For me, Robert Paxton’s book Anatomy of Fascism is the gold standard. Fascism is a notoriously slippery and hard thing to define or explain. No one got it closer than he did. An incredibly good and clear read.
R. Palme Dutt, “Fascism and Social Revolution”, 3rd Ed. (1935). Dutt will be your NEW GOLD STANDARD on the subject of the theory of fascism and the history of its appearance, spread and flourish in many diverse nations in the early 20th century: There’s simply no book better than Dutt’s. Whether you’re normally a Marxist-Leninist or not, Dutt’s book is the most thorough, comprehensive, analytically rigorous and incredibly persuasive discussion and explanation of fascism and Nazism you’ve read or are likely to read. Dutt’s brilliance is all the more impressive now, almost a century later, after the subsequent “defeat” of fascism in the 1940s given the power of Dutt’s explanation to understand the slow gestation and eventual. rebirth of fascism across the worlds western democracies since their adoption of neoliberal finance capitalism and various policies that resemble Reaganomics since the 1980s. I’ve read over a dozen books on the subject, and from several theoretical approaches to the subject and BY FAR THE BEST ON THE SUBECT of FASCISM is by the brilliant 20th century Indian-British Marxist critic of fascism, imperialism and colonialism … Rajani Palme Dutt. Here’s a link to download it for free: www.marxists.org/archive/dutt/1935/fascism-social-revolution-3.pdf R. Palme Dutt, “Fascism and Social Revolution”, 3rd Ed. (1935). Download it now you can thank me later, comrade! Read it and get to work on all the darn reactionaries! Socialism4All on UA-cam has also read the Dutt book as a multi part audiobook YT video with his own intelligent “footnote” style comments interspersed as additions. Highly recommended as well. Listen here:
@@Historia.Magistra.Vitae. Yes and that is why the first Nazi concentration camp was made for communists, because Marx argued that the prerequisite for a socialist revolution is the extermination of all socialists with capitalist funded military. You are a spinoff from a far right clown.
@@antoinebenobre2552 : You do realize that the Gul ags in the US SR were specifically build for other socia lists (Mensheviks, Trotskyists etc) among other things, right? _"I have learned a great deal from Marx ism as I do not hesitate to admit… The difference between them and myself is that I have really put into practice what these peddlers and pen pushers have timidly begun. The whole of Na tional Soc ialism is based on it… Nati onal Social ism is what Marxi sm might have been if it could have broken its absurd and artificial ties with a democratic order.“_ - Ad olf Hi tler
@@_Historia.Magistra.Vitae. You do realize that suppression of political competitors was based on getting rid of the less orthodox Marxists in USSR, when suppression of competitors in Nazi Germany was about getting rid of the most orthodox of Marxists and the whole left in general ? AH when he was elected worker's deputy was doing nothing but being a snitch for his capitalists and ended up being hunted away by the workers. That you mistake Marxist theory for Nazism shows that you clearly haven't read it and fell for the trap fascism is supposed to be.
@@_Historia.Magistra.Vitae. And just in case you didn't understand : gulags were not specifically made for Marxist competitors, they were primarily designed for reactionaries, ie the right. These people made the greatest fraction of political opponents in its walls. The first enemy of the left is the right, and the first enemy of the right is the left, they're each side's main contradiction as Mao said
Very good sum up of the function of fascism. Maybe only two things to add, to conclude to the question "what actually is fascism?" I prefer the short discription that Georgi Dimitroff wrote: "Fascism is the terroristic dictatorship of the most reactionary, chauvinistic and imperialistic elements of capital.". This hits the spot in one straight sentence. And secondly, maybe just for the origin of the word itself: In ancient rome the "Fasces" is an bundle of sticks bound together with an axe, symbolizing the strength of a collective (sticks in a bundle dont break as easy as just one) and the axe (representing the ruler) who could at all time chop the sticks if necessary, the fasces symbolizes the power of the ruling class over the masses.
Failed! First he references the current alt- right (not the same), then talks about NATIONAL SOCIALISM, and barely a word on the philosophical ideas that originate fascism and it's beginnings as a Movement of the people in 'National Syndicalism'
I like to recommend this master's thesis: AGAINST THE CLASSES AND THE MASSES: THE AMERICAN LEGION, THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR, AND SQUARE DEAL AMERICANISM IN THE 1920S -by Gregory S. Hopely
for this read - people who feel lower down the pyramid scheme than they did as children ( ressentiment ) bourgeoisie: the middle class, typically with reference to its perceived materialistic values or conventional attitudes. "the rise of the bourgeoisie at the end of the eighteenth century" (in Marxist contexts) the capitalist class who own most of society's wealth and means of production. "the conflict of interest between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat"
So that means Fascist could actually mean something for some people? Like for an example indigenous people of Australia, and America. Who actually been through struggle, genocide, plagues, language, poverty, replaced, almost at risk of losing their culture and ethics groups. Who actually were victims by that. I'm starting to see fascist different
no because they were/are actually oppressed and were subjugated into extermination themselves for centuries study and learn from indigenous liberation movements
Would you consider then radical Islamic movements in 20th and 21 st century as a fascist movement, based on the symptoms you explain here? Let the view not be confined to European centric societies but rather Asian. Have you thought about the partition of India, genocide of Hindus in both east and west Pakistan territories which ultimately was whipped up by politics which aspired to create ‘land of the pure’ which by the way is what Pakistan means in Persian! Are these fascistic symptoms too? What then is the solution? Iran, Afghanistan, Iraq , Syria, Lebanon all have seen their share of Islamic fundamentalism. I would classify these as fascistic episodes too! What is your view? How do socialists view ideologies that grew up in feudal times now? Since the beginning the call for reform isn’t working! Do you think then Chinese repression of Uighur Muslims?
Fascism emerges out of a crisis of capitalism and imperialism, for that reason it is largely a concept relating to European societies. Or imperialism turned inward. While the colonized world is not exempt from hateful or violent ideologies, they aren’t fascist because they are not the colonizers, they are the colonized and thus on the opposite side of the global class relation through which fascism emerges.
@@redpen1917 Interesting, so your focus is European societies emerging from Crisis of Capitalism and imperialism as Fascism. Two observations, People like Arundhathi Roy and other Leftist intelligentsia routinely label India and BJP as fascist. So based on your definition this is not true. Second, Imperialism and colonization predates Capitalism. Imperialism needs no introduction. Romans, Ummayads, Abbasids, Ottomans, all have had pretty good run in that and so did the English, French and Japanese in the last 200 years. Colonization is not apparent but, when a society conquers another and exploits that land and resource and people, then Turks in India, Mughals, Arabs in Africa, they were all doing it. All predate Capitalism. It would be interesting to get your answer for other questions as well.
Many would disagree with the assessment that Modi or Pinochet or even Israel (pre 2022) are fascist. Yes, they have authoritarian and militaristic rule at the core of their policies, but fascism is not something that “happens” it is a latent movement that cannot be separated from capitalism. Same with imperialism - it is the highest stage of capitalism, and fundamentally distinct from pre-capitalist forms of colonialism. I mention the solution in the video.
Found this channel today, the quality is excellent. Can you do a video on Antifa, are they a bunch of trolls or what? I know theyve been around since the 30s but there isnt much about them in the present day.
I'm a firm believer in supporting one's own nation.In one's own culture , GOD created variety for a reason. I don't believe. Violence is the answer but I will not be forced to be thrown into a melting pot when we have so much to be proud of in a balanced way
Fuck are you on about? So long as you're not being exterminated and your history isn't being burned, your culture isn't going anywhere, it's also your job to maintain your own private tradition. You can't claim ethnonation-state territory in a land with many people. Self determination is fine. But socialism is flexible enough to support far more local Autonomy than what exists in America. It's called council communism. Remember, the Soviet Union was a union of REPUBLICS.
@Cpripri85 No culture exists today or will exist in the future exactly how it has existed in the past. Culture is constantly advancing and changing with the progression of technology and the human race, and the culture today will be almost unrecognizable in a handful of generations from now. There is nothing anyone can do to stop it, short of bombing each other back to the stone age. We as parents have the right to raise our children with our values, but those children are under no obligation to follow them as adults. Different cultures have been blended since the beginning humanity, whether by choice or by violence. It is foolish to think it has somehow reached its peak, and that we should now preserve it for eternity.
This whole take is under the assumption that globalism is good Anybody can make anything sound bad or good depending on what they choose to include or keep out.
You’re right about including or excluding facts to draw a point, every historian does it, but the question is why some facts get included and why others are excluded. The politics behind historical memory and construction has very little to do with moralistic claims of good and bad, and more to do with the politics of discovering and establishing the truth.
@@redpen1917 thats a fairly balanced answer. Are you sure you are a marxist ? the ones I've met thus far have all been, let's just say far less'articulate'.
@redpen1917 It is a world created by Mussolini that means a bundle of sticks bound together. Apparently the Italians used it to represent a group of people working as 1. Interestingly they referred to trade unions as fascists but that is not how it is used now.
Good video This feels like a remarkable race blind video on fascism, even early Italian fascism was built on white supremacy, and i also think that works with the Marxist lens that your using. Like I feel like you can even say “the fascist racial ideology was downstream from colonial racial ideology” like I think the critique on class collaborationism is true but I do think you need to center race more in this video, especially as the neofascism we see today are heavily focus on the great replacement myth, Secondly I also think you can go more in-depth in your analysis of the start of WW2, specifically how capitalist/market forces pushed Germany to a position where there was geopolitical incentive for Germany to get good land, you can even use it to explain base and super structure
I take your points. There is much room for emphasis on the points you mention in a longer video. In no way am i suggesting any aspect of fascism is “downstream” from another as fascism ought to be viewed as a holistic political project. I was hoping that the racist aspects of fascism were communicated through the discussion on ultranationalism, colonialism, and eugenics.
_"even early Italian fa scism was built on wh ite supr emacy, "_ Wrong. Neith er fasci sm nor naz ism advocated for "whi te suprem acy". Raci sm wasn't really part of the fas cist ideology and na zism was based on "aryan ism" instead.
@@redpen1917 I that’s totally fair, I’m just saying if I made this video (witch I didn’t you do) I would be talking a lot more about race, with that being said this video does deserve more views
@@Historia-Magistra-Vitae. Aryanism is a Subset of White supremacy. White supremacism isn't inherently Pan european. You can be a White supremacist and exclude Other people colloquially refered to as "White" from the category of "True European". Nordicists do this all the time, even discriminating against Other Europeans. Its still White supremacism. The American Racial Paradigm is not Universal. Not everyone thinks about Race the way you do.
I dont know if "white supremacy" featured that prominently in Nazi literature. Most of the people they killed ie Jewish people, Poles where white. They were racist, Ultraracists if anything, But obsession with phenotype and centering their political and social system around that is a purely Anglo settler world view, a practical means when you have to integrate different European ethnic groups but lack an ethnic argument to forge a new society, so skin color becomes the identifier for eligibility.
The biggest issue with a social revolution, is that it’s likely practically impossible to implement it in a country and still maintain it as a democracy. So, whenever people plan on executing a social revolution, they should know up front that, after its implementation, they will be living in a country that is not a democracy anymore, and they will lose their personal freedoms.
Democracy is the problem. when everybody gets to make decisions, everybody is accountable, and when everybody is responsible, Nobody is. Elections mint new leaders who underperform only to be reelected or kicked out only for another candidate to pursue the same level of neutralism, which in itself is not a bad thing, but when you are facing exceptional challenges like poverty, under industrialization, illiteracy and unemployment, Compressing authority into the hands of the responsible few is the best option, The problem with Fascists and Nazis, in particular, was their pathological obsession with race and antisemitism. Even on the practical side of things Stalin took a keen interest in running the bureaucracy, while Hitler's top management was running on fuhrerprinzip, which is not the best way to run the country, As the Chinese would figure out later on. Even Mao's bloody actions had the unintended positive side effect of removing local fiefs from setting up roadblocks during the reform period thus creating a more confident central govt that didnt have to worry about local authorities subverting central control, This is very different from how the Soviets went about with their reforms. We all know how that turned out. So as a non marxist, I'd say communism has evolved just as much as capitalism has since its inception in the 20th century.
@@johnsmith100How many of the countries subjected to the waves of Marxist revolutions in the 20th century had a strongly established democratic tradition? The answer is very few and of the ones which do meet such criteria, they made the separate mistake of mechanically copying the Soviet Union's social designs rather than developing unique adaptations of their own. It is hardly surprising then that in the average socialist state there persisted a paternalistic and top-down approach to governance. Should a modern social revolution take place in the context of a culture which already values bottom-up politics, we should likewise expect its new state of affairs to somewhat resemble that which preceded them.
I was taught that National Socialism was fundamentally opposed to International Socialism/ Bolshevism / Marxist - Leninism. The Nazis equated Capitalism with World Jewry along with Bolshevism. The racist tenets of Nazism differentiated it from Italian Fascism.
It's not a socialism rooted in Marxist class analysis. Fascism tries to get the working class to ignore the class conflict. There's a really good master's thesis called: AGAINST THE CLASSES AND THE MASSES: THE AMERICAN LEGION, THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR, AND SQUARE DEAL AMERICANISM IN THE 1920S -by Gregory S. Hopely
Sorry, but ignorance of basic terminology is palpable. Theory of fascism including the name was the work of Benito Mussolini. Read his Doctrine of Fascism, and The Corporate State. Hitler was a national socialist who started his ideology with economic theories of Dr. Gottfried Feder, specifically with Feder's The Abolition of Interest Servitude (1919). Research it yourself. It is a banned territory.
"Giovanni Gentile was described by Mussolini, and by himself, as "the philosopher of Fascism"; he was the ghostwriter of the first part of the essay "The Doctrine of Fascism" (1932), attributed to Mussolini."
excellent. but what is a socialist revolution? please mention that communism is pretty much the same as fascism. and also don't talk about 'capitalism' as one thing...regulated capitalism can become socialism as i understand it... or maybe not. i just don't see the need for 'revolution'
@redpen1917 Marx wrote before Gentile or Mussolini, he wasn't anti fascist, he couldn't be. Trotsky is anti fascist, but Stalin wasn't so much, italy was the first country to reconize the ussr, and he invaded Poland with Hitler and divided the spoils. The opposition is that both groups have no tolerance for any other political party, if your a commi you need to be a party member or gulag , if you're in a fascist country you like wise need to be a party member. Only when Hitler wanted Russia does he he turn on Stalin. Both hate liberal democracy too. Fascism wants conformity. I would expect multiple types of fascism to turn on each other eventually once an opportunity arises. There like sith, they will ally but ultimately destoy the other. Hitler was occupying Rome and calling the shots, Mussolini was at the end nothing but a puppet government.
For me, Robert Paxton’s book Anatomy of Fascism is the gold standard. Fascism is a notoriously slippery and hard thing to define or explain. No one got it closer than he did. An incredibly good and clear read.
R. Palme Dutt, “Fascism and Social Revolution”, 3rd Ed. (1935).
Dutt will be your NEW GOLD STANDARD on the subject of the theory of fascism and the history of its appearance, spread and flourish in many diverse nations in the early 20th century:
There’s simply no book better than Dutt’s. Whether you’re normally a Marxist-Leninist or not, Dutt’s book is the most thorough, comprehensive, analytically rigorous and incredibly persuasive discussion and explanation of fascism and Nazism you’ve read or are likely to read. Dutt’s brilliance is all the more impressive now, almost a century later, after the subsequent “defeat” of fascism in the 1940s given the power of Dutt’s explanation to understand the slow gestation and eventual. rebirth of fascism across the worlds western democracies since their adoption of neoliberal finance capitalism and various policies that resemble Reaganomics since the 1980s.
I’ve read over a dozen books on the subject, and from several theoretical approaches to the subject and BY FAR THE BEST ON THE SUBECT of FASCISM is by the brilliant 20th century Indian-British Marxist critic of fascism, imperialism and colonialism … Rajani Palme Dutt.
Here’s a link to download it for free:
www.marxists.org/archive/dutt/1935/fascism-social-revolution-3.pdf
R. Palme Dutt, “Fascism and Social Revolution”, 3rd Ed. (1935).
Download it now you can thank me later, comrade! Read it and get to work on all the darn reactionaries!
Socialism4All on UA-cam has also read the Dutt book as a multi part audiobook YT video with his own intelligent “footnote” style comments interspersed as additions. Highly recommended as well. Listen here:
By watching your video, it is cristal clear that you've read all Marxist theory. Great job comrade !
@@Historia.Magistra.Vitae. Yes and that is why the first Nazi concentration camp was made for communists, because Marx argued that the prerequisite for a socialist revolution is the extermination of all socialists with capitalist funded military. You are a spinoff from a far right clown.
@@antoinebenobre2552 : You do realize that the Gul ags in the US SR were specifically build for other socia lists (Mensheviks, Trotskyists etc) among other things, right?
_"I have learned a great deal from Marx ism as I do not hesitate to admit… The difference between them and myself is that I have really put into practice what these peddlers and pen pushers have timidly begun. The whole of Na tional Soc ialism is based on it… Nati onal Social ism is what Marxi sm might have been if it could have broken its absurd and artificial ties with a democratic order.“_
- Ad olf Hi tler
@@_Historia.Magistra.Vitae. You do realize that suppression of political competitors was based on getting rid of the less orthodox Marxists in USSR, when suppression of competitors in Nazi Germany was about getting rid of the most orthodox of Marxists and the whole left in general ? AH when he was elected worker's deputy was doing nothing but being a snitch for his capitalists and ended up being hunted away by the workers. That you mistake Marxist theory for Nazism shows that you clearly haven't read it and fell for the trap fascism is supposed to be.
@@_Historia.Magistra.Vitae. And just in case you didn't understand : gulags were not specifically made for Marxist competitors, they were primarily designed for reactionaries, ie the right. These people made the greatest fraction of political opponents in its walls. The first enemy of the left is the right, and the first enemy of the right is the left, they're each side's main contradiction as Mao said
@@antoinebenobre2552 _"and the whole left in general ? "_
Wrong. The entire Na zi regime consisted of former members of other lef tist movements.
The Henry Ford history is one of the things that still gets people to tell me to stop talking 😂
Very good sum up of the function of fascism. Maybe only two things to add, to conclude to the question "what actually is fascism?" I prefer the short discription that Georgi Dimitroff wrote: "Fascism is the terroristic dictatorship of the most reactionary, chauvinistic and imperialistic elements of capital.". This hits the spot in one straight sentence. And secondly, maybe just for the origin of the word itself: In ancient rome the "Fasces" is an bundle of sticks bound together with an axe, symbolizing the strength of a collective (sticks in a bundle dont break as easy as just one) and the axe (representing the ruler) who could at all time chop the sticks if necessary, the fasces symbolizes the power of the ruling class over the masses.
Good analysis.
Failed! First he references the current alt- right (not the same), then talks about NATIONAL SOCIALISM, and barely a word on the philosophical ideas that originate fascism and it's beginnings as a Movement of the people in 'National Syndicalism'
4:09 They started printing "Marx"
Oh how things could have been better haha
I like to recommend this master's thesis:
AGAINST THE CLASSES AND THE MASSES: THE AMERICAN LEGION, THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR, AND SQUARE DEAL AMERICANISM IN THE 1920S
-by Gregory S. Hopely
what are those vehicles at 6:13 ?
Excellent analysis.
for this read - people who feel lower down the pyramid scheme than they did as children ( ressentiment )
bourgeoisie: the middle class, typically with reference to its perceived materialistic values or conventional attitudes.
"the rise of the bourgeoisie at the end of the eighteenth century"
(in Marxist contexts) the capitalist class who own most of society's wealth and means of production.
"the conflict of interest between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat"
Lol. 15:38. that's MTG.
Ty
Love your content! How do we have a socialist revolution yo defeat Americam fascism ?
So that means Fascist could actually mean something for some people? Like for an example indigenous people of Australia, and America. Who actually been through struggle, genocide, plagues, language, poverty, replaced, almost at risk of losing their culture and ethics groups. Who actually were victims by that.
I'm starting to see fascist different
no because they were/are actually oppressed and were subjugated into extermination themselves for centuries
study and learn from indigenous liberation movements
Incredibly good
Would you consider then radical Islamic movements in 20th and 21 st century as a fascist movement, based on the symptoms you explain here?
Let the view not be confined to European centric societies but rather Asian. Have you thought about the partition of India, genocide of Hindus in both east and west Pakistan territories which ultimately was whipped up by politics which aspired to create ‘land of the pure’ which by the way is what Pakistan means in Persian! Are these fascistic symptoms too? What then is the solution?
Iran, Afghanistan, Iraq , Syria, Lebanon all have seen their share of Islamic fundamentalism. I would classify these as fascistic episodes too!
What is your view?
How do socialists view ideologies that grew up in feudal times now? Since the beginning the call for reform isn’t working!
Do you think then Chinese repression of Uighur Muslims?
Ok, would you consider Chinese communist party to be sufficiently socialist?
Fascism emerges out of a crisis of capitalism and imperialism, for that reason it is largely a concept relating to European societies. Or imperialism turned inward.
While the colonized world is not exempt from hateful or violent ideologies, they aren’t fascist because they are not the colonizers, they are the colonized and thus on the opposite side of the global class relation through which fascism emerges.
@@redpen1917 Interesting, so your focus is European societies emerging from Crisis of Capitalism and imperialism as Fascism.
Two observations, People like Arundhathi Roy and other Leftist intelligentsia routinely label India and BJP as fascist. So based on your definition this is not true.
Second, Imperialism and colonization predates Capitalism. Imperialism needs no introduction. Romans, Ummayads, Abbasids, Ottomans, all have had pretty good run in that and so did the English, French and Japanese in the last 200 years.
Colonization is not apparent but, when a society conquers another and exploits that land and resource and people, then Turks in India, Mughals, Arabs in Africa, they were all doing it. All predate Capitalism.
It would be interesting to get your answer for other questions as well.
Many would disagree with the assessment that Modi or Pinochet or even Israel (pre 2022) are fascist. Yes, they have authoritarian and militaristic rule at the core of their policies, but fascism is not something that “happens” it is a latent movement that cannot be separated from capitalism. Same with imperialism - it is the highest stage of capitalism, and fundamentally distinct from pre-capitalist forms of colonialism. I mention the solution in the video.
No, but Ba'athism was heavily inspired by fascism, as are the S.S.N.P in Syria and Lebanon
Class Consciousness (Left-Wing) > Conspiracism (Right-Wing)
Christian Nationalism
❤
Found this channel today, the quality is excellent. Can you do a video on Antifa, are they a bunch of trolls or what? I know theyve been around since the 30s but there isnt much about them in the present day.
I'm a firm believer in supporting one's own nation.In one's own culture , GOD created variety for a reason.
I don't believe.
Violence is the answer but I will not be forced to be thrown into a melting pot when we have so much to be proud of in a balanced way
You sound misguided. God, melting pot, violence… say something about how we’re going to unite to make a better life after capitalism.
Fuck are you on about? So long as you're not being exterminated and your history isn't being burned, your culture isn't going anywhere, it's also your job to maintain your own private tradition. You can't claim ethnonation-state territory in a land with many people. Self determination is fine. But socialism is flexible enough to support far more local Autonomy than what exists in America. It's called council communism. Remember, the Soviet Union was a union of REPUBLICS.
@Cpripri85 No culture exists today or will exist in the future exactly how it has existed in the past. Culture is constantly advancing and changing with the progression of technology and the human race, and the culture today will be almost unrecognizable in a handful of generations from now. There is nothing anyone can do to stop it, short of bombing each other back to the stone age. We as parents have the right to raise our children with our values, but those children are under no obligation to follow them as adults. Different cultures have been blended since the beginning humanity, whether by choice or by violence. It is foolish to think it has somehow reached its peak, and that we should now preserve it for eternity.
UA-cam is the worst in the world often no line.
This whole take is under the assumption that globalism is good Anybody can make anything sound bad or good depending on what they choose to include or keep out.
You’re right about including or excluding facts to draw a point, every historian does it, but the question is why some facts get included and why others are excluded. The politics behind historical memory and construction has very little to do with moralistic claims of good and bad, and more to do with the politics of discovering and establishing the truth.
@@redpen1917 thats a fairly balanced answer. Are you sure you are a marxist ? the ones I've met thus far have all been, let's just say far less'articulate'.
You have misunderstood fascism. I wish it were possible to have a conversation with you and explain why.
Facist is a very slippery word that seems to mean what ever suits your critcism.
Facist isn’t actually a word.
@redpen1917 It is a world created by Mussolini that means a bundle of sticks bound together.
Apparently the Italians used it to represent a group of people working as 1.
Interestingly they referred to trade unions as fascists but that is not how it is used now.
Also keep in mind fascism now is defined only through western allies eyes which is somewhat distorted.
Good video This feels like a remarkable race blind video on fascism, even early Italian fascism was built on white supremacy, and i also think that works with the Marxist lens that your using. Like I feel like you can even say “the fascist racial ideology was downstream from colonial racial ideology” like I think the critique on class collaborationism is true but I do think you need to center race more in this video, especially as the neofascism we see today are heavily focus on the great replacement myth,
Secondly I also think you can go more in-depth in your analysis of the start of WW2, specifically how capitalist/market forces pushed Germany to a position where there was geopolitical incentive for Germany to get good land, you can even use it to explain base and super structure
I take your points. There is much room for emphasis on the points you mention in a longer video. In no way am i suggesting any aspect of fascism is “downstream” from another as fascism ought to be viewed as a holistic political project. I was hoping that the racist aspects of fascism were communicated through the discussion on ultranationalism, colonialism, and eugenics.
_"even early Italian fa scism was built on wh ite supr emacy, "_
Wrong. Neith er fasci sm nor naz ism advocated for "whi te suprem acy". Raci sm wasn't really part of the fas cist ideology and na zism was based on "aryan ism" instead.
@@redpen1917 I that’s totally fair, I’m just saying if I made this video (witch I didn’t you do) I would be talking a lot more about race, with that being said this video does deserve more views
@@Historia-Magistra-Vitae. Aryanism is a Subset of White supremacy. White supremacism isn't inherently Pan european. You can be a White supremacist and exclude Other people colloquially refered to as "White" from the category of "True European". Nordicists do this all the time, even discriminating against Other Europeans. Its still White supremacism. The American Racial Paradigm is not Universal. Not everyone thinks about Race the way you do.
I dont know if "white supremacy" featured that prominently in Nazi literature. Most of the people they killed ie Jewish people, Poles where white. They were racist, Ultraracists if anything, But obsession with phenotype and centering their political and social system around that is a purely Anglo settler world view, a practical means when you have to integrate different European ethnic groups but lack an ethnic argument to forge a new society, so skin color becomes the identifier for eligibility.
The biggest issue with a social revolution, is that it’s likely practically impossible to implement it in a country and still maintain it as a democracy. So, whenever people plan on executing a social revolution, they should know up front that, after its implementation, they will be living in a country that is not a democracy anymore, and they will lose their personal freedoms.
The USSR and many other countries have done it.
@
What have they done, consider the implications on their freedoms?
Democracy is the problem. when everybody gets to make decisions, everybody is accountable, and when everybody is responsible, Nobody is.
Elections mint new leaders who underperform only to be reelected or kicked out only for another candidate to pursue the same level of neutralism, which in itself is not a bad thing, but when you are facing exceptional challenges like poverty, under industrialization, illiteracy and unemployment, Compressing authority into the hands of the responsible few is the best option, The problem with Fascists and Nazis, in particular, was their pathological obsession with race and antisemitism. Even on the practical side of things Stalin took a keen interest in running the bureaucracy, while Hitler's top management was running on fuhrerprinzip, which is not the best way to run the country, As the Chinese would figure out later on. Even Mao's bloody actions had the unintended positive side effect of removing local fiefs from setting up roadblocks during the reform period thus creating a more confident central govt that didnt have to worry about local authorities subverting central control, This is very different from how the Soviets went about with their reforms. We all know how that turned out. So as a non marxist, I'd say communism has evolved just as much as capitalism has since its inception in the 20th century.
@@johnsmith100How many of the countries subjected to the waves of Marxist revolutions in the 20th century had a strongly established democratic tradition? The answer is very few and of the ones which do meet such criteria, they made the separate mistake of mechanically copying the Soviet Union's social designs rather than developing unique adaptations of their own. It is hardly surprising then that in the average socialist state there persisted a paternalistic and top-down approach to governance. Should a modern social revolution take place in the context of a culture which already values bottom-up politics, we should likewise expect its new state of affairs to somewhat resemble that which preceded them.
@@conmereth
Makes sense and thanks.
Mate, I really like your channel.
But citing Trotsky is really cringe, not gonna lie.
Lol true.
An indepth video about Trosky would be interesting, considering there is lot of info how je was british agent + jew. 👀
Verdammt noch mal ihr seid komt nicht mehr Arshloch kommt nicht wieder Alle nazis . Stop reden bla bla
National socialism is socialism.
Nazism was a counter-revolution that restored capitalism while cloaking itself in the language of socialism.
@@redpen1917Not at all. Nazi Germany was a command economy with corporations suckling on the tax payer teet.
I was taught that National Socialism was fundamentally opposed to International Socialism/ Bolshevism / Marxist - Leninism. The Nazis equated Capitalism with World Jewry along with Bolshevism. The racist tenets of Nazism differentiated it from Italian Fascism.
@@JonniePolyesterseeing capitalism only with usury possible is a very limited view of capitalism.
It's not a socialism rooted in Marxist class analysis. Fascism tries to get the working class to ignore the class conflict.
There's a really good master's thesis called:
AGAINST THE CLASSES AND THE MASSES: THE AMERICAN LEGION, THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR, AND SQUARE DEAL AMERICANISM IN THE 1920S
-by Gregory S. Hopely
Sorry, but ignorance of basic terminology is palpable. Theory of fascism including the name was the work of Benito Mussolini. Read his Doctrine of Fascism, and The Corporate State. Hitler was a national socialist who started his ideology with economic theories of Dr. Gottfried Feder, specifically with Feder's The Abolition of Interest Servitude (1919). Research it yourself. It is a banned territory.
"Giovanni Gentile was described by Mussolini, and by himself, as "the philosopher of Fascism"; he was the ghostwriter of the first part of the essay "The Doctrine of Fascism" (1932), attributed to Mussolini."
excellent. but what is a socialist revolution? please mention that communism is pretty much the same as fascism. and also don't talk about 'capitalism' as one thing...regulated capitalism can become socialism as i understand it... or maybe not. i just don't see the need for 'revolution'
Communism is anti-fascist.
@redpen1917 Marx wrote before Gentile or Mussolini, he wasn't anti fascist, he couldn't be. Trotsky is anti fascist, but Stalin wasn't so much, italy was the first country to reconize the ussr, and he invaded Poland with Hitler and divided the spoils. The opposition is that both groups have no tolerance for any other political party, if your a commi you need to be a party member or gulag , if you're in a fascist country you like wise need to be a party member. Only when Hitler wanted Russia does he he turn on Stalin. Both hate liberal democracy too. Fascism wants conformity. I would expect multiple types of fascism to turn on each other eventually once an opportunity arises. There like sith, they will ally but ultimately destoy the other. Hitler was occupying Rome and calling the shots, Mussolini was at the end nothing but a puppet government.
so french revolution shouldn't have happened ?, Kicking the ball down the street is not a solution.
Red Pen go one week without making a goated video challenge
Trump is
No he is not, Even if he is, The US lacks the bureaucratic apparatus to successfully implement a fascist state.