I'm not surprised he feels so strongly against his previous works. He puts in themes regarding the environment, consumerism, worker's being uplifted, and a general nostalgia for a time in the industry that has long since died out from the 1980s. For a guy to have a successful brand like Ghibli, that would mean merchandise, which of course means pollution, consumerism and no doubt some level of worker exploitation manufacturing all of that. I cannot blame him for being so critical of his work with the realization how hypocritical he's being. I remember that one of his biggest disappointments is realizing more kids were staying at home watching his movies than they were actually going out and knowing the world and communicating with people. And honestly, the uncomfortable thing regarding all his works is how modernity at its core requires a hefty amount out of the environment in terms of resources and putting out pollution. Ghibli is primarily digital at this point and Miyazaki often contemplates just how self-destructive the current situation in the world is regarding industry and modernity. The Wind Rises is probably the most blunt account of Miyazaki's feelings being someone with such a notable impact on the art world and the world as a whole in producing his films. He wanted to create wonderful things in place of a previous dream/interest, and it ends up being something that's used by forces larger than him to make the world worse off and not at all within his intentions.
Also, I’m surprised he doesn’t like Kiki anymore. I personally view it as a pro-worker film with Kiki learning to value her chosen job and her worth. It also has something to say about burnout I think from a contemporary perspective
Ye, there's even a moment in the NHK doc where he possibly attacks Kiki again. It's when he's rallying the crew after the earthquake and explaining the importance of focusing on Jiro, he says "what else are we going to do? make another film just about another girl's life?" What I think happened is he still regrets the forced ending of Kiki, when he adapted Howl he changed it to be about the Iraq War rather than try and be faithful. He also seemingly revisited the work/burnout theme in Spirited Away from a different viewpoint.
Thank you for making this video, it was very interesting. I chose not to watch The Wind Rises because I was concerned about its messaging, but maybe I should check it out. Curious how you would characterize the possible ideological differences between Miyazaki and Isao Takahata, and their respective war movies. This may be a minority opinion, but I dislike Grave of the Fireflies which felt emotionally manipulative to me. (I haven’t seen it in years, though) On the other hand, I really enjoyed Only Yesterday and The Tale of Princess Kaguya. I didn’t know that the NHK started censoring their programming. Has that situation changed, for better or worse, since 2013?
He almost didn't make the Wind Rises for the same reason. I cross cut those scenes because I feel that they're the main thesis of the film. If you stop creating because of how ppl might abuse your work then you've allowed them to win anyway because the dissent isn't being created. As for Takahata I was thinking about maybe doing a dive into all of his works or just Grave of the Fireflies because I do think it highlights something important. Anti-war films are difficult because the intended audience can simply ignore a film that they feel blames them, and I think I see how Takahata tried to stop that from happening. The NHK under PM Abe was put under tight restrictions, the last time I tuned in to morning news was 2016 and it was spinning the Abe cabinet's opinions as facts through educational shorts. I'm going to keep collecting NHK works to do a detailed video on their method of misinformation at some point.
I was aware of a lot of these issues in Japan and how Miyazaki is pretty 'woke' but I really like how this video puts everything together. Very underrated video
I think you just get sick of it after you've worked on it so long. I used to work with subtitling Japanese television and I grew tired after a while since I spent so much time on them.
Though I would argue, that it isn't the Far Right. Most people's concept of left/right politics is kind of messed up as the mid 20th Century turned the idea on it's head. Best example being, Communist in their conservative phases viewed Fascism to be to the left of them, even Josef Stalin considered Fascism a Leftist ideology. Mean while Fascist at least Italian Fascist viewed the Liberal State to be a Capitalist State, ie Capitalism is a Liberal Economic system. I would even argue that Nationalism isn't a right wing position, because many Leftist were Nationalist throughout history. Woodrow Wilson being big example. He was a Nationalist, Devout Christian, Lost Cause Revisionist, was pro KKK, and a Racist but what is most interesting is how many of his social reforms fit perfectly well with Marx's Communist Manifesto, including reforms and expansion of the Public School System, Graduated Income Taxes, Federal Trade Regulation, a State Centralized Bank (Federal Reserve). I mean based on the first half of my description you'd say he sounds like an Ultra Right Wing nut job, but the 2nd half he sounds like an ultra left wing nut job... so which was he? Issue is most people's idea of left/right is warped, and honestly I've not even figured out what Left and Right means, outside of people Group Power/Equality = Left vs Individual Freedom, and Economic Liberalism = Right. The concept of Liberal or Conservative doesn't even seem to apply to either, as it seems to fluidly jump from one to the other. This would also mean that the phrase if you go too far to the left and too far to the right you end up with the same thing = a lie. As whatever they're referring to were always the same thing, and should be on the same side of the scale. As the phrase goes, something is either true or it's false it can not be both. So is Far Rightism = Fascism, and Fight Leftism = Communism, yet they have nearly identical Veneer, to me that must be a fallacy, either Communism is Far Right along side Fascism or they're both Far Left. Those trying to say otherwise either dunno what they're talking about, or are insanely bias, and distorting facts. Being from my own Studies, Fascism was born from National Syndicalism (real ideology btw, so is Fascist Syndicalism), and Syndicalism is on the Marxist Tree, I'm more incline to believe Fascism belongs on the Left, and was never a Right Wing Ideology. But hopefully you may understand what I'm getting at.
That kinda ignores the reality of how Fascism materially interacts with Capital and the means of production and how it panned out in history. Fascism is ultimately focused on outgroups to justify itself and excuse the issues of its society. The fact that Hitler proceeded to destroy worker's organizations and empower private enterprises betrays any form of leftist thought. Seeing the result of fascist dictatorships that actually survived like Francoist Spain, Kuomintang's ROC Taiwan, Japan and South Korea, they all reverted to becoming Capitalist liberal democracies after they've defeated Socialist and Left-Wing movements in their country. Josef Stalin never said that Fascism is Left-Wing, the closest thing to that is him calling the German Social Democrats Social Fascists after they betrayed the Communists in the Spartacus Uprising. With that all said, the Socialist tendencies of Fascist movements were due to opportunism due to the popularity of Socialist ideals. It's nothing but empty Populism with no real backing to it. Why else would people like Hitler be supported by Industrial Icons like Henry Ford?
@@ThatsABean "Fascism is ultimately focused on outgroups to justify itself and excuse the issues of its society." Marxism and by extension all Class focused forms of Socialism do not? What is a Capitalist then? The Money Changers, and better yet in modern times slogans like "It isn't person, it's just business" so heavily over used to demonize entire segments of society as the bane of humanity. I think you forget ALL COLLECTIVISM creates enemies to destroy even if those enemies do not really exist. Socialism is Collectivism, Fascism is Collectivism, they are function/operate the same way generally, even if ideologically they have differences. They're replacements for Religion in short. I could go a tad farther and ask why does the Stereotype of a Capitalist fit perfectly in line with old Christian stereotypes of the J**s but that is a whole other argument. There is a reason Marx wrote "On the J**ish Question" as an attempt to say it's all just a coincidence. Basically why I think Hitler and Marx have similar views on the origin of Capitalism. "The fact that Hitler proceeded to destroy worker's organizations and empower private enterprises betrays any form of leftist thought." Anti-Nazi Marxist Propaganda at it's finest. Examples: 1. Reich's Labor Service (state owned Agricultural Worker's Union) 2. German Labor Front (State owned Industrial Woker's Union) 3. Organization Todt (State owned Labor Army for construction works) All State owned, and Operated Labor Unions, and Worker's Armies. This is actually part of the 8th Pillar of the Communist Manifesto ironically. Nazis didn't crush labor unions, they nationalized them. The crushing was those unions which refused to join the "State's" Unions. It's exactly what happened in the Soviet Union, but I don't see people using that argument against the Soviet Union. Interesting enough, no one could hire worker's in Germany outside of these Unions as well. So the Nazi's also Monopolized Labor under the State. "empower private enterprises betrays any form of leftist thought." Because that is a lie. They didn't even use the term privatization. Yet it's attributed to them. "Additionally, the Nazis privatized some public services which had been previously provided by the government, especially social and labor-related services, and these were mainly taken over by organizations affiliated with the Nazi Party that could be trusted to apply Nazi racial policies." (My Opinion: Public services were taken away from the "State" and Given back to the State? Contradictions are wonderful and historians love making them) Quote from "Against the Mainstream Privatization in 1930s Germany." "On July 15, 1933 a law was enacted that imposed compulsory membership in cartels, while by 1934 the Third Reich had mandated a reorganization of all companies and trade associations and formed an alliance with the Nazi regime." (Opinion: Forcing business to make a direct alliance with the State and alliance is a soft term to use to describe it... they had no choice.. talk about empowering business... the term alliance is used to make it sound like it isn't a hostile state take over of business, and it was, owners could still manage them but they did so on the state's behalf not the other way around. Gunther's book the Vampire Economy there is even a letter where business men started studying Marx just to understand the Nazis Government's economy policies) Quote from "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" "Josef Stalin never said that Fascism is Left-Wing, the closest thing to that is him calling the German Social Democrats Social Fascists after they betrayed the Communists in the Spartacus Uprising." Well I got that from George Orwell, he was the one I read who said it. He also said that Communist in their Ultra Right phases consider Fascism to be to the Left. This heavily implies that our concept of left/right has changed since then as well because it technically makes no sense to say that? Well I understand it but I know far more political charts than many do. Even came up with my own that kind of works better, ie Collective Equality vs Individual Liberty. Left never cares much about Liberty more so equality, and Capitalism can not exist without a Liberal Society so if Capitalism is on the Right so must be Actual Liberalism. Conservatism means roughly nothing as it changes from place to place and only really means supporting the status quo, and if you're society is already liberal then conservatism is ironically liberalism. Because of this contradiction conservative is pretty much an empty word. " Seeing the result of fascist dictatorships that actually survived like Francoist Spain, Kuomintang's ROC Taiwan, Japan and South Korea, they all reverted to becoming Capitalist liberal democracies after they've defeated Socialist and Left-Wing movements in their country." Irrelevant as most of those regimes were never Fascist. labeling something as Fascist just because they goose step, and are run by dictators is a fallacy. It's actually why Orwell Wrote "What is Fascism?" In direct criticism of the liberal usage of the term. Which he kind of admits what he thinks fascism to be in his closing paragraphs when he says Fascist, Conservatives and Socialist need to make admissions. Singling out those specific parties, as he believed Fascism is most related to them. Fascism itself is literally National Syndicalism or more accurately National Corporatism. It has a heavy focus on state owned trade/labor unions and state owned corporations being the core/backbone of the economy. Corporatism allows room for private business (pseudo private) but those business have to join large State owned corporations, so your family baker becomes part of a nation wide Union of Bakers, whether you own a bakery or work in one everyone joins the same State owned Corporation/Union. That is the philosophy. Interesting enough the Nordic Model today is very similar though less extreme than the Fascist Corporatist Model. Both are Corporatists Economic Models, but in Scandinavia roughly 30% of the work force work for the State, and about half of the rest for state sponsored trade unions. There are still some private business, but it's about as closest as the "Goals" that Fascist sought that currently exist in the world today. "With that all said, the Socialist tendencies of Fascist movements were due to opportunism due to the popularity of Socialist ideals. It's nothing but empty Populism with no real backing to it. Why else would people like Hitler be supported by Industrial Icons like Henry Ford?" I've already explained enough that kind of makes this statement irrelevant but the Henry Ford part is pulling at straws. Ford was openly hostile towards Marxist Trade Unions. If you understand Hitler's views on Marxism, not his views on labor itself you'd understand why he'd praise him. He also praised him for his company's efficiency in production, not how profitable it was. in short, people who use this example are looking at it from the wrong angles.
@@n1nj4sp4rt4n th-cam.com/video/qdY_IMZH2Ko/w-d-xo.html < This guys video called "FASCISM DEFINED | The Difference between Fascism and National Socialism" is perhaps the best on the platform, he throws some fun humor and sarcasm into it, mean while actually cares about Fascist Literature and Fascist Leaning Authors when he did his resource for it. He even rips Umberto Eco a new one, ie an author who is either lying or has never read anything people like Mussolini, and Gentile ever wrote. It is if you know what a proper political chart looks like. The concept of Right Wing Collectivism doesn't even exist. With a proper chart actually being Collectivism vs Individualism or Power to the Group, or Power to the Individuals. Which means Fascism, Communism, Socialism and even Monarchism are Left Wing they all advocate giving power to the Public Sector rather than power to the Private Sector. Functionally all Power to the Public Sector movements are identical in how they function/operate. Their only real difference is what kind of Public Sector. Social Democrats believe in a Democratic Public Sector. Communist want a Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Fascist want a Corporate State. National Socialist a People's State. The Concept of Conservativism doesn't even apply as all Conservativism is is defending the Status Quo. If they're advocating a new society no matter what people call them, they're not actually conservative. Which is why I laugh when people considered the National Socialist Conservatives, despite what the NS say in speeches. Most of their opposite were German conservatives. The Aristocracy, and the Militarist primarily posed the biggest obstacles for the National Socialist in Germany. Among which were the biggest members of the Resistance as well which opposed the Party. Mean while a vast majority of the Communist and Social Democrats actually joined the National Socialist German Worker's Party by the mid 1930s. Interesting part about Conservatism. As I already said all it means is defending the Status Quo. Because of this if you live in a already Liberal Society, ie built on the foundation of Liberalism, like the US Constitution was for example. Defending the Status Quo, and upholding those Laws, and Rights placed upon Individuals, is Liberalism. This is why Constitutional Conservatives are often more Liberal than the Left. It's also why American Libertarianism is almost exclusively Right Wing as well. Because the Left Operates under the term Modern Liberalism which grew out of the 1930s, which isn't real liberalism, it's just an appropriated word. If you look at what Modern Liberalism's goals are, it's just Social Democratic Goals with the term Liberal taped to the side to make it sound more well "FREE." Issue is Social Democracy is less extreme branch of the Marxist Socialist movement. It doesn't believe in a violent revolution but a changing of society through democratic reforms into a Socialist Society. ie change society progressively when society is ready to change through democracy, ie if people are opposed to it, democratically against the change then society isn't ready. That is kind of the Social Democratic goal. Instead of doing what the Leninist did for example, forced Socialism all at once, utterly destroying a nation's economy. Social Democratic believe in slowly changing the system one step at a time over generations if necessary. Gives society time to adjust, economy time to adjust. etc etc. But it's still the Public Sector State which takes control, and Collectivism, being Collectivism is opposed to Individualism, then the Left by default isn't Liberal not by a long shot. This is why modern Liberalism is just a slight of hand, it isn't actually Liberalism. This is also why in the USA there is a Distinction between Conservatives and Christian Conservatives as well. Most normal Conservatives are preservers of Common Law, the US Constitution, and protection of laws that protect the rights of the Individual Citizen, which is Liberalism at it's very core. So ironically, this means the Right Wing in the USA is the Liberal Faction in America. That being said this leaves really only one conclusion. A political chart a proper one is literally Power to the Group, or Power to the Individuals. Collectivism vs Individualism, and I would argue the best way of describing Left vs Right is, Collectivist Equality vs Individual Liberty. Being Equality will always come at the expense of Liberty. Being Liberty is the cornerstone of Liberalism, it's just another reason why I don't consider the Left Liberal. As Gentile described, only through the State can people be proper Individuals, and be truly Free, it's a contradiction, but it's one I noticed Leftist in general follow. ie you're only as free as the Collective Group you're a part of, if you go against that group, you will see how unfree you actually are.
I think that is a coherent and sensible way of looking at the whole paradigm. I think many who consider themselves on the Left seem to be in denial of the left's own predilection for authoritarianism, but it is what it is. The labels are hardly useful these days except for identifying one's position in the 'culture war'.
I'm not surprised he feels so strongly against his previous works. He puts in themes regarding the environment, consumerism, worker's being uplifted, and a general nostalgia for a time in the industry that has long since died out from the 1980s.
For a guy to have a successful brand like Ghibli, that would mean merchandise, which of course means pollution, consumerism and no doubt some level of worker exploitation manufacturing all of that. I cannot blame him for being so critical of his work with the realization how hypocritical he's being. I remember that one of his biggest disappointments is realizing more kids were staying at home watching his movies than they were actually going out and knowing the world and communicating with people.
And honestly, the uncomfortable thing regarding all his works is how modernity at its core requires a hefty amount out of the environment in terms of resources and putting out pollution. Ghibli is primarily digital at this point and Miyazaki often contemplates just how self-destructive the current situation in the world is regarding industry and modernity.
The Wind Rises is probably the most blunt account of Miyazaki's feelings being someone with such a notable impact on the art world and the world as a whole in producing his films. He wanted to create wonderful things in place of a previous dream/interest, and it ends up being something that's used by forces larger than him to make the world worse off and not at all within his intentions.
Also, I’m surprised he doesn’t like Kiki anymore. I personally view it as a pro-worker film with Kiki learning to value her chosen job and her worth. It also has something to say about burnout I think from a contemporary perspective
Ye, there's even a moment in the NHK doc where he possibly attacks Kiki again. It's when he's rallying the crew after the earthquake and explaining the importance of focusing on Jiro, he says "what else are we going to do? make another film just about another girl's life?" What I think happened is he still regrets the forced ending of Kiki, when he adapted Howl he changed it to be about the Iraq War rather than try and be faithful. He also seemingly revisited the work/burnout theme in Spirited Away from a different viewpoint.
This was great. I enjoyed this a lot. I’m working on a paper about Miyazaki and appreciate your viewpoint and comments.
Thanks! Glad it was helpful for you.
Miyazaki ♥️ is my inspiration 🙇
cool vidéo, top tier work Big thanks from France
I love this Channel. It's so good.
Algorithm engagement comment.
This was a great essay.
Thank you! Means a lot!
When on 2:12 you talk about Miyazaki refering to Nausicaa, he most likely talks about manga, not movie
Thank you for making this video, it was very interesting. I chose not to watch The Wind Rises because I was concerned about its messaging, but maybe I should check it out. Curious how you would characterize the possible ideological differences between Miyazaki and Isao Takahata, and their respective war movies. This may be a minority opinion, but I dislike Grave of the Fireflies which felt emotionally manipulative to me. (I haven’t seen it in years, though) On the other hand, I really enjoyed Only Yesterday and The Tale of Princess Kaguya.
I didn’t know that the NHK started censoring their programming. Has that situation changed, for better or worse, since 2013?
He almost didn't make the Wind Rises for the same reason. I cross cut those scenes because I feel that they're the main thesis of the film. If you stop creating because of how ppl might abuse your work then you've allowed them to win anyway because the dissent isn't being created.
As for Takahata I was thinking about maybe doing a dive into all of his works or just Grave of the Fireflies because I do think it highlights something important. Anti-war films are difficult because the intended audience can simply ignore a film that they feel blames them, and I think I see how Takahata tried to stop that from happening.
The NHK under PM Abe was put under tight restrictions, the last time I tuned in to morning news was 2016 and it was spinning the Abe cabinet's opinions as facts through educational shorts. I'm going to keep collecting NHK works to do a detailed video on their method of misinformation at some point.
I respect NHK for their battle of Imphal documentary though. The IJA high command was portrayed in truthful and unflattering light
I was aware of a lot of these issues in Japan and how Miyazaki is pretty 'woke' but I really like how this video puts everything together.
Very underrated video
I think you just get sick of it after you've worked on it so long. I used to work with subtitling Japanese television and I grew tired after a while since I spent so much time on them.
Though I would argue, that it isn't the Far Right. Most people's concept of left/right politics is kind of messed up as the mid 20th Century turned the idea on it's head. Best example being, Communist in their conservative phases viewed Fascism to be to the left of them, even Josef Stalin considered Fascism a Leftist ideology. Mean while Fascist at least Italian Fascist viewed the Liberal State to be a Capitalist State, ie Capitalism is a Liberal Economic system.
I would even argue that Nationalism isn't a right wing position, because many Leftist were Nationalist throughout history. Woodrow Wilson being big example. He was a Nationalist, Devout Christian, Lost Cause Revisionist, was pro KKK, and a Racist but what is most interesting is how many of his social reforms fit perfectly well with Marx's Communist Manifesto, including reforms and expansion of the Public School System, Graduated Income Taxes, Federal Trade Regulation, a State Centralized Bank (Federal Reserve). I mean based on the first half of my description you'd say he sounds like an Ultra Right Wing nut job, but the 2nd half he sounds like an ultra left wing nut job... so which was he?
Issue is most people's idea of left/right is warped, and honestly I've not even figured out what Left and Right means, outside of people Group Power/Equality = Left vs Individual Freedom, and Economic Liberalism = Right. The concept of Liberal or Conservative doesn't even seem to apply to either, as it seems to fluidly jump from one to the other.
This would also mean that the phrase if you go too far to the left and too far to the right you end up with the same thing = a lie. As whatever they're referring to were always the same thing, and should be on the same side of the scale. As the phrase goes, something is either true or it's false it can not be both. So is Far Rightism = Fascism, and Fight Leftism = Communism, yet they have nearly identical Veneer, to me that must be a fallacy, either Communism is Far Right along side Fascism or they're both Far Left. Those trying to say otherwise either dunno what they're talking about, or are insanely bias, and distorting facts. Being from my own Studies, Fascism was born from National Syndicalism (real ideology btw, so is Fascist Syndicalism), and Syndicalism is on the Marxist Tree, I'm more incline to believe Fascism belongs on the Left, and was never a Right Wing Ideology.
But hopefully you may understand what I'm getting at.
That kinda ignores the reality of how Fascism materially interacts with Capital and the means of production and how it panned out in history.
Fascism is ultimately focused on outgroups to justify itself and excuse the issues of its society. The fact that Hitler proceeded to destroy worker's organizations and empower private enterprises betrays any form of leftist thought. Seeing the result of fascist dictatorships that actually survived like Francoist Spain, Kuomintang's ROC Taiwan, Japan and South Korea, they all reverted to becoming Capitalist liberal democracies after they've defeated Socialist and Left-Wing movements in their country.
Josef Stalin never said that Fascism is Left-Wing, the closest thing to that is him calling the German Social Democrats Social Fascists after they betrayed the Communists in the Spartacus Uprising.
With that all said, the Socialist tendencies of Fascist movements were due to opportunism due to the popularity of Socialist ideals. It's nothing but empty Populism with no real backing to it. Why else would people like Hitler be supported by Industrial Icons like Henry Ford?
@@ThatsABean
"Fascism is ultimately focused on outgroups to justify itself and excuse the issues of its society."
Marxism and by extension all Class focused forms of Socialism do not? What is a Capitalist then? The Money Changers, and better yet in modern times slogans like "It isn't person, it's just business" so heavily over used to demonize entire segments of society as the bane of humanity. I think you forget ALL COLLECTIVISM creates enemies to destroy even if those enemies do not really exist. Socialism is Collectivism, Fascism is Collectivism, they are function/operate the same way generally, even if ideologically they have differences. They're replacements for Religion in short.
I could go a tad farther and ask why does the Stereotype of a Capitalist fit perfectly in line with old Christian stereotypes of the J**s but that is a whole other argument. There is a reason Marx wrote "On the J**ish Question" as an attempt to say it's all just a coincidence. Basically why I think Hitler and Marx have similar views on the origin of Capitalism.
"The fact that Hitler proceeded to destroy worker's organizations and empower private enterprises betrays any form of leftist thought."
Anti-Nazi Marxist Propaganda at it's finest.
Examples:
1. Reich's Labor Service (state owned Agricultural Worker's Union)
2. German Labor Front (State owned Industrial Woker's Union)
3. Organization Todt (State owned Labor Army for construction works)
All State owned, and Operated Labor Unions, and Worker's Armies. This is actually part of the 8th Pillar of the Communist Manifesto ironically. Nazis didn't crush labor unions, they nationalized them. The crushing was those unions which refused to join the "State's" Unions. It's exactly what happened in the Soviet Union, but I don't see people using that argument against the Soviet Union.
Interesting enough, no one could hire worker's in Germany outside of these Unions as well. So the Nazi's also Monopolized Labor under the State.
"empower private enterprises betrays any form of leftist thought."
Because that is a lie. They didn't even use the term privatization. Yet it's attributed to them.
"Additionally, the Nazis privatized some public services which had been previously provided by the government, especially social and labor-related services, and these were mainly taken over by organizations affiliated with the Nazi Party that could be trusted to apply Nazi racial policies."
(My Opinion: Public services were taken away from the "State" and Given back to the State? Contradictions are wonderful and historians love making them)
Quote from "Against the Mainstream Privatization in 1930s Germany."
"On July 15, 1933 a law was enacted that imposed compulsory membership in cartels, while by 1934 the Third Reich had mandated a reorganization of all companies and trade associations and formed an alliance with the Nazi regime."
(Opinion: Forcing business to make a direct alliance with the State and alliance is a soft term to use to describe it... they had no choice.. talk about empowering business... the term alliance is used to make it sound like it isn't a hostile state take over of business, and it was, owners could still manage them but they did so on the state's behalf not the other way around. Gunther's book the Vampire Economy there is even a letter where business men started studying Marx just to understand the Nazis Government's economy policies)
Quote from "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich"
"Josef Stalin never said that Fascism is Left-Wing, the closest thing to that is him calling the German Social Democrats Social Fascists after they betrayed the Communists in the Spartacus Uprising."
Well I got that from George Orwell, he was the one I read who said it. He also said that Communist in their Ultra Right phases consider Fascism to be to the Left. This heavily implies that our concept of left/right has changed since then as well because it technically makes no sense to say that?
Well I understand it but I know far more political charts than many do. Even came up with my own that kind of works better, ie Collective Equality vs Individual Liberty. Left never cares much about Liberty more so equality, and Capitalism can not exist without a Liberal Society so if Capitalism is on the Right so must be Actual Liberalism. Conservatism means roughly nothing as it changes from place to place and only really means supporting the status quo, and if you're society is already liberal then conservatism is ironically liberalism. Because of this contradiction conservative is pretty much an empty word.
" Seeing the result of fascist dictatorships that actually survived like Francoist Spain, Kuomintang's ROC Taiwan, Japan and South Korea, they all reverted to becoming Capitalist liberal democracies after they've defeated Socialist and Left-Wing movements in their country."
Irrelevant as most of those regimes were never Fascist. labeling something as Fascist just because they goose step, and are run by dictators is a fallacy. It's actually why Orwell Wrote "What is Fascism?" In direct criticism of the liberal usage of the term. Which he kind of admits what he thinks fascism to be in his closing paragraphs when he says Fascist, Conservatives and Socialist need to make admissions. Singling out those specific parties, as he believed Fascism is most related to them.
Fascism itself is literally National Syndicalism or more accurately National Corporatism. It has a heavy focus on state owned trade/labor unions and state owned corporations being the core/backbone of the economy. Corporatism allows room for private business (pseudo private) but those business have to join large State owned corporations, so your family baker becomes part of a nation wide Union of Bakers, whether you own a bakery or work in one everyone joins the same State owned Corporation/Union. That is the philosophy.
Interesting enough the Nordic Model today is very similar though less extreme than the Fascist Corporatist Model. Both are Corporatists Economic Models, but in Scandinavia roughly 30% of the work force work for the State, and about half of the rest for state sponsored trade unions. There are still some private business, but it's about as closest as the "Goals" that Fascist sought that currently exist in the world today.
"With that all said, the Socialist tendencies of Fascist movements were due to opportunism due to the popularity of Socialist ideals. It's nothing but empty Populism with no real backing to it. Why else would people like Hitler be supported by Industrial Icons like Henry Ford?"
I've already explained enough that kind of makes this statement irrelevant but the Henry Ford part is pulling at straws. Ford was openly hostile towards Marxist Trade Unions. If you understand Hitler's views on Marxism, not his views on labor itself you'd understand why he'd praise him. He also praised him for his company's efficiency in production, not how profitable it was. in short, people who use this example are looking at it from the wrong angles.
"Josef Stalin considered Fascism a Leftist ideology" bro take ur meds
@@n1nj4sp4rt4n
th-cam.com/video/qdY_IMZH2Ko/w-d-xo.html < This guys video called "FASCISM DEFINED | The Difference between Fascism and National Socialism" is perhaps the best on the platform, he throws some fun humor and sarcasm into it, mean while actually cares about Fascist Literature and Fascist Leaning Authors when he did his resource for it. He even rips Umberto Eco a new one, ie an author who is either lying or has never read anything people like Mussolini, and Gentile ever wrote.
It is if you know what a proper political chart looks like. The concept of Right Wing Collectivism doesn't even exist. With a proper chart actually being Collectivism vs Individualism or Power to the Group, or Power to the Individuals. Which means Fascism, Communism, Socialism and even Monarchism are Left Wing they all advocate giving power to the Public Sector rather than power to the Private Sector. Functionally all Power to the Public Sector movements are identical in how they function/operate. Their only real difference is what kind of Public Sector. Social Democrats believe in a Democratic Public Sector. Communist want a Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Fascist want a Corporate State. National Socialist a People's State.
The Concept of Conservativism doesn't even apply as all Conservativism is is defending the Status Quo. If they're advocating a new society no matter what people call them, they're not actually conservative. Which is why I laugh when people considered the National Socialist Conservatives, despite what the NS say in speeches. Most of their opposite were German conservatives. The Aristocracy, and the Militarist primarily posed the biggest obstacles for the National Socialist in Germany. Among which were the biggest members of the Resistance as well which opposed the Party. Mean while a vast majority of the Communist and Social Democrats actually joined the National Socialist German Worker's Party by the mid 1930s.
Interesting part about Conservatism. As I already said all it means is defending the Status Quo. Because of this if you live in a already Liberal Society, ie built on the foundation of Liberalism, like the US Constitution was for example. Defending the Status Quo, and upholding those Laws, and Rights placed upon Individuals, is Liberalism. This is why Constitutional Conservatives are often more Liberal than the Left. It's also why American Libertarianism is almost exclusively Right Wing as well. Because the Left Operates under the term Modern Liberalism which grew out of the 1930s, which isn't real liberalism, it's just an appropriated word. If you look at what Modern Liberalism's goals are, it's just Social Democratic Goals with the term Liberal taped to the side to make it sound more well "FREE." Issue is Social Democracy is less extreme branch of the Marxist Socialist movement. It doesn't believe in a violent revolution but a changing of society through democratic reforms into a Socialist Society. ie change society progressively when society is ready to change through democracy, ie if people are opposed to it, democratically against the change then society isn't ready. That is kind of the Social Democratic goal. Instead of doing what the Leninist did for example, forced Socialism all at once, utterly destroying a nation's economy. Social Democratic believe in slowly changing the system one step at a time over generations if necessary. Gives society time to adjust, economy time to adjust. etc etc. But it's still the Public Sector State which takes control, and Collectivism, being Collectivism is opposed to Individualism, then the Left by default isn't Liberal not by a long shot. This is why modern Liberalism is just a slight of hand, it isn't actually Liberalism.
This is also why in the USA there is a Distinction between Conservatives and Christian Conservatives as well. Most normal Conservatives are preservers of Common Law, the US Constitution, and protection of laws that protect the rights of the Individual Citizen, which is Liberalism at it's very core. So ironically, this means the Right Wing in the USA is the Liberal Faction in America.
That being said this leaves really only one conclusion. A political chart a proper one is literally Power to the Group, or Power to the Individuals. Collectivism vs Individualism, and I would argue the best way of describing Left vs Right is, Collectivist Equality vs Individual Liberty. Being Equality will always come at the expense of Liberty. Being Liberty is the cornerstone of Liberalism, it's just another reason why I don't consider the Left Liberal. As Gentile described, only through the State can people be proper Individuals, and be truly Free, it's a contradiction, but it's one I noticed Leftist in general follow. ie you're only as free as the Collective Group you're a part of, if you go against that group, you will see how unfree you actually are.
I think that is a coherent and sensible way of looking at the whole paradigm. I think many who consider themselves on the Left seem to be in denial of the left's own predilection for authoritarianism, but it is what it is. The labels are hardly useful these days except for identifying one's position in the 'culture war'.