• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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.
 
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.


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.

Your opinion exists to allow you to label your political opponents as similar to destable regimes. Your observation is pointless because the crux of the discussion here and elsewhere was where Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany fell on the political spectrum. The answer is the right wing, and your attempts at arguing about central governing power is just a foolish effort to retry already disproven arguments from another angle.

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.

This is at best a foolish interpretation of history. Even if we ignore centralized governments are in fact a good thing (Somalia is proof of what happens when you don't have a strong central government), such a summary is so devoid of critical details that it makes it useless as a tool of political discussion. That's why such a metric is not employed in any academic means as you yourself are trying to do.

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.

You're not right. I know more about Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy then you, as you have repeatedly demonstrated nothing more than a topical understanding of either.

Your argument is useless because it is not based on any honest reading or interpretive study of history, but your own personal belief that you *want* to be true.
 
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.


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.


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.



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.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but if I we're to argue "Small government conservatives tend to be traditionalist, and so were the Nazis, therefore they're similar" you could rightfully criticize such an egregious oversimplification of a complex set of political philosophies, but that kind of introspection seems like it would be too tall a task to contend with.
 
Your opinion exists to allow you to label your political opponents as similar to destable regimes. Your observation is pointless because the crux of the discussion here and elsewhere was where Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany fell on the political spectrum. The answer is the right wing, and your attempts at arguing about central governing power is just a foolish effort to retry already disproven arguments from another angle.
First, I'm glad we agree you cannot prove I lied, though you'd have more credibility if you'd acknowledge that openly.

No, I'm not trying to label my political opponents as detestable. I'm pointing out the irony that the left is closer to using the methods of authoritarian regimes than are conservatives, yet they're quite free with their own attempts to label conservatives as "Nazis."



This is at best a foolish interpretation of history. Even if we ignore centralized governments are in fact a good thing (Somalia is proof of what happens when you don't have a strong central government), such a summary is so devoid of critical details that it makes it useless as a tool of political discussion. That's why such a metric is not employed in any academic means as you yourself are trying to do.
I never said centralized governments were bad. You continue to mischaracterize my position, which is a problem with your argument, not mine.

You're not right. I know more about Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy then you, as you have repeatedly demonstrated nothing more than a topical understanding of either.
Whether you do or whether you don't remains to be seen, but if you can't agree they represent excesses in centralized political authority then I don't know why anyone would take you seriously on these topics.

Your argument is useless because it is not based on any honest reading or interpretive study of history, but your own personal belief that you *want* to be true.
How would you know? You've not attempted an honest reading of my argument.
 
Not to put too fine a point on it, but if I we're to argue "Small government conservatives tend to be traditionalist, and so were the Nazis, therefore they're similar" you could rightfully criticize such an egregious oversimplification of a complex set of political philosophies, but that kind of introspection seems like it would be too tall a task to contend with.
You could make that argument, and I'm not sure I would disagree with it, but it's not really a relevant point. Being excessively traditionalist isn't a good or bad thing, and certainly doesn't compare to the harm done by excessive centralization of political authority.
 
I'm pointing out the irony that the left is closer to using the methods of authoritarian regimes than are conservatives, yet they're quite free with their own attempts to label conservatives as "Nazis."

Haha.

The Nazis came to power on a political platform who's messaging boiled down to "foreign elitist elements are undermining our society and cultural heritage through communist ideation and manipulation of the markets and currency for their own benefits".

Which political factions or groups do you think that kind of messaging resonates with? After all if we're just pointing out "methods" I'll just point you can the call to arms the Nazis put out, replace "Jews" with "globalists" and others and you get America First.

I never said centralized governments were bad. You continue to mischaracterize my position, which is a problem with your argument, not mine.

Whether you do or whether you don't remains to be seen, but if you can't agree they represent excesses in centralized political authority then I don't know why anyone would take you seriously on these topic.

"Excess in centralized political authority" is useless as a means of quantifying or qualifying regimes, governments and empires because the affairs of governments and the nature of different societies and cultures are too complicated to be boiled down to such simplistic phrases.

You do it because it makes it easier for you to argue on the internet, not because it's actually an effective tool of political and historical interpretation.

How would you know? You've not attempted an honest reading of my argument.

Your argument isn't based in honesty, it's based on your lack of understanding of history, politics, and ideology, along with a persistent desire to belittle those you disagree with while claiming it's leftist who are emotional and defensive.
 
. Being excessively traditionalist isn't a good or bad thing,

Yes it is, because it stifles innovation, development, and creativity.

But I can't honestly claim that I can use "excessive traditionalism" as a robust Metric of historical or political interpretation because what that actually entails varies so wildly from group to group because what tradition is, how it's interpreted and how it manifests that to attempt to do so would suggest commonality among such a wide array of cultures and societies so as to render it meaningless.

It's the great crushing paradox of studying humanity that there are patterns of human behavior that are innate to our species so they appear in every society ever, but how they manifest quite literally is as numerous as the amount of societies that have ever existed.
 
Haha.

The Nazis came to power on a political platform who's messaging boiled down to "foreign elitist elements are undermining our society and cultural heritage through communist ideation and manipulation of the markets and currency for their own benefits".

Which political factions or groups do you think that kind of messaging resonates with? After all if we're just pointing out "methods" I'll just point you can the call to arms the Nazis put out, replace "Jews" with "globalists" and others and you get America First.
Generally speaking, protectionists on both sides use a less stark version of that message.

"Excess in centralized political authority" is useless as a means of quantifying or qualifying regimes, governments and empires because the affairs of governments and the nature of different societies and cultures are too complicated to be boiled down to such simplistic phrases.

You do it because it makes it easier for you to argue on the internet, not because it's actually an effective tool of political and historical interpretation.
Someone mentioned earlier in this thread that the left seems to think their brand of authoritarianism is better than other forms of authoritarianism. I get the sense you believe this, too. Do you?

Your argument isn't based in honesty, it's based on your lack of understanding of history, politics, and ideology, along with a persistent desire to belittle those you disagree with while claiming it's leftist who are emotional and defensive.
You've not come close to proving any of that.
 
Generally speaking, protectionists on both sides use a less stark version of that message.

No, not really.

Someone mentioned earlier in this thread that the left seems to think their brand of authoritarianism is better than other forms of authoritarianism. I get the sense you believe this, too. Do you?

I don't support authoritarianism in general.

You've not come close to proving any of that.

Lol, sure. As if everyone else can't just read your posts
 
When you've got a point with discussing, let me know.

I assume you mean worth discussing, but unfortunately you don't appear to know enough to actually debate this topic.

When your opinions can't just be sources from the first right wing blog that pops up on Google, perhaps you'll do better.
 
Generally speaking, protectionists on both sides use a less stark version of that message.


Someone mentioned earlier in this thread that the left seems to think their brand of authoritarianism is better than other forms of authoritarianism. I get the sense you believe this, too. Do you?
The right wing doesn't really have any right to call other people "authoritarian" given who and what they support.

You've not come close to proving any of that.
 
Fascism is right wing. That isn't up for debate.
Fascism was invented by Socialists. No amount of rinse and repeat is ever going to change that basic Fact.
 
ok


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.
FALSE.
 
I assume you mean worth discussing, but unfortunately you don't appear to know enough to actually debate this topic.

When your opinions can't just be sources from the first right wing blog that pops up on Google, perhaps you'll do better.
As opposed to your left wing regurgitated Goebbel-esq repeating falsehoods?
 
Fascism was invented by Socialists. No amount of rinse and repeat is ever going to change that basic Fact.
Seven pages of typing, and fascism is still a right wing ideology.

News at eleven.
 
Seven pages of typing, and fascism is still a right wing ideology.

News at eleven.
helix Goebbels said so. again and again and again and again...
 
No, based on the fact that I know more about Nazi Germany than you.
care to post the 25 points? Let's go through them one at a time and you explain why each is not-left wing socialism.
 
In 1929, Mussolini signed the Lateran Treaty, which recognized Vatican City as an independent nation. The state agreed by article 36 of the concordat to permit religious instruction in the public primary and secondary schools and conceded to the bishops the right to appoint or dismiss those who imparted such instruction and to approve the textbooks that they used.

Hardly the actions of a leftist.
 
Mussolini and fascism are both left wing

Umm... no.

Fascism is a far-right, authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology and movement, characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation or race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy.[2][3]
 
Back
Top Bottom