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.

 

[Slartibartfast]

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.

Its weird that you could call history an excuse, but you do you.

 

[NatMorton]

Its weird that you could call history an excuse, but you do you.

It’s not an excuse. It’s a lesson, and one that the authority junkies on the left never seem to learn.

 

[Slartibartfast]

It’s not an excuse. It’s a lesson, and one that the authority junkies on the left never seem to learn.

I have taken the lesson that libertarian extremists consider anything outside their narrow bubble as liberal quite well.

In fact, most of the responses to this blob, by many people, take the libertarian lack of perspective into account.

 

[NatMorton]

I have taken the lesson that libertarian extremists consider anything outside their narrow bubble as liberal quite well.

In fact, most of the responses to this blob, by many people, take the libertarian lack of perspective into account.

My point stands. You folks never seem to appreciate the risks that come from too much government, and those lessons are literally bloody.

 

[Slartibartfast]

My point stands. You folks never seem to appreciate the risks that come from too much government, and those lessons are literally bloody.

If you want to talk about too much government, that's cool. There is a fruitful discussion to be had there and we have seen those kinds of issues throughout history. The various governmental swings in Venezuela yields a number of good examples, for instance.

If you lie and call a right wing ideology a left wing one, people's BS detectors are going to be triggered and you will lose credibility.

My advice to you is to stick to facts and provable assertions, you will get a more receptive audience.

 

[Jredbaron96]

This is always the excuse from the left. Whether it’s Nazi Germany

Nazi Germany wasn't a left wing state. It was a reactionary nationalist regime fully at home with the German right wing.

 

[ldub23]

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

Mussolini was an Atheist:



Mussolini was a student of Marx:


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:




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




Mussolini imposed a large and expansive welfare state:




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




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




He was a collectivist, and hated individualism:




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



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.

Mussolini and Hitler were far to the left.

 

[ldub23]

Nazi Germany wasn't a left wing state. It was a reactionary nationalist regime fully at home with the German right wing.

No, it was the conservatives in the military who tried to kill Hitler.

 

[Jredbaron96]

No, it was the conservatives in the military who tried to kill Hitler.

Conservatives in the military who attempted to kill Hitler never amounted to anything more than a minority of German officers.

The Nazis were able to seize power with a coalition of right wing parties. The fact that it was right wing parties forming a coalition with the Nazis rather than any left wing element makes it clear what side of the spectrum the Nazis fell on.

 

[ldub23]

Conservatives in the military who attempted to kill Hitler never amounted to anything more than a minority of German officers.

The Nazis were able to seize power with a coalition of right wing parties. The fact that it was right wing parties forming a coalition with the Nazis rather than any left wing element makes it clear what side of the spectrum the Nazis fell on.

The Nazi's were far to the left. Any political group that says the state is superior to the individual is left wing

 

[Jredbaron96]

The Nazi's were far to the left.

They demonstratably weren't. Everything the Nazis stood for already existed in the German right wing.

And if they were left wing, then their collusion with a right wing coalition makes no sense. Which way are you going to go, deny that that happened or insist the German right wing is actually left wing?

 

[Big Brother]

The Nazi's were far to the left. Any political group that says the state is superior to the individual is left wing

We all know that, but good luck trying to convince the left of something they don't want to be convinced of. If something bad happened in history, they had nothing to do with it and it was all Trump's fault. Slavery? It was the republicans, especially Trump, that owned slaves and the democrats freed them all. Stuff like that. As for the Nazis, in german they were the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, which translates to the National Socialist German Workers' Party. It was always known as a radical wing of socialism until the modern left couldn't tolerate it anymore and started the trusty switcheroo, like they did with slavery, and started calling the right wing the fascists and they are now the anti-fascists. Unfortunately there are a lot of history books from all over the world to burn to pull this one off.

 

[Jredbaron96]

We all know that,

No. Because that's wrong

As for the Nazis, in german they were the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, which translates to the National Socialist German Workers' Party.

Which is a meaningless name consisting of a bunch of buzzwords thrown together to broaden mass appeal. This was known to the Germans back in the 1930s, so the fact that you are still being tricked into believing it actually entails a specific ideology just reveals you are , nearly a century later, able to fall victim to basic political trickery.

 

[Tigerace117]

No, it was the conservatives in the military who tried to kill Hitler.

The conservatives in the military who’d been his avid supporters for years, and only tried to kill him because they were losing the war.

 

[NatMorton]

If you want to talk about too much government, that's cool. There is a fruitful discussion to be had there and we have seen those kinds of issues throughout history. The various governmental swings in Venezuela yields a number of good examples, for instance.

If you lie and call a right wing ideology a left wing one, people's BS detectors are going to be triggered and you will lose credibility.

My advice to you is to stick to facts and provable assertions, you will get a more receptive audience.

You're the one with too loose a grip on the facts. What I have said, repeatedly, is that big government liberalism is closer to fascism than is small government conservatism. The few times where I've said "right" I have clarified it with this context. Conservative populists, like Trump, fall closer to the left in that regard.

See posts 107 and 108 for proof of this.

 

[NatMorton]

Nazi Germany wasn't a left wing state. It was a reactionary nationalist regime fully at home with the German right wing.

... and its methods, concentrating political authority, are closer to the methods of big government liberals than they are to small government conservatives, which is all I've really said here. See post 140.

 

[Slartibartfast]

You're the one with too loose a grip on the facts. What I have said, repeatedly, is that big government liberalism is closer to fascism than is small government conservatism. The few times where I've said "right" I have clarified it with this context. Conservative populists, like Trump, fall closer to the left in that regard.

See posts 107 and 108 for proof of this.

I realize you made assertions. I disagree with those assertions and will write I believe to be the case.

 

[NatMorton]

I realize you made assertions. I disagree with those assertions and will write I believe to be the case.

This you backing away from your assertion that I lied?

 

[Slartibartfast]

This you backing away from your assertion that I lied?

No, I believe you lied. Fascism is clearly a right wing ideology and there is no disputing that and is only those who choose to disagree.

 

[NatMorton]

No, I believe you lied. Fascism is clearly a right wing ideology and there is no disputing that and is only those who choose to disagree.

Then quote where I lied. If you can't, we'll know who's lying.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Then quote where I lied. If you can't, we'll know who's lying.

ok

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.

This is a lie, for example, there are any number of successful society that use liberal values. The key is keeping them in balance with capitalism.

The second lie is that you dont account for the fact that the fact that the Nazis got really bad when Hitler took over and changed the party to a right wing one after the night of long knives.

 

[Jredbaron96]

... and its methods, concentrating political authority, are closer to the methods of big government liberals than they are to small government conservatives, which is all I've really said here. See post 140.

Yes, your incessant desire to create artificial separations and distinctions between what you believe and anything you find problematic is noted and discarded for the lack of substance.

 

[NatMorton]

Yes, your incessant desire to create artificial separations and distinctions between what you believe and anything you find problematic is noted and discarded for the lack of substance.

No, I only made a simple (and accurate) observation. The emotion is coming from you folks.

 

[Jredbaron96]

No, I only made a simple (and accurate) observation.

Incorrect. Whenever faced with this topic you choose to create an artifical separation on the political spectrum in order to justify segregating yourself from an infamous right wing ideology by inventing terminology.

Right wing ideologies are not defined by "small government", they are defined by the conservative philosophy of tradition, preservation of the status quo, and opposition to radical change. That may or may not manifest as large governing bodies or small governments.

You are trying to insist on acceptance of your definition not because it is historically or philosophically sound but because it allows you to segregate yourself from ideologies you dislike while lumping your political opponents alongside detestable regimes.

It's a historically illiterate argument because if we extend your argument it leads to nonsensical ideas like the Mongols, Romans, Qing Dynasty, and the USSR all being more of less the same type of government.

The emotion is coming from you folks.

The mainstay of most of your arguments is to accuse your opponents of being emotional because you are unable to debate without insulting others.

 

[NatMorton]

Incorrect. Whenever faced with this topic you choose to create an artifical separation on the political spectrum in order to justify segregating yourself from an infamous right wing ideology by inventing terminology.

Right wing ideologies are not defined by "small government", they are defined by the conservative philosophy of tradition, preservation of the status quo, and opposition to radical change. That may or may not manifest as large governing bodies or small governments.

You're confused (or lying). I never claimed right wing ideologies are defined by "small government" and I challenge you to cite the post where I did.

You are trying to insist on acceptance of your definition not because it is historically or philosophically sound but because it allows you to segregate yourself from ideologies you dislike while lumping your political opponents alongside detestable regimes.

No, I'm not insisting on anything. I'm making an observation. You can agree with it or not, but as is clear from your misinformation above, you're not describing my opinion.

It's a historically illiterate argument because if we extend your argument it leads to nonsensical ideas like the Mongols, Romans, Qing Dynasty, and the USSR all being more of less the same type of government.

In the sense of centralizing authority, yes, there's similarity there. That's the point. The purpose for centralizing authority may be different, but the end state is similar, and it's the end state that's the problem.

The mainstay of most of your arguments is to accuse your opponents of being emotional because you are unable to debate without insulting others.

Gibberish. You have been repeatedly mischaracterizing my position here. It's perfectly reasonable for me to speculate why you're doing that, and my guess is that deep down you (and others here) know I'm right about this, and the emotion flows from a small flash of cognitive dissonance.