I've always preferred the hybrid explanation for both governance and economics. It's not only more accurate, but it also removes the strict ideological stench people love to roll around in. I like the idea of fluidity as well, because we are routinely seeing US politicians shift quite often as well as have vastly different domestic policy patterns that don't match their foreign policy.
Yes, you have properly defined a concept I struggle to communicate to people over the years: Definitions matters, BUT Definitions change over time, and definitions are entities solely of the function of their generalized understanding. ie. If *I* say fascism is a slang term for a sea turtle. And the rest of the world believes Fascism is hard right authoritarian rhetoric with elements of nativism, isolationism, scapegoat seekingm etc. Me, demanding people abide my sea turtle definition is ridiculous (and hence Ana's definition is also ridiculous)
Even without hybridizing fascism is an ideology like liberalism or conservatism. Being incompetent at carrying out the precepts of an ideology doesn't make someone NOT an ideology. That's why GOOD definitions of fascism can be applied to propaganda, not just regimes (and even some that ARE focused on government policy Trump fits to a T). But in the end she knows he's one. She's just decided to sell out so she's intentionally misrepresenting the entire subject. She knows better.
_"Even without hybridizing fascism is an ideology like liberalism or conservatism."_ Conservatism is not an ideology. It is actually a philosophical stance against change, progressivism.
_"That's why GOOD definitions of fascism can be applied to propaganda, not just regimes (and even some that ARE focused on government policy Trump fits to a T)."_ There is only one definition for Fascism and it has always referred to a very specific, Italian political ideology based on Revolutionary (National) Syndicalism and Neo-Hegelian philosophy.
I feel like when you've got to the point that your defense of a movement is "it's not fascism because of this one particular reason' that's an implicit agreement that it's at the very least dangerously close to being fascist
I hear you that ideologies can be liquid and are capable of hybridizing, but the bottom line, non-negotiable identifier of fascism is fascists utilize the power of the state (especially its institutions) to neutralize their political opposition. I believe this is where Ana was headed but then realized it would irreparably damage her partnership with Czenk.
_" non-negotiable identifier of fascism is fascists utilize the power of the state (especially its institutions) to neutralize their political opposition."_ That is not unique to Fascism nor an identifier of Fascism, as that is how every single totalitarian and dictatorial regime operated.
I saw this piece on TYT and couldn't figure out why Ana was flummoxed by a relatively simple flaw in her rigidly restrictive definitional insistence. Sometimes I wonder if she gets beguiled by something from her MSM sourcing before she gives it proper and independent critical evaluation. I've seen this error on both TYT and TMR; the pressures of the news cycle, I suppose.
I think you're being too kind to Ms. Kasparian. Between this, and her turn towards anti-trans rhetoric, this all seems like a calculated move towards the political right. Whether it's a "grift", and she is acting insincerely, or if it represents a sincere realignment of her beliefs and values, is anybody's guess at this point... but I don't think it was a result of any kind of carelessness in her "critical evaluation".
I think another thing people miss, is that fascism is less an ideology, and more of a "mode of political behavior". It's not a list of specific policy proscriptions for specific problems, but a roadmap for manipulating a populace into accepting authoritarian rule, in exchange for a vague promise that some "few" will hold dominion over a "many", and that this will "solve" whatever problems a given populace perceives need solving. Usually with violence.
No. Fascism specifically was a very specific Italian ideology based on Revolutionary (national) Syndicalism and Neo-Hegelian philosophy. Fascism wasn't "mode of political behavior" in any way shape or form.
Liked the video! I just started Late Fascism by Alberto Toscano and was wondering if you had any impressions on it? Also, any must reads to understand Fascism beyond the basics for someone that has read the giants like Adorno and Arendt? Thanks so much, keep up the great work!
thanks for the kind words. Chapter 5 of my new book Lost in Ideology is entitled "There is No Fascist Minimum" so I'd have to shamelessly recommend that... But bunch of footnotes in the book that branch off that and might interest you if you check them out, e.g. Traverso Fire and Blood, Roger Griffin, others. Need to catch up on Toscano--several people have recommended to me
People overcomplicate and misunderstand fascism. It's just caveman instincts, leftover impulses from when we hunted and gathered in a world of scarce resources. We no longer live in homogenous tribes and resources are no longer scarce, but those insticts remain. Fascistic impulses seek to accomplish two things: 1. Reestablish tribal identity with a clearly defined us and them. 2. Return to a state of unrestricted tribal competition where anything that harms outgroups or benefits the ingroup at their expense is righteous. That's it. That's all it is. Everything else is justification or rationalization for behavior that is ultimately driven by a set of simple, emotional impulses, the subtle manipulations of the human subconscious.
@Historia.Magistra.Vitae. Collectivism is just prioritizing the group over the individual. Fascism is based in conflict between groups. The people defining fascism differently than me have simply had their understanding of it obfuscated by cloud of rationalizations that have built up over what is at its core extremely basic behavioral tenets so ubiquitous they've been the default mode of behavior for most of human history. List one element of fascism that cannot be easily explained through the lens I provided.
@@enfisu586 _"Fascism is based in conflict between groups."_ Not really. Fascism specifically didn't want any conflict between groups, which is why it advocated for class collaboration and was strictly against the Marxist idea of a "class struggle". Fascism cared about unity in a strong central government with society being brought together by syndicalist organizations obedient to the State.
@@enfisu586 _"??? I guess all those wars they declared weren't conflicts then."_ Well imperialism was one trait of the Fascist ideology sure. I guess it would be more appropriate to say that Fascism had a trait of conflict between nations. But then again, which country today doesn't have a some kind of a conflict.
@@dynamicworlds1 That is false. Besides, Umberto Eco does not get to define fascism. This is fascism as defined by a real fascist: "Anti-individualistic, the Fascist conception of life stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual only in so far as his interests coincide with those of the State, which stands for the conscience and the universal, will of man as a historic entity. It is opposed to classical liberalism which arose as a reaction to absolutism and exhausted its historical function when the State became the expression of the conscience and will of the people. Liberalism denied the State in the name of the individual; Fascism reasserts." - Bennito Mussolini Trump is definitely not that.
@@donjindra A-fascists lie and play word games so we shouldn't get our definitions on _anything_ from them but from experts on the topic. B-Umberto IS such an expert AND a former fascist, so even by your criteria should be listened to. C-Trump is ABSOLUTELY anti-individualist D-anti-individualism IS part of Umberto Eco's characteristics Just admit you're a fascist bro. It's cringe to be scared to defend your actual ideology.
@@accesscrimea You are ignorant about what fascism is. I have no idea what you mean by "wrong side of history." I'm referring only to what fascism was in history.
Ana certainly was wrong, and 99% of the Americans in general so far. There is only one (historical) definition for Fascism; a totalitarian far-left, socialist 3rd position ideology based on National Syndicalism which they adapted from a French Marxist, known as Georges Sorel. It rejected individualism, capitalism, liberalism, democracy, and marxist interpretation of socialism ("class warfare"). Instead, it advocated for class collaboration where the means of production was organized by national worker syndicals (i.e. trade unions / Fascist Corporatism), and the guiding philosophy of the state was Actual Idealism (Neo-Hegelianism). Being an outgrowth of Sorelian Syndicalism, (which itself was an outgrowth from Marxist socialism), its idea was that society would be consolidated (i.e., incorporated) into syndicates (in the Italian context, fascio/fasci) which would be regulated by and serve as organs for the State, or "embody" the State (corpus = body). The purpose was the centralization and synchronization of society under the State, as an end unto itself. To quote Mussolini's infamous aphorism: "All within the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State." As finalized by Mussolini and Giovanni Gentile ("the Doctrine of Fascism"), Fascism came from the belief that the "Stateless and Classless society" Communism calls for after its "dictatorship of the proletariat" cannot be achieved, and that only the State can properly organize a socialist society. Therefore, Fascism cared about unity in a strong central government with society being brought together by syndicalist organizations obedient to the State. [01] "La Dottrina Del Fascismo / the Doctrine of Fascism", by Mussolini and Giovanni Gentile [02] "Che cosa è il Fascismo: Discorsi e polemiche / Origins and Doctrine of Fascism", by Giovanni Gentile [03] "the Philosophy of Fascism", by Mario Palmieri [04] "Fascism: An Informal Introduction to Its Theory and Practice", by Renzo De Felice [05] "Mussolini's Intellectuals", by A. James Gregor [06] "La Camera dei Fasci e delle Corporazioni", by Rabaglietti Giuseppe & Sergio Panunzio [07] "Teoria generale dello Stato Fascista", by Sergio Panunzio [08] "The Birth of Fascist Ideology" by Zeev Sternhell [09] Any work from Emilio Gentile
@@dynamicworlds1 The fundamental differences between left-wing and right-wing ideologies center around the the rights of individuals vs. the power of the collective. Left-wing beliefs are based on the idea that society is best served with an expanded role for the collective in-group (collectivism) 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. Besides, Fascism was a rival socialist ideology to Marxism, and as socialism is assigned to the Left side when it comes to our modern day political spectrum, Fascism therefore sits on the right side of Marxism, on the Far-Left.
@@Historia.Magistra.Vitae. wrong, right vs left is about hierarchy and consolidation of power vs egalitarianism and distribution of power. That's why the first time the terms were used in a political context were about monarchism on the right and democracy on the left. You and the fringe cranks you cite don't have a clue what you're talking about. The overwhelming consensus is against you and the BS you spout doesn't get any traction outside of far right circles because everyone else doesn't have a motivation to pretend that fascism is anything but far-right.
@@dynamicworlds1 _"wrong, right vs left is about hierarchy and consolidation of power vs egalitarianism and distribution of power."_ Every single political ideology is about hierarchies. Some more, some less. Consolidation of power is necessary for every Collectivist ideology which are on the Left, such as ideologies based on socialism. There is no Left wing ideology that advocated for egalitarianism as they are advocating for Collectivism. The Right is about distribution of power as they want the power structure to be as decentralized as possible, hence limited government for example.
@@dynamicworlds1 _"That's why the first time the terms were used in a political context were about monarchism on the right and democracy on the left."_ and the 18th century France has nothing to do with how we use the left/right political spectrum today, where socialism is assigned to the Left even though the original Left was about Republicanism, individual freedoms and property rights (also capitalism).
PSA: I have a chapter criticizing fascism & the *fascist minimum* in my book *Lost in Ideology.* Available at Amazon & bookstores: rb.gy/75l1ox
Go Jason
thank you, Vlad. I am a lilliputian in this medium compared to you😂
Ana “I don’t think Trump wants to be a dictator”
Trump: “ill be a dictator from day 1”
I've always preferred the hybrid explanation for both governance and economics. It's not only more accurate, but it also removes the strict ideological stench people love to roll around in.
I like the idea of fluidity as well, because we are routinely seeing US politicians shift quite often as well as have vastly different domestic policy patterns that don't match their foreign policy.
What she got wrong .... Everything..... she's on her Dave Rubin arch....its all about the Benjamin's...💰💰💰
She been on all Far Right arch since the beginning.
Yes, you have properly defined a concept I struggle to communicate to people over the years:
Definitions matters, BUT Definitions change over time, and definitions are entities solely of the function of their generalized understanding.
ie. If *I* say fascism is a slang term for a sea turtle.
And the rest of the world believes Fascism is hard right authoritarian rhetoric with elements of nativism, isolationism, scapegoat seekingm etc.
Me, demanding people abide my sea turtle definition is ridiculous (and hence Ana's definition is also ridiculous)
Even without hybridizing fascism is an ideology like liberalism or conservatism. Being incompetent at carrying out the precepts of an ideology doesn't make someone NOT an ideology.
That's why GOOD definitions of fascism can be applied to propaganda, not just regimes (and even some that ARE focused on government policy Trump fits to a T).
But in the end she knows he's one. She's just decided to sell out so she's intentionally misrepresenting the entire subject. She knows better.
_"Even without hybridizing fascism is an ideology like liberalism or conservatism."_
Conservatism is not an ideology. It is actually a philosophical stance against change, progressivism.
_"That's why GOOD definitions of fascism can be applied to propaganda, not just regimes (and even some that ARE focused on government policy Trump fits to a T)."_
There is only one definition for Fascism and it has always referred to a very specific, Italian political ideology based on Revolutionary (National) Syndicalism and Neo-Hegelian philosophy.
Wrong on both points
@@dynamicworlds1 : Nope.
@@Historia.Magistra.Vitae. great argument.
I feel like when you've got to the point that your defense of a movement is "it's not fascism because of this one particular reason' that's an implicit agreement that it's at the very least dangerously close to being fascist
I hear you that ideologies can be liquid and are capable of hybridizing, but the bottom line, non-negotiable identifier of fascism is fascists utilize the power of the state (especially its institutions) to neutralize their political opposition.
I believe this is where Ana was headed but then realized it would irreparably damage her partnership with Czenk.
All ideologies aspire to power and purity. Some are just more subtle or deceptive than others.
_" non-negotiable identifier of fascism is fascists utilize the power of the state (especially its institutions) to neutralize their political opposition."_
That is not unique to Fascism nor an identifier of Fascism, as that is how every single totalitarian and dictatorial regime operated.
Excellent
Thanks 🙏
She’s not worth responding too - she’s irrelevant
I saw this piece on TYT and couldn't figure out why Ana was flummoxed by a relatively simple flaw in her rigidly restrictive definitional insistence. Sometimes I wonder if she gets beguiled by something from her MSM sourcing before she gives it proper and independent critical evaluation. I've seen this error on both TYT and TMR; the pressures of the news cycle, I suppose.
I think you're being too kind to Ms. Kasparian. Between this, and her turn towards anti-trans rhetoric, this all seems like a calculated move towards the political right. Whether it's a "grift", and she is acting insincerely, or if it represents a sincere realignment of her beliefs and values, is anybody's guess at this point... but I don't think it was a result of any kind of carelessness in her "critical evaluation".
ana gets a lot of things wrong.
I think another thing people miss, is that fascism is less an ideology, and more of a "mode of political behavior". It's not a list of specific policy proscriptions for specific problems, but a roadmap for manipulating a populace into accepting authoritarian rule, in exchange for a vague promise that some "few" will hold dominion over a "many", and that this will "solve" whatever problems a given populace perceives need solving. Usually with violence.
No. Fascism specifically was a very specific Italian ideology based on Revolutionary (national) Syndicalism and Neo-Hegelian philosophy. Fascism wasn't "mode of political behavior" in any way shape or form.
Liked the video! I just started Late Fascism by Alberto Toscano and was wondering if you had any impressions on it? Also, any must reads to understand Fascism beyond the basics for someone that has read the giants like Adorno and Arendt?
Thanks so much, keep up the great work!
thanks for the kind words. Chapter 5 of my new book Lost in Ideology is entitled "There is No Fascist Minimum" so I'd have to shamelessly recommend that... But bunch of footnotes in the book that branch off that and might interest you if you check them out, e.g. Traverso Fire and Blood, Roger Griffin, others. Need to catch up on Toscano--several people have recommended to me
She can host a ring wing The View with Megan Kelly and Ann Coulter after Kamala wins
Kamala will not win
She definitely should she's a WS just like them.
Good video!
Glad you enjoyed it
Assigning categories or new definitions is fine (not preferred) if you keep the purpose in mind, which is usually where that goes wrong.
Ana is trying to stay relevant.
People overcomplicate and misunderstand fascism. It's just caveman instincts, leftover impulses from when we hunted and gathered in a world of scarce resources. We no longer live in homogenous tribes and resources are no longer scarce, but those insticts remain.
Fascistic impulses seek to accomplish two things:
1. Reestablish tribal identity with a clearly defined us and them.
2. Return to a state of unrestricted tribal competition where anything that harms outgroups or benefits the ingroup at their expense is righteous.
That's it. That's all it is. Everything else is justification or rationalization for behavior that is ultimately driven by a set of simple, emotional impulses, the subtle manipulations of the human subconscious.
What you described there is called Collectivism already. Not unique to Fascism nor the definition of it.
@Historia.Magistra.Vitae.
Collectivism is just prioritizing the group over the individual. Fascism is based in conflict between groups. The people defining fascism differently than me have simply had their understanding of it obfuscated by cloud of rationalizations that have built up over what is at its core extremely basic behavioral tenets so ubiquitous they've been the default mode of behavior for most of human history.
List one element of fascism that cannot be easily explained through the lens I provided.
@@enfisu586 _"Fascism is based in conflict between groups."_
Not really. Fascism specifically didn't want any conflict between groups, which is why it advocated for class collaboration and was strictly against the Marxist idea of a "class struggle". Fascism cared about unity in a strong central government with society being brought together by syndicalist organizations obedient to the State.
@@_Historia_Magistra_Vitae
??? I guess all those wars they declared weren't conflicts then. WW2? No conflict between groups to be seen here. Lmao
@@enfisu586 _"??? I guess all those wars they declared weren't conflicts then."_
Well imperialism was one trait of the Fascist ideology sure. I guess it would be more appropriate to say that Fascism had a trait of conflict between nations. But then again, which country today doesn't have a some kind of a conflict.
Can the same be said about democracy?
Democracy is a form of government, not an ideology.
Fascism is an ideology, not a form of government.
@@dynamicworlds1 We are talking about definitions. Food and music are not ideologies either. Religion, for example, is something I often mention.
@@EvgeniyYakushev-m2u I'm saying the definitions of democracy and fascism would be structured fundamentally differently.
@@dynamicworlds1 And I say that many things in our lives have rather vague concepts.
@@EvgeniyYakushev-m2u are you utterly incapable of sticking to a subject?
And getting cooked across the board 😂
Everything?
True.
*know
Ana reminds me of the barbie movie when barbie says she's not a fascist because she doesnt control the railroads or commerce.
IOW, you want to define fascism any way you choose. Okay, antifa is fascism. BLM is fascism. CRT is fascism. How fun this is going to be!
@@donjindra see Umberto Eco, Lawrence Britt, and "palingenetic ultranationalism".
Trump fits all definitions to a T.
@@dynamicworlds1 That is false. Besides, Umberto Eco does not get to define fascism. This is fascism as defined by a real fascist:
"Anti-individualistic, the Fascist conception of life stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual only in so far as his interests coincide with those of the State, which stands for the conscience and the universal, will of man as a historic entity. It is opposed to classical liberalism which arose as a reaction to absolutism and exhausted its historical function when the State became the expression of the conscience and will of the people. Liberalism denied the State in the name of the individual; Fascism reasserts." - Bennito Mussolini
Trump is definitely not that.
@@donjindra A-fascists lie and play word games so we shouldn't get our definitions on _anything_ from them but from experts on the topic.
B-Umberto IS such an expert AND a former fascist, so even by your criteria should be listened to.
C-Trump is ABSOLUTELY anti-individualist
D-anti-individualism IS part of Umberto Eco's characteristics
Just admit you're a fascist bro. It's cringe to be scared to defend your actual ideology.
@@donjindratrumps rhetoric is 100% fascist and his actions back up his words. Wrong side of history, my friend.
@@accesscrimea You are ignorant about what fascism is. I have no idea what you mean by "wrong side of history." I'm referring only to what fascism was in history.
Ana certainly was wrong, and 99% of the Americans in general so far. There is only one (historical) definition for Fascism; a totalitarian far-left, socialist 3rd position ideology based on National Syndicalism which they adapted from a French Marxist, known as Georges Sorel. It rejected individualism, capitalism, liberalism, democracy, and marxist interpretation of socialism ("class warfare"). Instead, it advocated for class collaboration where the means of production was organized by national worker syndicals (i.e. trade unions / Fascist Corporatism), and the guiding philosophy of the state was Actual Idealism (Neo-Hegelianism).
Being an outgrowth of Sorelian Syndicalism, (which itself was an outgrowth from Marxist socialism), its idea was that society would be consolidated (i.e., incorporated) into syndicates (in the Italian context, fascio/fasci) which would be regulated by and serve as organs for the State, or "embody" the State (corpus = body). The purpose was the centralization and synchronization of society under the State, as an end unto itself. To quote Mussolini's infamous aphorism: "All within the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State."
As finalized by Mussolini and Giovanni Gentile ("the Doctrine of Fascism"), Fascism came from the belief that the "Stateless and Classless society" Communism calls for after its "dictatorship of the proletariat" cannot be achieved, and that only the State can properly organize a socialist society. Therefore, Fascism cared about unity in a strong central government with society being brought together by syndicalist organizations obedient to the State.
[01] "La Dottrina Del Fascismo / the Doctrine of Fascism", by Mussolini and Giovanni Gentile
[02] "Che cosa è il Fascismo: Discorsi e polemiche / Origins and Doctrine of Fascism", by Giovanni Gentile
[03] "the Philosophy of Fascism", by Mario Palmieri
[04] "Fascism: An Informal Introduction to Its Theory and Practice", by Renzo De Felice
[05] "Mussolini's Intellectuals", by A. James Gregor
[06] "La Camera dei Fasci e delle Corporazioni", by Rabaglietti Giuseppe & Sergio Panunzio
[07] "Teoria generale dello Stato Fascista", by Sergio Panunzio
[08] "The Birth of Fascist Ideology" by Zeev Sternhell
[09] Any work from Emilio Gentile
@@Historia.Magistra.Vitae. you can't understand what left and right mean and think fascism is far-left. Go buy a clue.
@@dynamicworlds1 The fundamental differences between left-wing and right-wing ideologies center around the the rights of individuals vs. the power of the collective. Left-wing beliefs are based on the idea that society is best served with an expanded role for the collective in-group (collectivism) 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.
Besides, Fascism was a rival socialist ideology to Marxism, and as socialism is assigned to the Left side when it comes to our modern day political spectrum, Fascism therefore sits on the right side of Marxism, on the Far-Left.
@@Historia.Magistra.Vitae. wrong, right vs left is about hierarchy and consolidation of power vs egalitarianism and distribution of power.
That's why the first time the terms were used in a political context were about monarchism on the right and democracy on the left.
You and the fringe cranks you cite don't have a clue what you're talking about.
The overwhelming consensus is against you and the BS you spout doesn't get any traction outside of far right circles because everyone else doesn't have a motivation to pretend that fascism is anything but far-right.
@@dynamicworlds1 _"wrong, right vs left is about hierarchy and consolidation of power vs egalitarianism and distribution of power."_
Every single political ideology is about hierarchies. Some more, some less. Consolidation of power is necessary for every Collectivist ideology which are on the Left, such as ideologies based on socialism. There is no Left wing ideology that advocated for egalitarianism as they are advocating for Collectivism. The Right is about distribution of power as they want the power structure to be as decentralized as possible, hence limited government for example.
@@dynamicworlds1 _"That's why the first time the terms were used in a political context were about monarchism on the right and democracy on the left."_
and the 18th century France has nothing to do with how we use the left/right political spectrum today, where socialism is assigned to the Left even though the original Left was about Republicanism, individual freedoms and property rights (also capitalism).