nazism produced the greatest economic growth ever known to man along with remarkable social gains, which combined made Germany the envy of the world. This can never be said of Stalin's USSR.
Was Hitler truly more evil than Stalin? No. For example, Hitler ordered the British spared at Dunkerque because he rightly viewed them as cousins to the German people. Had he truly been evil, then the German Wehrmacht would have been ordered to eliminate them to a man.
@@gaiustacitus4242 The "greatest economic growth ever known to man" did happen in Germany, but it was during the Adenauer era, aka "Wirtschaftwunder", which happened in the late 40s to mid-60s.
@@DimitrijDaniel Rebuilding an economy from rubble during a military occupation cannot be compared to the greatest peacetime growth in history. Germany's economic growth during the 1930s was the envy of the world, and it was made even more remarkable by the fact that it was accomplished via international barter because the banking community had been waging a financial war against Germany since 1934.
This, coupled with the societal renaissance, is why Time Magazine named Adolph Hitler the "Man of the Year" for 1938.
Lucid and helpful. Thanks!
At an operational level there's no difference. You're free or you're not free, and if you're not, it doesn't matter who's holding your leash.
No.
It’s simple.
You either want centralized government control or decentralized government control.
The left/right paradigm Is meant to confuse. More importantly, it’s anachronistic and should not be used. It begins to the French Revolution because that is where everyone sat when questioning to institution of the monarchy. Those who sat to the right wanted to conserve it; those who sat to the left wanted to abolish it and be liberated from it.
What your left with is that socialism is centralized government that is intended to have sufficient control over a society. Socialism requires control over every aspect of society.
Now Communism and Fascism are two styles or flavors of socialism. The difference? Communists want to purify the state through is economy; fascist wants to purify the state through it’s racial or ethnic means.
Communists want to abolish private property and eliminate all classes (of course, they neglect to say the state will own everything and those in power get to decide). Meanwhile the fascists want to eliminate all other minority groups or ethnic groups.
Communists want economic purity; fascists want racial/ethnic purity.
Why do they hate each other? Because they both require total control of a state and its political system. They are rival’s for the same piece of pie.
Understand that, and it all makes sense. Get rid of left/right paradigm and it becomes clear.
Great summary!
Fascism is a form of socialism. NAZI meant National Socialist Party. Basically, socialism plus racism is fascism. Fascism is the merger of state and corporate power. The corporations are nominally left in private hands, but the leadership threatens the business leaders to do their will, so it amounts to government control of the means of production. Socialism is just that: the government ownership of the means of production. Individuals have no rights under socialism. Only the group matters, and the will of the leadership is taken for the will of the masses. The USSR was called communist, but it was not. USSR meant Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. They promised their people they would eventually evolve in to communism, but they never did, and never would. True communism is voluntary. Everyone works for the good of all without any government control. It is a sort of anarchy. The family is a commune. The Israeli Kibbutz or the Hippy Commune are also communist. Such things do not last long when they get over about 30 people, and could never work at the level of the nation state. But socialism is the great evil. It must be resisted wherever it raises it's ugly head. The more completely socialism is implemented, the sooner and the worse is the collapse of the economy, and the harsher it is for the poorest.
Racism (as a tool) was invented by the 'left'. As was anti-Semitism. Both were adopted by the far right (so far right they were on the left).
The German National Socialist Worker's Party, the NAZIS, contrary to leftist propaganda, were not really "Nationalists", though they used Nationalism as as a tool. They were Supranationalists, what we would call Globalists today (political not solely economic).
In the 1920's ANTIFA fought the Centrists so had that the NAZIS slipped in to power without much notice.
Unlike the Fascists, but in common with the Socialists in the USSR, they were Totalitarian.
It’s kind of hard to tell because the Democrats are all three.
Excellent explanation, thank you!
Thank you for the great video Dennis!!! This explained a lot. :)
Fascism, Communism, and Democracy are political systems. Capitalism and Socialism and economic systems. You can have any combination of the two systems.
You left out the system of the USA- Republicanism/Republicism. America is a constitutional republic. Democracy is weaker.
Why didn't this girl do like I did and just read some books? Seriously. You expect someone to explain this in a few minutes. He did a good job considering the limited format. She should check out Hillsdale College's FREE course on communism if she doesn't want to read. Honestly Marx, Lenin, and the Duce wrote some of the worst garbage I've ever read. I've actually never once met a socialist or communist who had actually read the literature. Same with Islam apologists. I've yet to talk to one who's actually read the Koran or the Hadith ( a book far worse than the already crappy Koran) It's the same with people who like to throw out the one quote they know from Hegel or Nietzsche. They never actually know anything about it.
Socialism: ABC. CBS. NBC. USA Today. NPR. Women's magazines.
Communism: CNN. New York Times. Washington Post. L.A. Times. Boston Globe. San Francisco Chronicle.
Fascism: MSNBC.
Fox would be Fascism if you wanted to exaggerate lmao, otherwise, this is just the result of propaganda.
where do you place Fox? they're not really better then any of them lol.
...because Faux News is clearly apolitical?
Fox is definitively fascist. He can't classify it because he has already misclassified MSNBC & including Fox would throw a light on his mistakes.
what about fox?
To add to this according to Mussolini (and he was the first I believe to use this word) Fascism was all about the state. Fascism conceives of the State as an absolute, in comparison with which all individuals or groups are relative, only to be conceived of in their relation to the State. This is why fascism is as left as it could be. No individual life is beyond the one within the state.
You don't understand left and right wing.
@@TylerJames88 I just pointed towards the definition of the inventor of the term. Defining what is left or right is easiest if as criteria you use the distribution of goods produced. In this sense fascism is left.
@bmistak19 expect that's not the definition given by Mussolini. That's merely one statement about fascism he made. He also said fascism was right wing lol he also said it was anti socialist and anti liberal meaning it's anti left wing. Keep trying though
@@bmistak19 your understanding of left and right is nonsense
@@TylerJames88 _"He also said fascism was right wing lol "_
*Wrong. Mussolini has never said such a thing. On the contrary, Mussolini specifically said Fascism was "Italian socialism".*
Socialism includes communism and fascism...let's be clear about that
It's not. Basically I would put it like this. Theres two types of socialists, theres communists and theres social democrats (Im not talking about the democrat party in America)
@Worldmisery any book on history of economic thought will tell you that there are many more types of socialism than communism and social democracy (utopian, saint-simonian, fabian, etc)...National Socialism and Communism are arguably the worst types of socialism
@Worldmisery : *Both Communism and Fascism use socialism as the basis for their economy. Both are socialist ideologies. Social-Democracy is based on a Mixed economy system.*
He didn't explain it right. Facism is a manifestation of socialism, or rather a result of it. Mussolini was a socialist. In order to usher in a perfect socialist society, one must impliment facism. And then you can have communism. Socialism is just a midpoint on the way to communism. This comes straight from Karl Marx. So all these isms are all related
Mussolini had been a socialist, but tried to reform it. His beliefs were quite different from the orthodox socialism of the time.
The cigar is extremely douchy, just FYI.
If you’re meaning obnoxious then I agree. Almost a picture of a capitalist. 🤔
You people on the internet are funny. Your comment is douchy, at least you’re allowed to post it.
Your shades are 'douchy', more so than his cigar. Fef.
Ugh, he gets the history of ALL of those terms wrong.
And he claims to be expert on these things?
He certainly states his laughably simplistic, errant opinions with confidence.
Socialism was originally a free market-advocating movement, against the political class monopolizing society.
If he'd just been ignorant of THAT part and started with the next, I would've overlooked it.
But he gets it ALL wrong.
Marx hijacked the word "socialism" to use for his kind of authoritarianism, in fact the very thing that free market socialists like Proudhon, Tucker, and Spooner had opposed.
So it came to mean the political class controlling the economy.
This does NOT entail mom and pop businesses still existing.
He gets that wrong, too.
And he gets fascism ABSURDLY wrong.
Fascism grew out of Marxism, through Georges Sorel, a Marxist who was among the first to say that the socialist movement should use violence to impose its will.
He helped found first the syndicalist movement, which advocated forming gangs (syndicates) to impose their political will.
Then he wrote a book called Reflections on Violence, where he laid the foundation for BOTH post-Marx Communism AND Fascism.
Syndicalism, at that point, was part of the international socialist movement, along with the (at that time "democratic") communists.
Sorel and others concluded that the international movement was failing in many countries, like France, Spain, Italy, Germany, Portugal, and Ukraine.
Therefore they advocated local syndicalists seceding from the International Socialist movement, to become National Socialists.
These groups were first known as National Syndicalists, then Fascist Syndicalists, then just Fascists.
So fascism is, first and foremost, a form of socialism, but one that uses violence and national government power.
Things he left out completely.
In fact, Trotsky, then Stalin and eventually Lenin, eventually came to support the "political violence" core of fascism.
That is why Max Eastman referred to Stalinism as "Superfascist".
Well , Fascism was influenced by Georges Sorel's anti-materialist revision of Marxism , not Marxism itself. Sorel revised Marxism over a period of 10 years to complete it and fix the failings of Marx's theory. His re-envisioned Marxism as a type of Manchesteran economics ( economic liberalism ) and purged its philosophically rationalist and materialist aspects and turned Marxism into a moral philosophy focused on saving civilization from decline and degeneracy. Sorel also proposed violence as a means of shaping history and combating degeneracy.
Sorel's syndicalist movement would shift to the right-wing and join forces with the far-right nationalist movement of Action Françoise to form the first union of syndicalism + nationalism = National Syndicalism. This was the precursor of Italian Fascism, which combined Sorel's ideas of irrationalism , anti-materialism , anti-parliamentarianism and violence as a tool for change with the ideas of monarchist Charles Maurras' political philosophy of Maurrassime ( Integral Nationalism , Corporatism , Monarchism and an opposition to democracy , socialism and liberalism ). This pattern would repeat in Italy, as Mussolini's syndicalist movement would move to the right-wing and join forces with the far-right Italian Nationalist Association ( ANI ) to form the nationalist and syndicalist union.
@@z2z3z45
You got a lot of the details right, but you're wrong on the left/right spin:
There is no sane sense in which syndicalism is "right wing" in the terminology of the past century, excluding the fraudulent propaganda term of the modern uniparty scam, where "right wing" means "not part of our globalist plundering of society".
Mussolini's party, for example, was left wing, in the sense of being socialist, even by name. It was one of the two biggest socialist groups in Italy. Fasces explicitly represents collective power. Italy nationalized most industries under their industrial corporations, as did Germany, Spain, and Vichy France. It was a more effective form of socialism than the Soviet Union or China ever managed.
Of course Maurras was monarchist, and in the 18th century usage of left/right in the French Parliament, the right was the side where the monarchists sit. But as I said before, pre-Marx socialism represented free markets and opposition to authoritarian control of the economy (and life in general), so in that sense Marxist "socialism" itself is all right-wing.
So if we're setting that aside, and using "right wing" to mean anti-socialist, the fascists remained extremely left wing.
And if we're using it to mean authoritarian, then the Sweden, the Soviet Union, and Communist China are right wing, too.
Seceding from the internationale movement does not automagically make them right wing.
He gets a lot of things wrong, but you think socialism is free market? LOL!
@@jeffkardosjr.3825 You need to read what I said more closely.
I am speaking of the absolute fact that, before Marx, it meant precisely that. The word has been REDEFINED by the Marxists, to an opposite.
The same thing happened to "liberal", which meant what "libertarian" now means, until about the turn of the 20th century.
Pierre Joseph Proudhon, Benjamin Tucker, and Lysander Spooner all referred to themselves as socialist, while strongly advocating for economic freedom.
Proudhon, for example, said that private property is essential to the cause of liberty.
*>"socialism was originally a free market-advocating movement"*
LOL! Tell me more about how 'he' got the terms wrong.
So many words that we use in politics are literally words created by someone to describe their rivals. The word capitalism comes from Karl Marx’s second most famous work: “Das Kapital.” It was basically his way to describe people who he considered to be so enamored with money they were willing to harm others to attain it.
That’s why encourage people to call it a free market, because that’s the part we actually care about.
Das Kapital was his most famous work, not his second most famous... Anyway, I heard he was one of the Juice, is this true?
That was very helpful!
We are so thankful that you exist Dennis.
Fascism is simple to understand: Italy didn’t have a single word for it, but it was referred to as corporate state, which is to say that corporations run the government. Sound eerily familiar?
*No. Corporations running the government is called Corporatocracy which is the complete opposite of Fascism. The word you were looking for is Corporatism ("corporativismo" in Italian). It was one of the cornerstone principles in Mussolini's fascism, and had to do with the way society and the economy would be organized, with state power at the head of a system of nationalized syndicates ("corporazione") representing each major industry. Mussolini's corporatist view stressed total state power over businesses as much as over individuals, via these governing industry bodies controlled by the Fascist party, in which businesses retained the responsibilities of property, but few if any of the freedoms.*
Trotsky was killed with an ice axe, not an ice pick.
You sure it wasnt a hammer und sickle ?
I just see the same word written three times, but differently.....
Everyone is poor. To them, that is equity.