I have further discussed the characterisation of Nazism as a progressive Fascism, as well as the implications of this ideology for the modern day in the video 'The Politics of the Countryside', should anyone be interested!
Great demolition job, tho I think you over-egg a bit. Clearly the character of the organic cause in Britain changed from the 60s on as the modern, scientific ecological movement took off, then John Seymour and self-sufficiency (everyone should be a peasant), and now regen ag (some regen farmers are organic, some not) in response to climate change and the bio-diversity crisis. In other words I'd say the story is more complicated than you allow. But you're dead right to open up the wound of the SA's (!) fascist origins, and even more importantly show that organic farming is very far from being a total solution to the deep crisis in today's food system.
@@Voting-does-nothing I fear all poisons, every chemical with -icide in its suffix. I have seen a DW documentary about pesticides or fungicides harmful to human health, used in Brazil, harming Brazilian rural folks and European consumers, though the Brazilian poor suffer the brunt of the effects of the chemicals.
Nazism was not a left wing ideology by any metric. You can take austrian artist's word directly for this: "Socialism is the science of dealing with the common weal. Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists." "Socialism is an ancient Aryan, Germanic institution. Our German ancestors held certain lands in common. They cultivated the idea of the common weal. Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality and, unlike Marxism, it is patriotic."
@@scaevolaludens679 I think you've misread your own quote. The quote is literally calling out every other kind of socialist group as being not true socialists. Its a no true Scotsman argument, but for groups that enjoy creating famine and perpetuating genocide. Your very quote, assuming it is from Austrian art man, is proclaiming that they are the the only true socialists by claiming everyone else is just a fake socialist.
I've been steadily going through your videos, about ½ done − mostly well researched, evidence based and thought provoking, so thank-you. This is my 1st comment on them. I researched some of your refs, and visited the SA website for the first time. A lot of movements have a history set within the then contemporary context, but they evolve, and some seek to whitewash unpalatable history. (BTW, checking the talk page and edit history, the information on the SA WP page relating to Jenkins et al was added by an SA staffer.) For example, Marie Stopes was a vocal Eugenicist, but MSI today has nothing to do with Eugenics and everything to do with reproduction choices, health and welfare. Your description of the SA up to ~1960 is a fair one I think,. However, I feel it is unfair and unevidenced to claim that the shift to Barry Commoner presidency was business as usual, as he was a left leaning academic, humanist, and environmental activist. IMO, the SA does spout some wacky ideas, but that can also be said about most religions. And yes, some of its ardent supporters can have fascist beliefs, but even so, it is still a stretch to say that the SA is itself a cult . _Some_ ideas that should inform the scientific research and debate. I would be very interested in your thoughts on where that current goals are simply wrong and why, as well as where they do have a valid point that merits debate. It isn't all heresy. 🤔
How refreshing to hear someone banging the drum for "normal" farming that is used for the actual production of food. I'm a retired dairy herdsman and I was brought up to believe that that is what the land is for. It depresses me when I drive around and see land being taken out food production. And as for're-wilding', that is just taking money from public funds and handing it to large land owners; the small farmer cannot aford it. Neither is it true re-wilding. It will only occur in and affect rural areas; I doubt if we'll see bison wandering city streets any time soon.
@@Rissen_ In my 50 years involvement in agriculture I have never experienced any difficulties in growing food, apart from those imposed by the good old British weather. Is it selfish to desire some element of food security for the nation? How else do we produce food if we don't use the land to grow it. We surely can't return to a hunter/gathereer existence. I'm sure most farmers appreciate the importance of mycelium and many are now employing reduced tillage methods of cultivation. I'm proud of the achievements Of British agriculture and my own small part. It seems to me that many of the difficulties presently faced by farmers are political in origin, although that is nothing new.
@@peterfoster8004 Its selfish for us as one type of living creature on this earth to go more more more and create destructive monoculture fields at the expense of others when we already have so much food waste and picky eaters and our environment is getting more unstable due to these farming practices and our polluted water is also due to these farmers using external liquid fertiliser as a patch up for the real issue which is their soil is basically dead and is causing droughts in some places and floods in others. But I will agree politics IS getting in the way of alot of what our farmers can do, some of those laws were made by the big farmers, the coporate farmers and they mess up real farmers. think if another mammal or an insect behaved like us we would quickly cull them like we do when deer over graze an area because we realise populations and over populations wreak havock on land and it causes alot of death for everyone involved, but when its our own people doing it, we love to make excuses and rationalisations why what were doing is actually good and not the exact same as every other animal that gets too greedy with the resources, we have to cull other animals because we cant tell them to stop doing what theyre doing/tell them how to do it better/comprimise, but with us we can talk to eachother we dont have to kill anyone, but since noone listens or are adopting the better way slowly we will see nature will do the culling for us if we carry on, farm the same way as we have for the last 200years and we will see more death, floods, contaminated water and loss of crops. so we HAVE to change.
One could conclude, with this video and a few others I’ve seen on your channel, that organic agriculture is more of an ideological and philosophical discipline than a strictly apolitical practical discipline. However, we could draw the same conclusion if we establish the association of certain ideas with something as apolitical as physical exercise. If we look into it, classical fascists, such as Mussolini's regime in Italy and Hitler's in Germany, promoted sports as part of their ideology. They believed that sports fostered discipline, strength, and national unity. Moreover, they used it as a propaganda tool. So, does this mean that exercising and promoting physical activity are fascist ideas that do not truly seek to improve people's health but something much worse, and that we should not promote sports? The communist regime, for its part, also organized sports competitions and supported the training of athletes to demonstrate the superiority of the socialist system. The fact that fascists or communists promote sports doesn’t say much about sports itself, or perhaps it indicates that it is something both groups have found useful and necessary. Surely, if we asked Jack the Ripper what the best way to cut meat is, he would say a knife. Should we then avoid using a knife just because Jack recommends it, as we don’t want to resemble that terrible man? This type of association between ideologies, morals, behaviors with specific disciplines or tools (like the knife or organic/conventional agriculture) seeks, in my opinion, to generate a rejection of the subject matter by being perceived as ideologically reprehensible, rather than addressing the discipline itself. This is called association bias or stigmatization bias (now organic agriculture in the UK may carry the stigma of fascism). Of course, one will find people with very diverse philosophies or ideologies defending organic and conventional agriculture, just as one finds in sports. I personally declare myself apolitical and consider Albert Howard's work brilliant. I have read "The Soil and Health" a couple of times and "The Waste Products of Agriculture." Thanks to Albert Howard, I have learned to make quality compost in 90 days using his Indore method (I don’t use chalk and I don’t think it’s necessary). And largely due to this continuous contribution of compost, I can produce abundant food on a really small area. I do this domestically and have been doing it commercially for years in my market garden. Albert Howard (botanist, mycologist) was a great scholar and dedicated his life to agriculture, implementing large-scale compost production and documenting the results in various large-scale farms around the world. Howard was greatly influenced by the work of F. H. King (Farmers of Forty Centuries). In addition to being a scholar and tireless worker, Howard was someone who wrote (like many brilliant people from different disciplines) with passionate prose, and being in love with the life of the soil, it’s logical that this is reflected in his writings. Therefore, I find it quite striking that you categorize his writing style as “Blood and Soil,” which I believe reflects more of an association bias. What matters is to know if there are ways to practice long-term agriculture that are sustainable and others that are not, and to understand what the differentiating factors are. What would happen if all the money that farmers have to pay for fertilizers were directed towards creating appropriate composting systems, planting cover crops, and maintaining soil fertility by leveraging knowledge about how natural ecosystems function? But, is it possible to cultivate on a large scale and produce a lot without using synthetic fertilizers? Given the type of operation you have, you might be very interested in the work of Gabe Brown, who farms 800 hectares in North Dakota (his published book is "Dirt to Soil" and details his practices), and has been farming for many years without the use of synthetic fertilizers. He was a conventional farmer. You also have the work of Rick Clark from Indiana, with 1,000 hectares. In John Kempf's podcast (The Regenerative Agriculture Podcast), you will find dozens of farmers (from dairy producers to apple growers) who do not use synthetic fertilizers. Basically, because synthetic fertilizers do not replenish soil organic matter and cannot maintain its microbiology, turning lands into only productive with synthetic fertilizers, making them increasingly poor. Or is it foolish to try to imitate what nature has been doing for thousands of years to sustain itself, just because there are fascists who have sought the same?
I'm gonna stop ya right fucking there at 1:56. German Fascism, Nazism in general, did NOT come from the left. 'National Socialism' was a bit of legerdemain by the proto-fascists' to try to skim off the socialist worker parties that abounded in Weimar Germany. The socialists were a dynamic force among the urban workers of Germany because they had a relevant message and ideology to them. The Nazis wanted to appeal to that same class of worker, because they needed their support to carry the banner in the cities. Blood and Soil means nothing to a factory worker, other than an idyllic dream. But they only ever stole the affectation of socialism, while rejecting the actual important part, workers seizing the means of production and class warfare. They were very specifically OPPONENTS of class warfare, and were entirely on the side of capitalist titans of industry. They 'envisioned' a union of worker and capitalists, bound together by blood relation by national origin (ie the workers and the capitalists were both Germans) who would exist in peace and harmony because they would both be struggling for the national will, instead of class struggle! Which means really they'd all be churning out armaments for their global conquest and genocide, the workers would shut the fuck up and know their place, and the capitalists would get even richer. The only socialist revolutionary part of the Nazi program was 'international capitalism is evil!' but not because it was bourgeois exploitation of the proletariat, but because 'it's controlled by the Jews!'. Willie Messerschmidt and Ferdinand Porsche wouldn't have been such good Nazi bourgeois supporters if the Nazis were socialist. Please educate yourself further on this topic. Its a straight up, right wing and Neo-Nazi talking point you just repeated. Fascism is a reaction to socialism, an attempt to make a reactionary arch nemesis to it with the same level of mass appeal and mass mobilization.
Fascinating, as ever. I spotted the deliberate typo, put in there to make sure everyone is paying attention. I like having some ideas covered more than once, such as the position of the farmer in society. I am currently interested in modern day recreations of 'the peasant diet' and what that ideally could be, with rose tinted spectacles. What would this have meant in Leicestershire and throughout the seasons? What would bread have been like for the urban working class compared to what country folk would have had? Also regions with protected foods such as Cornish Pasties, or Cornish Clotted Cream. I want to know how all of this food stuff works out. Yeah, I want to see some cooking on the show too, as ultimately the farm leads to the fork. Best show on TH-cam, please do some peasant diet myth dispelling.
Leicester 'cuisine' would be stuff like Melton pork pies and red leicester cheese but they might be from the modern age - we'll cover it sometime. Thanks for the comment!
Fantastic Video as always, huge fan of your work, and was totally unaware of the roots of the Soil association. The only thing I wanted to mention, was that I would disagree with saying Fascism came from the Left. Many Fascist movements will attempt to use Left wing ideas, slogans, and terms in their names or in their policies, but these are not due to being related to Left wing ideologies, but because Left wing ideas are often also Populist ones. Of course quite a few notable fascists, such as Mussolini and Mosley were Left wing in their pasts, but I believe that it is more accurate to describe them as populists and radicals, rather than Left wing on any ideological grounds. Naturally, Fascism is a very difficult ideology to pin down due to its total incoherence, meaning that it can easily drape it's self in what ever side of the political spectrum it wishes too that week, but the one aspect that Fascism always contains is a strict adherence to hierarchy, and I believe that does make it notably lest related to Left wing ideas. I'm sure many people will disagree with me, but I hope that what I'm saying at least makes sense!
I rather think you are equating Marxism and leftism, as well as socialism and Marxism. Socialism was not original with Marx, but a fair number of mostly French writers early in the 19th Century. Central planning and “democratic” control over the economy are common features. The NSDAP and Italian fascists were socialists, just not Marxists.
@@tomhalla426 that just doesn't take into account the evolution of socialism as a movement and its association with the political left, recent history has a left wing bias and the socialism generations before the Nazis is as disconnected to the left at the time as Stalin is from the current left. By all standards of the time, the Nazis were right wing, that's where they sat in Parliament, that's what their agenda promised and it's famously reflected in what they did, especially by strengthening and cooperating with the existing elite in order to subjugate the common people
@@lead_sommelier With the actual history of Mussolini and The Third Reich, they were s0cialists, just not Stal!nists. Right wing in those countries meant royalists, not Classical Liberals. Leaving some of the existing businesses nominally not state owned was nearly meaningless, as the Gauleiters set wages, prices, what was produced, including returns to the nominal owners. Looks like s0cialism to me.
@@tomhalla426 your nazi revisionism is disgusting. You seem to understand that the moderate right wing were royalists, not classical liberals (like today), and that the Nazis were neither, but that is because they had an even more authoritarian ideology than the royalists: fascism. Fascism can take any form it needs to, it can contradict itself without problems and that's how you get national socialism. The few market reforms also did not rearrange the economy in favor of the workers, which is the only base principle of socialism, it did pretty much the opposite, that's why VW, Hugo Boss, Dr Oetker and every other big player in the German economy do not like to be asked what they were up to between 33 and 45.
I believe that in another 200 years people will be talking about the various “isms” of our time and how they lead us astray. I don’t advocate for homogenization of agriculture practices, but I certainly think that system reliance is a major problem for a people that wish to be resilient. I think that a blend of self sufficiency and economic independence from the urban specialization monoculture will benefit most families. It is unwise to put all of your eggs in one basket. You seem recognize that peasantries are unjust, while not really recognizing that most people today are still peasants. People are still slaves, it’s just a more subtle form of slavery. It’s a normalized form of slavery. I don’t get behind the idea of using slaves to become self sufficient, but I think it’s telling that farmers expect and need most of the population to be dependent on them. The main reason there would be a food shortage is because there are not enough people farming. It is a lost value in modern society, and this is why we rely on a small amount of mega farms for our sustainability. Everyone has become a specialist, but at what cost. Modern man must go to school to learn how to live. If this is not a symptom of decay, then I’m not sure what is. We are the only animals that must pay in order to live and eat on our own planet.
Thanks for making this I found it a really interesting video, especially to me as an ‘organic’ farmer. I say ‘organic’ as I see my self as just a farmer who uses very, very little synthetic agri chemicals, as have nearly all farmers for the last 10,000 years, until the last 1-200 years. . . . Which to me makes the use of the word ‘conventional’ rather strange! As with all your videos, you’ve clearly put huge effort in you your research, but it does feel rather biased, as if you are trying to push a pro-synthetic chemical argument. Eg no mention of modern organic, OF&G, The Organic Research Centre, Innovative Farmers etc and all the scientific and practical research they do to the benefit of all farmers and consumers. This seems to me more of a history of the Soil Association, which whilst a big voice and not an organisation I have any issue with, only certify a minority of organic land in the UK let alone the world.
Organic works fine in hyper intensive market gardens with succession sowing and minimal spaces a la Charles Dowding. You can get up to 5x the normal annual yield of crops (through 3-4 close plantings), somewhat offsetting the cost. Doesn't work when you have more than a couple of acres though. You need to employ far too many people to make it work, even at those yields, and it gets progressively harder to source organic material to keep the compost going. Maybe if robots get cheap or something.
I knew most of this, so when I saw the title of the video I was expecting another whitewash, not seeing who it was from. I was amazed to see an honest, accurate history presented. If only there was as much public interest in history as in celebrity dancing or rigged cooking "competitions". Good job, hang in there.
Instant sub. I've always felt a vague skepticism to how *some* Organic converts approach things. I don't doubt the good intentions of many practitioners, but the implied and explicit demonization of 'standard' agriculture has increasingly grated on me. This video ties in with how very influential people who pursued the philosophy of Eugenics also ended up as forefathers of other progressive ideology.
Lady Balfour reminds me of Margaret Sanger who is hailed as a progressive feminist icon while her history and motivation behind founding Planned Parenthood was her white supremacist eugenic ideologies.
its unusual because hes an actual farmer, or less than 5% of the population. this puts them in an odd position of being intimate with the most intimate part of life (food...that stuff you need to live) while also completely disconnected from the lives of the majority.
I lot of what people said you didn’t cover in the last video is covered in this . This was a great video, i knew bits of this but not the whole story. The funny thing is that today in organics there is still an entitled Cultishness that still exists ….. which ironically you are opening yourself up to a little by putting these videos out . Great work please keep them coming
I was unaware of all this and was surprised to find seemingly mainstream publications have knocked about for decades from Phillip Conford and others about the far-right origins of organic farming. Quibbling a bit though, if modern UK sustainability payments are forcing tenants off land and land out of production, that seems counter to the original fascist aims of organic farming - to strengthen the nation through better food. Perhaps that shows that, even if sustainability payments are pro-landowner and anti-farming, the modern eco ethos is not powered by the fascist ideas of the SA's founders and if modern policy is flawed, it's not necessarily because of far-right baggage.
@@HimWitDaHair98 no, you misunderstand my point. The point is that the Soil Association's fascist founders' aims *depended on food production*, whereas the current UK government is deliberately *discouraging food production*. Those stances are opposite, implying the motivations are dissimilar i.e. pre-war organic ideas may have been fascist, but modern organic ideas probably aren't. I'm responding to the section beginning at 31:09
Having said all that, I don't argue with the segment's general point that the fascists's idea of "organic good, scientific bad" seems to have stuck around
@@waelisc Science isn't a universal good; due to science, we sprayed crops with pesticides for decades that destroyed biodiversity in countless ways, and contributed to poor health in the population. We made GM crops that are patented, and produce no seeds, and so must be bought at outragous costs, threatening to make farmers into surfs on their own land again. Science isnt bad; but there are those who mean to abuse it, hiding behind a kind of appeal to an authoritative unquestionable nature of science to shield themselves from any criticism.
People gonna be confused with the Progressive aspect but it mostly means New/Neo. Not return to a system of politics of the past that used to exist (Feudalism)
Why would organic farmers be expected to naturally adopt blood and soil ideology? The obvious answer to me is animal and plant husbandry/breeding. If you work everyday with life that's enhanced with selective breeding techniques, one would wonder how improved our species could be if the same nature/science laws were applied to us as well.
What technically makes crops "organic" doesn't necessarily make it more ecologically biodynamic, conversational, or regenerative ect and can still be otherwise very conventionally industrial and resource intensive. It might tend to those things more often than not, of course it's otherwise a bit of a racket paying to have produce certified organic. Unfortunately what reliable indicators do consumers have otherwise, that can be readily understood? Certainly the reduced use of synthetically produced biocides and fertilisers is incredibly important, of course that should hardly be a case of all or nothing. I wish I could scan a food product and see pictures of the locations they were grown, I would be happier to buy from landscapes that show a grater diversity of crops, integrated livestock, perennials and rotation, that would all seem to support more jobs.
Well said sir - good info there, we are in much agreement. Needing a new word here now - but I do like the idea of pesticide free food, recycling waste rather than having to replace it with chemicals. Mixed farming sounds good and cattle not cross bred to absurdity etc. Don't fancy being a peasant though. Anyway - now you've exposed this scam - perhaps you'll look into all the climate change stuff too - you may find it enlightening.
You might be interested to know that in Austria, a right wing political party emerged named Heimat und Umwelt or "homeland and environment" (not to be confused with an identically named centrist party in Germany). The Austrian Heimat party advocates for the state to clamp down on immigration and introduce stronger green policies. I havent heard of them in a few years, but they became fairly popular during corona among vaccine deniers and protests against lockdowns. Anyway, it was basically a xenophobic hardcore green party, with uncomfortable echoes of "blut und boden."
Interesting when I listened to that great lives episode after watching this that her family never spoke or acknowledge her existence in correspondence or their farming methods on the home estate
Farming and History! You're not really explaining farming so much as rural English history, which is fascinating. I studied British Imperialism for many years, and while I know many of these movements and figures, I have never pieced them into the history of the countryside. Love it!
You mentioned food forests in the last video and I'd love to see you cover that topic. I think they are amazing and I'm in my second year of making one but they also seem to be fit into a very different purpose than replacing huge scale monocultures. Modern farming has insane calories per work hour -ratio so unless we want way more people to do agriculture the glorious food forests have to wait until we are sci-fi enough civilization to automate a lot of it. Solar powered drones picking nuts and fruits sounds awesome thou. I think food forests have far more practical value in poorer countries where it can also be combined with reversing desertification and deforestation. Poor parts of India and Africa have a lot of labor available. I wish the nature loving city people would interact more reasonably with farmers so we could all come up with better and more scientific compromises. So many well meaning but naive ideas make us less efficient so we both lose value and protect less nature. I have gotten the picture that rewilding is done somehow in a dumb way in UK. I think it's really good to accelerate the succession of many places that would otherwise take far longer to heal from the age of industry. But like, maybe not replace farms as surely there is plenty of degraded land that is a far more suitable target.
I will cover them - I think they're great for allowing people to connect with nature on a small plot of land and should be encouraged for that. Thanks for the comment!
Amazing video. I love how you go so deep on these subjects. Very impressive work on the differences between different types of socialism. Most people don't have a clue of what Fascism is. I'm doing a great deal of reading on architecture and it's very interesting that for how left wing and anti-fascist modernist architecture is supposed to be and yet one of its found fathers, Le Courbusier was a fascist. History is a lot different than most think.
Nitrogen dependency will end. A few months ago a new plant organelle was discovered, the newly named Nitroplast. Won't be organic, but it should be able to be spliced-in to everything green in time.
To use and English-ism: Who do these people think they are? Have they never thought to ask "what if I wasn't born into this situation" ala the veil of ignorance. Maybe they'd still answer that feudalism was the best way?
It did not "come from the left" on the whole. The reason some of the socialist/communist motifs, terms rhetorics and imagery were used... well it was quite a simple reason...
Being anticapitalist can be either a left or right wing position, Look back at some of the videos you made about the corn laws and who was and wasn't trying to repeal them. That a later movement that was even further to the left decided to work against capitalism should not mean that all groups against capitalism are on the same political spectrum. A method to determine if a position is left or right ask yourself is it trying to entrench or break down hierarchy. If its goal is to break down hierarchy it is generally a left wing position and fascists are always about trying to establish and reinforce hierarchy and I would point to your other videos about . That they made large scale changes and sought new technology isn't evidence that they were progressive because the goal of those endeavors was the entrenchment or proof of their hierarchy.
Unfortunately yes, the National Socialism movement was a far left wing one, as other attempts at socialism were. Government nationalising industry and restricting private ownership is inherently a left wing practice, whether your enemy is the bourgeoisie or the Jewish race. I don’t argue for the right wing either. I’m just pointing it out. In fact, the left and right is a bit absurd. You have anarcho-capitalists and anarcho-communists, yet people put anarchy on the far left of the spectrum. The binary doesn’t really work here.
national socialism, and Nazism in particular, are not left wing. These ideologies require class collaboration while left-socialism starts with class conflict. The Nazis used the popular collectivist language, but in a way to direct the popular conflict at those their ideology defined subhuman. Not on class lines. In fact, the capitalist classes were the reason why the Nazis were able to rise to power, and they made huge money when the Nazis came to power. This is not class struggle, just texbook fascist class collaboration.
The Nazis were not funded by the Capitalists, that is a lie made up by the Marxists and Conservatives to explain away the first dictatorship of the proletariat. Henry Ashby Turner wrote a book about it in the 80s. I recommend watching TIKHistorys two videos this topic from about two months ago.
@@tomhalla426”the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class conflict”, “Thereupon, the workers begin to form combinations (Trades’ Unions) against the bourgeois; they club together in order to keep up the rate of wages; they found permanent associations in order to make provision beforehand for these occasional revolts. Here and there, the contest breaks out into riots.” here are two quotes from the Manifesto (the first being the first sentence of the pamphlet.) is this Stalinist? Where do Marx or Engels advocate for class collaboration in their works? Where in Nazi Germany did the bourgeois see their power weakened and that of the proletariat strengthen? How about all the writing Trotsky did on the subject, was he Stalinist? Lenin too? You might say “well that’s all Marxist, and ideologically socialism goes back decades before Marx!” yes but are you going to try and argue that socialism in the modern conception is particularly influenced by Proudhon? And even if you did make that argument (which you could really only if you did it from a line of influences on Marx’s work) it doesn’t change the fact that referring to Nazism, and national socialism, as a left wing ideology is just flat wrong. These are national chauvinist ideologies which are in direct contradiction with the internationalism espoused by Marx/Engels and other members of The International.
@@quinn3334 Nominally, Italian Fascism was supposed to be Syndicalism, with a fasci being a workers committee. Also nominally, so is a soviet a workers committee. Neither of these existed in practice, with the real world situation being a quasi-Leninist cadre running things. The Third Reich was purportedly operating on behalf of Das Volk, a racialist version of The People used by Marxist rhetoric. My point is that, in practice, all these are socialist as there is centralized planning of the economy, and arbitrary “wages” and “prices”, set by what amounted to the state. Hanging different names on what are effectively the same things is pure obfuscation.
Fascist Origins of the Soil Association should be the title of this video. The Organic Movement is a far broader issue, one that deserves to be promoted more not denounced as elitist based on fairly suspect arguments. Big chemical companies have enough power already. Unsubscribed
Whilst I consider the use of the swastika in your thumb nail to be appropriate to the subject matter I would advise you to avoid using it in future as it is probably what one might describe as algorithmic suicide for your channel, I see that the views for this video are much lower than your most recent ones and that is a pity as I think you make excellent sense. I think that youtube is probably not promoting it because of the thumbnail.
sorry .....the nazis "didn't come from the left"....he is confusing the nazis with mussolini who was a former leftist , editor in chief of the italian "forward" before the first world war if i remember correctly. who eventually abandoned his leftists position in the course of the first world war but was influenced by so called "proto- fascists like spengler and sorel way before that. italian fascists claimed that fascism is neither left nor right wing. they said their ideoligy was totalitarian ... franco was an ultra- reactionary absolutist monarchist in the tradition of 19th century carlists ( who definitely weren't "left wing "or liberal )....but many younger members of the spanish falange were ideologically closer to the nazis
"German fascism as a whole was progressive; it came from the left" Man you really don't understand political ideology at all. Progressive? Left? Are you going to tell us next that he was just "misunderstood"? 😂 Seriously, this is bad, man. The level is low. I only clicked to see if there was any more nonsense like that quote you attributed to "blood and soil ideology" that was talking about interdependence of species - and here I am after 1m 48s...
@@snexer See the problem with that is, well firstly in the meta, German speakers of English do not think that the past tense of be is "where", so that exposes the claim of German nationality as false. The rest is just the same nonsensical rhetoric used by most working class right wing marionettes. The left of the political spectrum covers views that are based on egalitarian principles. So, it's simply incorrect to associate your heroes with the left. Of course, there will also be the people who make this mistake deliberately. However, I don't think that applies in this case, as the aforementioned misuse of language suggests this is just a problem of education here.
I have further discussed the characterisation of Nazism as a progressive Fascism, as well as the implications of this ideology for the modern day in the video 'The Politics of the Countryside', should anyone be interested!
Great demolition job, tho I think you over-egg a bit. Clearly the character of the organic cause in Britain changed from the 60s on as the modern, scientific ecological movement took off, then John Seymour and self-sufficiency (everyone should be a peasant), and now regen ag (some regen farmers are organic, some not) in response to climate change and the bio-diversity crisis. In other words I'd say the story is more complicated than you allow. But you're dead right to open up the wound of the SA's (!) fascist origins, and even more importantly show that organic farming is very far from being a total solution to the deep crisis in today's food system.
How have people become so utterly convinced that chemicals in their food dosn't harm them ??
@@Voting-does-nothing
I fear all poisons, every chemical with -icide in its suffix. I have seen a DW documentary about pesticides or fungicides harmful to human health, used in Brazil, harming Brazilian rural folks and European consumers, though the Brazilian poor suffer the brunt of the effects of the chemicals.
Nazism was not a left wing ideology by any metric. You can take austrian artist's word directly for this:
"Socialism is the science of dealing with the common weal. Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists."
"Socialism is an ancient Aryan, Germanic institution. Our German ancestors held certain lands in common. They cultivated the idea of the common weal. Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality and, unlike Marxism, it is patriotic."
😂
Bro they literally a socialist party ..
Perhaps it's you who's confused because your thinking seems to consist of copy and pasting wiki etc ?
@@Voting-does-nothing you can read from the horse's mouth what they meant by "socialist". The short of it is: not socialist
@@Voting-does-nothingI take it that you also believe that North Korea is a Democracy.
@@Voting-does-nothing and baby powder is made from Babies
@@scaevolaludens679 I think you've misread your own quote. The quote is literally calling out every other kind of socialist group as being not true socialists. Its a no true Scotsman argument, but for groups that enjoy creating famine and perpetuating genocide. Your very quote, assuming it is from Austrian art man, is proclaiming that they are the the only true socialists by claiming everyone else is just a fake socialist.
Hey bud I just discovered your channel today, instantly my favourite channel
This video was a redpill for me, now I will become a radical environmentalist, thank you
I've been steadily going through your videos, about ½ done − mostly well researched, evidence based and thought provoking, so thank-you. This is my 1st comment on them. I researched some of your refs, and visited the SA website for the first time. A lot of movements have a history set within the then contemporary context, but they evolve, and some seek to whitewash unpalatable history. (BTW, checking the talk page and edit history, the information on the SA WP page relating to Jenkins et al was added by an SA staffer.) For example, Marie Stopes was a vocal Eugenicist, but MSI today has nothing to do with Eugenics and everything to do with reproduction choices, health and welfare.
Your description of the SA up to ~1960 is a fair one I think,. However, I feel it is unfair and unevidenced to claim that the shift to Barry Commoner presidency was business as usual, as he was a left leaning academic, humanist, and environmental activist. IMO, the SA does spout some wacky ideas, but that can also be said about most religions. And yes, some of its ardent supporters can have fascist beliefs, but even so, it is still a stretch to say that the SA is itself a cult . _Some_ ideas that should inform the scientific research and debate. I would be very interested in your thoughts on where that current goals are simply wrong and why, as well as where they do have a valid point that merits debate. It isn't all heresy. 🤔
How refreshing to hear someone banging the drum for "normal" farming that is used for the actual production of food. I'm a retired dairy herdsman and I was brought up to believe that that is what the land is for. It depresses me when I drive around and see land being taken out food production. And as for're-wilding', that is just taking money from public funds and handing it to large land owners; the small farmer cannot aford it. Neither is it true re-wilding. It will only occur in and affect rural areas; I doubt if we'll see bison wandering city streets any time soon.
@@Rissen_ In my 50 years involvement in agriculture I have never experienced any difficulties in growing food, apart from those imposed by the good old British weather. Is it selfish to desire some element of food security for the nation? How else do we produce food if we don't use the land to grow it. We surely can't return to a hunter/gathereer existence. I'm sure most farmers appreciate the importance of mycelium and many are now employing reduced tillage methods of cultivation. I'm proud of the achievements Of British agriculture and my own small part. It seems to me that many of the difficulties presently faced by farmers are political in origin, although that is nothing new.
@@peterfoster8004 Its selfish for us as one type of living creature on this earth to go more more more and create destructive monoculture fields at the expense of others when we already have so much food waste and picky eaters and our environment is getting more unstable due to these farming practices and our polluted water is also due to these farmers using external liquid fertiliser as a patch up for the real issue which is their soil is basically dead and is causing droughts in some places and floods in others.
But I will agree politics IS getting in the way of alot of what our farmers can do, some of those laws were made by the big farmers, the coporate farmers and they mess up real farmers.
think if another mammal or an insect behaved like us we would quickly cull them like we do when deer over graze an area because we realise populations and over populations wreak havock on land and it causes alot of death for everyone involved, but when its our own people doing it, we love to make excuses and rationalisations why what were doing is actually good and not the exact same as every other animal that gets too greedy with the resources, we have to cull other animals because we cant tell them to stop doing what theyre doing/tell them how to do it better/comprimise, but with us we can talk to eachother we dont have to kill anyone, but since noone listens or are adopting the better way slowly we will see nature will do the culling for us if we carry on, farm the same way as we have for the last 200years and we will see more death, floods, contaminated water and loss of crops. so we HAVE to change.
One could conclude, with this video and a few others I’ve seen on your channel, that organic agriculture is more of an ideological and philosophical discipline than a strictly apolitical practical discipline. However, we could draw the same conclusion if we establish the association of certain ideas with something as apolitical as physical exercise. If we look into it, classical fascists, such as Mussolini's regime in Italy and Hitler's in Germany, promoted sports as part of their ideology. They believed that sports fostered discipline, strength, and national unity. Moreover, they used it as a propaganda tool. So, does this mean that exercising and promoting physical activity are fascist ideas that do not truly seek to improve people's health but something much worse, and that we should not promote sports? The communist regime, for its part, also organized sports competitions and supported the training of athletes to demonstrate the superiority of the socialist system.
The fact that fascists or communists promote sports doesn’t say much about sports itself, or perhaps it indicates that it is something both groups have found useful and necessary. Surely, if we asked Jack the Ripper what the best way to cut meat is, he would say a knife. Should we then avoid using a knife just because Jack recommends it, as we don’t want to resemble that terrible man?
This type of association between ideologies, morals, behaviors with specific disciplines or tools (like the knife or organic/conventional agriculture) seeks, in my opinion, to generate a rejection of the subject matter by being perceived as ideologically reprehensible, rather than addressing the discipline itself. This is called association bias or stigmatization bias (now organic agriculture in the UK may carry the stigma of fascism).
Of course, one will find people with very diverse philosophies or ideologies defending organic and conventional agriculture, just as one finds in sports.
I personally declare myself apolitical and consider Albert Howard's work brilliant. I have read "The Soil and Health" a couple of times and "The Waste Products of Agriculture." Thanks to Albert Howard, I have learned to make quality compost in 90 days using his Indore method (I don’t use chalk and I don’t think it’s necessary). And largely due to this continuous contribution of compost, I can produce abundant food on a really small area. I do this domestically and have been doing it commercially for years in my market garden. Albert Howard (botanist, mycologist) was a great scholar and dedicated his life to agriculture, implementing large-scale compost production and documenting the results in various large-scale farms around the world. Howard was greatly influenced by the work of F. H. King (Farmers of Forty Centuries). In addition to being a scholar and tireless worker, Howard was someone who wrote (like many brilliant people from different disciplines) with passionate prose, and being in love with the life of the soil, it’s logical that this is reflected in his writings. Therefore, I find it quite striking that you categorize his writing style as “Blood and Soil,” which I believe reflects more of an association bias.
What matters is to know if there are ways to practice long-term agriculture that are sustainable and others that are not, and to understand what the differentiating factors are. What would happen if all the money that farmers have to pay for fertilizers were directed towards creating appropriate composting systems, planting cover crops, and maintaining soil fertility by leveraging knowledge about how natural ecosystems function?
But, is it possible to cultivate on a large scale and produce a lot without using synthetic fertilizers? Given the type of operation you have, you might be very interested in the work of Gabe Brown, who farms 800 hectares in North Dakota (his published book is "Dirt to Soil" and details his practices), and has been farming for many years without the use of synthetic fertilizers. He was a conventional farmer. You also have the work of Rick Clark from Indiana, with 1,000 hectares. In John Kempf's podcast (The Regenerative Agriculture Podcast), you will find dozens of farmers (from dairy producers to apple growers) who do not use synthetic fertilizers. Basically, because synthetic fertilizers do not replenish soil organic matter and cannot maintain its microbiology, turning lands into only productive with synthetic fertilizers, making them increasingly poor. Or is it foolish to try to imitate what nature has been doing for thousands of years to sustain itself, just because there are fascists who have sought the same?
I'm gonna stop ya right fucking there at 1:56.
German Fascism, Nazism in general, did NOT come from the left. 'National Socialism' was a bit of legerdemain by the proto-fascists' to try to skim off the socialist worker parties that abounded in Weimar Germany. The socialists were a dynamic force among the urban workers of Germany because they had a relevant message and ideology to them. The Nazis wanted to appeal to that same class of worker, because they needed their support to carry the banner in the cities. Blood and Soil means nothing to a factory worker, other than an idyllic dream. But they only ever stole the affectation of socialism, while rejecting the actual important part, workers seizing the means of production and class warfare. They were very specifically OPPONENTS of class warfare, and were entirely on the side of capitalist titans of industry. They 'envisioned' a union of worker and capitalists, bound together by blood relation by national origin (ie the workers and the capitalists were both Germans) who would exist in peace and harmony because they would both be struggling for the national will, instead of class struggle! Which means really they'd all be churning out armaments for their global conquest and genocide, the workers would shut the fuck up and know their place, and the capitalists would get even richer. The only socialist revolutionary part of the Nazi program was 'international capitalism is evil!' but not because it was bourgeois exploitation of the proletariat, but because 'it's controlled by the Jews!'. Willie Messerschmidt and Ferdinand Porsche wouldn't have been such good Nazi bourgeois supporters if the Nazis were socialist.
Please educate yourself further on this topic. Its a straight up, right wing and Neo-Nazi talking point you just repeated. Fascism is a reaction to socialism, an attempt to make a reactionary arch nemesis to it with the same level of mass appeal and mass mobilization.
There is an insane amount of information in this video. It needs a few watches to take it all in.
This is a real gem
Perfect. Love when people of the land can articulate with historic knowloge. Mith busters.
Fascinating, as ever. I spotted the deliberate typo, put in there to make sure everyone is paying attention.
I like having some ideas covered more than once, such as the position of the farmer in society.
I am currently interested in modern day recreations of 'the peasant diet' and what that ideally could be, with rose tinted spectacles. What would this have meant in Leicestershire and throughout the seasons? What would bread have been like for the urban working class compared to what country folk would have had?
Also regions with protected foods such as Cornish Pasties, or Cornish Clotted Cream. I want to know how all of this food stuff works out. Yeah, I want to see some cooking on the show too, as ultimately the farm leads to the fork.
Best show on TH-cam, please do some peasant diet myth dispelling.
Leicester 'cuisine' would be stuff like Melton pork pies and red leicester cheese but they might be from the modern age - we'll cover it sometime. Thanks for the comment!
Fantastic Video as always, huge fan of your work, and was totally unaware of the roots of the Soil association. The only thing I wanted to mention, was that I would disagree with saying Fascism came from the Left. Many Fascist movements will attempt to use Left wing ideas, slogans, and terms in their names or in their policies, but these are not due to being related to Left wing ideologies, but because Left wing ideas are often also Populist ones.
Of course quite a few notable fascists, such as Mussolini and Mosley were Left wing in their pasts, but I believe that it is more accurate to describe them as populists and radicals, rather than Left wing on any ideological grounds. Naturally, Fascism is a very difficult ideology to pin down due to its total incoherence, meaning that it can easily drape it's self in what ever side of the political spectrum it wishes too that week, but the one aspect that Fascism always contains is a strict adherence to hierarchy, and I believe that does make it notably lest related to Left wing ideas.
I'm sure many people will disagree with me, but I hope that what I'm saying at least makes sense!
I rather think you are equating Marxism and leftism, as well as socialism and Marxism. Socialism was not original with Marx, but a fair number of mostly French writers early in the 19th Century. Central planning and “democratic” control over the economy are common features. The NSDAP and Italian fascists were socialists, just not Marxists.
exactly this.
@@tomhalla426 that just doesn't take into account the evolution of socialism as a movement and its association with the political left, recent history has a left wing bias and the socialism generations before the Nazis is as disconnected to the left at the time as Stalin is from the current left.
By all standards of the time, the Nazis were right wing, that's where they sat in Parliament, that's what their agenda promised and it's famously reflected in what they did, especially by strengthening and cooperating with the existing elite in order to subjugate the common people
@@lead_sommelier With the actual history of Mussolini and The Third Reich, they were s0cialists, just not Stal!nists. Right wing in those countries meant royalists, not Classical Liberals.
Leaving some of the existing businesses nominally not state owned was nearly meaningless, as the Gauleiters set wages, prices, what was produced, including returns to the nominal owners. Looks like s0cialism to me.
@@tomhalla426 your nazi revisionism is disgusting. You seem to understand that the moderate right wing were royalists, not classical liberals (like today), and that the Nazis were neither, but that is because they had an even more authoritarian ideology than the royalists: fascism. Fascism can take any form it needs to, it can contradict itself without problems and that's how you get national socialism. The few market reforms also did not rearrange the economy in favor of the workers, which is the only base principle of socialism, it did pretty much the opposite, that's why VW, Hugo Boss, Dr Oetker and every other big player in the German economy do not like to be asked what they were up to between 33 and 45.
I believe that in another 200 years people will be talking about the various “isms” of our time and how they lead us astray. I don’t advocate for homogenization of agriculture practices, but I certainly think that system reliance is a major problem for a people that wish to be resilient. I think that a blend of self sufficiency and economic independence from the urban specialization monoculture will benefit most families. It is unwise to put all of your eggs in one basket.
You seem recognize that peasantries are unjust, while not really recognizing that most people today are still peasants. People are still slaves, it’s just a more subtle form of slavery. It’s a normalized form of slavery.
I don’t get behind the idea of using slaves to become self sufficient, but I think it’s telling that farmers expect and need most of the population to be dependent on them. The main reason there would be a food shortage is because there are not enough people farming. It is a lost value in modern society, and this is why we rely on a small amount of mega farms for our sustainability. Everyone has become a specialist, but at what cost.
Modern man must go to school to learn how to live. If this is not a symptom of decay, then I’m not sure what is. We are the only animals that must pay in order to live and eat on our own planet.
Fascinating, thank you
Thanks for making this I found it a really interesting video, especially to me as an ‘organic’ farmer. I say ‘organic’ as I see my self as just a farmer who uses very, very little synthetic agri chemicals, as have nearly all farmers for the last 10,000 years, until the last 1-200 years. . . . Which to me makes the use of the word ‘conventional’ rather strange!
As with all your videos, you’ve clearly put huge effort in you your research, but it does feel rather biased, as if you are trying to push a pro-synthetic chemical argument. Eg no mention of modern organic, OF&G, The Organic Research Centre, Innovative Farmers etc and all the scientific and practical research they do to the benefit of all farmers and consumers.
This seems to me more of a history of the Soil Association, which whilst a big voice and not an organisation I have any issue with, only certify a minority of organic land in the UK let alone the world.
Organic works fine in hyper intensive market gardens with succession sowing and minimal spaces a la Charles Dowding. You can get up to 5x the normal annual yield of crops (through 3-4 close plantings), somewhat offsetting the cost.
Doesn't work when you have more than a couple of acres though. You need to employ far too many people to make it work, even at those yields, and it gets progressively harder to source organic material to keep the compost going. Maybe if robots get cheap or something.
What's the limiting factor in how many people could be employed?
@@ericritchie6783labour cost
I knew most of this, so when I saw the title of the video I was expecting another whitewash, not seeing who it was from. I was amazed to see an honest, accurate history presented. If only there was as much public interest in history as in celebrity dancing or rigged cooking "competitions". Good job, hang in there.
Instant sub. I've always felt a vague skepticism to how *some* Organic converts approach things. I don't doubt the good intentions of many practitioners, but the implied and explicit demonization of 'standard' agriculture has increasingly grated on me. This video ties in with how very influential people who pursued the philosophy of Eugenics also ended up as forefathers of other progressive ideology.
Lady Balfour reminds me of Margaret Sanger who is hailed as a progressive feminist icon while her history and motivation behind founding Planned Parenthood was her white supremacist eugenic ideologies.
Oli has a very unusual ideology but there are many interesting facts presented
its unusual because hes an actual farmer, or less than 5% of the population. this puts them in an odd position of being intimate with the most intimate part of life (food...that stuff you need to live) while also completely disconnected from the lives of the majority.
I lot of what people said you didn’t cover in the last video is covered in this .
This was a great video, i knew bits of this but not the whole story.
The funny thing is that today in organics there is still an entitled Cultishness that still exists ….. which ironically you are opening yourself up to a little by putting these videos out .
Great work please keep them coming
I was unaware of all this and was surprised to find seemingly mainstream publications have knocked about for decades from Phillip Conford and others about the far-right origins of organic farming.
Quibbling a bit though, if modern UK sustainability payments are forcing tenants off land and land out of production, that seems counter to the original fascist aims of organic farming - to strengthen the nation through better food. Perhaps that shows that, even if sustainability payments are pro-landowner and anti-farming, the modern eco ethos is not powered by the fascist ideas of the SA's founders and if modern policy is flawed, it's not necessarily because of far-right baggage.
You missed the part where it was never about actual food, but who the food would support and what their bloodline was
@@HimWitDaHair98 no, you misunderstand my point. The point is that the Soil Association's fascist founders' aims *depended on food production*, whereas the current UK government is deliberately *discouraging food production*. Those stances are opposite, implying the motivations are dissimilar i.e. pre-war organic ideas may have been fascist, but modern organic ideas probably aren't.
I'm responding to the section beginning at 31:09
Having said all that, I don't argue with the segment's general point that the fascists's idea of "organic good, scientific bad" seems to have stuck around
@@waelisc Science isn't a universal good; due to science, we sprayed crops with pesticides for decades that destroyed biodiversity in countless ways, and contributed to poor health in the population.
We made GM crops that are patented, and produce no seeds, and so must be bought at outragous costs, threatening to make farmers into surfs on their own land again.
Science isnt bad; but there are those who mean to abuse it, hiding behind a kind of appeal to an authoritative unquestionable nature of science to shield themselves from any criticism.
+1 for teaching us how to spot a fascist while explaining concepts related to agriculture
People gonna be confused with the Progressive aspect but it mostly means New/Neo.
Not return to a system of politics of the past that used to exist (Feudalism)
Why would organic farmers be expected to naturally adopt blood and soil ideology? The obvious answer to me is animal and plant husbandry/breeding. If you work everyday with life that's enhanced with selective breeding techniques, one would wonder how improved our species could be if the same nature/science laws were applied to us as well.
This is a great video. It's kind of an interesting video when you think about our king and his approach to agriculture. 😮😊
Can you do a video on King Charles' interest in 'organic farming'? I've heard he's into it and now I'd like to know more.
What technically makes crops "organic" doesn't necessarily make it more ecologically biodynamic, conversational, or regenerative ect and can still be otherwise very conventionally industrial and resource intensive.
It might tend to those things more often than not, of course it's otherwise a bit of a racket paying to have produce certified organic.
Unfortunately what reliable indicators do consumers have otherwise, that can be readily understood? Certainly the reduced use of synthetically produced biocides and fertilisers is incredibly important, of course that should hardly be a case of all or nothing.
I wish I could scan a food product and see pictures of the locations they were grown, I would be happier to buy from landscapes that show a grater diversity of crops, integrated livestock, perennials and rotation, that would all seem to support more jobs.
Well said sir - good info there, we are in much agreement. Needing a new word here now - but I do like the idea of pesticide free food, recycling waste rather than having to replace it with chemicals. Mixed farming sounds good and cattle not cross bred to absurdity etc. Don't fancy being a peasant though. Anyway - now you've exposed this scam - perhaps you'll look into all the climate change stuff too - you may find it enlightening.
I suggest reading about permaculture
You might be interested to know that in Austria, a right wing political party emerged named Heimat und Umwelt or "homeland and environment" (not to be confused with an identically named centrist party in Germany). The Austrian Heimat party advocates for the state to clamp down on immigration and introduce stronger green policies. I havent heard of them in a few years, but they became fairly popular during corona among vaccine deniers and protests against lockdowns. Anyway, it was basically a xenophobic hardcore green party, with uncomfortable echoes of "blut und boden."
Interesting when I listened to that great lives episode after watching this that her family never spoke or acknowledge her existence in correspondence or their farming methods on the home estate
Now we know why King Charles championed organic farming
Some of these ideas reveal how ridiculous it is to call some modern figures, 'far right.'
I would wager that the production of food should not be the sole purpose of the countryside as; the cities are population sinks.
I want you to elaborate, as I otherwise feel unable to decide wether your statements are reasonable or dangerous, or something in-between
Great post. More please. Problem about your channel title though. 'Farming Explained' doesn't quite cover it. How about 'Everything Explained'?
Actually, I exagerate, but I do mean something by what I said. Really good work.
Farming and History! You're not really explaining farming so much as rural English history, which is fascinating. I studied British Imperialism for many years, and while I know many of these movements and figures, I have never pieced them into the history of the countryside. Love it!
You mentioned food forests in the last video and I'd love to see you cover that topic.
I think they are amazing and I'm in my second year of making one but they also seem to be fit into a very different purpose than replacing huge scale monocultures.
Modern farming has insane calories per work hour -ratio so unless we want way more people to do agriculture the glorious food forests have to wait until we are sci-fi enough civilization to automate a lot of it. Solar powered drones picking nuts and fruits sounds awesome thou.
I think food forests have far more practical value in poorer countries where it can also be combined with reversing desertification and deforestation. Poor parts of India and Africa have a lot of labor available.
I wish the nature loving city people would interact more reasonably with farmers so we could all come up with better and more scientific compromises. So many well meaning but naive ideas make us less efficient so we both lose value and protect less nature.
I have gotten the picture that rewilding is done somehow in a dumb way in UK. I think it's really good to accelerate the succession of many places that would otherwise take far longer to heal from the age of industry. But like, maybe not replace farms as surely there is plenty of degraded land that is a far more suitable target.
I will cover them - I think they're great for allowing people to connect with nature on a small plot of land and should be encouraged for that. Thanks for the comment!
@@farmingexplained But food forests are more in the realm of intensive gardening, not farming. And they are a bit faddish.
Amazing video. I love how you go so deep on these subjects. Very impressive work on the differences between different types of socialism. Most people don't have a clue of what Fascism is. I'm doing a great deal of reading on architecture and it's very interesting that for how left wing and anti-fascist modernist architecture is supposed to be and yet one of its found fathers, Le Courbusier was a fascist. History is a lot different than most think.
Your work is so information dense it needs a couple of watches to make sense of it.
(Hello other ladder climbers - you know who you are :D )
I know, I'm trying to make it more conversational but it's a learning curve!
@@farmingexplained If you were to pad them out they'd be a lot less interesting.
@@farmingexplained No! Don't dumb them down. Just add a bit of a reading list for those who need to catch up.
Nitrogen dependency will end. A few months ago a new plant organelle was discovered, the newly named Nitroplast. Won't be organic, but it should be able to be spliced-in to everything green in time.
To use and English-ism: Who do these people think they are?
Have they never thought to ask "what if I wasn't born into this situation" ala the veil of ignorance. Maybe they'd still answer that feudalism was the best way?
It did not "come from the left" on the whole. The reason some of the socialist/communist motifs, terms rhetorics and imagery were used... well it was quite a simple reason...
Being anticapitalist can be either a left or right wing position, Look back at some of the videos you made about the corn laws and who was and wasn't trying to repeal them. That a later movement that was even further to the left decided to work against capitalism should not mean that all groups against capitalism are on the same political spectrum. A method to determine if a position is left or right ask yourself is it trying to entrench or break down hierarchy. If its goal is to break down hierarchy it is generally a left wing position and fascists are always about trying to establish and reinforce hierarchy and I would point to your other videos about . That they made large scale changes and sought new technology isn't evidence that they were progressive because the goal of those endeavors was the entrenchment or proof of their hierarchy.
No more organic eggs for me then, is free range ok?
This is a wonderful example of cherry-picking facts and reliance on histrionics. LOL
Gosh, talking too fast, with a lot of hot air and cold data.... Nice try, but not enough nuance and context to get me to the end...
Completely organic IS possible. Not with so few farming tho. Not without the land. And the 10 kids to labor on it for free.
i really likea lot of your videos but that comment about nazis being left wing kinda makes me doubt your sincerity
Bit of an instant litmus test for stupidity really.
Unfortunately yes, the National Socialism movement was a far left wing one, as other attempts at socialism were. Government nationalising industry and restricting private ownership is inherently a left wing practice, whether your enemy is the bourgeoisie or the Jewish race. I don’t argue for the right wing either. I’m just pointing it out. In fact, the left and right is a bit absurd. You have anarcho-capitalists and anarcho-communists, yet people put anarchy on the far left of the spectrum. The binary doesn’t really work here.
This guy has swallowed too much propaganda to be taken seriously
national socialism, and Nazism in particular, are not left wing. These ideologies require class collaboration while left-socialism starts with class conflict. The Nazis used the popular collectivist language, but in a way to direct the popular conflict at those their ideology defined subhuman. Not on class lines. In fact, the capitalist classes were the reason why the Nazis were able to rise to power, and they made huge money when the Nazis came to power. This is not class struggle, just texbook fascist class collaboration.
but loved the breakdown of this history !
You are using a Stalinist definition of socialism.
The Nazis were not funded by the Capitalists, that is a lie made up by the Marxists and Conservatives to explain away the first dictatorship of the proletariat. Henry Ashby Turner wrote a book about it in the 80s. I recommend watching TIKHistorys two videos this topic from about two months ago.
@@tomhalla426”the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class conflict”,
“Thereupon, the workers begin to form combinations (Trades’ Unions) against the bourgeois; they club together in order to keep up the rate of wages; they found permanent associations in order to make provision beforehand for these occasional revolts. Here and there, the contest breaks out into riots.”
here are two quotes from the Manifesto (the first being the first sentence of the pamphlet.) is this Stalinist? Where do Marx or Engels advocate for class collaboration in their works? Where in Nazi Germany did the bourgeois see their power weakened and that of the proletariat strengthen? How about all the writing Trotsky did on the subject, was he Stalinist? Lenin too?
You might say “well that’s all Marxist, and ideologically socialism goes back decades before Marx!” yes but are you going to try and argue that socialism in the modern conception is particularly influenced by Proudhon? And even if you did make that argument (which you could really only if you did it from a line of influences on Marx’s work) it doesn’t change the fact that referring to Nazism, and national socialism, as a left wing ideology is just flat wrong. These are national chauvinist ideologies which are in direct contradiction with the internationalism espoused by Marx/Engels and other members of The International.
@@quinn3334 Nominally, Italian Fascism was supposed to be Syndicalism, with a fasci being a workers committee. Also nominally, so is a soviet a workers committee. Neither of these existed in practice, with the real world situation being a quasi-Leninist cadre running things. The Third Reich was purportedly operating on behalf of Das Volk, a racialist version of The People used by Marxist rhetoric.
My point is that, in practice, all these are socialist as there is centralized planning of the economy, and arbitrary “wages” and “prices”, set by what amounted to the state. Hanging different names on what are effectively the same things is pure obfuscation.
Jolly good ❤
This was hard to listen to, all of it. Glad I did though
Never been happier to be an organic gardener :)
Thank you, more please!
Fascist Origins of the Soil Association should be the title of this video. The Organic Movement is a far broader issue, one that deserves to be promoted more not denounced as elitist based on fairly suspect arguments. Big chemical companies have enough power already. Unsubscribed
Whilst I consider the use of the swastika in your thumb nail to be appropriate to the subject matter I would advise you to avoid using it in future as it is probably what one might describe as algorithmic suicide for your channel, I see that the views for this video are much lower than your most recent ones and that is a pity as I think you make excellent sense. I think that youtube is probably not promoting it because of the thumbnail.
sorry .....the nazis "didn't come from the left"....he is confusing the nazis with mussolini who was a former leftist , editor in chief of the italian "forward" before the first world war if i remember correctly. who eventually abandoned his leftists position in the course of the first world war but was influenced by so called "proto- fascists like spengler and sorel way before that. italian fascists claimed that fascism is neither left nor right wing. they said their ideoligy was totalitarian ... franco was an ultra- reactionary absolutist monarchist in the tradition of 19th century carlists ( who definitely weren't "left wing "or liberal )....but many younger members of the spanish falange were ideologically closer to the nazis
Go watch his "a brief guide to rural ideology" he covers this.
"German fascism as a whole was progressive; it came from the left"
Man you really don't understand political ideology at all. Progressive? Left? Are you going to tell us next that he was just "misunderstood"? 😂
Seriously, this is bad, man. The level is low. I only clicked to see if there was any more nonsense like that quote you attributed to "blood and soil ideology" that was talking about interdependence of species - and here I am after 1m 48s...
He has clarified that he doesnt think that German Fascism was a left wing ideology simply that it used leftist rhetoric during its rise to power
socialism is left and the nazis where left. sincerely a german.
@@snexer See the problem with that is, well firstly in the meta, German speakers of English do not think that the past tense of be is "where", so that exposes the claim of German nationality as false. The rest is just the same nonsensical rhetoric used by most working class right wing marionettes. The left of the political spectrum covers views that are based on egalitarian principles. So, it's simply incorrect to associate your heroes with the left. Of course, there will also be the people who make this mistake deliberately. However, I don't think that applies in this case, as the aforementioned misuse of language suggests this is just a problem of education here.
@@abody499 lotta words and nothing said.
national socialists are socialists. thus left. all fascist are left.
@@abody499NATIONAL SOCIALISM. its in the name.
These boys sound like they are onto something. It's time for some reading.