Your videos are incredibly interesting! So glad I found these ten years later, the way you teach is incredibly simple and captivating. All of your videos are fantastic and make me incredibly grateful for UA-cam and your generosity for uploading these lectures to the public.
At 27:30 the teacher said Mussolini grabbed all the land from the Catholic church. Sorry this is incorrect. The Italian government took the land in 1870 and it was Mussolini who gave the church what is now the Vatican. Source: Wikipedia. I am not a defender of Mussolini, just the truth.
Worth adding that in addition to the 55 hours/week, Mussolini introduced a very effective welfare system for the working classes: pension, medicare, state paid vacations for children (we called colonie or "colonies") of the workers. Most of Mussolini welfare innovation continue to these days.
It happened very similarly with Franco in Spain. Coming from the civil war, Spain arrived at the 70s with a recovered and growing economy and more social protections than ever before.
Thinking that he strikes down the workers protests for these exact same rights I would say that this sentence it's biased more on an apology of fascism by its' propaganda rather than on reality
by the way...how'd he do in World War Two? Wouldn't it be great to have a leader like that leading a whole nation to where they all went in those funky years?
Thomas Sowell made better sense of political spectrum in Conflict of Visions. One side believes that human nature is what is it is and government's function is to set limits, the other side believes that they can so regulate things as to change human nature.
My great-grandfather had worked with Mussolini in Switzerland, at that time Mussolini earned his money as a handyman on the construction sites. What was strange is that during the work breaks he was constantly working on his manuscripts and speeches that he gave at various party conventions and universities. In practice, too, he knew very well about the sensitivities of all social classes. Mussolini was celebrated by the socialists in Switzerland as a reformer, without the support of the ideologized blind left, some of which rightly despised the entire bourgeoisie, Mussolini would never have come to power. What many people fail to understand is that in the early years nationalism was considered a emancipatory movement by the proletariat and a large part of the bourgeoisie. At this time, Mussolini took advantage of the opportunity, a time of upheaval in all of Europe, when many desperately placed their hopes in a strong state.
Left and right political spectrum is a scale of where power lies, a reference to French revolutionary politics. Left being democratic, Power of the people, and right being where the Aristocrats sat, supporters of the throne, Power to the few. Left= Democratic, Right= Aristocratic Not sure why that isn't common knowledge.
I like this teacher a lot but Marx and Mussolini were incredibly far apart philosophically. Marx: The workers should own the means of production. Mussolini: Authoritarian state nationalism keeping everyone in place through imposed cultural myths.
The question of definition being a problem is so true. All wisdom depends on definition. In the video on Dostoyevsky and Nietzsche there is a decent definition of conservative. Still one can make a joke by asking: are you a monarchical conservative? or an Aristocratic conservative? Or a Republican conservative, or a social Democratic Conservative? Or Socialist conservative? Or an Anarchist? Machiavelli told the prince that the people want good Laws, good courts, and good police, that he should ensure that. In 1984 ( the book) it always struck me as Mean spirited that because of machine mass production equality would make goods and services available to the masses, making a class system based on economics irrelevant. And the dream that is represented for so long was prevented just at the time it was realizable. Well, if that's true, all I can say is, "Welcome to the damned Human race". If only economic conditions didn't brutalize people, and if only people were less inclined to be intemperately selfish. These days the Fox pundit media makes Christianity/ Judaism seem like they are devoid of justice and charity. Weird. You could call it "Tough Love Christianity" as propaganda for the racketeers. Sad, but funny. I try to look at things first through a Taoist lens, where I can render a range in my domain of thought, then Using Aristotle's golden mean, try and find a suitable answer. In a world where the range and domain seem to evolve, it is a way to practice judgement. Even about the 7 deadly sins. Now, this is a reasonable point to make, BUT, hey, good luck. "Pericles and Thucydides knew all a speech could say about Democracy". Still, Babel aside , the history of the rules are there and so is the spirit of the law. There is something to learn and affirm. "Man is a wolf to man".
+Robert Galletta; Very interesting thoughts, expressions and questions. Some good "meat" for one (me, in this case) to ponder and "chew" on. Thank you. And yes, truly, "Man is wolf to man." That's a quotable keeper.
One of the better definitions online. Not great... but 1000x's better than 99.9% of the other videos on the subject. If he discussed economic policies and how government created policies indirectly that might be beneficial.
it's really not a good definition. the definition is solely economic, and as such it misses most of the political context behind fascism as well as the spiritual and philosophical. for a genuinely comprehensive definition of fascism i'd recommend the one that the youtuber Lavader just posted under the community tab
At the 40:30 mark when discusing the placement of Fascism he ascribes strictly American (a country born of a Liberal revolution) characteristics of the Right, that way making Fascism look farther from the Right (the European one) than it really was.
The team he mentions Pittsburgh playing must have been the Jets, who lost to the Steelers on October 13, roughly a week before this lecture was posted. It must have been the Jets as the Steelers hadn't beaten any other team at that point in the 2013 season, going 0-4 in the pre-season and 0-4 in the first four games of the regular season. The Steelers would go on to make a miraculous run, evening up their record at 8-8 and narrowly missing the playoffs by one game. Their schedule was, however, admittedly weak.
Professor Bonevac is a great teacher,but the definition he's given to communism here is inaccurate. By communism Marx meant a system,where the WORKERS own the means of production,not the state. In USSR the government took over the means of production and called it communism, so for soviet people communism was about the government,but the original meaning of this term is about workers owning the means of production. Otherwise,great lectures, i wish my professors were this engaging.
Describing "right" as smaller government and more individual freedom is a bit iffy. I agree that right and left are poorly defined terms and should probably be dropped. But rather than do that, you define it...in what is a very questionable way. (I could equally well describe it as supporting inequality, social injustice, militarism, governmental intervention on personal choice, etc. Better to stay way from the term entirely. Then you also define "conservativism" in a very curious way, that differs from standard definitions. (Just check out www.philosophybasics.com/branch_conservatism.html or en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism In the interests of intellectual honesty--and I have no double about yours--I'd suggest putting in a couple of pop-up text boxes indicating links to other ways of thinking about these definitions. All the best, m
why assume weaknesses in Leninism caused the famine and not a devastating war, then a civil war, and the occupation by the US Expeditionary Force until April 1, 1922??? Leninism had fundamental flaws but workers don't know how to do anything without middle managers????
Yeah, I assume it's a pretty large class. In my experience as a student, smaller classes tend to be more engaged since students feel more comfortable speaking.
Bottom-up and Top-down might be a slight improvement upon the Right and Left dichotomy. But it still doesn't get to the meat of the matter which is who gets to make the rules in a society. In a bottom-up situation, if it's mostly the economic elites of the people who get to make the rules, how would that be any qualitatitively different than a top-down situation, where it could just be another set of elites making the rules?
Nazism is not Fascism, it was a type of fascism the Nazis put together, for example Mussolini was a fascist but racial matters were not as much of an issue for the government.... And even the Nazis were not actually as racial as they were made out, they just wanted Jewish business and banking out of Europe. But they had many foreigners who lived happily in Germany in the 30s and many Muslim and foreign servicemen during the war, even some Jews for that matter.
No form of government will succeed if the culture is bad. You could have the best people in charge but if the populous is corrupt it won't work and if the worst people took to power but you had a virtuous populous it wouldn't be able to impose its bad laws.
Sorry, but the expressed idea that somehow Right = smaller government and therefore Left = larger government (especially when government is defined as intrusive) is a classic example of how the Right Wing in this country has managed to define the conversation in their own (advantageous) terms. In fact, the Right uses government ALL THE TIME to enforce it's beliefs. It just does so on the local level because it's losing the tide of history as society in general becomes more tolerant. If there is a more accurate definition it's that Right is associated with a specific usually nationalistic level group (e.g. what makes a "good American) while the Left is more about both promoting individual rights and universalism - e.g. that as individuals we are all part of a larger world. That might sound paradoxical, but it's not - the Left tends to see social as something built with individuals as the basic unit whereas the right tends to think it terms of specific national and cultural groups as the basic building block. The result is that the Right - as Fascism shows - tend to pit a particular nationalistic or social group against every other group - therefore, you can never have an "universal" culture/order unless, somehow, everyone would adapt themselves to fit the dominant social/nationalistic group. The socialist notion of world peace or a world movement therefore is to the Right-Wing absurd. In America today the Right-Wing is primarily built around defending the position (and privileges) of those that identify with a certain WASP view of the "good American." That is, it's the views of the white conservative Christian worldview that should be dominant and everyone else should adhere to its basic standards (or suffer de facto social exile). Therefore, when the Right uses terms like "individual rights" what they really tend to mean is the supposed "rights" of members of their social order to enjoy all the privileges that come with being a member. It's more like making sure that the members of some exclusive club get to benefit from all the special privileges and disproportional influence they have long had over all other groups. Nazi Germany is therefore an ideal, if highly negative, example of this effect - the only group that mattered was being German in which you received a lot of special rights and privileges (although, in practice, those primarily went to the party leaders who were the pampered and powerful elite). By comparison, if you are a member of some competing or enemy group (e.g. Jews in particular, but also Slavs and so forth) then you are punished for being a threat or simply for not belonging to the supreme dominant group - punishment in this case often being genocide. Mind you, the extreme Left can become just as terrible, but its ideological basis for doing so was a sort of twisted defense of the individual where people would be forced, often violently, to adhere to the "universal movement" for their own good. But, note that for Communists theoretically ANYONE could become a member of the "in" group (although in practice covert Right-Wing Russian nationalism gave that group de facto superiority to others) whereas for Fascism you either are a member of the "in" group or you aren't.
***** Please actually read my entire explanation and then reply. Don't just read the first few sentences and then conveniently assume I must be wrong - because your claim is MANIFESTLY bogus as my first post amply illustrates.
+Ranillon That idea is only in America. What the Right means in America is quite different in the rest of the world. We kind of have are own weird political language here.
+Ranillon The left does not "promote individual rights" lol. If anything, they are constantly engaging in identity politics and immediately draw lines in order to say the right is either racist or homophobic. The students and the professor are correct in their very general description of the two major factions in contemporary America.
You are falling for an equivocation fallacy. What Right has come to mean in America is far different than what i means in Europe.world for decades. Really, even in Europe "right of center" is closer to what we mean by "right" in America. Some can be said with "left of center" and "Left."
I did not really agree with his conclusions. Fascism really is centered upon extreme, nation-defining in-group out-group dynamics. Unfortunately, this impulse is common in the Right today. The centrally directed economic considerations are common to all sorts of authoritarian regimes, and can vary from regime to regime. I wouldn't say that is the appropriate means by which to differentiate fascism from other ideologies/modes of governance.
So, it's inappropriate to define Fascism in terms of Left vs Right because, while the Left represents large government and change, it also represents less government interference in the goings-on of the people. More government interference economically, more socially, but fewer limits on behavior. Fascism does not like individual freedom, because that is often against The State. Thus, Fascism is Authoritarian-Left? A 2D Political Compass could have showed this very clearly. Love your lectures, though.
The students are unable to come up with even one contemporary narrative while I think their whole worldview is build on nothing else than myths or narratives. Here you have a real problem prof.
Even if every socialist worker gave 100% to their job, they wholeheartedly believed in the cause, it still wouldn't matter. The socialist economy would still have massive problems with production, distribution, logistics, etc. Simply for the lack of money prices and the profit/loss test. Because there would be no objective way to quantitatively measure opportunity cost, good risks/bad risks, etc. There would be no way to tell if the places you bring the most bread to actually use all that bread, or if the places you bring a little bread could use more, etc. Essentially by getting rid of markets there is no way for a large economy to survive.
I dont like when talking fascism always Hitler gets involved in Mussolini discussions. Its so much different between mussolinis fascism and nazism. Of all the countries in ww2, Mussolinis Italy was the 2nd safest country for jewish population. And that what always will be included when talking about Hitlers germany. Remove that part from the history and ww2 is just another war thats been fought many times thru the history. Many deaths yes, but if the technology had existed earlier other wars might have been just as bloody. There has always been wars about territory. And all started because 1 prince was assassinated. Without that assassination, no ww1 which would mean no Versaille treaty, which would have meant no unfair treaty that made it possible for Hitler to take control and start a war that took aprox 85m lives. WW2 wasnt all bad tho. It got rid of 85m ppl which was a natural selection. With todays medicine a ww3 with some thing like 3-400m death should be needed to slow shit down
pity about the rushed 2nd half of the lecture perhaps it should be three lectures this one on commonalities between Marxism-Leninism and fascism (about 75% of this lecture which could be a bit more in depth) (~45 min) another one on the rise of fascist movements in Italy and Germany, but also in Spain, Portugal, Japan, Argentina, Chile each with some interesting characteristics of their own (~45 min) third one on dictatorships in the context of Marxism-Leninism and fascism: Mussolini, Franco, Hitler, Hirohito, NK Juche, Ceaucescu, etc as best fits ~45m given the ground already covered in the other two (+ the lecture on WW1 and WW2) in short I don't think fascism+Mussolini really fit 1 lecture even in this abridged fashion, but Mussolini alone might not merit 10-15% of the entire course, plus Japan, the Korean war, the Spanish Civil war and the cold war are barely mentioned
+dave foulenfont No. Its the reaction/alternative to communism. Fascism itself, works very well when implemented. And it can be molded and reformed to fit almost any society/ethnicity in the world. (See: Baathism, Peronism) National Socialism however, is not all that amazing. Its a branch of fascism that is based around scientific racism, racial hierarchy, anti-Semitism, etc Fascism itself, was never based around this. However, due to Germany's rising influence and pressure on Italy, Mussolini was forced to make anti-semitic decrees and create racial laws in order to appease Hitler and solidify the Axis alliance.
Well, I should have been more specific. At least in the contemporary American interpretation of the word, Fascism would not be good for America. Donald Trump is currently spewing rhetoric which is being perceived by some as having fascist undertones, which includes banning mosques and Muslims obtaining visas. To me, religious freedom has played a crucial role in our country's narrative and I value it as an American ideal. Fascism, probably in the traditional sense, may very well play it's role effectively when contrasted with communism. But with contrasted with capitalism, it would not be a good fit for our society-- and in turn, it would end up raising tensions with the Middle East instead of defusing them. (As if resolving tensions was even Trump's intention in the first place)
+dave foulenfont Generally yeah, but I think it depends. If somehow you get some sane, hyper competent, well centered person running the whole country in a time of extreme instability it might be a good option. But, generally, I think it's inherently terrible.
RIP professor. I assume he lost tenure and was sent to gulag for re-education shortly after this was posted to UA-cam. Fascism is right wing because msnbc told me so
You are an incredibly good presenter. Very engaging. I just retired as a teacher and you make me want to go back to school as a student!
Wow, thank you!
Your videos are incredibly interesting! So glad I found these ten years later, the way you teach is incredibly simple and captivating. All of your videos are fantastic and make me incredibly grateful for UA-cam and your generosity for uploading these lectures to the public.
At 27:30 the teacher said Mussolini grabbed all the land from the Catholic church. Sorry this is incorrect. The Italian government took the land in 1870 and it was Mussolini who gave the church what is now the Vatican. Source: Wikipedia.
I am not a defender of Mussolini, just the truth.
Worth adding that in addition to the 55 hours/week, Mussolini introduced a very effective welfare system for the working classes: pension, medicare, state paid vacations for children (we called colonie or "colonies") of the workers. Most of Mussolini welfare innovation continue to these days.
It happened very similarly with Franco in Spain. Coming from the civil war, Spain arrived at the 70s with a recovered and growing economy and more social protections than ever before.
Thinking that he strikes down the workers protests for these exact same rights I would say that this sentence it's biased more on an apology of fascism by its' propaganda rather than on reality
by the way...how'd he do in World War Two? Wouldn't it be great to have a leader like that leading a whole nation to where they all went in those funky years?
These are the best lectures. I would like to hear Mr Bonevac lecture on the current Traditionalist movement
Thomas Sowell made better sense of political spectrum in Conflict of Visions. One side believes that human nature is what is it is and government's function is to set limits, the other side believes that they can so regulate things as to change human nature.
I now teach this differently, having read Sowell and thought a lot about that difference.
So glad to have discovered these lectures!
Wild to watch this in '22 and think "man, you better hold on tight"
Great lecture!
My great-grandfather had worked with Mussolini in Switzerland, at that time Mussolini earned his money as a handyman on the construction sites.
What was strange is that during the work breaks he was constantly working on his manuscripts and speeches that he gave at various party conventions and universities. In practice, too, he knew very well about the sensitivities of all social classes.
Mussolini was celebrated by the socialists in Switzerland as a reformer, without the support of the ideologized blind left, some of which rightly despised the entire bourgeoisie, Mussolini would never have come to power.
What many people fail to understand is that in the early years nationalism was considered a emancipatory movement by the proletariat and a large part of the bourgeoisie. At this time, Mussolini took advantage of the opportunity, a time of upheaval in all of Europe, when many desperately placed their hopes in a strong state.
Left and right political spectrum is a scale of where power lies, a reference to French revolutionary politics. Left being democratic, Power of the people, and right being where the Aristocrats sat, supporters of the throne, Power to the few.
Left= Democratic, Right= Aristocratic
Not sure why that isn't common knowledge.
Maybe because it's not that simple?
tfw compares fascism to "what Stalin did"
Do you have a video on National Socialism and the differences between Latin Fascism and German National Socialism?
Great lecture.
I like this teacher a lot but Marx and Mussolini were incredibly far apart philosophically.
Marx: The workers should own the means of production.
Mussolini: Authoritarian state nationalism keeping everyone in place through imposed cultural myths.
Fascism is peculiar fusion of spiritualism and technical aspect of science -Shibdas Gosh.
The question of definition being a problem is so true. All wisdom depends on definition. In the video on Dostoyevsky and Nietzsche there is a decent definition of conservative. Still one can make a joke by asking: are you a monarchical conservative? or an Aristocratic conservative? Or a Republican conservative, or a social Democratic Conservative? Or Socialist conservative? Or an Anarchist? Machiavelli told the prince that the people want good Laws, good courts, and good police, that he should ensure that. In 1984 ( the book) it always struck me as Mean spirited that because of machine mass production equality would make goods and services available to the masses, making a class system based on economics irrelevant. And the dream that is represented for so long was prevented just at the time it was realizable. Well, if that's true, all I can say is, "Welcome to the damned Human race". If only economic conditions didn't brutalize people, and if only people were less inclined to be intemperately selfish. These days the Fox pundit media makes Christianity/ Judaism seem like they are devoid of justice and charity. Weird. You could call it "Tough Love Christianity" as propaganda for the racketeers. Sad, but funny. I try to look at things first through a Taoist lens, where I can render a range in my domain of thought, then Using Aristotle's golden mean, try and find a suitable answer. In a world where the range and domain seem to evolve, it is a way to practice judgement. Even about the 7 deadly sins. Now, this is a reasonable point to make, BUT, hey, good luck. "Pericles and Thucydides knew all a speech could say about Democracy". Still, Babel aside , the history of the rules are there and so is the spirit of the law. There is something to learn and affirm. "Man is a wolf to man".
+Robert Galletta; Very interesting thoughts, expressions and questions.
Some good "meat" for one (me, in this case) to ponder and "chew" on. Thank you.
And yes, truly, "Man is wolf to man." That's a quotable keeper.
Man is a wolf to man is a Roman Proverb.
Ultimately, it isn't the system...it's the level of morality of the masses...
Wow, these lectures are eye opening! Thank you so much!
That blasted squeaky chair is just...distracting.
Great video!
it's always there!
The comparisons with today are staggering. 😪
One of the better definitions online. Not great... but 1000x's better than 99.9% of the other videos on the subject.
If he discussed economic policies and how government created policies indirectly that might be beneficial.
it's really not a good definition. the definition is solely economic, and as such it misses most of the political context behind fascism as well as the spiritual and philosophical. for a genuinely comprehensive definition of fascism i'd recommend the one that the youtuber Lavader just posted under the community tab
At the 40:30 mark when discusing the placement of Fascism he ascribes strictly American (a country born of a Liberal revolution) characteristics of the Right, that way making Fascism look farther from the Right (the European one) than it really was.
I wish he was my political science lecturer
The team he mentions Pittsburgh playing must have been the Jets, who lost to the Steelers on October 13, roughly a week before this lecture was posted. It must have been the Jets as the Steelers hadn't beaten any other team at that point in the 2013 season, going 0-4 in the pre-season and 0-4 in the first four games of the regular season. The Steelers would go on to make a miraculous run, evening up their record at 8-8 and narrowly missing the playoffs by one game. Their schedule was, however, admittedly weak.
Professor Bonevac is a great teacher,but the definition he's given to communism here is inaccurate. By communism Marx meant a system,where the WORKERS own the means of production,not the state. In USSR the government took over the means of production and called it communism, so for soviet people communism was about the government,but the original meaning of this term is about workers owning the means of production. Otherwise,great lectures, i wish my professors were this engaging.
Describing "right" as smaller government and more individual freedom is a bit iffy. I agree that right and left are poorly defined terms and should probably be dropped. But rather than do that, you define it...in what is a very questionable way. (I could equally well describe it as supporting inequality, social injustice, militarism, governmental intervention on personal choice, etc. Better to stay way from the term entirely.
Then you also define "conservativism" in a very curious way, that differs from standard definitions. (Just check out www.philosophybasics.com/branch_conservatism.html or en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism
In the interests of intellectual honesty--and I have no double about yours--I'd suggest putting in a couple of pop-up text boxes indicating links to other ways of thinking about these definitions.
All the best,
m
Cringe
i am still confused lol
why assume weaknesses in Leninism caused the famine and not a devastating war, then a civil war, and the occupation by the US Expeditionary Force until April 1, 1922??? Leninism had fundamental flaws but workers don't know how to do anything without middle managers????
If you are still doing lectures I would love one on Anarcho Fascism.
It makes me depressed how unegaging your class are. You're a great teacher, but they never seem to want to join in.
Yeah, I assume it's a pretty large class. In my experience as a student, smaller classes tend to be more engaged since students feel more comfortable speaking.
It's so surreal to hear a lecture on Fascism pre-Trump.
Great intro
It's all about banking and money.
Bottom-up and Top-down might be a slight improvement upon the Right and Left dichotomy. But it still doesn't get to the meat of the matter which is who gets to make the rules in a society. In a bottom-up situation, if it's mostly the economic elites of the people who get to make the rules, how would that be any qualitatitively different than a top-down situation, where it could just be another set of elites making the rules?
Well, by definition it couldn't really be "bottom-up" if there are elites that have all the power.
Nazism is not Fascism, it was a type of fascism the Nazis put together, for example Mussolini was a fascist but racial matters were not as much of an issue for the government.... And even the Nazis were not actually as racial as they were made out, they just wanted Jewish business and banking out of Europe. But they had many foreigners who lived happily in Germany in the 30s and many Muslim and foreign servicemen during the war, even some Jews for that matter.
True
No form of government will succeed if the culture is bad. You could have the best people in charge but if the populous is corrupt it won't work and if the worst people took to power but you had a virtuous populous it wouldn't be able to impose its bad laws.
This video should be re-titled "The United States in 2020: how did we get here?"
Sorry, but the expressed idea that somehow Right = smaller government and therefore Left = larger government (especially when government is defined as intrusive) is a classic example of how the Right Wing in this country has managed to define the conversation in their own (advantageous) terms. In fact, the Right uses government ALL THE TIME to enforce it's beliefs. It just does so on the local level because it's losing the tide of history as society in general becomes more tolerant.
If there is a more accurate definition it's that Right is associated with a specific usually nationalistic level group (e.g. what makes a "good American) while the Left is more about both promoting individual rights and universalism - e.g. that as individuals we are all part of a larger world. That might sound paradoxical, but it's not - the Left tends to see social as something built with individuals as the basic unit whereas the right tends to think it terms of specific national and cultural groups as the basic building block.
The result is that the Right - as Fascism shows - tend to pit a particular nationalistic or social group against every other group - therefore, you can never have an "universal" culture/order unless, somehow, everyone would adapt themselves to fit the dominant social/nationalistic group. The socialist notion of world peace or a world movement therefore is to the Right-Wing absurd. In America today the Right-Wing is primarily built around defending the position (and privileges) of those that identify with a certain WASP view of the "good American." That is, it's the views of the white conservative Christian worldview that should be dominant and everyone else should adhere to its basic standards (or suffer de facto social exile). Therefore, when the Right uses terms like "individual rights" what they really tend to mean is the supposed "rights" of members of their social order to enjoy all the privileges that come with being a member. It's more like making sure that the members of some exclusive club get to benefit from all the special privileges and disproportional influence they have long had over all other groups.
Nazi Germany is therefore an ideal, if highly negative, example of this effect - the only group that mattered was being German in which you received a lot of special rights and privileges (although, in practice, those primarily went to the party leaders who were the pampered and powerful elite). By comparison, if you are a member of some competing or enemy group (e.g. Jews in particular, but also Slavs and so forth) then you are punished for being a threat or simply for not belonging to the supreme dominant group - punishment in this case often being genocide.
Mind you, the extreme Left can become just as terrible, but its ideological basis for doing so was a sort of twisted defense of the individual where people would be forced, often violently, to adhere to the "universal movement" for their own good. But, note that for Communists theoretically ANYONE could become a member of the "in" group (although in practice covert Right-Wing Russian nationalism gave that group de facto superiority to others) whereas for Fascism you either are a member of the "in" group or you aren't.
***** Please actually read my entire explanation and then reply. Don't just read the first few sentences and then conveniently assume I must be wrong - because your claim is MANIFESTLY bogus as my first post amply illustrates.
+Ranillon That idea is only in America. What the Right means in America is quite different in the rest of the world. We kind of have are own weird political language here.
+Ranillon The left does not "promote individual rights" lol. If anything, they are constantly engaging in identity politics and immediately draw lines in order to say the right is either racist or homophobic. The students and the professor are correct in their very general description of the two major factions in contemporary America.
You are falling for an equivocation fallacy. What Right has come to mean in America is far different than what i means in Europe.world for decades.
Really, even in Europe "right of center" is closer to what we mean by "right" in America. Some can be said with "left of center" and "Left."
Because the left is all fun and games hahaha
I did not really agree with his conclusions. Fascism really is centered upon extreme, nation-defining in-group out-group dynamics. Unfortunately, this impulse is common in the Right today. The centrally directed economic considerations are common to all sorts of authoritarian regimes, and can vary from regime to regime. I wouldn't say that is the appropriate means by which to differentiate fascism from other ideologies/modes of governance.
Are you aware of what the effects of diversity on the poor and working class are?
at 30:00, I like your reference to mullahs in Iran :)
So, it's inappropriate to define Fascism in terms of Left vs Right because, while the Left represents large government and change, it also represents less government interference in the goings-on of the people. More government interference economically, more socially, but fewer limits on behavior. Fascism does not like individual freedom, because that is often against The State. Thus, Fascism is Authoritarian-Left?
A 2D Political Compass could have showed this very clearly. Love your lectures, though.
They control the both, for control of people lives and for manipulation for divide and conqurer
I'm definitely bottom up..
The students are unable to come up with even one contemporary narrative while I think their whole worldview is build on nothing else than myths or narratives. Here you have a real problem prof.
I'm not sure they were unable-just unwilling. My university has been among the worst in the country for protecting freedom of speech on campus.
@@PhiloofAlexandria oh, and the students are aware of that ??
@@PhiloofAlexandria It's a pity you couldn't present your material in full - why was it curtailed?
Even if every socialist worker gave 100% to their job, they wholeheartedly believed in the cause, it still wouldn't matter. The socialist economy would still have massive problems with production, distribution, logistics, etc. Simply for the lack of money prices and the profit/loss test. Because there would be no objective way to quantitatively measure opportunity cost, good risks/bad risks, etc. There would be no way to tell if the places you bring the most bread to actually use all that bread, or if the places you bring a little bread could use more, etc. Essentially by getting rid of markets there is no way for a large economy to survive.
+Aaron Aaronson this in reference to 16:27
So why is Marx not a fascist and Mussolini is? Is it a difference in method only ? I don’t think so.
Different branches
Marx was marxist. Facsists hate marxism
I dont like when talking fascism always Hitler gets involved in Mussolini discussions. Its so much different between mussolinis fascism and nazism. Of all the countries in ww2, Mussolinis Italy was the 2nd safest country for jewish population. And that what always will be included when talking about Hitlers germany. Remove that part from the history and ww2 is just another war thats been fought many times thru the history. Many deaths yes, but if the technology had existed earlier other wars might have been just as bloody.
There has always been wars about territory. And all started because 1 prince was assassinated. Without that assassination, no ww1 which would mean no Versaille treaty, which would have meant no unfair treaty that made it possible for Hitler to take control and start a war that took aprox 85m lives.
WW2 wasnt all bad tho. It got rid of 85m ppl which was a natural selection. With todays medicine a ww3 with some thing like 3-400m death should be needed to slow shit down
is this political science class????
pity about the rushed 2nd half of the lecture
perhaps it should be three lectures
this one on commonalities between Marxism-Leninism and fascism (about 75% of this lecture which could be a bit more in depth) (~45 min)
another one on the rise of fascist movements in Italy and Germany, but also in Spain, Portugal, Japan, Argentina, Chile each with some interesting characteristics of their own (~45 min)
third one on dictatorships in the context of Marxism-Leninism and fascism: Mussolini, Franco, Hitler, Hirohito, NK Juche, Ceaucescu, etc as best fits ~45m given the ground already covered in the other two (+ the lecture on WW1 and WW2)
in short I don't think fascism+Mussolini really fit 1 lecture even in this abridged fashion, but Mussolini alone might not merit 10-15% of the entire course, plus Japan, the Korean war, the Spanish Civil war and the cold war are barely mentioned
Is fascism bad?
+dave foulenfont
yes.
+dave foulenfont No. Its the reaction/alternative to communism.
Fascism itself, works very well when implemented. And it can be molded and reformed to fit almost any society/ethnicity in the world. (See: Baathism, Peronism)
National Socialism however, is not all that amazing. Its a branch of fascism that is based around scientific racism, racial hierarchy, anti-Semitism, etc
Fascism itself, was never based around this. However, due to Germany's rising influence and pressure on Italy, Mussolini was forced to make anti-semitic decrees and create racial laws in order to appease Hitler and solidify the Axis alliance.
Well, I should have been more specific. At least in the contemporary American interpretation of the word, Fascism would not be good for America. Donald Trump is currently spewing rhetoric which is being perceived by some as having fascist undertones, which includes banning mosques and Muslims obtaining visas.
To me, religious freedom has played a crucial role in our country's narrative and I value it as an American ideal.
Fascism, probably in the traditional sense, may very well play it's role effectively when contrasted with communism. But with contrasted with capitalism, it would not be a good fit for our society-- and in turn, it would end up raising tensions with the Middle East instead of defusing them. (As if resolving tensions was even Trump's intention in the first place)
No, it only has bad reputation because of ww2
+dave foulenfont Generally yeah, but I think it depends. If somehow you get some sane, hyper competent, well centered person running the whole country in a time of extreme instability it might be a good option. But, generally, I think it's inherently terrible.
RIP professor. I assume he lost tenure and was sent to gulag for re-education shortly after this was posted to UA-cam. Fascism is right wing because msnbc told me so