Mussolini and fascism are both left wing

Mussolini was the father of fascism. Lets look at some facts about Mussolini:

Mussolini was an Atheist:

He believed that science had proven there was no god, and that the historical Jesus was ignorant and mad. He considered religion a disease of the psyche, and accused Christianity of promoting resignation and cowardice.

Mussolini was a student of Marx:

Mussolini was so familiar with Marxist literature that in his own writings he would not only quote from well-known Marxist works but also from the relatively obscure works.[26] During this period Mussolini considered himself an "authoritarian communist"[27] and a Marxist and he described Karl Marx as "the greatest of all theorists of socialism."

He was a member of the Italian Socialist Party and the editor of its newspaper, Avanti! Mussolini was expelled from the party only because of him supporting military intervention into the war (the party wanted neutrality), not because he rejected socialism.


Let's now look at what he accomplished during his reign.

He imposed unionization:

Under this labour policy, Fascist Italy enacted laws to make union membership compulsory for all workers.

Massive amount of government spending on infrastructure, schools, etc.:

Mussolini’s spending on the public sector, schools and infrastructure was considered extravagant. Mussolini "instituted a programme of public works hitherto unrivaled in modern Europe. Bridges, canals and roads were built, hospitals and schools, railway stations and orphanages; swamps were drained and land reclaimed, forests were planted and universities were endowed". As for the scope and spending on social welfare programs, Italian fascism "compared favorably with the more advanced European nations and in some respect was more progressive".

Mussolini imposed a large and expansive welfare state:

By 1925, the Fascist government had "embarked upon an elaborate program" that included food supplementary assistance, infant care, maternity assistance, general healthcare, wage supplements, paid vacations, unemployment benefits, illness insurance, occupational disease insurance, general family assistance, public housing and old age and disability insurance.

He made a direct comparison between his government policies, and FDR's government policies:

When New York city politician Grover Aloysius Whalen asked Mussolini about the meaning behind Italian fascism in 1939, the reply was: "It is like your New Deal!".

Mussolini referred to himself as the "Lenin of Italy":

During the 1919 elections, the Fascists had attempted to court the socialist-left while publicly dubbing himself the “Lenin of Italy”,[13] attempting to “out-socialist the socialists”

He was a collectivist, and hated individualism:

Anti-individualistic, the Fascist conception of life stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual only in so far as his interests coincide with those of the State, which stands for the conscience and the universal, will of man as a historic entity.

Last but not least, fascist Italy had a very high degree of public ownership of the means of production:

By 1939, Fascist Italy attained the highest rate of state ownership of any economy in the world other than the Soviet Union.

As anyone can see, Mussolini was clearly left wing. Socialism is a spectrum, with dozens of different variations. Lenin had his own version (Leninism), Stalin had his own version (Stalinism), Mao had his own version (Maoism) and Mussolini had his own version, which he named fascism.

 

[Jredbaron96]

Oh, come on.

So your position is that the political left in the US doesn't support unions,

The left does support unions, it doesn't support creating a single national union that all other unions are subsumed to in order to limit strikes and potential disruptions into the economy, which is what Fascist Italy intended to with its "national union", much like Nazi Germany.

high government spending on schools and infrastructure,

This is not a uniquely leftist position.

a large welfare state,

The first modern welfare state was instituted by a conservative monarchist.

*cue the unironic historically illiterate claim that Bismarck was a socialist*

and public ownership of certain industries?

Like what?

 

[Fletch]

Probably the best way to represent this would be using something like a modified Nolan chart (aka the political compass chart)

View attachment 67480208

Generally the corners and edges are where we find extremists ideologies. How this chart works is the upper edge is authoritarianism, the right edge is conservatism, the left edge is liberalism, and the bottom edge is individualism.

(I am not perfectly happy with the labeling from this example and may eventually roll my own chart, but its using international labeling which are applied slightly differently then they are in the US. However, as a broad illustration, it serves fairly well. I would replace progressivism with neo-conservatism or perhaps 90s third wave politics (like Bush, Thatcher, and Clinton) and then combine progressivism and social democratism to reflect current US political terminology).

It literally is. People like you, if you had their way, would achieve little but poverty, crashed economies, and mass death.

I domt understand your chart. Why is liberalism at the center and national socialism (Nazism) on the left? And progressivism on the right?

 

[Slartibartfast]

I domt understand your chart. Why is liberalism at the center and national socialism (Nazism) on the left? And progressivism on the right?

Read the bits in paranthesis about how I would move progressivism.

The original pre-Hitler national socialism movement was authoritarian left. After Hitler killed much of the original members in the night of the king knives, he moved it to authoritarian right but kept the original label. The nazis then lied throughout the 30s and 40s and paid lip service to the original labeling. You should have learned this stuff in high school.

 

[ColdHardTruth]

That link did not dispel any point that the OP made. It was a generic post on Fascism. It does not account for all of the examples the OP gave. The cold hard truth is contained in the OP!!! Do better!

Your denial is irrelevant.

Mussolini was a fascist. This is not a contestable fact.

 

[ColdHardTruth]

No comment on this post @Jredbaron96 ? Or are you just going to accuse me of playing the victim and ignore it?

The right has always had a problem with the truth.

The right-wing is host to the KKK, the Neo-Nazis, and a number of other racist heels. Their forcing their religious beliefs on the population is also a great example of this fact.

 

[aociswundumho]

The left does support unions, it doesn't support creating a single national union that all other unions are subsumed to in order to limit strikes and potential disruptions into the economy, which is what Fascist Italy intended to with its "national union", much like Nazi Germany.

And like the USSR. In fact, there has never been a socialist state with independent unions, for the simple reason that in a planned economy, you can't have strikes. Therefore unions under fascism and Nazism, look just like they do in any socialist state, and are therefore consistent with the political left.

The first modern welfare state was instituted by a conservative monarchist.

*cue the unironic historically illiterate claim that Bismarck was a socialist*

Using primary sources is not "historically illiterate". I won't clutter up this thread, but here is a link to the post where I quoted Bismarck's own words on the subject:

I Think I'm Done With The Hill Rising

Being 'far-left' doesn't automatically make one a communism just as being far-right doesn't automatically make one a fascist. If you misuse words they lose their impact. If you agree that she is far-left then I am confused about your "too little too late" comment about her "where's my coup?"...

debatepolitics.com

Like what?

Healthcare, mass transit, the post office, public utilities, such as electricity, water, natural gas, etc, and many leftists want ISPs to be owned by the government.

 

[aociswundumho]

Mussolini was a fascist. This is not a contestable fact.

Agreed, he was a fascist, and he was also clearly left wing.

 

[Jredbaron96]

And like the USSR. In fact, there has never been a socialist state with independent unions, for the simple reason that in a planned economy, you can't have strikes. Therefore unions under fascism and Nazism, look just like they do in any socialist state, and are therefore consistent with the political left.

Neither Nazi Germany nor Fascist Italy were socialist states or had planned economies, so that comparison is irrelevant. It's not the policy of any major left wing platform in this country to force all unions to be under a single state owned organization.

Using primary sources is not "historically illiterate".

No, your interpretation is. You would get laughed at by any historian for this inane claim. The fact that you are also not understanding what the text says just drives that home further.

Bismarck was a monarchist whos' first political priority was the preservation of the Imperial government. He had to deal with the fact that there was a strong undercurrent of socialist sentiment within Germany's working class, and that many of the demands they were making for pensions and welfare were popular within the German public. To undercut socialist traction within German politics Bismarck introduced a number of reforms aimed at appeasing the working class while at the same time banning socialist parties and publications.

Bismarck first described this in religious terms, saying it was a component of "charitable Christianity", but when his Social Democrat opponents chastised him for "state socialism" he responded by adopting the term, hence the quotations you linked.

Typical among you and other people who think "welfare = socialism" you left out the part where Bismarck was not embarking on any socialist goal of wealth redistribution, abolition of class or private property, and instead he was just engaging in political maneuvering. But since your understanding of politics is so hampered by your underdeveloped ancap ideology, you aren't able to grasp this.

Fortunately, people back then understand it better than you:

Healthcare, mass transit, the post office, public utilities, such as electricity, water, natural gas, etc, and many leftists want ISPs to be owned by the government.

I'm sure some people do.

 

[Jredbaron96]

Anyway @aociswundumho , the real problem you have won't be found in the details of the macroeconomic measures the Nazis or Fascists took and how they compare to contemporary capitalist or socialist states,

the problem is the entire basis of your line of thinking, your rampant anti-authority sentiment that causes you to view practically any form of government or organization as corrupt, power hungry, and controlling is in contrary to established patterns of human behavior.

People just naturally gravitate towards a hierarchy in society, and its from this that governments are formed, which is why every civilization that has ever existed has had some form of government.

 

[Fletch]

Read the bits in paranthesis about how I would move progressivism.

The original pre-Hitler national socialism movement was authoritarian left. After Hitler killed much of the original members in the night of the king knives, he moved it to authoritarian right but kept the original label. The nazis then lied throughout the 30s and 40s and paid lip service to the original labeling. You should have learned this stuff in high school.

Lol. They didnt teach that shit in high school. Stop making shit up. And your shart is garbage.

 

[ColdHardTruth]

Lol. They didnt teach that shit in high school. Stop making shit up. And your shart is garbage.

Actually, yes, they did.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Lol. They didnt teach that shit in high school. Stop making shit up. And your shart is garbage.

I suspect you will never be able to accept how the world actually works or inconvenient historical facts.

Whats interesting is I actually went to HS in Newt Gingrich's district in Georgia in a very conservative area and still learned about this stuff.

 

[aociswundumho]

Neither Nazi Germany nor Fascist Italy were socialist states or had planned economies,

Then why did Hitler have four year plans?

If Hitler didn't control the Germany economy, how did he build his war machine in just six years starting with an economy in shambles? People don't voluntarily produce bombs and tanks.

Why does every primary source on the topic depict Nazi Germany as a socialist state? For example, this article from 1939:

Most cruel joke of all, however, has been played by Hitler & Co. on those German capitalists and small businessmen who once backed National Socialism as a means of saving Germany's bourgeois economic structure from radicalism. The Nazi credo that the individual belongs to the state also applies to business. Some businesses have been confiscated outright, on others what amounts to a capital tax has been levied. Profits have been strictly controlled. Some idea of the increasing Governmental control and interference in business could be deduced from the fact that 80% of all building and 50% of all industrial orders in Germany originated last year with the Government. Hard-pressed for foodstuffs as well as funds, the Nazi regime has taken over large estates and in many instances collectivized agriculture, a procedure fundamentally similar to Russian Communism.

If the Nazi's weren't socialists, why did George Orwell call them socialists?

National Socialism is a form of Socialism, is emphatically revolutionary, does crush the property owner just as surely as it crushes the worker. The two régimes, having started from opposite ends, are rapidly evolving towards the same system— a form of oligarchical collectivism. And at the moment, as Dr Borkenau points out, it is Germany that is moving towards Russia, rather than the other way about. It is therefore nonsense to talk about Germany "going Bolshevik" if Hitler falls. Germany is going Bolshevik because of Hitler and not in spite of him.

These are primary sources, not the "interpretation" of some left wing history professor.

 

[aociswundumho]

the problem is the entire basis of your line of thinking, your rampant anti-authority sentiment that causes you to view practically any form of government or organization as corrupt, power hungry, and controlling is in contrary to established patterns of human behavior.

Yes, because regarding governments, it happens to be true.

People just naturally gravitate towards a hierarchy in society, and its from this that governments are formed, which is why every civilization that has ever existed has had some form of government.

If it were natural, governments wouldn't have to resort to force, violence, and extortion in order to coerce people to fund them.

 

[Jredbaron96]

Yes, because regarding governments, it happens to be true.

Your complaint is about patterns of human behavior. Which regardless of whether the person in question has a name tag on them that says "Government"

If it were natural, governments wouldn't have to resort to force, violence, and extortion in order to coerce people to fund them.

it is natural, because there's never been a human society without some form of hierarchy.

And as human history has shown, letting the state have a monopoly on violence is preferable to the alternative.

Then why did Hitler have four year plans?

Because he was preparing for war, not because he had a socialist end state in mind.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Year_Plan

If Hitler didn't control the Germany economy, how did he build his war machine in just six years starting with an economy in shambles?

Well, he really didn't. As Adam Tooze explains in his book "Wages of Destruction" the initial German recovery from the Great Depression was a result of increased consumer spending, not government initiative.

When Hitler did institute economic reforms, the very first ones he did was privatization, selling off government shares to private owners. The Nazis did this for the same reason they would nationalize certain industries, not because they thought the government was the best means of running the economy, but because they were preparing for war.

Furthermore, Hitler did not radically reshape the foundation of the German economy, firms that produced goods under Wiemar did so under the Nazis just as well.

People don't voluntarily produce bombs and tanks.

Actually in turns out if you pay people money they'll build stuff for you.

Why does every primary source on the topic depict Nazi Germany as a socialist state? L

They don't, you're just cherry picking. If I find sources that describe the Nazis as right wing you'll just ignore them, and claim they are Marxist because you can't come up with a better argument.

These are primary sources, not the "interpretation" of some left wing history professor.

No, these are just the opinion of random writers. Germans in the 1930s were well aware the Nazis were right wing.

And to drive that point home, just lookup what political parties the Nazis formed a coalition with. Of course, one you discover they were right wing parties, you'll immediately launch a tirade as to why they aren't really right wing because they don't meet the arbitrary definitions you think everyone else should abide by.

 

[ColdHardTruth]

Agreed, he was a fascist, and he was also clearly left wing.

The same could be said for Stalin. He was also a fascist.

Typically, fascism is a RIGHT-WING construct.

 

[Str8shooter]

Your denial is irrelevant.

Mussolini was a fascist. This is not a contestable fact.

Your deflection is irrelevant. The entire list of what the OP posted is EXACTLY WHAT THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY STANDS FOR. That is the issue. You want to do some childish gotcha on what you perceive a word means. Mussolini believed in exactly the same thing that the Democrats want for America.

 

[Str8shooter]

You still haven't typed away the fact that fascism is a right wing ideology. This is because it's impossible to do that.

... and you haven't denied that every example the OP made WRT how the Democratic Party aligns with Mussolini's government.

 

[ColdHardTruth]

Your deflection is irrelevant. The entire list of what the OP posted is EXACTLY WHAT THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY STANDS FOR. That is the issue. You want to do some childish gotcha on what you perceive a word means. Mussolini believed in exactly the same thing that the Democrats want for America.

Except that list was created by a right-winger.

It's dishonest for the right-wing to be accusing the Democrats of being in-line with fascist dictators.

We are not the ones getting votes from Nazis, KKK members, and seditionist traitors who are more or less the equivalent of a SA brownshirt.

 

[Felis Leo]

The first modern welfare state was instituted by a conservative monarchist.

*cue the unironic historically illiterate claim that Bismarck was a socialist*

The example I go to is King Louis XIV creating the Les Invalides Military Hospital for the care and housing of wounded and aged war veterans. The man was undistinguishable from Vladimir Lenin.

 

[Helix]

... and you haven't denied that every example the OP made WRT how the Democratic Party aligns with Mussolini's government.

This typing didn't change reality, either. People typing on the internet cannot magic right wing extremist ideologies into left wing extremist ideologies.

 

[Str8shooter]

Except that list was created by a right-winger.

It's dishonest for the right-wing to be accusing the Democrats of being in-line with fascist dictators.

We are not the ones getting votes from Nazis, KKK members, and seditionist traitors who are more or less the equivalent of a SA brownshirt.

It is dishonest? Read the darn list. It is exactly what liberals/Democrats believe and is a significant part of the Democratic Party Platform. You can't deny that.

 

[Risky Thicket]

What in his post has been discredited? And by whom?

Fletch is expecting others to explain their reasoning and verify it.

If no one provides you with a substantive response it is because they are following your lead.

 

[Big Brother]

What in his post has been discredited? And by whom?

It is discredited by every establishment democrat because it runs absolutely contrary to the political propaganda they have been spoon fed their entire lives. The new narrative, like so many of the new narratives supporting the democrats, is pure projection to hide the true agenda which is remarkably similar to fascism.

 

[NatMorton]

Read the bits in paranthesis about how I would move progressivism.

The original pre-Hitler national socialism movement was authoritarian left. After Hitler killed much of the original members in the night of the king knives, he moved it to authoritarian right but kept the original label. The nazis then lied throughout the 30s and 40s and paid lip service to the original labeling. You should have learned this stuff in high school.

This is always the excuse from the left. Whether it’s Nazi Germany or Communist Russia, it begins with left wing idealism creating massively centralized political authority. Power then does what it always does: corrupts. When the dust settles and millions are buried the left says “Well, it wasn’t our fault. The right took over.”

No, the danger is creating excessive governmental authority no matter how noble your intentions may be. You can’t feed the beast year after year and then be surprised when he grows strong enough to break loose.