Hitler’s Germany Wasn’t Fascist?

[@realryanchapman]

A bunch of comments on this one asked why I didn't deal with categorizing the Nazis or Fascists as just plain 'socialists' over being nationalists or generic fascists. The reason why I didn't address that directly in this video is because I didn't see anyone commenting that on my last one. People either claimed that 'National Socialism isn't Fascism' or that we should just call them 'National Socialists.' I also dealt with the socialist label to some extent in my first video. Calling the Nazis socialists (and not nationalists or fascists) seems to be getting popular, and I might make a video to address it. For now, I'll do it here. The claim has a little weight but ultimately doesn't work. First of all: the main ideological pillar of Nazism is nationalism. All Nazis were fervent nationalists, from the beginning to end of the movement. Nationalism was what drove their action and policy far more than any other ideology. Nazism was a direct result of German nationalism that had been developed since the late 18th century. Read Herder, Fichte, Arndt. They were the thinkers who set up a peculiar brand of nationalism in Germany. The Nazis carried that brand of nationalism to an extreme conclusion. What I just said is a point that is unanimously agreed upon by all scholarship I have ever read, and also confirmed by my own research. Understanding that will make far more sense out of the Nazis than any kind of attempt to connect them to socialism. Getting into it anyway: If we're assigning a primary label to a movement, we're assigning it based on what drives them, and as I said, the Nazis were primarily motivated by nationalism, both in theory and in practice. Their nationalism drove their politics and overrode everything else. Hitler: 'For me and all true National Socialists there is but one doctrine: people and fatherland.' (at 26:34 in my longer fascism vid). You can find endless quotes of him saying that everything he does he does for Germany. That his goal for politics is to make Germany rise again and establish it as a great power. It was a goal, he said over and over, that he'd dedicate his life to, that he'd die for. It's not subtle. Going further: the Nazis were obsessed with the idea of Germans coming together as a national unit (the 'German race') and winning a Darwinian battle against the other nations, Germany strong again and expanding its living space. For them, economic policy was whatever it needed to be to fulfill that goal. It could be a socialistic policy if they believed it was good for their nation. Or it could be capitalistic. Or they could act like socialists if it meant that it would help them get into power, but then perhaps at that point socialist policy would not be practical, and in that case they'd pursue something else. This is an important point that is often taken out of context. From the very earliest years of the Nazi party, Hitler told other Nazis not to listen to the platform. The platform is unimportant. The only important goal is getting power. Power for what? German national rejuvenation. They had to be flexible to reach that goal, which meant they could be found saying any number of things. This fooled very few in Germany (or in the world) at the time, but has since meant that people can take aspects of Nazi history, present them out of context, and make them seem like socialists. They never stuck to the platform for the sake of socialist ideology, but they were rigid about sticking to their nationalist goals. Their 'socialism' in other words was subservient to their nationalism. There were some in the party that were further left and wanted to see a genuinely socialist angle for the sake of ideology in the party, and Hitler actively fought against those people. If they ever seemed to pose a threat to his power, he acted out against them. He either converted them (like in the case of Goebbels), or exiled, marginalized, or even eventually killed them. Hitler's take on the party was always far to the right. His views were so far right that as he gained popularity, he pushed German politics on the whole to the right. Again, this is not just a modern understanding. It was the dominant understanding in Germany and in the world at the time. When Hitler ran against Hindenburg, for example, in the presidential election in 1932, Hitler was understood as the right-wing candidate, and Hindenburg was understood as the left-wing candidate, who gained the support of the German left to prevent Hitler from winning. Hindenburg was an old-fashioned conservative from the military. Him being branded left-wing was considered an absurd shift in German politics, but that was how far right Hitler was. They did lean into socialist language and spoke as socialists at times on the campaign trail, but that was cynically done when they believed they were speaking to audiences who would be won over by it (working class audiences). Hitler himself ideologically pivoted depending on the audience. As he put it, before he went before a crowd he asked 'what record must I use? The national? The social? Or the sentimental? Of course, I have them all in my suitcase.' (quoted in Toland's 'Hitler' biography). If you quote him or the Nazis out of context, they may appear to be socialists at times, but that's quite literally falling for cynical Nazi campaign tactics. If you understand what was happening in context it's obvious that the socialist angle was largely cynical, and certainly subordinate to nationalism. This was widely understood at the time (and still today). The Nazis, on the whole, were far-right nationalists, not left-wing socialists. Richard Evans in 'The Coming of the Third Reich' called the Nazi's socialism 'pseudo-socialism' and I think that's appropriate. We could go further to answer who socialists are. Socialists are primarily concerned with egalitarianism. They want a more equal society. That's the distinguishing trait that motivates them. Inequality outrages them. Private property is typically seen as the cause of inequality, and centralizing the means of production was simply a popular method for socialists to achieve their goal of socioeconomic equality (for a while anyway). Now let's look at the Nazis. To put it mildly, they weren't egalitarians. The main principles they were overwhelmingly concerned with were nationalism, totalitarianism and, for the Nazis, racism (in a nationalist context). All three of those concepts are based in hierarchical thinking. Hitler also promoted a social Darwinian view when it came to labor - that hard work leads to success and should be appropriately rewarded (and also backed by private property). The Nazis, on the whole, were especially (even outrageously) inegalitarian. They claimed unequal human worth as a principle, and said that due to lesser worth, many in their society didn't even deserve to live (that included Jewish people and various other 'undesirables.' A point made explicit at 28:50 in my longer vid). In the very least they believed that many 'less valuable' Germans (like cripples) didn't deserve welfare. All of that makes calling the Nazis socialists - if you're trying to use the word meaningfully - misleading at best. Really just wrong. So why do people believe the Nazis were socialist? They did implement many economic policies that we relate with socialism. But they implemented those policies for reasons that little to do with commitment to socialist ideology, and everything to do with commitment to nationalist ideology. Others point to the largely superficial connections the Nazis had to socialism, like the word 'Socialist' in their party name. Again, that came from their early years when socialists were more prominent in the party, and also was part of their effort to win over more of the electorate. Saying they're socialists simply because they have the word 'socialist' in their name is akin to saying North Korea is democratic simply because they have the word 'democratic' in their country's name. It's absurd if you're knowledgeable about the subject. The Nazis openly framed socialists and communists as their natural enemies and held a general attitude of murderousness towards them. In short: the people who call the Nazis socialists - and not nationalists/fascists - have not discovered a deeper, more penetrating understanding of Nazism. It's the opposite. They're being fooled by the Nazi's veneer of socialism. Their 'socialism' was superficial and subordinate to their nationalism/fascism. As you spend time with Nazism, the thinness of that veneer becomes more and more obvious, which is why people at the time who lived with Nazism weren’t tricked by it, and professional historians and academics are also not tricked by it. To me, hearing that the Nazis were socialists and/or leftists is similar to hearing the claim that the '69 moon landing was faked. It's interesting to consider why people think that, but if you spend time learning the subject outside of solely consuming media bent to sell that one angle it falls apart. If you want to relate fascism to socialism and point to similarities in some tactics and economic policies, and maybe even call the Nazis economically socialistic in a loose sense (roughly referring to some of their economic policies, even though others conflicted with it), without putting much weight on that word, then that works to some extent, but overall, they weren't socialists. They were nationalists and fascists who sometimes used socialist policy and terminology for those purposes. - Ryan

[@ewallt]

It’s a tricky thing to discuss because the words are hard to pin down. I like how you handled “fascist.” “Socialist” is even harder to pin down, where it means many different things to many different people. If you look at the whole Marxist philosophy but substitute race for class (including nationalism), then that seems to capture Hitler’s idea when he says that without the race argument they (the Nazis) would be the same as Marxists. There’s the same scape goat mentality, but instead of proletariat/bourgeoisie it’s Arian/Jew. I think you’re completely correct in terms of the economic implementation being secondary, but in terms of philosophy, it seems similar (the state will take care of you cradle to grave, the good of the many overrides the importance of the individual, etc.)

[@sookendestroy1]

This topic is actually fairly important right now. Ive heard a ton lately from people that think the governments of countries today are communist conspirators working out of the UN or something. That National Socialists were socialists above all "its in the name for christs sake" is a common thing i hear and that "theres nothing wrong with national populism, we need strong government to put everyone in their place and keep liberals out of power"

[@etrs]

I'd love to see you and TIKHistory discuss this topic

[@realryanchapman]

​@@etrs What I've seen of Tik's work fell into the 'selectively pointing at early Fascism' camp. He also didn't seem to distinguish/acknowledge the difference between Fascism and fascism. I skipped ahead and saw him sneering about confused 'Marxist professors' and turned it off. I'd add to that: most material I see on KZbin on both Marxism and fascism is badly partisan and in my opinion low-quality. I don't encourage people to learn about controversial stuff like that on this platform and would really encourage people to look up academics that are respected in their fields if you want a high-quality take. That's why I point to people like Roger Griffin and avoid discussing other KZbinrs. If you want other academics on fascism, I'd also recommend Stefan Breuer and A. James Gregor.

[@etrs]

@@realryanchapman If you think he's misguided, that sounds like all the more reason for it to me. He's pretty stubborn about his beliefs and I think a lot of that is due to the general rudeness that comes with most of the pushback towards him. I don't really know who you are, but you come off as a polite guy capable of a productive conversation.

[@Sigrdrifaz]

Italian racism was more ethereal, they thought the sprit of Italy was unique. That it was the same sprit as Rome, Mussolini uses titles and imagery of Rome. As such, it was destined to rule over others. They also had concentration camps in former Yugoslavia, the difference was they didn't kill them, they were closer to re-eduction camps to turn them into Italians.

[@paperfart3988]

🤌

[@rifleman4005]

What is not mentioned here was that Italy was only unified in the mid 1800's and had very powerful regional alligences. Many in the north disliked those in the south and vice versa. To build a unified state mussolini decided ultra nationalism was the answer.

[@Sigrdrifaz]

@@rifleman4005 very good point, a lot of fascism isn't formalistic, the attributes that built it, also in Germany and Spain, were very historically and geographically determined. So much so that it's questionable how recreateible it is, if it was a perfect storm situation, or if universal conditions do predispose a society to it. The one universal precondition I think is necessary that he implicitly talked about, was an end justifies the means system of morality. If this is present in the population or can be ingrained into them, then everything else can fall into place, genocide, torture ect..I would even say racism is a means, you are willing to use the suppression of a race to achieve a higher-end, you just have to explain why your end is so detrimental and important so that all means become legitimate to achieve it. So I would distill this into strong consequentialism as a precondition for fascism to take place.

[@rifleman4005]

@@Sigrdrifaz As far as I am concerned Italy went along with Germany because the latter was the stronger of the two just like the US dominated amoung the allies.I don't believe the Italian fascists actually shared the same racial policies of the nazis. I know my father was not a big fan of the nazis. In fact I am hard pressed to find any economic theory that spoke about ethnicity other than the nazi. Anti semitism existed in soviet Russia and capitalistic America , not to the same degree of course but it was not part of their respective economic theories. What I find frightening is the degree that governments can control thought not just in dictatorships but democracies as well. The US government managed to convince a US population that Iraq was behind 911 and had WMDs.

[@Sigrdrifaz]

@@rifleman4005 agree, Italians were very effective in saving jews, they were not on board with that at all from what I can see. I think the truth of what happened in italy is lost in that weird period of the 1800s, French invasion and control by Napoleon, the Risorgemento, I see an idenity crisis that got out of hand. Idpol is a nuclear power, it's very unstable and can go alot of ways real quick. When dealing with control, I think you need a soft spot to leverage, idenity was that. I remember the 911 stuff, morality was leveraged then, you were a bad person if you questioned the narrative, you "supported terrorism " and "hated America " if you asked questions about Iraq. It really took a toll on you to ask questions and that was soft power, under fascism the threat of death wasn't abstract, we certainly learned to use the tactics but make them abstract.

[@Sykoze]

“The short answer is they were fascist, and the longer answer is a more qualified answer still saying that they were fascist” made me laugh way harder than it should have, considering it’s a just basic statement of fact. Good show.

[@juggernautnation369]

Except they weren't, this video is full of shit. They were Socialist that Nationalized it, rather than following Marx's International Socialism/Communism. The Nazi's rejected both Communism and Capitalism but even they described themselves as proud Socialist. I've never heard of this Fascism/fascism difference but either way Fascism/fascism is still a Corporatist Socialist State although this is not what the National Socialist were because they didn't have a Corporatist element to make them Fascist/fascist. They were as the name implied National Socialist. Hell much of what they really did is tweak Marx's manifesto changing Classism to Racism and International to National.

[@Sykoze]

@@juggernautnation369you’re aware that the entire academic world agrees that the Nazis were fascists, right? And the fact that the fascist wing of the party executed and imprisoned the socialist wing of the party in one of the most famous political purges of all time? And that that happened pretty much immediately after they seized power, long before the atrocities of the Nazi regime? The Nazis as we think of them are categorically not socialists, they murdered the socialists. There’s a famous poem about Nazi Germany that literally starts with the line “First they came for the socialists, but I was not a socialist, so I said nothing” This is an idiotic take that is predicated on willful ignorance of basic historical fact.

[@hazchemel]

hahahah yeah

[@fyjggi8688]

The parrot disorder. No, Germans weren't fascist neither Fascist.

[@juggernautnation369]

@@fyjggi8688 I often see people misconstruing what Fascism/fascism is, I see alot of people that think just Corporatism by itself is Fascism/fascism which is incorrect. I also see alot of people that think Nationalism by itself is Fascism/fascism which is incorrect. I also see alot of people think that Nationalized version of Socialism alone is Fascism/fascism which is also incorrect. Fascism/fascism is a Nationalized Corporatist Socialist State. The Nazi's didn't have the Corporatist element to their regime because they altered Marx's manifesto from Classism to Racism to cause the Socialist revolution they were after. While the Fascist/fascist still used Classism by turning to the working class through Trade Unionism, it was basically Syndicalism like the old communist USSR in Russia.

[@AllegedAmerican]

Something I wish I saw more in educational texts is the beginning part where the author explains their background and their understanding of the subject. When you define the words you use and why you use the words it helps us see your point of view and not just blindly accept information without context

[@nonakabyrd5759]

Educational texts are fundamentally incorrect in the area of true history. History is often written by the victors. Researched and footnoted history is better to learn facts from. It's least likely to have an agenda

[@greyman2724]

@@nonakabyrd5759 this is sorta true of World War Two and not true at the same time because well we saw Germany as this big mechanized force! Only to do a little more digging and see they were using horses for supplies in the invasion of russia

[@jonathanvilario5402]

Just call Italian fascism "fascismo" and be done with it. If idiots want to act like we're not talking about what is the accepted generalization, then use the Italian language itself, and call it by the language they identified themselves as. That way we don't need to waste time arguing with spelling and wording.

[@Old_Harry7]

This I believe is the best solution. Being Italian "fascism" (the general term) usually becomes synonymous to "Fascism" (Mussolini's fascism) but to be fair the Italian language doesn't really use capital letters the way the English language does therefore "fascism" depending on the context could either be an adjective, referring specifically to Mussolini's dictatorship or even an umbrella term to mock an extreme way of thinking. I believe that by using "fascismo" the problem would essentially be solved and by the same logic we could use "frankismo" or "falangismo" to refer to Spain's fascism.

[@cagneybillingsley2165]

just goes to show how little common sense people have. it's literally in the name. national SOCIALISM

[@nisseheim4996]

@@cagneybillingsley2165 You clearly learned nothing from the video you just watched. What a movement say about itself has little weight against how they act and what they actually stand for. But we don't even need to analyze it to get to the answer, since the Nazis very much explained what they meant with using the word 'Socialism' and it has little to nothing to do with socialism as it is generally defined. I suggest you supplement your commen sense with some actual reading.

[@user-nc9pc3gr4c]

Fascism is someone that wants their empire back. Nazi is genomic socialism. Very simple. The only successful fascist was Hitler, he almost got the German Empire back, but failed in the end. Obviously, The Roman Empire, the Spanish Empire, all failed.

[@GhostScout42]

@@cagneybillingsley2165 seriously? Like bernie sanders is hit ler or something

[@nathanhastings8293]

I love the commentary because there is source material that we can check for ourselves. These videos are a great public service and leave me wanting to know more. Keep up the great work.

[@magicbuns4868]

He left out stuff like Mein Kampf and Nazi ideology as told by Nazi's off their time. Hitler makes a distinction between Nazism and Fascism himself. It's just easier and more accurate to either refer to them as far-right or just right wing and authoritarian.

[@terrysmith1914]

I agree

[@markdin2988]

@@magicbuns4868 what is this distinction hitler makes

[@magicbuns4868]

@@markdin2988 ​ @Mark Din *Warning - this is going to be quite lengthy* I'd have to reread a terribly written book to do this better. I can read evil shit, but Hitler was an awful writer, so it was one of those that took a while. Nevertheless, here are a few quotes from Mein Kampf related to how nationalism and social class are incorporated into another: "There is no such thing as a national sentiment which is directed towards personal interests. And there is no such thing as a nationalism that embraces only certain classes. " (Above quote is about how it can only be nationalism, if one does not forget about the lower classes. This is Hitler's argument to Fascist ideology that disregards that there is a class struggle.) "Here is another educative work that is waiting for the People's State to do. It will not be its task to assure a dominant influence to a certain social class already existing, but it will be its duty to attract the most competent brains in the total mass of the nation and promote them to place and honour. " (Just another quote to highlight the emphasis Hitler put on class disparities - you get plenty of them). ... ... ... ... *Now I'm going to give you a couple of quotes from the 'Doctrine of Fascism' by Mussolini regarding his take on social class, and socialism.* "No individuals or groups (political parties, cultural associations, economic unions, social classes) outside the State. Fascism is therefore opposed to Socialism to which unity within the State (which amalgamates classes into a single economic and ethical reality) is unknown, and which sees in history nothing but the class struggle" (Mussolini saying why Fascism rejects socialism, in clear words) "When the war ended in 1919 Socialism, as a doctrine, was already dead; it continued to exist only as a grudge" (Socialism no longer lived/existed according to Mussolini) "We wish the working classes to accustom themselves to the responsibilities of management so that they may realize that it is no easy matter to run a business" (This is a very easy to identify right wing viewpoint. Mussolini isn't idolising the working classes here, in fact, he's being patronising - how can they understand the 'delicate' matters of 'management' hey? It's not like everyone gets to be a 'boss') ... ... ... ... *Now I've shown you how both ideologies talk about social class, as well as the Fascist take on Marxism, below I can include quotes from Mein Kampf about Hitler's criticism about Marxism.* "The Jewish doctrine of Marxism rejects the aristocratic principle of Nature and replaces the eternal privilege of power and strength by the mass of numbers and their dead weight. Thus it denies the value of personality in man, contests the significance of nationality and race, and thereby withdraws from humanity the premise of its existence and its culture" (Notice how, unlike Mussolini, Hitler doesn't bother mentioning anything about social class, oh no oh no, it's all about racial and national issues. He calls it a Jewish doctrine, and says it's wrong because it doesn't have any focus on race or nationality. Unlike Mussolini, Hitler doesn't criticise Marxism about it's views in regards to social class in Mein Kampf, instead he either rambles incoherently, and when it's not incoherent, it's always about the bloody 'Jews', race and/or nationality!). ... ... ... ... *Given that there is a lot of information to compound from a lot of reading of primary sources (Marx, Lenin, Mussolini, other Fascists of the time, Hitler, literature from the NSDAP before Hitler joined it etc), it isn't easy nor quick to go through them.* A ten minute video, that hasn't bothered to read primary source material past two pamphlets, will seem like an easier way to learn about this stuff but you're not learning anything because the guy doesn't have an clue because he's not done any actual research. If you want to learn about the distinctions, what these ideologies stood for, and their critiques of other perspective, then do yourself a favour and actually read what these people wrote. It's better than spoken language, because writing lets you be more precise with your words. These men (the dictators) believed in something, they weren't cynical, they thought they knew exactly what was what, and that it could not be questioned. Also fun fact: In Marx's last ten years, he was supposed to have written the second part to Das Capital, Engels thought he was doing it, but it seemed that Marx wanted to retire. Instead, as well as spending time with his wife and family, he taught himself basic Russian, so he could learn Russian history from the source material, where it was untainted by translation. In the end, what was meant to be the second part to Das Capital turned into a few pamphlets. Seems like there's also a difference between what we call Marxism and the man himself. One was very human :).

[@nathanhastings8293]

@Science Lad ....pls correct yr spellng after nap time is over....thx

[@randylplampin1326]

I know for fact that Hitler created a twenty-five point list of subjects and attitudes that defined what he thought Nazism was. And Hitler was absolutely adamant about his list.

[@libernihilus]

that list was created as a campaigning tool in order to deceive people who were not politically educated (non-communists of the working class Weimar) into thinking that Nazism was another form of socialism. There are many accounts of it being thrown out entirely once they were in power, it was propaganda pure and simple - they needed the population to believe they would protect working class interests in order to secure votes, while their actions are diametrically opposite - favoring large businesses, busting unions, trash-talking communism. The evidence of this is in details (letters, memos) of party members joking about "the list" and how it was discarded once they secured power, and mentioned in this way whenever anyone outside the party leadership brought it up in an attempt to provoke accountability. The propaganda runs so deep that individual facts like "the list" must be contextualized in the framework of their end goals to understand its purpose.

[@noobsaibot5285]

His socialism

[@mariolis]

​@@noobsaibot5285Nazism was Socialism but it was National Socialism both right and left wingers try to paint the nazis as just one or the other to paint the other as closer to the nazis than themselves , while in reality , the Nazis were both Nationalist and Socialist , not just because its in their name , but because the ideology at its core , was BOTH nationalist AND socialist

[@Malachit-dl1qw]

​​@@mariolis "Socialism" was a term that was generally thrown around by political parties in the Weimar Republic to attract voters. Barely anyone knew what it meant, but it sounded nice. Even today people barely have a grasp of how broad socialism actually was, falsely thinking that this overrated German-Jewish Santa-esque Hegel fan came up with all of it. For example, libertarianism was originally a socialist movement. But I think Hitler, atleast partially, tried to model his form of socialism after the version of Oswald Spengler, Prussian socialism, which is basically an attempt to modernize Frederick the Great's cultural and economic policies. What makes me think that is the fact that he directly copies quotes out of Spengler's book that describe this ideology ("Prussianism and socialism") in both Mein Kampf and his table talks.

[@mariolis]

@@Malachit-dl1qw the German public not being generally aware of what Socialism really was doesnt make the Nazis non-Socialist ... to figure out if they were or not , one just has to look at the actual policies of the Nazis , and they were quite Socialist ... just not Marxist Socialist, their Socialism was a different type of Socialism , that considered Race , rather than Class as the greatest factor in Societal Conflict

[@vraisairs9201]

Isn’t it sort of a false dichotomy putting communism, capitalism, and fascism all on the same level? Two are economic systems and one is more of a social order and by labeling them as three distinctly separate ideas, it puts across the idea that fascism is an economic system in and of itself

[@MaximumTheRayRay]

He was just giving examples to illustrate the concept of general categories. I don't think he was really comparing them in any meaningful way except as an example of how unique countries can still be included in a general category.

[@localbod]

When at school, learned that Fascism was also known as Corporatism. It certainly seemed like an economic viewpoint.

[@johncarveti8375]

@@localbodif we put nazism and Fascism on scales 1 “nationalist vs internationalist” and 2 “central planning vs free market”, I think Ryan argues for ultranationalist on scale 1 being a more important characteristic of fascism than wherever they land on scale 2.

[@jangobango2847]

Yea california seems like a blend of all 3 right now 😅

[@stephenjensen5358]

Fascism does have an economic aspect just like communism and capitalism. Capitalism generally believes in free exchange of goods and services. With as little regulatory control as possible. You succeed or fail based on what the market decides. Communism believes in state ownership of all goods and services. You are given what the state decides and you own nothing. Fascism allows for private ownership. But exchange of goods and services is heavily regulated by the state. Based on what the state thinks best serves the state. Maintains the illusion of ownership.

[@metalgod542]

I know history as a whole tends to bore the average person and political history and videos of the roots of politics terms don't "excite" the masses, but by God you do an excellent job at it Ryan. You definitely deserve more credit than you receive and more subscribers than you have.

[@markwalker3510]

What do you mean history is the best subject by far to learn about, I'd hope the masses are as excited as I am

[@frenzalrhomb6919]

@@markwalker3510 Well I'm with at least!!

[@whydoiexist2180]

@@markwalker3510 something about the way my school teaches bore me to death ngl

[@cagneybillingsley2165]

they're socialists, it's literally in their name. i will never understand why it is so easy to gaslight people. i think most people don't stop to think, they want the media to think for them.

[@72marshflower15]

He’s kind of fucking it up, actually.. here’s why ~ National Socialism is a misnomer.. “Nationalism” itself is self obsessive ie individualistic as socialism is a liberal/collectivist construct. Thus the joke is on whoever is politically illiterate enough to begin with. Nazis were actually State Capitalist, sponsored by the U.S. Capital Establishment.. Fascism is a critical mass accretion of power into individual density. It needs no upper or lower case to differentiate.. it also shows that individualism sources conservatism. Conservatism accrues power as liberalism disperses it. It’s in the basic derivation of the terms themselves and it means that all dictators and fascist states are conservative in nature. Historical examples of fascism have all been accretive of power. Socialism and Communism being liberal/collectivist constructs, are dispersive of power. It means that fascism has always been State Capitalism, not Socialism or Communism.. He’s got his shit fundamentally incorrect..

[@beatgreens9530]

Thank you Ryan! I can’t believe you only have 100,000 subscribers! You are deepening my understanding of the topics you discuss and i hope you never get tired of making these videos!

[@donaldedward4951]

He loves the sound of his own voice. Ask him which came first the chicken r the egg.

[@snekkie117]

@@donaldedward4951 what. you could say that about anyone makes a video about what theyre talking about first off everything he said is right. but anyone you support politically is the same way

[@christopheryoder8292]

​@@snekkie117 nothing he said is right and he is basically continuing the academic con-job that has been perpetuated on the people to hide the fact that Hitler and the Nazis were socialists.

[@malcolmfreeman7802]

This is a good explaination but im not sure - check TIKhistory - he has a bunch of videos on fascism and NAZIs - he gives good facts on difference between mussolini , hitler and mosley Like Ryan (whos video on socialism is complete rubbish except for the utopian socialism history) i disagree with TIKs reinterpretation of socialism because of his anti socialism/communism bias.

[@72marshflower15]

He kinda messed this all up. Here’s how ~ National Socialism is a misnomer.. “Nationalism” itself is self obsessive ie individualistic as socialism is a liberal/collectivist construct. Thus the joke is on whoever is politically illiterate enough to pair the two to begin with. Nazis were actually State Capitalist, sponsored by the U.S. Capital Establishment.. Fascism is a critical mass accretion of power into individual density. It needs no upper or lower case to differentiate.. it also shows that individualism sources conservatism. Conservatism accrues power as liberalism disperses it. It’s in the basic derivation of the terms themselves and it means that all dictators and fascist states are conservative in nature. Historical examples of fascism have all been accretive of power. Socialism and Communism being liberal/collectivist constructs, are dispersive of power. It means that fascism has always been State Capitalism, not Socialism or Communism..

[@MarkoPareigis]

I watched your first vid on the subject of fascism a while ago and learned a lot. This follow-up has further clarified many things to me. Many thanks for creating such great content!

[@christopheryoder8292]

What has it cleared up? It hasn't cleared up anything. It is perpetuating the lie leftist academics began in a desperate attempts to separate themselves from the socialist brother...Hitler

[@TheInternationalBlackLipPlate]

You will not learn much unless you read source material. Il Duce, the creator of Fascism, wrote a book on his ideology.

[@TheInternationalBlackLipPlate]

"A socialist is one who serves the common good without giving up his individuality or personality or the product of his personal efficiency. Our adopted term 'Socialist' has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism. Marxism is anti-property; true socialism is not. Marxism places no value on the individual , or individual effort, or efficiency; true Socialism values the individual and encourages him in individual efficiency, at the same time holding that his interests as an individual must be in consonance with those of the community. All great inventions, discoveries, achievements were first the product of an individual brain. It is charged against me that I am against property, that I am an atheist. Both charges are false." A. Hitler Dec 28, 1938.

[@123100ozzy]

The best definition of fascism will always be mussolini's: All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state. That has always been the goal and the achievement of fascism (Both versions).

[@Fireclaws10]

Fascism is quite complex, and reducing it down to just the state misses many things, like a return to past values, bigotry, and aggression.

[@LeanForLife989]

​@@Fireclaws10"All within a state" would be an example of bigotry, for example claiming that a minority of people are not part of the state. Where state is define as the people of a country. "Nothing against the state" speaks for fascist aggression. I think this definition fits more.

[@pickleism253]

Well, that kinda applies to countries like USSR and eastern bloc

[@123100ozzy]

@@Fireclaws10 it's not at all, anyone who tries to overcomplicate things is intentionally trying to murk the waters to derail debates.

[@Fireclaws10]

@@123100ozzy There's a wide gap between overcomplicating and oversimplifying.

[@foundationsmedicalinformat2420]

The way you structure your points, properly explain terms before hand, and address potential logical fallacies in real time is so satisfying to watch. I especially like that it lets you dive into these otherwise dicey topics with confidence given the care that you put into your framing and the specificity of your language. Bravo 👏🏼

[@lj6278]

I agree completely, one problem I see is that many discussions are not started with a clear understanding of the fundamentals of the issue. Fascist/fascist is a good example. if you don't have a clear understanding of Fascism how can you argue about fascism? The term (Fascisti) was coined by Mussolini in 1919.

[@marcusdavenport1590]

More like strawman the point from the other side before moving on with a lot of words... proving how little he understands about Fascism. And no... no one cares about the capital F or Lower case f.... The dictionary definition changed in 2005... leftist changed it. Go read the previous definition. Ryan has no clue what Italy or Nazi Germany stance on economics were. Their economics were the core essential part of their belief... He's making vague statements but doesn't actually understand what Fascism was. Fascism is a brand of Socialism. More specifically it's a brand of Democratic Socialism. Even the Communist Internationale admits this.

[@shaft9000]

It is a good video, but not a great one. The problem that I notice is that it is so general to the extent of becoming overly vague, while also failing to mention influences as much or more dominant than any sort of theoretical fascism was. The Nazis were _not taking after Italian fascists_ perhaps except wherein gaining the approval of the church(es) was a concern. Little to nothing more, and I can go some distance towards proving it, briefly: - Germany was the scientific and academic leader of the world; the energetic, educated precocious upstart power of Europe. Why would a society of militant, collectivist Protestants with a gigantic French and Jewish axe to grind model anything they do after the disorganized, come-lately Italians?? The Roman Empire was one (enormous) thing, modern Italy being quite another. - Perhaps greatest of all single-word factors, one should realize the extent of influence upon the German culture exerted by _PRUSSIA._ Then notice the German geography being bordered by 12 nations (including direct maritime hegemonic rivals Sweden, Russia and the UK across the Baltic and North seas) - and why this mattered so damned much, particularly in geopolitical relation to Russia....and those 11 other countries. - The NSDAP crafted their platform in direct reaction to the troubles of the Wiemar Republic and to counter the Bolsheviks.Their mythology and cultural claim ranged from the Norse to the Austrian with dabblings of wacky occultism. _Not from the south._ Further, Marxism and National Socialism were both remarkably GERMAN (and secondarily French and English) phenomena of ideological development. - Hitler admired Napoleon despite his Corsican origins, much more than he did any contemporary Italian or Frenchman(ha!). Strategically, he was out to conquer "Leibstraum" rather than to colonize; to expand the empire contiguously on land, and not as other colonial powers had across the seas.

[@andrewlim7751]

National Socialism is a social system while fascism is an ideology, the 2 ain't correlated.

[@marcusdavenport1590]

@@andrewlim7751 both have almost identical economic policies. The difference between the two are almost slim. Both systems are primarily an economic system. Without the economics they would not have been successful in recruiting.

[@kylelacey1212]

I like the idea of the political triangle, with three points, Individuality, Equality, Tradition. Each of these has been embodied in most of the political structures of civilized time. Individuality, capstones with Capitalism most often. Equality, capstones with Socialism, and Tradition with Nationalism. There's an ism for them all. Of course each has their more extreme branches, such as Corporatism, Communism and Fascism, which take their respective ideals to the absolute limit and ironically enough all end up with the same result: totalitarian and authoritarian rule. Ideally, the best run governments tend to fall much closer to the center. People will call Trump a fascist or Justin Trudeau a communist, but neither could be further from the truth. Sure, both men have said some stupid things but their platforms are no where near the fringes that their political opponents would tend to suggest. Unfortunately, that tends to significantly muddy the waters until even the most center position gets tossed an extremist label because at that point it's no longer about accuracy it's about slander and ad hominem.

[@mariussielcken]

That's not the only holy triad. Past, present, future. Body, mind, spirit. God, spirit, son.

[@mariussielcken]

what would you call an immigration policy that discriminates against 'shithole countries'?

[@kylelacey1212]

@@mariussielcken Depends on the reason, I guess. Despite the rhetoric, immigration policies typically have more reason behind them than what some would assign as nothing more than discrimination, but most people don't think too long and hard about it.

[@Phazonis]

Please please please do not conflate categories for economic systems with political systems. Communism and Capitalism are not to be conflated with fascism, democracy or dictatorship. The easiest way to show the importance of it is that there are capitalist democracies and capitalist dictatorships.

[@Phazonis]

@@souventudubanned I mean they do, but still they have no problem with private ownership of the economy. Many even promise lucrative deals to business owners once they are in power. tax exemptions and so on. From Franco Spain to indeed Nazi Germany or even Saudi Arabia. Companies follow in line very easily once you promise a stable way for profits. And I wouldn't call the USA a dictatorship. Not yet. Better a failing democracy. Something that can at least be proven. At least factual anti americanism.

[@burnvictim77]

A little late to the game, but I think a better way to frame it is that all types of fascism and national socialism (lower case) are "third position" ideologies. But German National Socialism was not fascism. TIKHistory has a number of videos detailing why. Including, how the various groups of national socialists and fascists fought each other in Britain (even while not always using the terms consistently). So, yes, clearly a lot of people use lower-case fascism at a catch-all, but on deep analysis it should be easy to understand that Nazism was not fascism (even in a more generic sense). But they both are similar enough to be categorized together as "third positionists."

[@supferfuzz]

“It’s not sufficient to categorize national socialism as nations socialists.” And yet they were..

[@Historybuff_769]

This modern world has no idea what national socialism actually is and what it stands for Modern governments do lots of things they accuse fascist of doing and they are hypocrites For that Communism is true evil no regard for the common folk slavery to the state the poisoning of soil to cause starvation

[@CriticalNuance]

9:00 I see this fallacy from so many people speaking on different forms of government. Capitalism is not a form of government, it's a form of economy. Saying the USA is capitalist is part true, but an oversimplification. I could say America is socialist because we have free at the point of service public education, or a publicly funded military, or a "free" mail service, however calling the U.S. socialist based on this is a minimally true inaccurate description. We have a mixed economy with a representative democratic republic form of government. It's really not that hard. Capitalism and Socialism are economic structures. Communism and Authoritarianism are not synonyms, nor are Freedom and Capitalism. It's a non-starter for me when "educators" can't sort this out.

[@chriswilliams7358]

I gotta admit that from the title of the video and to the first 2 minutes I was skeptical about your position. But wow, did you really put everything together at the end lol. It is kind of crazy that people argue with you on this basic fact. Great work!

[@mikearchibald744]

There is no such thing as 'basic facts' when it comes to political terminology. As has been said, before modern science terms like velocity and matter had no concrete definition. Once the science develops to a point then those 'laws' can be applied to definitions, to a point. We are still in the middle ages of defining such terms, thats WHY they vary depending on who is talking about them. The most important thing in any discussion is to define your terms first, or you will spend the whole debate arguing with people who simply define that term differently.

[@ez6888]

Never put the word “basic” before “fact”. It’s reductive.

[@chriswilliams7358]

@@ez6888 You’re reductive.

[@Conorkc86]

Ryan you have a gift for taking complex topics, explaining them clearly and concisely. Love your videos!

[@SchmulKrieger]

he actually did nothing in the video, just invented a new term which sounds the same as Fascism to label Nazism as fascist.

[@Descolata]

@@SchmulKrieger I don't think so. Seems like he did a good job distilling fascism as a collectivist ideology focused purely around the myth of its nation and its "people", with disregard to anything else.

[@SchmulKrieger]

@@Descolata which isnt fascism. A playkind of fascism is AnCap.

[@petergeorge2232]

That is because he spouts simplistic a-historical rubbish. He may fool you, but he does not fool anyone with knowledge about the matters he discusses.

[@christopheryoder8292]

Let me fix your comment: Ryan you have a gift for taking simple topics, explaining them confusingly and to promote a leftist agenda.

[@CriticallyAlive]

This whole dissection against his original idea “the short answer is they were fascist, the long answer is a more qualified way still saying they were fascist” really confuses me, genuinely. Fascism as a word literally did not exist prior to Mussolini’s Italy, and came about as a descriptor by conservative intellectuals of the time to describe the revolutionary ideal of ultra nationalism. The idea of exactly what’s being discussed here, to a certain degree, of the blood of the country trumping all else. While yes, genocide is certainly not a requirement of fascism, meaning the holocaust wasn’t by any means inevitable, not being a requirement is not therefore a disqualifier. The fact that the holocaust happened does not therefore exclude nazi germany from being fascist. It simply states that they took fascism to an extreme next step. Although a very legitimate argument can be made as to the inevitability of genocide in fascist states, as the purposes of fascism from a state perspective are to garner a cultish crowd thinking population based on spiritual connectivity of a very specific group of people(Italians by blood or Germans by blood however broadly they defined that or Russians by blood et cetera) and the only logical conclusion of human groups in that setting is the exclusion of all “others”. Genocide isn’t the only form of exclusion obviously, but if you start for even a second using words like glory or destined, and romanticizing things like war and the bonds shared over shed blood, and so on, you very very easily step into expansionist mindsets that were so popular in Nazi Germany at the time and it becomes quite clear that the only way to obtain this great nation worthy of this nationalistic worship is to get rid of the “other” permanently. That makes the holocaust a natural conclusion OF German fascism, and most certainly not an excluding factor thereof. Again, this word was quite literally invented to describe both(and all, let’s not forget about Spain) of these Nationalistic movements in Europe in the 1930’s. Why are we reinventing the wheel here? I would also like to add in relation to the comment about Mao and Stalin, why is it so clear that they are not fascist? I agree that nationalism and totalitarianism are both a part of those states but why does that so clearly not equal fascism? I would argue, based on the definitions in the video above and many others, that they most absolutely are, and again for all the reasons stated in the video above and others. You are right in that there are clear differences between the states, just as their are clear differences between Italian Fascism and German fascism but if you give it a wee bit of thought not only does that make sense but it’s a requirement of fascist ideology. Fascism by definition requires ultra-nationalism(though I agree you can have nationalism without fascism). Every country, every culture is different by nature of, well, history. So therefore, every country, every cultures version of ultra nationalism will and must therefore look and act differently. Otherwise it isn’t nationalism so much as cultural appropriation of someone else’s nationalism. If Stalins Russia looked exactly like nazi germany, would they be Russian or German? And how would they have convinced the Russian people of their uniqueness as a prerequisite to successful fascism(I am assuming that the Leninist revolution and eventual Stalinist takeover were a “successful” fascist movement). The point is, of course these systems look and act a bit different. They literally have to, they’re appealing to different cultures, but I ask why, by every definition of fascism we have, does that exclude one culture from fascism where it includes another? Lastly, I don’t wholly agree with this video or his other but I do think them greatly researched and incredibly informative starting points to the complex history of the early 20th century. I also want to include, because I already see it coming, that I do NOT by any means ascribe to the overuse of fascism as a descriptor for almost anything nowadays that disagrees with certain people politically, but this comment string is erring in the wrong direction and reinventing the wheel. I would also point out, especially in relation to my comments on Mao and Stalin, that while I absolutely do not consider them communists by any real definition(neither am I a communist), I also truly believe we in the west aren’t by any real measure capitalist either(nor am I a capitalist), so hopefully keeping some consistency there but if not, well, it’s my honest opinion so change my mind if you’ve got the chaps. Hopefully somebody gets somethin outa this rant lol

[@jeromeschmelzer8320]

Hi Ryan, Both of your videos on fascism excluded any effort to categorize Spain under Franco. And it appears as if Spain does not fit your definition of fascism. However, watching your video on Orwell, reminded me that Spain was called fascist by those like Orwell. I would be very interested in your thoughts on the relationship between Franco and fascism.

[@johnmccarron7066]

Francoist Spain itself is often not categorized as fascist, however (usually being classified more as authoritarian than fascist). There's a certain degree of quibbling with this, partially because the actual definition of fascism is so loose given the tendencies of fascists to continually change the rules of what defines their philosophy as necessary in order to attain power. Generally, however, while many elements of the Movimiento Nacional were very fascist or fascist influenced, many other elements were not, making the Falangists a bit difficult to categorize (I personally think they fit the fascist mould).

[@jeromeschmelzer8320]

@@johnmccarron7066 so what is to be gained from calling Francoist Spain fascist?

[@TheDarthbinky]

It was part of a broader trend of interwar Europe (and beyond... see the Silver Shirts, the German-American Bund, and the America First Committee, for example) to embrace populist, nationalist anti-leftism in the face of burgeoning socialist movements across the continent. MANY countries were fascist in some form between 1918 and 1945. Off the top of my head, Spain, Portugal, Hungary, Austria, Romania, and even Vichy France (which was ruled by already existing fascist parties like the Popular Party) all were fascist during that timeframe, even if only temporarily. The issue with Falangism (and Salazar) is that they deliberately distanced themselves from Fascism and Nazism, despite having a lot in common with them and originating from that same virulent anti-socialism. Both tried to cater to both sides, the Allies and the Axis, during WW2 without actually joining either side, and in so doing, were able to survive the war intact and lasted right up until the 1970s. Both Falangism and the New State were also deeply Catholic oriented, in opposition to the Nazis and Fascists (both of which cut "you leave us alone and we'll leave you alone" deals with the Pope, although Hitler pretty much immediately broke theirs).

[@NullStaticVoid]

It's also historical fact that the Soviets provided material support for Leftist Republican Spain and Fascists in Germany and Italy supported the Falangists with munitions and air strikes. The Falangists were not known for the same racialism as nazi Germany or Imperial Japan. But then neither was Fascist Italy.

[@realryanchapman]

Franco's Spain is controversial. I don't think any of the serious scholars I've read consider it fascist (at least in a clean sense like they consider Italy and Germany). I haven't studied it closely enough yet to put out a stance on it. I will say Orwell's understanding of the movements in Spain around that time was surprisingly loose. I wouldn't put too much weight on his opinion there.

[@daniel_503]

Hi Ryan, it would be really cool to see you address fascism vs liberalism with regard to the paradox of tolerance, now that you have videos for both liberalism and fascism. I really appreciate your thoroughness on these subjects. Thanks!

[@robertduperre7153]

@TheDarkerKnight "If a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually seized or destroyed by the intolerant." It was the philosopher Karl Popper, I think.

[@daniel_503]

@thedarkerknight2188 en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

[@jamieburgess1460]

Ronald Reagan said If fascism comes to this country it will be through liberalism, and he was absolutely correct.

[@richardlindquist5936]

For me, the most useful definitions of fascism have also included the vertical organization of industry to support the militaristic national agenda and severe authoritarianism legally. So it might be "The mass subordination of individuals and industry to an aggressive militaristic, authoritarian, nationalistic consciousness." The Germans included ethnic cleansing as part of their unique flavor, but there always seem to be scapegoated out groups; "othering" seems to be a required ingredient to keep the limbic system on maximum.

[@peterfmodel]

I suppose this is reasonable, but you could say that during WW2 the US did many of these things in their fight against the Axis. The big difference was democracy, free speech and free press. I must admit that free speech and free press was curtailed, even in the US, during WW2, but still existed in some form and democracy was never curtailed. That is probably the key difference.

[@Elementalism]

@Social Libertarian exactly. Instead of a "race" the socialists in the soviet union scapegoated land and business owners. Placing them into work camps.

[@Robin-jk6wz]

@Social Libertarian Well, the Soviet Union _was_ fascist. They were as communist as North Korea is democratic-it was just branding.

[@lincolnhaldorsen5649]

Innacurate definition, too broad. Soviet Union could fall under this definition.

[@bjn3536]

Sounds like Imperial Japan

[@SLACKPLAN9]

Mussolini defined fascism, with a LOWER F, as "Government colluding with Corporations". If this is true, then even the US is fascist.

[@jeremyhelms8313]

Shhhhhh the Jews don’t want people knowing this fact

[@toomanylies7716]

It's incredible to me that this has to be explained after your previous video, but you did a great job in doing so.

[@greggalbraith2842]

Ryan, I must say that I appreciate your willingness to illustrate and explain details in such a cogent and nuanced manner. I suspect that I also feel a bit of the pain you must endure when people want to be overly simplistic in their perception of how society's tendencies and actions manifest. I wish your use of details regarding similarities and differences in order to impart knowledge was contagious. If it was, the fear-induced insanity our world currently exhibits might be successfully blunted!

[@christopheryoder8292]

Nazism is fascism is the simplistic perception bc it is a lie.

[@BobGnarly420]

It’s wrong to categorise national socialism as nazism. Nazism is national socialist but national socialism isn’t nazism. The nazis wer a party that stood for national socialism.

[@ltisenotem]

.... They stood for national socialism? 😂 Well, in their name yes. Not reality. They hated unions, nothing nationalist socialist about that

[@timefororbit]

The National Socialist German Workers Party (to use their actual name) slogan was 'freedom and bread'. The entire appeal was to throw off the shackles of the Treaty of Versailles and get Germans back to work, feed starving families and fix the economy which was ruled by the treaty. The conditions Germany faced at that time dictated the political ideology (an equal and opposite reaction, perhaps). Hence, it doesn't have mass appeal. since not every country has a 'Treaty of Versailles' to cast off and working class to rebuild. Very few people even identify as Aryan even if they are Caucasian. It's like he was trying to create a kind of ideology specific for the German people at that specific time under those specific conditions. Another interesting point is the 'Haavara Agreement' (Search wikipedia for Haavara Agreement). It was an agreement between the National Socialists and the Zionist Federation of Germany (not a conspiracy theory) to deport Jewish people to Palestine for the purpose of establishing a Jewish State. The exported Jews would arrive by train and be put to work. This sudo-state of early Israel was socialist, since the workers arrived with very little and were being used as a labor force, they were fed and housed collectively. This throws cold water on the idea that the National Socialists always worked against the interests of socialists and Zionists. It puts the entire situation in an entirely different light. Of course, the Soviets also targeted groups like the Kulaks and Ukrainians, so when it comes to 'cleansing' it's pretty universal. The Kulaks were just peasant farmers, but because they technically owed property (farming equipment) the communists had to get rid of them, didn't they? Can't have hoes and shovels, can you? Then that lead to famine, which lead to the Ukrainian genocide by starvation. Supposedly they had to eat their own dead babies. That's the absurdity of communism, really.

[@rogerlouie1]

Gotta say, my mind was slightly changed. I have a degree in this kind of stuff and even I had a slight misconception. I appreciate your vids. You are a gold mine. You magically walk the neutral line on controversial topics while remaining unbiased. This is definitely one of my goals - keep to the facts and to ensure I highlight the facts fairly (because you can hyperfocus on a set of facts to spin a bias).

[@Gromkiii]

He decided that fascism is right wing ideology even if is collective central planning government, they hate private ownership and individual rights, and have origin in Marx. How can be that decision neutral and honest?

[@SchmulKrieger]

You are studied, but changed mind over a non 15 min long video which absolutely did nothing?

[@donaldedward4951]

Read my posts.

[@christopheryoder8292]

How is he walking the nuetral line when he is pushing a leftist narrative?

[@RavusNox-z5i]

Ryan chapman are good videos, but he really didn’t delve into anything fascism and national socialism is actually as a system. Books like mein kampf and others are hundred of pages detailing every area of domestic policy from taxation to social policies. They’re quite complex systems and are totally organised from top to bottom, this is what defines fascism, it’s totalitarian and structured. Not anything else. They even have complete economic theory defined by thinkers like Gottfried Feder who wanted to fundamentally change the banking system and abolish interest lending and usury, and go to an alternate system.

[@keithbrown3045]

The Duce thoughts on culture and race was quite common at the time among western countries.

[@LocutusMoW]

@nicholastime1513lol ok

[@endloesung_der_braunen_frage]

So were Hitlers what are you talking about?

[@alejandrobasombrio3803]

@@endloesung_der_braunen_frage No it wasn't. The Volkisch movement was already considered fringe by its time

[@endloesung_der_braunen_frage]

@@alejandrobasombrio3803 The racial views it propagated were mainstream. Read Madison Grant and the History of Nordicism. Its just standart European racism after all.

[@deanleaving2815]

Really fantastic video. Love the commitment to clarity in communication. Very helpful.

[@eliotpuplett7422]

As a supplement to Ryan's great explanation here, TIKHistory does a really nice job breaking down the direct differences between the fascist ideologies & systems of Mussolini's Italy, Hitler's Germany, and the British fascists under Mosley in a simple table format.

[@supferfuzz]

Yeah TIK makes the case that Hitler was a socialist not a fascist

[@72marshflower15]

@@supferfuzz~ Hitler’s economic drivers were based around state capitalism, not socialism.. You guys aren’t critically thinking about the terms you’ve been taught to parrot after.

[@72marshflower15]

@@supferfuzz you guys are butchering the shut out of this.. here’s a video that cuts through all that… found it last night ~ kzbin.info/www/bejne/jmrIq2mtaqeIg68si=IcdmMtDRAhWRU0Rs

[@procinctu1]

@@supferfuzz TIK makes a much better case than this video does.

[@FALL-LAFF-7477]

​@@procinctu1i've seen the video and yes, Hitler WAS a Socialist but adopting the worst build of Socialism that evolved with Fascism of Mussolini's and adopting Fascist movement. And Nazism didn't have any socialist idea of it if you watching that video too. More like... a cult when I watch another video of TIKHistory

[@johnclapp5447]

I would replace the term, "fascism" with its lower case, f with what Mussolini called corporate statism and that way, Stalinism would also qualify as such.

[@somerandomvertebrate9262]

Exactly. Stalinism is a form of national socialism ("socialism in one country"). TIK theorizes that this is the reason that Soviet propaganda during "the great patriotic war" always referred to the enemy as "fascists". Calling them national socialists, even though the Stalinist regime obviously did not use this term about itself, would have hit just a bit too close to home for comfort.

[@TheLocalLt]

No, Stalinism was Marxism-Leninism and overthrew all business owners, as he explained in the last video. Germany and Italy merely harnessed their existing economies (minus their now-eliminated political opponents)

[@somerandomvertebrate9262]

@@TheLocalLt Why is it less socialist to "harness" your economy as long as you control it? Control of the economy and putting it under the command of the state is the goal of socialism, right? (In fascism/national socialism expressively to serve the needs of the nation/people.) And Marxism-Leninism is just one form of socialism. It certainly does not have a monopoly on the term.

[@TheLocalLt]

@@somerandomvertebrate9262 no the goal of Socialism is social and class revolution. Any political ideology can use whatever economic methods it chooses at a given time to achieve its desired political ends, with Socialist states that’s typically state control over the economy, but this can be loosened when necessary to bolster legitimacy (such as the New Economic Policy era in the Soviet Union, or the Deng reforms we see in modern Communist China).

[@somerandomvertebrate9262]

@@TheLocalLt Exactly, that's precisely what I am saying. And in practice, "social and class revolution" must always mean the control and directive power over the economy by the state.

[@devrusso]

There's nothing anywhere saying that "fascism" is different than "Fascism". You come up with this by yourself lol.

[@leeruoho6343]

In a time saturated with emotional gaslighting, your logical and lucid approach to topics is refreshing.

[@lancelittrell369]

You are being sarcastic, right? I have seen many examples of gaslighting, but this guy is a master craftsman. He is so good you didn't even realize that the intent of this "history lesson" was MEANT to elicit an emotional responce. He came to his conclusion using an argument based solely using the definition comparison he castigated others for using, with the caveat that he first had to come up with plausible sounding definitions which he could then use to solidify the point he was making. I have to hand it to this guy, the way in which he said absolutely nothing of value using evidence based largely on his own opinion and vague poorly defined theories, enabled him to accomplish the sole objective behind this charade. Equating Populism with fascism without coming right out and saying it due to the total lack of substance behind the comparison and the reasoning behind the introduction, he instead touched on the one similarity found in both movements, The love of one's country in the first case and in the other, an egocentric pride in the country. Truly amazing how a what should have been neutral education about pre WWII European politics was twisted into an subliminal attack on American populism, and the love felt .

[@tomaszwida]

@@lancelittrell369 cant argue with fact can you?

[@chico9805]

@@tomaszwida Fools will always try.

[@RiotKurhein]

@@lancelittrell369 if you were a bit more honest you'd use the qualifier "right-wing" before 'populism'.

[@magicbuns4868]

@@tomaszwida He hasn't proposed any facts. The dude said Fascism was ONLY Italian Fascism... so is Spanish Fascism incorrect grammar now? 1) In his sources, he clearly hasn't read Mein Kampf or any source material direct from Nazi's explaining their ideology - they make a distinction between Fascism and Nazism, if they considered themselves Fascist, they would've called themselves Fascists. 2) His ONLY source of information for what constitutes as Socialism, is the Communist manifesto, an easy to read pamphlet that explains the theory of COMMUNISM. It's so easy to remember that theory of COMMUNISM, "The abolition of private property". That's Marxist theory, and Marx's own words, it is communism NOT socialism. 3) Again, I know I'm essentially repeating the same point, but he did not read ANY books from socialists who are not Marxist, socialism was around before Marx, Marx didn't invent the socialist theory, he's credited for the communist one. He used Communist theory to say Nazism wasn't socialist, but never used any source material explaining socialist theory. 4) All of his sources, that are worth something, Karl Marx and Mussolini on Fascism, are stupendously easy to read. They're good sources technically, but if you actually bother to read them, you'll understand why the Marx one is not needed. In other words, he only used one viable source, something like 20+ pages of reading. This boys and girls, is why you check their sources. 5) If it is an ideology, the first letter is ALWAYS a capital. Fascism, always fucking Fascism - because it is an ideology.

[@yamamotoyamamoto3886]

Nationalism and Nazism are not the same. Nazism is closer to extreme Darwinism and survival of the fittest. Japan also had a eugenics protection law in the past.

[@chindit6784]

It's an extreme form on nationalism and if any darwinism was used it was to justify nationalism. There's nothing scientific about nazism

[@gabrielsenator6347]

I always find it funny that the Darwinist strategy is completely rejected when it comes to fascist economics.

[@Raderade1-pt3om]

Japan was more fascist in ways that would make Hitler mouth water

[@Whirlwind990]

would be interested in your opinion on how Franco's Spain fits into this definition too, as its generally not talked about within this subject often

[@Death_4444]

Francoist spain was francoist.

[@B88-h6n]

Categorization of complex societies will always be imperfect. It seems that people need to learn how to work with labels, understand why we use them and their limits.

[@BS-vx8dg]

I think this is a good point, B88. And it even further complicated by the fact that *most partisans are not motivated to arrive at shared definitions of categories* as it would subtract from their ability to label their opponents in a negative light.

[@f.b.lagent1113]

that relies too much on honesty and the honesty of the party they promote who wouldn’t point out the BS of their own side while exaggerating/lying and being manipulative to destroy their oppositions, that would only work on a society that honors undeniable truths

[@psychonautpupildiallater7734]

@@f.b.lagent1113 Roger Griffin's definition of fascism~ "A political ideology whose mythic core in its various permutations is a palingenetic form of populist ultra nationalism",.. Sounds ALOT like Zionism,..... Hmmmm? Are the Jews fascists? Some would say yes,..... Bet the ones that say no,.. are Zionists?

[@MaxStArlyn]

Quote by Lεön Dεgrεllε. “....... Nätiönal Söçialist raçiålism was loyal to the German räcε änd totally rεspεctεd all other r4cεs....”

[@rafaelerto3487]

I love how careful you are in analyzing concepts consistently, defining what you are doing every step of the way so we can follow your reasoning. Your audience is free to agree or disagree with clarity on very specific points. Congrats

[@Gromkiii]

And still Fascist and National socialist origin is Marx that's thw simple truth and they are leftist with Collective policy and central government as any other leftist want.

[@christopheryoder8292]

If by consistent you mean consistently pushing a leftist lie then yes he is consistent.

[@RayRay-yt5pe]

Bro: I love the way you form your arguments. I'm taking notes.

[@Yipper64]

6:22 I think the "autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader" part is important here. If someone doesnt want dictatorial leadership, they arent a fascist.

[@Explicitly-CJ]

But if they do want a dictator does that necessarily make them a fascist? Are all dictatorial leaders fascist? and if so, is fascist not just an exact synonym for authoritarianism?

[@Yipper64]

@@Explicitly-CJ well not necessarily. Authoritarians dont necessarily want dictators, do they? Like, extreme authoritarians do, but authoritarian to me just means someone who wants a stronger/bigger government.

[@Explicitly-CJ]

​@@Yipper64 Interesting point. I would say authoritarianism is often linked, but not always with government size, sure. But just because a government is big would not automatically make it authoritarian. It could be huge but still be very socially liberal. Or tiny and very socially conservative. I will agree however that it is hard for a small government to wield any economic power over it's citizens.

[@Yipper64]

@@Explicitly-CJ yeah, definitely more on the wanting a strong government side, rather than the "big" side of the two points I gave, but like you said, generally a stronger government is going to be bigger.

[@Explicitly-CJ]

@@Yipper64 I think that is something Republicans is the US often struggle with. Big is strong, strong if good, big is bad. In the UK our centre-right party, Conservatives, generally favour small and weak government that does at little as possible. It's frustrating when you need a government to act. Balance is the key I think.

[@georget13]

No matter what Hitler's sycophants said, he always considered himself a disciple. He even tried to copy his "March on Rome" with his failed Beer Hall Putsch. That's also why he invested so much effort in rescuing him from captivity and putting him as leader of the RSI

[@brokenrecord3523]

Yes and no. Yes, he absolutely took a lot from Mussolini, but he would never admit it (consider himself a disciple).

[@georget13]

@@brokenrecord3523 the relationship changed over time. Up to Hitler’s rise to power he definitely looked up to Mussolini and how quickly he seized power. From the time they met on (1934), Hitler progressively lost his previous admiration

[@brokenrecord3523]

@@georget13 That makes sense. He went from "That guys pretty smart" to "Nobody is smarter than me." Thanks

[@eschelar]

Dude, really excellent channel. I'm in the process of building a collection of articles together (not advertising them here) with a similar set of counter-ad hominem ideas. I was pleasantly surprised to see quite a few of those ideas in this video. I've spoken about this exact topic a few days ago with some friends arguing about the definition of Fascism vs fascism (although, as you noted, few people really make this distinction in their minds). I had a similar discussion a few months ago regarding Authoritarianism vs authoritarianism too. You've got one hell of a backlog of content and the quality is consistently extremely high. I applaud your efforts!

[@Nick-Nasti]

"Short answer: fascist" "Long answer: fascist" Love it!!!

[@susanmaddison5947]

I'm afraid Griffin's definition is probably better. You neglect the importance of the myth of National Regeneration, and through it the regeneration and salvation of civilization from its Decadence; thus his "palogenesis" term. It's something different than the mere extreme emphasis on the importance of the Nation. You also neglect the meaning of "totalitarian", despite using the world; totalism in social organization and in the reach of the state is different from merely extreme dictatorship and repression.

[@BS-vx8dg]

"palingenesis"

[@Durzo1259]

National regeneration and salvation from decadence were also powerful points contention for Maoism and Leninism.

[@susanmaddison5947]

@@Durzo1259 Much agreed. This is a crucial overlap of Left and Right totalitarianisms. Both hated the so-called "bourgeois liberal decadence." Despite some major differences in the substance of their regenerations, and their different kinds of globalism.

[@Durzo1259]

​@@susanmaddison5947 Honestly I've had trouble figuring out what exactly makes fascism far-right. People cite hyper-nationalism, but Cuban, Venezuelan and Chinese Marxist revolutions were extremely nationalistic. They cite racism, but I don't see the evidence of racism commonly stereotyped to conservatives today; more just an assumption that they must be because they don't buy into the "racism is the default explanation for everything" argument. Republicans were the anti slavery and Jim Crow party. Conservatives want smaller government, fascism wants _everything_ government. Conservatives want privatization. Fascists also "privatize" everything, but control the private industry so much that the government runs things in all but name. Ethno-nationalism is definitely unique to fascists, but again, I don't see the evidence of conservatives calling for an ethno-state other than the ambiguous left-wing assertion of "you know that's what they _really_ want", while never presenting the evidence.

[@susanmaddison5947]

​@@Durzo1259 That's too ideological an argument, and maybe and too American. The European Right has always been statist (and much of the American Right too despite a preference for anti-state rhetoric). The Communists wanted to totally destroy the existing state and replace it with a new kind of total state, the fascists wanted to totally expand the existing state. There are real differences, and real commonalities. You have to look at their actual ideologies and their connections with those near to them on the political spectrum to see the differences for what those differences are.

[@anthonyforte1400]

What unites Nazism, Italian Fascism and Communism is that they are all socialist, i.e. they place social justice above the individual. Where they differ is in their identification of the social group. For the Communists the social group is the workers. For the Nazis it is the German folk, and for the Italian Fascists it is the Italian polis or civitas. It is here where grouping them together under the common term of "fascist" as "nationalist" is misleading. For the Nazis it was racial. While they called themselves "National Socialist" a more apt term would have been "Folk Socialists." Thus while one might be a citizen of the German state, if you were not of the German race you were not an object for the social justice sought by the Nazis. For the Italian Fascists race did not play a part. They were "nationalist" in the sense that any citizen was included in the concept of the nation. This is a major distinction. I would also suggest that this different understandings of the concept of nation goes back to ancient times and the different understanding of nation between the German tribes and that of the Greco-Roman civilizations.

[@bigyin2586]

I recommend the KZbinr “TIK” for those who are interested in a more comprehensive discussion on this topic. TIK also describes and discusses socialism. It seems that Fascism/fascism, Nazism/nazism, and Socialism/socialism often overlap.

[@psychonautpupildiallater7734]

Roger Griffin's definition of fascism~ "A political ideology whose mythic core in its various permutations is a palingenetic form of populist ultra nationalism",.. Sounds ALOT like Zionism,..... Hmmmm? Are the Jews fascists? Some would say yes,..... Bet the ones that say no,.. are Zionists?

[@TheLocalLt]

You should watch this video again and also his last one, they are essentially a repudiation of TIK’s flawed understanding, he even confirms his disagreement with TIK in a reply to another comment on this video

[@mdiciaccio87]

TIK's logic: socialism bad > Nazis bad > therefore, Nazis were socialists. He presents his videos as robustly researched, but he always goes back to sources that are outliers and rejects more broadly supported historical consensus. This is in itself is fine, but it is painfully obvious that he has fallen into the trap of confirmation bias.

[@jdranetz]

National Socialism is national centric, as in that country always comes first. Other nations are secondary. Their concept of socialism recognized the importance of keeping private enterprises, private. The socialist part in the nationalization of all the labor unions. Forming a worker's front.

[@somefuckstolemynick]

"Their concept of socialism recognized the importance of keeping private enterprises, private." Then they weren't socialist. Per definition.

[@jdranetz]

@@somefuckstolemynick They nationalized the unions, they could deny access to labor to a business that wasn't party friendly. They could avoid paying too much for something like armaments by sending guys in Brown shirts to the company's owners house. A few years ago, I heard of a similar action in Russia. A factory was going to close, Putin brought it up at an industry conference to the CEO. Putin showed his displeasure. The man quickly changed his mind, because he knew it was important to his personal safety.

[@alecshockowitz8385]

I think a big problem with defining these terms is that 'mainline' (ww2) fascism didn't stick around for very long, so its defining characteristics and differences between its movements didn't get as much time to show differentiate. I personally think that National Socialism should instead be defined as a Non-Marxist Socialism, due to its differences with any other forms of Fascism. Broader Fascism has its major clash with the Nazi's over what is held as 'supreme' in society. Fascists believe their culture to be the most important thing, and it is something that can be taught to others (which lessens any incentives for ethnic killings) culture is also intertwined the nation as well. Nazi's hold their race to be supreme above all else, the state, party, culture and everything else is secondary. I think that this is the best way to divide up these factions, as Nazism didn't exist for very long under a peace time regime, so it is hard to differentiate them to other societies particularly in an economic sense. I also think Nazism should be defined in this way, as the original Socialists, where the word is derived from, was a British movement that was extremely concerned with genetic fitness of the general population and they were quite obsessive with various ideas surrounding 'cleanliness' of the poor. Which really just feels like an infant version of what Nazism later became. This took place in the late 1800's, and was mostly in response to Charles Darwin's Ideas. Applying the ideas of natural competition to humans, which sounds eerily familiar to much of what Hitler would say too. Also, as one final note, I do think that it is very noteworthy that if the Nazi's are removed from Fascism, it leaves you purely with Southern European cultured countries flipping into fascist states. I think that the type of control that Catholicism exerts over a society is key to any formation of a Fascist state. Fascism in these countries is pretty much when the population wants to move in a vaguely Socialist direction + Monarchist roots + Catholicism = Fascism Meanwhile Germany has much more in common with the Soviets, with a complete restructuring of their society prior to taking over, and during their power. They also uniquely cracked down on religious figures, in stark contrast to Spain or Italy.

[@RavusNox-z5i]

You’re talking about clerical fascism which wasn’t the norm.

[@Pioneer_DE]

"Because Nazism and Fascism has a few differences I will instead categorize Nazism to Socialism despite the fact those ideologies have even greater distances and are both vividly opposed to each other." Also, any form of socialism ever had class struggle in one way or the other as its main "principle" (you must forgive me, I do not know how to formulate it better), like you said yourself, for the nazi's their main "principle" was race. Nazi's were never socialists but they Germany had a large support for socialism which the nazi's wanted to utilize.

[@RudolfKlusal]

Man, I love your videos 😲 I've discovered your channel last week and I can't keep myself from watching various topics. Thank you for awesome work ❤

[@golDroger88]

It has to be said that Mussolini's first lover, Margherita Sarfatti, was Jewish. she was a rich socialist daughter of a businessman from Venice who financed the endevours of Mussolini, wrote his biography creating the myth of the persona, taught him how to behave and layed the foundations for the Fascist doctrine. It's no wonder he was hesitant about implementing the racial laws.

[@ChristopherJames1993]

Yeah,and Mussolini never actively persecuted them or killed them. The Germans did when they invaded but Mussolini didn't.

[@KeenanRobinson-q7i]

That was my first love as well. Margarita Spaghetti.

[@Historybuff_769]

Are we all forgetting the fact hitler hated the Italian fascists

[@gatlin1320]

Thank you for acknowledging that not everyone listening is also watching the screen. I frequently like to listen to videos while doing chores or driving so it’s nice when a video isn’t too dependent on visuals.

[@razum1448]

I get an eargasm listening to you. You have this really calm voice that just puts arguments together in this incredibly clean thought out way. This is so scarce to find.

[@christopheryoder8292]

You get an eargasm from someone pushing a false narrative? The Nazi's were no more fascist than Stalin or Lenin was.

[@prepaidloans]

Ryan I recently discovered your channel and am loving it! In this video the question kept popping into my head of how NAZI playbook (myth building, etc) is different from USSR playbook which also used the same type of tactics? They both subordinated their people to one set of myths or the other. Is it just that they took different paths to the same or similar destinations?

[@realryanchapman]

Hi, the main difference is that the Nazis explicitly based their movement around championing hierarchies and nationalism, and the USSR explicitly based their movement around egalitarianism and reducing hierarchies. That was especially true under Lenin. Stalin took more of a hybrid approach, but still was egalitarian enough to be considered a socialist and not a fascist. Think of his campaign to 'liquidate the kulaks as a class.'

[@olegue3554]

​@@realryanchapman "USSR explicitly based their movement around egalitarianism and reducing hierarchies". So you are saying that the ultra hierarchical soviet system wasn't as hierarchichal as people believe it to be? If one talks about top down hierarchy i tend to think of the ussr. This part seems weird. "Stalin took more of a hybrid approach" I honestly strugggle to see how you cansay that, could you re-explain it please? Your last phrase is down right alarming; "egalitarian enough to be considered a socialist. Think of his campaign to 'liquidate the kulaks as a class." According to Merriam Webster; Socialism: any of various egalitarian economic and political theories or movements advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods. First of all, i have to say that i dont understand how something equalitarian (ie a belief in human equality especially with respect to social, political, and economic affairs) can be government-owned. A government is a societal organisation which is based on a hierachy. This hierarchy allowed the soviet state to conduct the "liquidate the kulaks as a class" campaigns ie MASS M*RER and in the case of ukraine and belarus GENOC*D*. This is even without talking about the pogr*ms on the jews and "liquidation" of opposition. Then the crimes commited by the soviets to the nations they occupied after WW2. My point being here, that the USSR was absolutely extremely hierarchichal and indulged in the same kind of unsavoury policies towards it's subjects as N*azi Germany. This offcourse comes from my historically uneducated ars*. I don't know if you'll ever read this comment or ever bother to answer. Anyway, i'm sorry for the ton of gramatical and spelling errors.

[@Death_4444]

There is no difference between Fascism with a lowercase or capital f. "Generic fascism" does not exist, it was made by post war "historians of fascism" who didn't know anything about fascism. The nazis were not fascist. "Fascism and National Socialism are two fundamentally different things. There is absolutely no comparison between Fascism and National Socialism as spiritual, ideological movements." -Heinrich Himmler (The Origin's of Totalitarianism) "One might say that Fascism has reacted upon the creative life of the Italian people somewhat like sterilization. It is, after all, nothing like National Socialism. While the latter goes down to the roots, Fascism is only a superficial thing. That is regrettable, but one must recognize it clearly. National Socialism is really a way of life." -Dr. Joseph Goebbels, The Goebbels Diaries Fascism (again there's no difference between fascism with a capital or lowercase f) has its roots in Sorel and Hegel, nazism does not.

[@MatthewBester]

Thanks for the distinction between F and f. I would always hear "F" in my head and this had definitely led to confusion. It is strange Italian Fascism seems to have taken a backseat in the newer definitions. I'll check out your other video.

[@suddenlyfrogs1906]

Check out videos's by TIK. He covers every similarity and difference between the ideologies with countless references to their journals, bios etc. So much detail it's breathtaking.

[@comfortablynumb9342]

Please check out Beau Of The Fifth Column's video called "let's talk about 14 characteristics". Then you might want to start watching him every day on KZbin. He's amazing at explaining things past and present, political, social, he talks about all kinds of stuff. His explanation of fascism really helped me understand how the present has a lot of similarities with the past.

[@cass7448]

@@suddenlyfrogs1906 Better yet, don't. There's a reason tik constantly gets discussed on r/badhistory.

[@suddenlyfrogs1906]

@@cass7448 And what's the reason? Seeing as I'm a WW2 historian and can literally confirm every reference he's ever made. I think maybe bad history's name is more telling than they thought it would be. I'm sick to death of indoctrinated amateurs trying to rewrite history!

[@cass7448]

@@suddenlyfrogs1906 Yeah you ain't a historian buddy.

[@johnclapp5447]

Corporate statism is a better umbrella term than small "f" fascism: "Corporate statism, state corporatism, or simply corporatism is a political culture and a form of corporatism whose adherents hold that the corporate group, which forms the basis of society, is the state. The state requires all members of a particular economic sector to join an officially designated interest group.".

[@klauswigsmith]

I'm glad I read this from you: "That makes calling the Nazis socialists - if you're trying to use the word meaningfully - misleading at best. " I CAN'T STAND it when conservative types (usually Americans) claim that the Nazis were socialists and leftists, usually just because "socialist" is in their name. I usually ask them if that also means that North Korea is democratic, you know, being the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and all..

[@RiotKurhein]

They do it intentionally.

[@klauswigsmith]

@@thelastpillar4973 hate and pride are human emotions not exclusive to one political ideology.

[@klauswigsmith]

@@thelastpillar4973 that does not make the Nazis left wing. They were objectively right.

[@Buz-Lunch-Punx]

The Nazis were socialists and leftists, but not because they have "socialist" is in their name. The Nazis were National Socialists politically infighting with International Socialists No different from the Sunni and the Shia or Bloods and Crips. They're just factions within essentially the same ideology.

[@Buz-Lunch-Punx]

@dead ight I totally agree with you Why are more people not aware of this?

[@lost1ns0und]

You forgot about an important thing about Fascism. The fact is that it plays the emphasis on the nation and state because the capitalist class, has worked together with the state often merging together to suppress working class movements as class conflict grows.

[@Pengalen]

I don't think it's accurate to say the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is communist. It's a totalitarian dictatorship, which is neither necessary nor sufficient for a government to be communist. Some of the problem here may be that communism is an economic system that is usually construed as a political system, whereas it's (presented as) ideological counterpart, capitalism is not presented as a political system. I would argue also that the generic concept of national socialism isn't necessarily fascist, but the the particular National Socialists (in name) seem to qualify.

[@DisplayLine6.13.9]

NK legalized private ownership in 1998. So even according to the too reductive definition he chose to use it's no longer communist. If we look at nationalistic socialist places USSR, China and so on I think we can see a lot of the defining characteristics of fascism. No matter what definition of fascism we choose.

[@Anti-Taxxer]

On the contrary, a communoid government MUST be authoritarian because the communoid ideology is incompatible with man's nature. It literally cannot be imposed without force and violence. A totalitarian dictatorship is necessary for a country to be communoid.

[@Baamthe25th]

The point about categorization and creating a general category is fine, but really, whereas there are dozens of communists experiments (or countries) in history, and hundred of capitalists examples, how many examples of Fascism is there ? There's the Nazis, Italian Fascism, Franco's spain. You might add a few satelitte state the axis had (ex, croatia or romania), but that's about it. The rest is stretching it Ex, Imperial Japan, it fits your definition, but it was just Imperialism... Then there are fascist movements that were totally unsuccessful, like Mosley's movement, or even movements like "Integralism" in Brazil that were clearly fascist inspired while totally rejecting the idea of race. And while they were doing the whole demonstration in uniforms and with salutes, I don't think they wanted to start any War with their neighbors (don't quote me on that, though) Anyway, with so few examples, making general categories isn't so useful. There are too few examples and they vary too much, and it starts blending in with other categories like communism or imperialism. Words and categories are meant to communicate anyway, but the word "fascism" being loosely defined like this is just something to be used as an insult. Its overuse in political discourse is proof enough of that. Talking of Nazism and Fascism specifically at least allows you to actually talk of things properly.

[@Epsilonsama]

In Latin America you had more fascists states. Trujillo's Dominican Republic, Pinochet's Chile to name a few. The US goverment supported this because they could strongly combat USSR communist influences.

[@Baamthe25th]

​@@Epsilonsama No Neither were fascists. As explained in my other comment, fascism is an economical doctrine. It's inspired and started in socialism (it's clear if you read their books, or just look at how mussolini was a well known socialist early on) and aims to overthrow capitalism for a "more efficient" centrally planned system (it never works either). Totalitarianism is about control of entire society, which means control of the economy too. What was pinochet ? A capitalist/conservative. He didn't attempt to control the economy at all. Quite the opposite, he opposed the ones who were attempting that : Look at what the socialists led by Allende were attempting before the coup, their reforms were illegal and not democratic at that. Likewise, if you look at the definition in the video, they weren't "aggressively nationalistic" either ? Chile didn't attempt to expand their border even once, if anything, they cooperated with their neighbors. With your definition being so loose, every single dictator ends up being a "fascist", which is utterly meaningless. At this point, well, add all of them. You might as well add Ghenghis Khan too. Really, pinochet is considered "fascist" because communist/socialist describe everyone who opposes them militarily as Fascist.

[@somerandomvertebrate9262]

@@Epsilonsama What about Juan Domingo Peron's Argentina? If I remember correctly, he claimed himself to have been deeply influenced by Mussolini's Fascist Italy.

[@far2ez539]

On the contrary, a category that only umbrellas a small subset is more meaningful than one that generalizes a larger one. What's more _precise_ to say: lions are felines, lions are mammals, lions are animals, lions are organisms, lions are things, or lions are nouns? Everything that has an existence, even abstractly (such as ideas), can be represented by a noun. Even verbs can be represented by nouns (gerunds)! Everything except places & ideas can be considered "things." In fact, this is so generic that it's right in the first word: everyTHING. Organisms are the tiny slice of all things that are alive. There are far more non-living things than living ones. Animals is a very small subset of all organisms. Animals are outnumbered by bacteria and other micro-organisms at rates of billions-to-1 (if not more). Even in biomass, they're beat. Mammals themselves are a meaningful chunk of animals, and yet we are omitting all dinosaurs that ever existed over >100 million years by using the label. Felines are but a very small minority of all mammals. Humans, canines, marsupials, there are so many more. And even among felines, lions are one of many. Cats, leopards, tigers, jaguars -- they make up a tiny amount of them. And yet, despite all of these larger categories that allow us to break down what a "lion" is and the things it falls into (including many I did not mention, such as "vertebrates," "multi-cellular," "organic," etc.), we all know what _exactly_ we are talking about when someone says "Simba"

[@Baamthe25th]

@@far2ez539 "What's more precise to say: lions are felines, lions are mammals, lions are animals, lions are organisms, lions are things, or lions are nouns? " It's more precise to call a lion a lion, but if you start to call every mammals a lion because it shares some characteristic with a lion, then you're wrong

[@MarkAntony-l7s]

Nah I'd still say it's its own thing. In NS race get more precedence over the fascist core ideas.

[@rictechow231]

Hitler said that if it wasn't for race national socialism would be no different from international communism whereas Mussolini placed the nation in first place. Lenin place the proletariat in first place. Mao placed peasants in first place instead. What each man did was to classify a different oppressed class in the framework of Marx. Each of these men had quite racist views and set about 'taking care' of various races. Marx and Engels were quite racist about Southern Slavs and saw them as dying out due to their own inadequacies. If they had power to do so they probably would have helped on their way. Lenin despised Fascist socialism and referred to them contemptuously. Hitler initially asked for a signed photograph from Mussolini but Mussolini but Hitler was too low down to merit Mussolini obliging. Later Hitler would be angry that Mussolini would not adopt his Jewish solution. Each of these men's choice of the oppressed class was important and distinctive to them - as encapsulated by Hitlers remark. Mussolini's transition is clearer because he was an international communist ... until ww1. He saw socialists/communists divide into national lines rather unite against a bourgeoisie war as they probably should have. He saw that nation was stronger than the workers of the world. The concept fascism is unnecessary because Marxism is the unifying theory of all these political systems with just a different oppressed class. Small f fascism only obscures the fundamental Marxism that underlies them all ... which is probably the point of defining small f fascism. It seeks to obscure and is it's purpose. People object that if they were all marxist that means they would have got along and united. Well no, they had different objectives and no one is hated more a heretic.. In the thirty years Catholic fought protestant bitterly even though they had the same god. In 2020's we have a distorted view of historical perspective thinking of communism in the Russian image or the Chinese image. Before 1848 socialism and communism were interchangeable terms. At the the first International 1866 it was full of rancor and that was just between the French delegates. It's purpose was to reconcile and bring disparate versions together but resulted in irreconcilable differences and collapsed in 1876. The second International 1889 - 1916 excluded those pesky anarcho-syndicalists. It is extremely wrong to think of communism in the light of Soviet Russia post WW2. After WW1 there were many versions still contesting. Fascist Syndicalism was also spelt with a small f and was divided into left wing fascism and right wing fascism. Overall it is quite unhelpful to try and group National Socialism and Italian Fascism together when all of the above are best described as Marxist systems with different oppressed classes. .

[@MrLuigiFercotti]

When you can end up in a gulag or hole in the ground for opposing the controlling political power (left or right), not sure it makes a big difference on what you call it. 😕

[@greglyon1402]

Very acute comment. Fascism is really about taking power and wielding it against the people who oppose you.

[@ColKlink-pk9yx]

The extremes at either end of the political spectrum are the edge of the coin.

[@patrickderp1044]

@@ColKlink-pk9yx theres a simple test for extremism today, its actually a single question.....what is a woman?

[@zapazap]

It does of careless use of the language puts you there.

[@kjvail]

I appreciate your attempts to bring some much needed reason to these discussions.

[@christopheryoder8292]

He failed to do so on all counts bc he is more interested in pushing a false narrative.

[@ArgentWolf95]

@@christopheryoder8292 indeed, TIKhistory has done numerous videos with evidence on the National *Socialist* ideology. They're Socialists. They're collectivizing the German volk, Volk means people, Hitler saw the Germans as a race, not a nation. So Nazis were racial socialists.

[@jamoecw]

"to understand why..." i would look at other political parties throughout Europe that called themselves Fascist. there were quite a few, most were promoted and supported by Fascist Italy, but there were a few that followed the political ideas that Mussolini had before he gained power, as they saw the same problems Mussolini saw. this allows a generic fascism that people accepted being labeled as, rather than forcing a label unto a group that rejected that label decades after they were to fit that label.

[@bobblehat6603]

Re “Are lions and cheetah both cats?…" - 2:08 “Under the genus ’totalitarian’ there are an indeterminate number of species and sub-species. Fascism is one. It is as different from National Socialism as National Socialism is from Bolshevism. What it shares with Bolshevism it shares with National Socialism.” - Fascism at the end of the twentieth century, A. James Gregor, Society 34, pages 56-63 (1997) They may fall under the same genus as ’totalitarianism’, but one must not conflate the concepts of fascism, Nazism and Stalinism, however politically expedient it may be because to do so would lose the benefits of studying the ideologies at all.

[@Baamthe25th]

Meh You could apply your definition to essentially any kind of Nationalism, starting with the French revolution (and perhaps earlier than that) The only part that's up for debate would be the "aggressive" qualifier, which is too vague for a proper definition. I know you mean expansion/conquest, but any nation is going to use aggression/violence, it's a prerequisite for its own existence. Be it for law enforcement, simply defending your borders or establishing them to begin with (doesn't matter why you think it's yours, be it because you always lived there or anything else). And taking the French revolution again, it was aggressive in spreading its ideas, but was it fascist ? And I'm not even talking about Napoleon's Empire (most of his wars were defensive, btw, besides spain and russia.), but just the early republic. Another example would be the US, it's certainly "aggressive" and has a strong national consciousness... You could also say that all decolonial movement promoted your "aggressive nationalistic consciousness", and it continues today. South Sudan promoted that consciousness and that's how it won its independence. Through war. And well, while both Fascism and Nazism had a conquest element (for lebensraum for Hitler, and to recreate the "Roman Empire" for Mussolini) it's not like these were ideologically necessary ? Hitler went East because he thought that was the only way for Germans to survive, and his war with the west (France, UK, USA) is because France/UK guaranteed sovereignty for Poland, not because it was one of his objectives) As for mussolini, it's a mix of the idea of roman empire, the idea of being "energetic" and "a strong nation", but otherwise, it was plain colonialism like France and the UK. The scramble for Africa happened only a few decades prior... You're also skipping over the entire economical aspect of both Fascism and National Socialism, both deeply rooted in socialism. And it's not just "whatever policy sounds good at the time", there are important core ideas. That's actually in large part what makes them totalitarian, because the state owns everything and there are no counterpowers.

[@realryanchapman]

I can't respond in-depth to every comment that's saying this, but you're misunderstanding my explanation of it. I'm describing fascism as totalitarian nationalism, which is not just 'any kind of nationalism.' I guess this is the hazard of giving a simple, one sentence explanation, that some will misunderstand it. I skip the economic aspect because it was less important to fascists than nationalism. If we don't understand the totalitarian nationalism part, there's no point to going to their relationship with economics, which is a lesser and more subtle aspect of fascism. There are some problems with simply calling them socialist, which I talk about in my pinned comment here.

[@Baamthe25th]

@@realryanchapman You didn't describe it as "totalitarian nationalism" at all, though. It's not me misunderstanding. You explicitly didn't say that at all It's pretty disho nest to change what you were saying, then claim I'm misunderstanding. Especially as I'm answering precisely what you said... > I skip the economic aspect because it was less important to fascists than nationalism. Actually, no, it was just as important, if not more. Their reorganization of society is first and foremost in economic terms to recreate the syndicalist/socialist "corporation" Mussolini wanted. And it's the other way around. A totalitarian state is totalitarian precisely because it controls all aspect of life, starting with economic life. No property, no choice, etc. You need to understand the economics to see the totalitarianism. > There are some problems with simply calling them socialist, which I talk about in my pinned comment here. The only "problem" is mostly that socialists don't like it

[@realryanchapman]

@@Baamthe25th the mass subordination of individuals to an aggressive nationalistic consciousness that’s directed and controlled by a totalitarian state doesn’t sound like totalitarian nationalism to you?

[@Timur21]

I have mixed feelings about your definition of fascism: “thinking with the blood of the nation”. By that definition, most countries are fascist.

[@Hfil66]

Firstly, Fascism (Italian and German) were products of their time. In 1933, many of the ideas of Fascism was quite mainstream in Western political thought at the time. The idea of the equivalence of race and nation has its roots in the contemporary ideas of the Nation State (that each race of people should have its own State, and this would apply as much to the German people as it applies to the ideas that the Jews should have their own State that is for Jews and no-one else). With regard to whether North Korea is Communist, I would say that North Korea would just as easily fit into your definition of Fascism. The North Korean doctrine emphasises as much about the racial superiority of North Koreans (that North Korean is the race of the ruling elite of North Korea, and the people of North Korea are subordinate to the Nation State of North Korea).

[@christopheryoder8292]

There was no German Fascism. There was Italian Fascism and German Socialism. Stop believing the lies academia has put out bc they want to obscure this simple fact from people.

[@neincre]

Before repeating western propaganda look at the whole picture since the time of Trump threats of annihilation to the DPRK. Washington's has made Kim into a smart fit opposed to US brute force and, by extension, a celebrity among those at the receiving end of US tyranny: threats, sanctions, embargoes, invasions, wars and outright hypocrisy. A third of the world is under US sanctions, Kim is their hero, he has used a combination of bravery and intelligence. BRAVERY = total honesty. INTELLIGENCE = remaining cool and calculative

[@MrMeltdown]

I often enter the debate about whether Nazi's were socialists or not. I end up saying they were definitely fascist, they were not ideologically socialist but the big state low individual rights when implemented draws parallels with socialist states. Although I've never done a huge in depth analysis of various self-titled socialist states (discount my entire comment if you want), but many are borderline (at the very least) fascist as far as I can tell, even though they may use the pretense of equality as the driver rather than a national identity (although I'm sure some do both). So I end up with the conclusion that Nazi's had hallmarks of socialism and were fascist but that is not to say that socialists can't bear the hallmarks of fascism and often do. ... Even modern "socialists" who like to sit around the campfire being righteous declaring the Nazis's were definitely not socialist, who more often than I would expect end up stating that the City of London is owned by a secret organisation headed by a Jewish conspiracy of global control etc. With absolutely no hint of irony.

[@Sloth-o7f]

What do you think socialism is? Your definition of it is where you are going wrong - remember as Ryan says, just because a country calls itself a Democratic Republic, does not mean it is either thing. Look at the definitions, not the regimes claiming to be one thing or the other. Nazi's were not socialists in the defining nature of the term. It was an authoritarian state based on white nationalism, it did not distribute wealth and resources - it kept money with the rich in the same way capitalism does, allowed private ownership of property, and killed everyone who was an actual socialist, trade unionist, communist, plus anyone who wasn't white and able bodied, and was fundamentally hierarchal. Socialist ideology is based on equality, equal distribution of wealth, the abolition of rentier capitalism where the rich own properties and rent to the poor, and a collective ownership of the means of production. Sure, socialism has never actually been implemented properly anywhere, and many states claiming to be socialist or communist have ended up being authoritarian and not socialist at all (probably taking a leaf out of Hitler's propaganda book by calling themselves that)... but in the defining terms of the words, socialism and Nazism are opposing ideologies.

[@Liveforchristnottheworld]

​​​​@@Sloth-o7f They had some socialistic tendencies economically speaking like the seizing and nationalization of property if it refused to go along with the agenda of the NS party or was owned by "undesirables" or people who were active political opponents. After all socialism is just a mode of economic socialization/nationalization of the economy and property you can have a mixed economies which can be considered quasi forms of socialism and there's pure forms of socialism. Communism/Marxism is a form of pure socialism and a philosophical political ideology. But the not-sees weren't really full socialists/economic communists and were certainly not philosophical communists after all the strasserists/national bolshevists were one of the main NS party components that were purged from the main NS party in Knight of the long knives and they were slightly more toward pure socialism than the main NS party component, and can be considered economically as quasi communist. But to say they were full capitalists or full socialists is somewhat reductive in it's own ways there is some nuance's.

[@Liveforchristnottheworld]

​​​@@Sloth-o7f As for your argument that communist and socialist regimes "weren't communist or socialist" is a flawed and dumb argument. Mao's China (Not necessarily modern day China.) Soviet Russia, Vietnam, Cuba, east Germany and to some extent north Korea and Cambodia were/are full economic communists/pure socialists and on some level were/are political and philosophical communists. Just because they were authoritarian regimes that were ruled by one party, and many people got killed under them still doesn't meaningfully-and barely disqualifies them as communist or socialist regardless of the "that wasn't real communism or socialism" which is largely incorrect and flawed.

[@sciloj]

There's a fairly big trap in categorizing phenomena by generalization. Even if the redefinition of a term doesn't happen (like in this particular case) there's an "erosion of quality" happening. Because you take two phenomena described with their own sets of features and look for the intersection of these two sets. It is just as much self-referential as the unique terms specific to their own phenomena because it still refers to a statistically insignificant number of particular cases (two, in the case of fascism), not to an actual large tendency. This is a logical mistake of false (insufficient quantity) categorization. In case when we have a number of samples that is statistically insignificant but we still need to categorize them, we have to abstain from single-term references. What we have to do is to categorize them based on "feature lists" describing the key parts of these phenomena that do occur statistically often. This way, we can explain the actual similarities and differences in a brief manner without creating a term that is basically doomed to be used to miscategorize a lot of other phenomena that barely resemble the original ones and to deliberately create a false perception (just like it's happening now when "fascist"="everything I don't like"). An example of such features of so-called fascist regimes would be "nationalism", "statism", "militarism", etc. It might be less convenient, of course. But it doesn't mislead people and/or leave them confused. This way, you can still clearly show striking similarities of Spanish and Japanese politics of that time to the Italian and German situations without any lengthy or awkward statements. The same applies to the modern popular questions such as "is Putin's regime fascist" or "is Donald Trump a fascist" that can actually be answered with a list of common similarities/differences in a non-misleading manner.

[@far2ez539]

Does it erode the quality of a banana or an apple to say they're both fruits? If I say "I want a fruit" or "I hate fruits" then I'm talking in generic terms and the specific differences of the banana/apple split is not enough to overcome my feelings towards fruits generically. Just like if I say "I do not want a fascist country" to mean that both Nazi Germany AND Fascist Italy are unacceptable to me, regardless of their uniquenesses. On the other hand, if I say "I love apples but hate bananas" then the fact that they are categorized together does not hurt their uniquenesses. In fact, the opposite: since I am directly comparing the two as being fruits, but contrasting how I like one over the other, it _emphasizes_ those differences and shows more clearly my exact preferences. What you said only applies if you attempt to take labels that apply so broadly as to be meaningless, such as classifying bananas and apples as "food" or even "objects." If I say that I "like objects" then that's fairly meaningless. The reason it's meaningless has directly to do with quantity: "fruits" compose maybe a few major players and a ~dozen minor ones (as well as many more very minor ones), whereas "food" or "objects" comprise literally millions or billions of things. Even still, those generalizations have a purpose: "humans need food to survive" does not need to be more specific like "apples" or even "fruit." Looking at the quantity presented here, there are, what, 2-5 states that could be categorized as fascistic out of literally hundreds? This does not dilute the meaning of "fascism" enough to be meaningless.

[@sciloj]

@@far2ez539 well, for some reason you started arguing with what haven't been said. My statement wasn't about every case of categorization or even about the majority of cases. That's Rhetoric 101.

[@ronpaulrevered]

I'll do the opposite of arguing for each political movements uniqueness and argue that they are all fundamentally the same. Communism, Fascism, Monarchies, and even Constitutional Democratic Republics have as their absolute cornerstone rule by declaration over property and of people. It is only a matter of degree by which they intervene that determines the damage that can be done.

[@moonday5521]

This comment right here is a realization very few make, and it makes the early American experience that much more unreal. I'm not even really talking about even a hundred years ago, before I would say the civil war, this USA had something extremely unique, and while I do not think the freedom and eventual desegregation of black people was by any means a bad thing. The means at which the government went after a lot of societal issues just ended up giving them a larger hold over the private square. Slavery hasn't really gone away, governments just found ways to monetize it in plain site and make you feel in control. I don't think this implies that it was even intentional, and there are hundreds of factors in play. But one unique point that I like to question others on is work motivation. Once upon a time, people seemingly found purpose in difficult and harsh work. Nowadays it feels as though work is entirely meaningless to the person performing the tasks. You are given a wage deemed fair by government, working hours that the government deem right, and working under conditions the government deem acceptable, and employed by companies that line the pockets of those who make the rules. This cycle of control is prevalent in almost every social aspect in life, and we all notice it every single day. Yet we spend more time here, in the comment section than doing anything about it. Myself included.

[@bleeone]

@@moonday5521 what specifically would you propose be done to correct that which ails our current system?

[@stachefonzi]

my natural answer when you asked what how we would categorize NS if not as "fascist" was simply as "socialist" and i was surprised that this didn't get any consideration in the video. they're two branches along the socialist tree. communists built up the myth of the worker and build up the worker's consciousness. dictatorship of the proletariat, etc etc. all this fits exactly with the categorization you framed as just "fascist". I honestly haven't seen your last video on fascism (though it does look really interesting and I will check it out) but I would imagine you know that Mussolini and Hitler considered themselves socialists. Hitler's National Socialism was organized under the banner of race and Mussolini's was organized under the banner of national identity and additionally advocated for a syndicalist structure for the economy, which Hitler (to the best of my knowledge) didn't seem to value in his NS. I saw you reply to someone else that you consider socialism to be an apt descriptor but too broad given what people naturally know about socialism vs their knowledge of fascism. I would say this is true but due to our willingness to massage these labels and not properly define and use them. this is the nature of how people use language over time, but I feel like we shouldn't bow down to the fuzzing of the lines and just take a bit longer to explain what we mean if we really need it.

[@olsterman937]

The reason why national socialism was not given consideration to be socialism in this video was probably for 2 reasons: 1. The idea that the Nazis were socialist is not an opinion held by anyone with more than a basic understanding of political theory and 2. Ryan agrees with this consensus. The idea that national socialism is even remotely resembling socialism is just plainly anti-intellectual. None of the core tenets of socialism are represented in Nazism and please don't give me the 'Oh well its in their name' they only did that to appeal to the masses. Socialism is primarily concerned with having the means of production owned by the workers that use them, so fundamentally speaking, Nazi Germany could not be categorised as a socialist state because it still had large amounts of private ownership in it's economy and even regarding the public ownership that existed, most of it just replaced a bourgeoise ownership with a anti-democratic government ownership, so again, not exactly owned by the community. This is usually referred to by basically any socialist with principals as being an example of 'state-capitalism' whereby the bourgeoise are replaced or partially replaced by an anti-democratic state that conducts economic activity because, again, fundamentally speaking, state-ownership does not = socialism if that state does not represent the workers and is oppressive. And yes before you ask, this definition of state-capitalism, I would argue, also applies to the soviet union and china, I do not consider either of them to be examples of socialism, but rather, failed attempts at it.

[@alexchainger]

@@olsterman937 I can tell you are a Socialist apologist with out even goggling what socialism is... Which is the "social ownership" of the means of production. So if that "social" is the Germans or just The Nazis is "social" all the same because it is a group of people therefore "social" by definition. The same is true for the Soviets and the Chinese there political organization is "socialy" based even if there economic organization isn't (in china's case). You don't just gate to choose if something is Socialism or not on the fact that it has worked or not through history (which Socialism obviously hasn't).

[@olsterman937]

@@alexchainger What the fuck are you talking about? You could literally define the capital owning class as a 'social' group, does that mean capitalism is socialism? You literally have no idea what you are talking about. Furthermore I didn't say you can't criticize socialism because the USSR wasn't a real example of it, I said it was a failed attempted at it. So you *can* still make the assertion that trying to achieve it is detrimental or impossible using failed socialist projects as evidence.

[@stephendaley266]

@@alexchainger I can tell you are anti-social and don't have any idea what you're talking about. PLEASE read a dang book! The Nazi party was explicitly anti-Marxist. Nazis violently attacked the German Communist party as well as trade unions. Nazis blamed the Reichtag fire on 'the Communists'. How on this green earth do you get "Nazis are Socialist" from that? PLEASE do some reading!

[@stephendaley266]

Hitler and Mussolini were both avowed anti-Marxists. They violently attacked worker unions as well as Communists throughout their careers. They were never Socialists. PLEASE read a book!

[@JB-gj8pu]

"fascist" isn't a helpful term as it is too strongly associated with Italian fascism. I think Ultra-nationalist better conveys the main idea of "blood and soil" as it can be used more generically to refer to movements outside of Europe. It feels a bit off to call Imperial Japan or modern PRC fascist, but to call them ultra-nationalist fits better.

[@johnschmidt1262]

I think the issue is that Fascism means something that's verifiable, while fascism can mean whatever the speaker would like it to mean. I think George Orwell kind of nailed it in his essay on the subject. As a practical matter many people believe that what was happening in Germany wasn't so dissimilar from what was happening in Communist countries, that the critical issue is what happens to you when you lose personal autonomy. When we group things, the groups are intended to imply a deeper knowledge about the properties of the things we are classifying. That's why fascism can't be defined easily, to do so implies knowledge that we don't know conclusively. The logical error you make is you assume that both Germany and Italy were fascist, then write the definition based on what you felt they had uniquely in common. But that's ultimately self-referential as well.

[@tetleydidley]

If we follow your logic, then a dictionary cannot exist because the definition of dictionary is defined in a dictionary. That is ultimately self-referential too. But dictionaries do exist. Therefore your argument is unsound. Self-referencing isn't in itself a problem. It's only a problem if it doesn't add new information, or if it leads to contradictions.

[@johnschmidt1262]

@@tetleydidley look at it this way, trying to define lowercase fascism would be like trying to define lowercase catholicism. The problem is both of these philosophies exist and people are actual followers of them. It would be like trying to define "catholicism", lower case, and discover new "catholics" among people who say they aren't. Words in dictionaries don't have to have a logical reason for their definition, they simply reflect the common usage of the word. The difficulty, which Ryan explicitly States, is not everyone agrees with the definition of fascism. He's trying to make a logical argument for why his definition is correct, the problem is his reasoning is as self-referential as the other definitions he criticizes.

[@ttt69420]

The word should only be used to reference Italian Fascismo. Using it in any other way is meaningless, since you can define it in any way you please, apparently. From a definition that all governments of any form can fit, all the way to specifically Italian.

[@sorsocksfake]

While better than most takes, it's still an awful simplification that clears up little. It seems to make the usual mistake of trying to neatly box things. It duly mentions its own criticisms, but doesn't quite explore them well. To note: categories are useful to discuss relatedness. They're poison when use to own/disown things, which is most of what happens here. Lions are panthers, felids and carnivores. We may call them panthers, cats and dogs accordingly. But each step it gets less accurate. We may likewise say that orthodoxy, catholicism, protestantism, arianism, gnosticism and mormonism are all christian... but these are not all equally so. It's more of a branching tree, and in memetics it's much easier to converge or outright adopt outside elements. Fascism and nazism both branched from the main line of socialism (/collectivism), with many similar criticisms, so they have much in common. Likewise they Though in practice, communism also adopted many of these changes, so the distinction is much smaller in practice. However their core critique is different. While both reject worker's socialism and internationalism, nazism was ethno-socialist above all else. Fascism was not, it was pure state socialism. I don't think we can consider that minor. It was on this difference that communism mass murders the 'rich', nazism massacred non-germans in their lands (though it was happy to expel them instead, or enslave & sterilize), and fascism just killed political opposition. It likewise instructs their imperialism: fascism seeks to build an empire, communism tries to forcibly unite the workers of the world, and nazism wanted to unite the germans and conquer living space for their ethnicity. It's in its relatedness, distinctions and history that we understand the rivalries, alliances and objectives. And it helps us understand what, for instance, PRChina has been doing. It likewise helps us consider how "neo-nazis", labour parties and neo-socialists relate to the old ideologies. In a way that neatly boxing them badly obscures it.

[@househosted]

I don't think you realize just how fast cheetahs run compared to lions.

[@raginbakin1430]

If you think putting Jews in concentration camps is socialism, then I don't know what to tell you, bud.

[@MetaKnight964]

Gnosticism isn't Christian, you made that up.

[@sasi5841]

@@MetaKnight964 it's one of the earliest Christian heresy

[@barsukascool]

My opinion on how Fascism should be defined (and, no, I don’t make distinctions between Fascism and 'fascism', because that’s made up): 1. Look at the roots and creators of Fascism. See what they BELIEVED in and what they ACTUALLY DID. This is done by reading all of their literature and dismiss simple cherry-picking. 2. Define this ideology, craft a general narrative of what it did. 3. Do the same with other movements, which called themselves Fascist, i.e. the Iron Guard, Franco, Salazar, Horthy, etc. 4. Compare the original Fascism to the other movements, which called themselves Fascist and see how similiar they are and how much they diverge from the original Fascism and how Fascist they really are. 5. This should give you enough information to define Fascism. After Fascism is defined, see how well National Socialism and any other thing you might want to compare it to (Smetona, Trump, libretarians, whatever) fits its label.

[@beaub152]

I am confused over your use of capitalism as a political term and not an economic one.

[@teiloturner2760]

Capitalism involves a lot of policy

[@sergeantgungo2769]

Ryan do you think you could do another 40 min style video on the definition of liberalism? I find your matter of fact style very refreshing and I think you may have something interesting to add to the conversation - especially as told through historic literature, as you have done here. Thanks!

[@SeptemberAdam]

And donel't forget Conservatism. This is equally important as well.

[@shadowmancy9183]

Agreed with both. Modern Liberal vs Conservative thought is distinct from the original philosophical points, especially in the US.

[@bobwiley5676]

How about “liberalism is a mental disease”?

[@christopheryoder8292]

Why? He is just going to push his political agenda like he did in this video.

[@nannettehuffman8397]

@@christopheryoder8292 how is that closed mind working for you Chris? The world is flat, ya know.

[@BS-vx8dg]

I think this is only the fourth video of yours that I have watched, but earlier this afternoon, after watching your new video on the history of bias in the US media, I had to subscribe (which I do not do often). Now Ryan I want to ask you a question, not because I disagree with your conclusions, but because I am honestly looking for a better understanding. My question is, *Is the question of whether a country is fascist completely divorced from its economic system?* I suspect you will immediately grasp why this question is significant. In the United States, partisans on the right cling to the "Socialist" label used by Hitler to push him to the left of the political spectrum, and partisans on the left categorically say that is a misnomer, that Nazism is clearly a movement of the right. (What a shocker, that no one wants to claim the Nazis as their own, eh?) I have always believed the standard line that Nazism is of the right, and Communism is of the left*. But not long ago I encountered Hitler's 25-point program, which I understand to be essentially the Nazi platform in the decade prior to their assumption of power. Many are absolutely nationalistic (e.g., elimination of non-German immigrants, denial of citizenship to non-Germans), but *several* of those points certainly look like ideas that the Left approves of (e.g., increase of the welfare state, elimination of debts and/or interest, elimination of child labor) . Still others look a bit leftist but which I suspect are actually in service to hypernationalism (e.g., land reform). So I'm ultimately asking a question about categories. Is it possible for a state to be both fascist and socialist? And for that matter, looking at the world today, can a state be both Communist and capitalist (China)? I really respect your extremely careful consideration of difficult questions, and would love to read your answer (or, if I can dream, a video covering the topic). *I have also always been intrigued by the "circular spectrum" model, which shows the far ends of both Left and Right circling back to totalitarianism.

[@BasicLib]

Very insightful comment. i'd say your speculation is mostly correct but to further categorize things, fascists often describe themselves as 3rd positions. as literally being neither right nor left In fact, id say right v left is kinda a misnomer as id describe the three positions as being Liberal: Representative State, Private Property, Individualistic Socialist: Distributive State, Public Property, Collectivist Fascist: Accumulative State, Property irrelevant, Nationalist there are the big 3 post-enlightenment models for how to run a society and in truth every society at one point or another exhibits features of all 3, but one is always most dominant.

[@marktaylor526]

The economic policy of Nazi Germany is what led the Economist to coin the term "Privatization", fwiw. They're not wholly Left or Right, and describe themselves as occupying a "third position" as Samuel says.

[@jgdn-ow5mh]

fascism is inherently reactionary, so even defining it in that way is a little silly, but not inaccurate.

[@mrsentencename7334]

The national socialists never called themselves fascist. They literally were not fascists. The entire axis side was called fascist during the war and it stuck. Also the Marxist historians had to hide the origins of Italian fascism

[@realryanchapman]

Hi, can I ask where you're getting that analysis from?

[@mrsentencename7334]

@@realryanchapman a lot of what I understand about fascism comes from a book called Mussolini’s intellectuals. It goes through the main players who started the fascist movement. A better way to group together national socialism and the different types of fascist movements (Franco, Italy, BUF etc.) would be to call them ‘third position’ The uppercase and lowercase fascism thing could be confusing. This is why I prefer this term

[@realryanchapman]

Okay thanks. I'm familiar with Gregor's work. It seems like you might be confusing the two fascisms (Italian and generic). Gregor's work is on Italian Fascism specifically and its intellectual roots. If you're just going off that it's not going to tell you a lot about German fascism (Nazism). Any overview of fascism generally will cover it and will cover all the ways Nazism was indeed a form of fascism. Stanley Payne's History of Fascism is a good one. Also any of Roger Griffin's books on fascism, or histories on Hitler (like Tolands') or Nazi Germany (like Richard Evans'). I'm aware the Nazis didn't call themselves fascist (which I address in this video), but they were labeled as fascist by just about everyone besides themselves. Even Mussolini called them fascist (which I again address in this video). I personally believe the fascist label is quite useful (what else do you call nationalists who want totalitarian rule?), and I'd argue even important to keep around considering its history. If you want to talk about their economic policy then I think the Third Way talk becomes relevant. Lastly I'm not sure what you're getting at with the bit about Marxist historians. They're a relatively uninfluential branch of historical thought.

[@mrsentencename7334]

@@realryanchapman there’s no denying they are similar ideologies, which is why I’m not willing to die on the hill of what names we call them. As I said language evolves and rightly so. I’m someone who’s not particularly a fan of the political left right spectrum and think it’s unhelpful and would prefer to look at the individual ideology. Of course we do do this but not necessarily in the mainstream. Left this right that, grrr angry. I just think it’s very important to highlight the differences as they do matter. However, I do believe certain historians have tried to hide the ideological routes of these ideologies, other historians have pointed this out.

[@realryanchapman]

Did you watch my video? The whole point is that general categories are important things. You seem to be saying something like 'there are important differences between the ideologies of Pol Pot and Mao Zedong, and therefore they cannot both be called communist.' It's a fallacy that insists on resisting generalization for the sake of saying every political unit is too unique.

[@bastisonnenkind]

I am a bit wary of your use of "nation" as a central point for Nazi-Germany. In their idiology the "arian race" was the main focus. Germany was only the vessel in which the "arian race" should be contained (in the end). And that is my main critique on Nazism == fascism. All other (as I know of) facist states had indeed their nation as main focus. Nazi-Germany did not. The main point in invading Austria, Chechia, and the west of Poland was to bring "arian" people back in to the Reich. I don't this is a minor flavour, but together with antisemitism one of the main properties of Nazism.

[@calin6327]

Czechia*

[@bastisonnenkind]

@@calin6327 You could have pointed out all my other mistakes, too. 😁

[@calin6327]

@@bastisonnenkind pfff, no, I was only being nationalistic about my own country

[@bastisonnenkind]

@@calin6327 😅

[@dazenguile4215]

It’s almost like they believed GERManic blood and aryan traits were inherently intertwined 🤔

[@lokenontherange]

German national socialism and Italian fascism come out of different political traditions. German national socialism is a movement that comes out of German political theory, specifically out of the valkist movement that legitimized the idea of Germany as an idea in the first place. Italian fascism is an Italianized version of French socialism that Mussolini occasionally refers to as a more practical form of socialism. Socialism of the French mode and descends of French liberalism. The reason the germans referred to themselves as national socialists was as a rejection of the french ideal of socialism, which was at the time internationalist in its intention. Calling the Germans fascist is done not because it's correct, but because it's a simple way to teach it to children and because it made for more effective propaganda in WW2. Many ideologies have things in common. That isn't what defines them.

[@Explicitly-CJ]

Exactly. It is from Babies First Big Print Political Science Book. All fascists are fundamentally nationalists, but not all nationalists are fascists. Nuance is for adults.

[@realryanchapman]

They came out of different political traditions but arrived at strikingly similar ideas within the same time period. Too similar to be coincidental. Their relationship to socialism is more complicated than you're letting on here, and you're focusing on the early aspects of it, not what it developed into. I deal with this in my pinned comment and cannot keep responding to these types of posts at length. Calling them fascists is not 'a simple way to teach it to children.' They're considered fascists by virtually all respected academics that spend their lives researching it, which I'm sure you're aware of if you've researched the subject. For good reason. My longer video goes into why in more depth.

[@Explicitly-CJ]

@@realryanchapman I would say academics are divided on NS being fascist, but I accept most agree they are. Both NS and fascists have very complicated links with socialism. I think it mostly comes down to what you think the ideologies are motivated by. For me both Hitler's quasi-socialism and nationalism are rooted in his racism. Whereas the Italian Fascist were motivated by the economics, and the nationalism just pairs with it well as a means of gaining popular support. My own person experience of politics in the modern world is that complex economic polices are hard to sell to the electorate, but ego, pride driven emotional ones like nationalism are much easier to sell people on.

[@ZechsMerquise73]

BS. I've seen economic essays from a decade before the war that mark Hitler as fascist. Obviously, the Axis saw a connection between their ideologies, or they wouldn't have joined forces. Do you think Franco wasn't a fascist as well because his movement had some distinct national origin? Iron Guard Romania? These people just happened to all work together and follow similar governmental and economic policies, but had nothing to do with each other? Right.

[@Explicitly-CJ]

@@ZechsMerquise73 I don't know as much about all those groups. I would say it is their ideal economic model that makes them fascist. If they are motived by the economic ideology of fascism then yes they are fascist. If they were nationalist for some other motivation then no, they are not fascist. Hitler did not employ the fascist economic model. His was of a racial/ethnic quasi-socialism-ish model. He critiqued the fascist model of economics as accepting of and being corrupted by capitalist rules. Franco was certainly a nationalist first. I don't know enough about his economics. But I know enough that I am ok to call him a fascist. For me it is NS that are the exception, they get lumped in with fascists I think. Hitler himself was strongly critical of Franco too, even saying he wished he has supported "the Reds" during the Spanish civil war. Hitler despised the way the fascists in Italy and Spain cozied up to the catholic church and the old elites. He thought fascism a half-revolution. I think the axis powers were a marriage of political convenience. Mutually compatible goals. Same with Imperial Japan, I would not say they are fascist, still a part of the axis though. As for the allies seeing a connection, sure. We all see the same connection. But these were new ideologies at the time, with similarities, easy to conflate them. It would be easy to mark Hitler a communist in 1929 for similar reasons. Hitler himself, I am sure you know, was troubled by the allegation.

[@Cougar139tweak]

4:47 nope those are more closely tied to Supremacists or Eugenicists, which the NAZIs certainly were, but has nothing to do with Fascism or fascism

[@organismseven3700]

The simplest way to understand the difference between Fascism and National Socialism, is this: Fascism = State and People National Socialism = Race and Nation The difference is very substantial.

[@alisma77]

Liar 😂😂😂.

[@me67galaxylife]

​@@alisma77 kzbin.info/www/bejne/p5W8kHyDj61lgdE

[@endloesung_der_braunen_frage]

Sure but both arestill generically fascist

[@me67galaxylife]

@@endloesung_der_braunen_frage tell me you don't know what that means without telling me oh yeah nevermind i just checked his channel the guy literally is denying what nazism is and then proclaims himself the nazi exterminator he's just another weird marxist who thinks he's making an important fight lmao

[@endloesung_der_braunen_frage]

@@me67galaxylife lol. Being against nazism makes a Marxist 🤡. Only Nazis argue this way...

[@svenvanwier7196]

I love TIK, he makes a good video on this. As for facism in Rome, could it be Facism? because the defiition is Italian Facism and Rome you could argue, is Italian.

[@svenvanwier7196]

Adding to this that Germany was not Nationalist but cared about the people, the volk, the ethicity or race. not about the Nation. Austrian Nazi's and even Hiitler thought of Germany not as just a Nation.

[@heathclark318]

3 terms that mean three different things non of which is RIGHT WING.

[@rebeuhsin6410]

So definitely define your terms with your own technical academic terms. By any definition Nazi were fascists. But I'm so over this BS of people thinking they control English. People who write dictionaries pay attention to what people who use the word mean. Reading one will help you. You choose (like so many) to redefine for academic purposes, to support your argument. Still anyone saying Nazi were not fascists is also ignoring the popular definition of the term fascists.

[@sail2byzantium]

Ryan, Thank you for this--my first time seeing you and this was well done. And your extensive commentary below was very much worth the read.

[@Billmaster115]

I don’t like Roger Griffin’s or Merriam Webster’s definition…they’re not real definitions, they mean nothing. They don’t detail a philosophy or belief system and chalk up the definition to a simple result of actions rather than a belief or philosophy. You can achieve those things even in the most liberal society and cultures. Ethically and philosophically, Fascism and National Socialism have nothing in common except a final result of both actions. The racist laws and institutions by Italy were a political and strategic move to ally with the Germans, which is why the laws of fascism did not cause any deaths until the Germans arrived. The laws were anti-religious however, not anti-race, This is why many jews in italy were exempt of the discrimination laws, including people in the armed forces, their families and anyone in and associated with a member of the fascist party. Fascist racism was distinctive but benign. None of the major fascist intellectuals were racist in any sort, as most of the principal ideologues of fascism were actualists, they had principled objections to the attributing human behaviour by material - biological - causes. They simply could not accept the propositions that characterise entire populations by ill-defined traits, nor could be held as, as a body, guilty of anything. The quotation from Benito Mussolini about the ‘Italian race’ is not as big as you may think, as he never believed race was even a real thing (like an actualist would) you could become Italian by naturalisation. To Benito Mussolini, being Italian was a feeling. Through naturalisation you could become part of the Italian race. To know why, you have to understand the European concept of race; it is distinct from skin colour and physical characteristics and more to do with culture rather than genealogy. That was an expression unique to Nazi Germany and was a concept quite foreign to the rest of Europe, Italy included. Germany in this time was distinct from Italy as it adopted a very foreign concept to Europe at the time. Germany had an active focus on genealogy, this is what fundamentally separates Italian fascism from German national socialism. To make it easy for Americans. National Socialism deifies the race. Fascism deifies the state. Not saying Germany was not fascist, just not THAT fascist compared to Italy.

[@rwmartinez1262]

Interesting take

[@Wdm58]

Hi Ryan, I just found your channel a few days ago and am impressed by your knowledge, production and ability to relate complex movements into more simple terms for the average viewer. My question is: How do you see the current direction of the USA, especially in the light of the alliances between corporations, NGO’s, Fed Gov’t, major media, and Silicon Valley to suppress or promote only information which fits the narrative the State wishes to convey? Is this using tactics of fascism to reach a goal other than fascism? For instance, the term globalism comes to mind. I am interested in what trends that you are observing in the context of history. I realize that, with limited information related to real time events as they unfold, might present challenges as opposed to studying history with the advantage of hindsight and the historical record. Some call us an Oligarchy, others, Communists. There is plenty of name calling, but I see a varied mix of tactics being deployed to deconstruct the old in order to rein in the new. I’m curious as to how you see it and if you are comfortable analyzing what you are observing without fear of reprisals from partisans and stakeholders. Thanks

[@squidwardo7074]

hes never gonna talk about this because its too political

[@stop.juststop]

People have been called fascist for disagreeing with the coming order. Almost like the word can mean whatever they want it to.

[@RobertWWD]

Even though both the Nazis and Mussolini Fascism hated Capitalism.

[@TinVoid]

Great videos!, I noticed hoy haven't mentioned other movements that are considered (or at least to my knowledge are) fascist movements like Peronism or Franquism, whats your take on them? Do you incluye them also así fascist?

[@KungFuHonky]

The point is there is no such thing as lower case generic fascism even though we talk like there were. Generic fascism is a nonsense term people use to vaguely define "bad" government from their perspective. That would make as much sense as (generic) national socialism. Lower case fascism doesn't have an agreed upon definition. Italian Fascism is technically different than National Socialism (Which includes race unlike Fascism). But still Fascism and National socialism are both very close fundamentally. Orwell said it best, [fascism] is a word that means nothing.

[@kimobrien.]

Fascism is the vomit expelled by a dying capitalism.

[@-Historia.Magistra.Vitae-]

@@kimobrien. : Wrong. Fascism had nothing to do with Capitalism whatsoever. On the contrary, it strictly opposed Capitalism.

[@kimobrien.]

@ria.Magistra.Vitae- Fastest always attack the workers in the trade unions they are characterised by the organization of thugs. The KKK is a fascist organization other America fascist included Mayor Hague of Jersey City, Pat Buchanan who used thugs to take over the Reform Party, William Dudley Pelley Silver shirts. .The Klan was a component of the Democratic Party nationwide the Party of the old slave owners became the capitalist opposition party. Both Parties agreed to segregation and KKK violence after the civil war when Reconstruction and Blacks were abandoned by the Republican Party of Northern capitalism. Klan was always attacking blacks, trade unions, jews, communist and socialist. Henry Ford was a employer who used thugs and published "The International Jew". He received the "Order of the German Eagle." from Hitler's Ambassador Just before the War. Ford is the only American mentioned favorable by Hitler in Mein Kampf.

[@kimobrien.]

@@-Historia.Magistra.Vitae- Im being censored.

[@kimobrien.]

@@-Historia.Magistra.Vitae- The capitalist turn to the fascist gangsters and political violence to save their crisis ridden system from the socialist revolution.

[@cameronturner7475]

It still seems to me that these definitions are circular. I've always seen socialism as in opposition to individualism, that the individuals rights are super ceded by the needs of the society at large or that the individual's greater responsibility is to the greater good of society as JFK stated "ask what you can do for your country". By equating society with nation as in political boundaries ruled over by a single governmental system and not just a smaller social group or equating society with country it seems to look like JFK's quote is quite nationalistic and quite socialistic. I think that Hitler would have wholeheartedly agreed with JFK and I would not be surprised if it was found that he said it first.

[@MetaKnight964]

Only 1 problem, hitler forced citizens to work for the country he wanted to change to suit his worldview.

[@i10i60]

Socialism also considers all individuals of being equal, which Hitler noteably did not agree with.

[@nachtwandeling1237]

Lower case fascism, as you propose it, doesn't exist. Because nobody knows what it is. Only the individuals that define it for themselves. Pick another word for whatever you mean by it, that is really generic, so you can use it in communication.