Jonah Goldberg on His New Book, Liberal Fascism

Ronald Bailey | December 28, 2007

Instapundit Glenn Reynolds and his wife forensic psychologist Dr. Helen Smith interview my good friend Jonah Goldberg about his new book, Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning. I have read the book and heartily recommend it. In fact, my blurb for it is below:

"In the 1930s, the socialist intellectual H.G. Wells called for the creation of a "liberal fascism," which he envisioned as a totalitarian state governed by an oligarchy of benevolent experts. In Liberal Fascism, Jonah Goldberg brilliantly traces the intellectual roots of fascism to their surprising source, showing not only that its motivating ideas derive from the left but that the liberal fascist impulse is alive and well among contemporary progressives-and is even a temptation for compassionate conservatives."

In the podcast Jonah says that researching the book "has made me much more libertarian." He doesn't just go after contemporary progressives, he also warns that "compassionate conservatives" are practicing liberal fascism. From the interview:

"With someone like Huckabee; with someone who actually takes compassionate conservatism seriously, you've got this vision that the government can do anything it sets its mind to, and that the measure of good public policy is how much you care. That, to me, is a very scary turn of events in American politics."

Amen.

The link to the Instapundit podcast is here.

Comments

|12.28.07 @ 12:32PM|#

"...showing not only that its motivating ideas derive from the left but that the liberal fascist impulse is alive and well among contemporary progressives."

joe, you got some 'splaining to do!

Episiarch|12.28.07 @ 12:32PM|#

Taking all bets: how many hundreds of posts will this thread have? Winner takes all.

Guy Montag|12.28.07 @ 12:34PM|#

Third post!

|12.28.07 @ 12:34PM|#

Well at least he took out the reference to Mackey in the title...

|12.28.07 @ 12:37PM|#

We already know that Ron Bailey has a problem with allowing your political prejudices against the left interfere with the sound analysis of the causes of global phenomena. He's admitted this himself.

Why the hell would anybody care that he recommends brilliant political historian Jonah Goldberg's book about the root causes of fascism to be liberal politics?

Guy Montag|12.28.07 @ 12:38PM|#

Jonah Goldberg brilliantly traces the intellectual roots of fascism to their surprising source . . .

Surprising? This source was surprising to people?

I partially blame the misuse of the English language for this. Using the party symbols instead of the self-descriptive party names, like facism instead of National Socialism. It is like calling International Socialism "hammer and sickleism" or the Democrat party "donkeyism".

|12.28.07 @ 12:39PM|#

There's something amusing about a guy who endorsed Giuliani for president warning us about liberal fascism.

I like this take on the book.

|12.28.07 @ 12:40PM|#

Eighth post!

|12.28.07 @ 12:41PM|#

"Using the party symbols instead of the self-descriptive party names, like fascism instead of National Socialism."

In that regard, using "National Socialism" doesn't really represent their position either, does it?

Fool me twice|12.28.07 @ 12:41PM|#

I'll probably pass. Even tho I probably agree with everything he says in it, I suspect this book is about as well researched as the crap that Kevin Phillips puts out.

|12.28.07 @ 12:41PM|#

I'd like to drown Jonah Goldberg in a pool of his own vomit.

And then I'd drown Glenn Reynolds in it, too.

|12.28.07 @ 12:41PM|#

Actual political historians list five defining attributes of fascism:

1. Extreme nationalism

2. Racism/biological determinism

3. Militarism in both foreign policy and domestic social organization

4. Corporatist economics

5. Anti-leftism.


You know. Liberal stuff like that.

|12.28.07 @ 12:42PM|#

My first prediction: This thread will end with a total post count between three and four hundred.

My second prediction: My first prediction will be wrong.

My third prediction: One of my first two predictions will prove incorrect.

There. Now I oughtta get at least two out of three, and will thusly be widely considered a great prognosticator!

Fool me twice|12.28.07 @ 12:45PM|#

Now I oughtta get at least two out of three, and will thusly be widely considered a great prognosticator!

And then you can get a contract to write a book on the history of liberalism & fascism!

|12.28.07 @ 12:47PM|#

Hi all: I certainly enjoy giving you all the opportunity to comment on the book, but you might also find actually listening to the interview will give you even more ammunition for insightful and trenchant comments.

JN|12.28.07 @ 12:48PM|#

Actual political historians

Name a few.

|12.28.07 @ 12:49PM|#

George Bush, the Republican who believes so strongly that the executive should not be bound to follow the laws passed by the legislature, and Vladimir Zhirinofsky, the Liberal Democrat who believes that the Soviet Union should be restored and the Jews locked out of politics, share Guy Montag's faith in the over-riding reliability of self-descriptive party names.

I suspect Guy Montag would have a large following in the German Democratic Republic, the People's Democratic Republic of Congo, and the Democratic Republic of Korea.

Episiarch|12.28.07 @ 12:49PM|#

Jake, nice semi-arbitrage bet.

I find it funny how people feel the need to fractionate totalitarianism into slightly different variants so that they can beat their political opponents with it. I mean, when it comes down to oppression, the difference between communism and fascism is really moot. Just because one is supposedly international/left and one is supposedly nationalistic/right doesn't really matter to the guy dead in a ditch.

Both the left and the right, because they want to control people, will at times go too far. Then they end up basically the same. But don't let that get in the way of a good name-calling!

|12.28.07 @ 12:53PM|#

Jonah Goldberg is one of my fave libertarian writers, right behind Dinesh D'Souza and William Bennett.

|12.28.07 @ 12:53PM|#

Might Benito Mussolini have some insight into the foundations of fascism?

We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the 'right', a Fascist century. If the nineteenth century was the century of the individual we are free to believe that this is the 'collective' century, and therefore the century of the State.

Fool me twice|12.28.07 @ 12:54PM|#

Hi all: I certainly enjoy giving you all the opportunity to comment on the book, but you might also find actually listening to the interview will give you even more ammunition for insightful and trenchant comments.

Good point. But to do that, I'd have to wait until I get home from work, and by then this thread will be seeing about as much activity as a bag of burnt microwave popcorn.

SIV|12.28.07 @ 12:56PM|#

Damn! been looking forward to this. I wanted to read the book first though.

|12.28.07 @ 12:56PM|#

Episiarch,

It is important to recognize the rightist roots of fascism, so that people can't make the mistake of thinking "I'm not supporting a potentially totalitarian movement, I'm supporting a movement that is against communism."

Just as it is important to recognize the leftist roots of communism, so that people can't make the mistake of thinking, "I'm not supporting a potentially-totalitarian movement; I'm supporting an anti-fascist movement."

SIV|12.28.07 @ 12:58PM|#

If the nineteenth century was the century of the individual we are free to believe that this is the 'collective' century, and therefore the century of the State.

Sounds kinda PROGRESSIVE don't it?

Franklin Harris|12.28.07 @ 12:59PM|#

Daze wins.

|12.28.07 @ 12:59PM|#

Extreme Nationalism: Woodrow Wilson-his pervasive wartime suppression of civil liberties makes Guantanamo look like a day camp. Not to mention FDR's concentration camps for Japanese Americans.

Racism/Biological Determinism: Woodrow Wilson and Margaret Sanger--actually Jonah has a great chapter pointing out the deep leftwing roots of eugenics. Recall Oliver Wendell Holmes. Wilson actually introduced racial segregation to federal government employment.

Militarism: Especially Woodrow Wilson and the coterie of leftist intellectuals at the early New Republic.

Corporatist economics: Wilson and FDR.

Anti-leftism: To the extent that both advocate for state intervention in the economy and social life there isn't all that much difference.

Episiarch|12.28.07 @ 1:01PM|#

joe, I hear what you're saying, but I don't think that's necessary. People will either recognize that "give me tremendous power and I will do X that will solve all our problems" is totalitarian bullshit or they won't. Whether X is "stop fascists", "stop communists", "regain our national pride", or "give to each what they need" doesn't matter.

|12.28.07 @ 1:02PM|#

Not to diss Goldberg too badly here, but why did he pick the easy one? Explaining how the far Left meshes with Fascism is like stacking duplo blocks.
What I await is Mr. Goldberg's tome on the torturous twisting of the Right to Fascism in the last 30 years.

Sulla|12.28.07 @ 1:02PM|#

1) Whatever Goldberg's flaws, it's at least worth considering and paying attention to his future work to see if he truly is more open to libertarian thoughts.

2) The H.G. Wells idea is interesting - a liberal fascist state. Is that an oxymoron? If conservative communism is possible, what would it look like?

Sulla|12.28.07 @ 1:04PM|#

Above, by interesting I did not mean a good idea, I just meant it is worthy fodder for intellectual exercises.

|12.28.07 @ 1:05PM|#

Why should we accept that the definition of "liberal" has changed so drastically over the last century that its meaning has been completely inverted, while accepting that the word "progressive" means exactly the same thing it did in 1920?

Modern liberalism or progressivism draws some of its substance from the liberalism of the 18th and 19th centuries. So does modern conservatism. Modern liberalism draws some of its substance from the Progressive movement of the early 1900s. So does modern conservatism.

Uh...so?

Episiarch|12.28.07 @ 1:06PM|#

The H.G. Wells idea is interesting - a liberal fascist state. Is that an oxymoron? If conservative communism is possible, what would it look like?

A leftist fascist state is not an oxymoron. But that's because fascist doesn't really mean anything besides "totalitarian with certain slightly different aspects than other types of totalitarian". Likewise for communism and "conservative communism". It's just totalitarianism with a particular set of values held by the state.

|12.28.07 @ 1:06PM|#

Episiarch,

It is important because no political movement sells itself as "...give me tremendous power..."

The first slogan of the Bolsheviks was "All power to the Local Workers Councils!" The Nazis themselves began by preaching against the alleged government power of the Jews and Marxists.

R C Dean|12.28.07 @ 1:07PM|#

Actual political historians list five defining attributes of fascism.

Links are always nice. To, you kow, actual political historians listing these five items as the defining attributes of fascism.

Wikipedia seems to be pretty much on track with its definition:

Fascism is an authoritarian political ideology (generally tied to a mass movement) that considers individual and social interests subordinate to the interests of the state or party. Fascists seek to forge a type of national unity, usually based on (but not limited to) ethnic, cultural, racial, and religious attributes. Various scholars attribute different characteristics to fascism, but the following elements are usually seen as its integral parts: nationalism, statism, militarism, totalitarianism, anti-communism, corporatism, populism, collectivism, and opposition to political and economic liberalism.

With the exception of anti-communism and possibly corporatism, that all strikes me as pretty consistent with most flavors of leftism. I would concede the fascism tends to rely more on racial/ethnic hatred than the class hatred characteristic of classic Marxian leftism, but I really don't know that the difference redounds to anyone's benefit.

If the nineteenth century was the century of the individual we are free to believe that this is the 'collective' century, and therefore the century of the State.

I fail to see how this is inconsistent with any so-called "leftist" thought.

Guy Montag|12.28.07 @ 1:07PM|#

In that regard, using "National Socialism" doesn't really represent their position either, does it?

Well, yes it does quite well for two simple words that roll up the whole thing quite nicely. Nationalism and Socialism.

Forcing businesses to provide the social welfare system, something key to both the 'Fascists' and the 'Donkeyists' positions on the existance of allowing businesses to exist is quite a Socialist stance, along with many of their other 'social shaping' methods.

Have the folks here ever stopped to think how odd it sounds when a Democrat advocates forcing a firm like Wal*Mart to provide a certain level of health insurance and, instead of just stating that it should be done, introduces legeslation to force it to be done? Okay, if you did not think them odd for that, isn't it odd that the people who advocate that will call the people against that notion fascists?

For a more entertaining discussion, just review some of the keyboard brawls between the pot vs. tobacco people. Even better, the "smoke whatever you want in your own bar"* advocates vs. the anti-tobacco folks, especially the pro-pot variety.

*I would be on that side of the issue.

R C Dean|12.28.07 @ 1:08PM|#

Modern liberalism or progressivism draws some of its substance from the liberalism of the 18th and 19th centuries.

Except for the bit about limited government, that is.

Bhh|12.28.07 @ 1:09PM|#

I see he didn't have the balls to stick to "from Mussolini to Hillary Clinton."

Weak.

How are you going to stand out in a crowd that writes books about how awesome internment camps are and how we should join arms with Osama to fight the liberals?

I don't even know what the hell "the politics of meaning" is.

Episiarch|12.28.07 @ 1:10PM|#

It is important because no political movement sells itself as "...give me tremendous power..."

Yes, but my point is that some people will realize when a political movement is totalitarian, and some won't. Those that do will notice because of features shared by all types of totalitarianism. Those that don't won't be helped by fractionated descriptions of origins.

BTS|12.28.07 @ 1:10PM|#

Ron,

Liberal =/= Democrat, especially before about 1960. Just because we had fascist Democrats doesn't mean that all Democrats are fascists. I really think that the big argument here is fairly cut and dried:

American and European liberalism have some fascistic tendencies that are not directly related to a broader definition of "pure" liberalism which include protection an individual's civil liberties and a trampling of their economic rights. And yeah, Fascists trample those economic rights, too, and in pretty much the same way, but the key difference between liberalism and fascism is...duuuuuuh, protection of an individual's civil liberties.

*sits back and awaits flaming...or not, hopefully*

|12.28.07 @ 1:10PM|#

If the nineteenth century was the century of the individual we are free to believe that this is the 'collective' century, and therefore the century of the State.

Sounds kinda PROGRESSIVE don't it?

Here's the same Mussolini quote starting several sentences earlier:

Granted that the XIXth century was the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy, this does not mean that the XXth century must also be the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy. Political doctrines pass; nations remain. We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the 'right', a Fascist century. If the 19th century was the century of the individual (liberalism implies individualism) we are free to believe that this is the 'collective' century, and therefore the century of the State.

|12.28.07 @ 1:11PM|#

and is even a temptation for compassionate conservatives

If by "temptation" you mean "actual instantiated policy" then I agree.

Kevin B. O\'Reilly|12.28.07 @ 1:12PM|#

Fascism is essentially a collection of all the worst political ideas. Because about half the world's bad ideas come from the folks known in the U.S. as liberals, it shouldn't be surprising that there's a lot of common ground there. That said, violating Godwin's Law in the *title* of your book just seems a bad way to go about actually advancing political discourse.

Whatever else you want to say about today's liberals, or yesterday's Woodrow Wilson, they aren't fascists. And to say so, or suggest so, is as offensive and ill-fitting as seriously comparing Mike Huckabee's brand of God-friendly politics to the Taliban's oppressive theocracy.

BTS|12.28.07 @ 1:13PM|#

Yeah, mk, I should amend my statement:
"American liberalism and American conservativism, have fascist tendencies"

|12.28.07 @ 1:14PM|#

I have not read the book yet. I don't know that I will. Not that it is a bad book, but I have too many other books to read. But, liberals in the early 20th Century supported some really awful ideas that few of today's liberals will admit to.

The root of this kind of evil be it in the socialist, theocrat or communist variety, is the belief that paradise can exist on earth. If you honestly beleive that paradise on earth can be created if only we follow this path, then really any means is justified.

The extremes of this are things like Communism where people honestly believe that a socialist paradise can be created and a new socialist man to go with it if you only kill or oppress all of those who don't have the politically correct consciousness. But, it is much more insidious and mundane than that. It lies at the heart of every nanny state program we all love to hate. The world would be a better place if no one smoked, so lets ban smoking. Children are being abused, so lets send out trained bureaucrats to monitor families and take children away from abusive parents. The list goes on and on. Implicit in all of those programs is the idea that there are no limits on our ability to solve problems. If CPS workers could really end child abuse, who wouldn't give up their autonomy for such a goal? Of course, in reality the goal is never achieved and bureaucrats being people abuse their power and create unintended consequences and child abuse goes merely on.

My belief in personal autonomy and does not arise from a belief in the innate goodness of people. Just the opposite, since man is such a fallen creature and the world is so complex most of the world's serious problems will never be solved. There will always be poor people, there will always be abused children, and there will always be gluttonous people who ruin their health and lives through drugs or bad habits. No amount of lecturing or money or government coercion is going to change that. Since the big problems are never going to be solved, the ends offered by people like socialists are really pretty lousy and justify few if any means. But as long as people believe that man can be transformed into something he isn't, they will continue to embrace control over freedom.

Guy Montag|12.28.07 @ 1:15PM|#

Ron,

makes Guantanamo look like a day camp.

You don't need to compare that beach resort to anything to make it look like a day camp. It is already a day spa!

|12.28.07 @ 1:15PM|#

Episiarch,

The particular values that make facsism different from other totalitarianism are specifically rightist values, which are in diametrical opposition to leftism.

Fascists believe that class conflict is an artificial construct created by politicians, and that conflicts between nation-states are the natural driving force of history. In a state of nature, they theorize, people of different economic classes cooperate for the common good. This is defining characteristic of fascism. Leftists believe precisely the inverse.

|12.28.07 @ 1:16PM|#

Joe,
Which "political historians" list the "five defining attributes of fascism" that you have provided? Certainly not Stanley Payne, who has written two terrific books on the broader definition of fascism.

Dustin|12.28.07 @ 1:17PM|#

It's certainly critical to understand the execrability of one of our worst presidents, Woodrow Wilson, so thanks, Ron, for highlighting that. Kudos. More people need to know where the roots of Bushite foreign policy messianism came from.

BUT. The confluence of factors equating the figures of early-twentieth century American leftist intellectuals (and certainly there were more significant instances than you've cited) seem merely coincidental. Wilson was a horrendous bigot, and I blame him for most of what went wrong in the 20th Century, and FDR was as close as we've come to a dictator-for-life, but there really isn't any comparison to be made between them and actual fascist potentates and ideologues. Joe's Mussolini cite was key. How do the true, confessed fascists self-identify? As right-wing.

Episiarch|12.28.07 @ 1:19PM|#

The particular values that make facsism different from other totalitarianism are specifically rightist values, which are in diametrical opposition to leftism.

But they both become totalitarian the same way: by believing that those values need to be implemented by force. That's what people need to look out for, and not whether they believe in class conflict as opposed to racial conflict.

|12.28.07 @ 1:20PM|#

Wikipedia is crap on politically-controversial questions. It just runs what politically-activist people on all sides of an issue write, often ending up with contradictions or "some say, others say" formulations.

|12.28.07 @ 1:20PM|#

Episicarch, right, they both come to resemble each other, but this is a question of roots, not ends.

Guy Montag|12.28.07 @ 1:20PM|#

It is funny that the Leftists of H&R are jumping all over themselves to either say "libverals are not 'fascists' " (and then make up things to prove their point) or "conservatives are 'fascists' too!" (and make up different things).

Actually, if I was not at work and my mind were not on other things it would not have struck me as so surprising, but it would still be funny.

SIV|12.28.07 @ 1:21PM|#

I don't even know what the hell "the politics of meaning" is.

If Hillary is elected you are going to find out... and it ain't gonna be pretty.

Wasn't that the Etzioni/communitarian thing?

|12.28.07 @ 1:22PM|#

"Fascists believe that class conflict is an artificial construct created by politicians, and that conflicts between nation-states are the natural driving force of history. In a state of nature, they theorize, people of different economic classes cooperate for the common good. This is defining characteristic of fascism. Leftists believe precisely the inverse."

Yeah Joe but they both embrace the idea of collective responsibility. Under either regime you are condemed based upon what you are not who you are or have done. The hard left wants to eliminate the bourgouis. The hard right wants to eliminate the outside race or nationality. It is the same principle just applied to different classes of people.

|12.28.07 @ 1:24PM|#

Both the far right and the far left (Nazism to Stalinism) exhibit fascist tendencies.

I would have to say that this book, and Jonah G is a bit of a mystery, as he is comfortable with supporting fascist ideologies as long as they confirm his personal prejudices, if it's true that JG is finally recognizing things like who Huckabee really is, that would be great. (I would say that if you have been reading JG for a long time and don't recognize his fascist tendencies, that I probably could not have a conversation with you about the lefts facists tendencies, which I believe are actually there, but in ways very similar to the bushbots facism, except for it's direction, left wants facism that supports the "welfare" state, the right prefers one in which business and gov joins together to protect a more traditional authoritarian modern fuedilsim). So it's all just really, really weird.

I'm just befuddled and scared by the whole pro-JG thing.

It would be like making Cindy Sheehan president, I just can't think of anything that is as ludicrous as taking JG seriously except for that.

This book is a red herring for folks who like their concepts pre-prejudged and packaged.

A pity that JG doesn't recognize why both Hillary and George are probably pro-fascist. Maybe then I could take him seriously.

I would love if someone would write a book about the fascist tendencies of both the right and the left.

This particular pro-fascist writer, JG, is not the one to do it.

Episiarch|12.28.07 @ 1:25PM|#

I guess I am disagreeing with both you and Goldberg, joe. You both seem to think that the roots matter, he blames your side, you blame his.

I say the roots are irrelevant. Both left and right ideologies have a pretty powerful belief that people need to live a certain way, ways which do not mesh with human nature. Therefore if either of them get enough power they start forcing people to their way.

Fascism, communism, theocracy, whatever. The details are irrelevant beside the fact that they are all about suppression of human nature through force to conform to a political/spiritual ideal that can never be attained.

|12.28.07 @ 1:26PM|#

Yeah Joe but they both embrace the idea of collective responsibility. Under either regime you are condemed based upon what you are not who you are or have done. The hard left wants to eliminate the bourgouis. The hard right wants to eliminate the outside race or nationality. It is the same principle just applied to different classes of people.

Right, John. They are both collectivist and totalitarian, but in different ways.

One of them draws its inspiration from the right, and one from the left.

On both sides, those inspirations can lead to both totalitarian and non-totalitarian politics.

SIV|12.28.07 @ 1:28PM|#

How do the true, confessed fascists self-identify? As right-wing.
Mussolini originally identified as a leftist anarchist. Look at what they do -not what they say.In mid 20th Century Europe you wanted State Socialism separate from International Soviet Communism you had to make a distinction.
European traditions of "Right Wing" are much different from American ones as well.

|12.28.07 @ 1:31PM|#

"With someone like Huckabee; with someone who actually takes compassionate conservatism seriously, you've got this vision that the government can do anything it sets its mind to, and that the measure of good public policy is how much you care. That, to me, is a very scary turn of events in American politics."

Lawerence,

How is that not going after George Bush? Either Goldberg is saying that Bush doesn't take compasionate conversatism seriously and is a fraud or that he does and gets lumped in with Huckabee in the quote. That quote seems to me to be saying that compassionate conservatism is just as much fascist as modern liberalism.

I think your dislike of Goldberg for whatever reason, is clouding your opinion of the book.

R C Dean|12.28.07 @ 1:32PM|#

Wikipedia is crap on politically-controversial questions.

It can be. But I thought their brief summary re: definitions of fascism was pretty accurate.

Still waiting for that link to actual political historians citing your five essential elements, joe.

The desperation of lefty collectivists to avoid the epithet of "fascism" is more amusing than anything else, really. As so many have pointed out, the differences between "fascism" and the many flavors of more left-driven collectivism are mostly window dressing.

Can't dredge up the reference, but someone once said that it doesn't really matter if the jackboot is on the right foot or the left.

Dustin|12.28.07 @ 1:33PM|#

Yes, SIV, the European traditions of right-wing politics are different from American ones. They're far more authoritarian. And Mussolini's ideological starting point is irrelevant. Where did he end up, and what impulsed did he eventually act on? Nationalism. Imperialism. And although he was personally indifferent and at times antagonistic to the Catholic Church, he certainly lavished state support upon it.

Guy Montag|12.28.07 @ 1:34PM|#

SIV,

IIRC, Mussolini and his wife never formally married because (his reason) they were Communists at the time. I think that was a story from their daughter, but I am not sure where I read/saw it.

Also, George Orwell had a nice phrase that I never see anybody else use: "Right-wing Communists". Forgot who specifically he was referring to with that in Homage to Catalonia and other works, but it sounds quite apt whenever he uses it.

|12.28.07 @ 1:35PM|#

Extreme Nationalism: Woodrow Wilson-his pervasive wartime suppression of civil liberties makes Guantanamo look like a day camp. Not to mention FDR's concentration camps for Japanese Americans. Those were the actions of a wartime leader done for expediency, not ideology. He did nothing of the sort before World War One, nor advocated for it. No leftist background whatsoever. As a matter of fact, the biggest opponents of these actions were leftists.

Racism/Biological Determinism: Woodrow Wilson and Margaret Sanger--actually Jonah has a great chapter pointing out the deep leftwing roots of eugenics. Recall Oliver Wendell Holmes. Wilson actually introduced racial segregation to federal government employment. You're citing Johah Goldberg's book as evidence of the thesis of Jonah Goldberg's book? In reality, eugenics was a widely-embraced line of thinking across the spectrum. Noting that one leftist and one non-leftist Democrat adopted them proves nothing.

Militarism: Especially Woodrow Wilson and the coterie of leftist intellectuals at the early New Republic. Woodrow Wilson ran on an ideological opposition to war, and entered the war for the decidely non-leftist reason that we should support our culturally-akin allies.

Corporatist economics: Wilson and FDR. And Hindenberg, and Bismarck, and in many ways Hamilton. So?

Anti-leftism: To the extent that both advocate for state intervention in the economy and social life there isn't all that much difference. Translation: you've got here, so I'm going to change the subject from intellectual and ideological roots, blur the difference between the state supporting and attacking the power of the wealthy, and say the whole thing doesn't matter.

Dustin|12.28.07 @ 1:35PM|#

*impulses

Guy Montag|12.28.07 @ 1:37PM|#

RCD,

I think that link can be found in the written version of The Protocols of the Elders of the reason as distributed by the DNC.

|12.28.07 @ 1:38PM|#

SIV,

Mussolini originally identified as a leftist anarchist. Yes, and Ronald Reagan originally identified as a New Deal liberal. And then they converted.

Look at what they do -not what they say. What Mussolini did was use the state to back the power of corporations over their workers.

Hanging "kulaks" and hanging trade unionists demonstrate very different political views, even if both adopt state violence as the means to their ends.

|12.28.07 @ 1:39PM|#

The particular values that make facsism different from other totalitarianism are specifically rightist values

Like disarming Jews?

|12.28.07 @ 1:40PM|#

RC,

You're going to waiting a long time, then, since my notes and handouts from Dr. Sudarho aren't online.

Dustin|12.28.07 @ 1:40PM|#

Joe: ". . . the actions of a wartime leader done for expediency, not ideology."

Not that I'm disagreeing with your smackdown, but Goldberg et al. would give the same apologia for GWB. And frankly, I don't buy it in regards to Wilson.

|12.28.07 @ 1:42PM|#

Jamie Kelly,

Since disarming people is neither a value nor a difference between fascists and communists, I'd have to say, no. Or rather, No, of course not, please stop interrupting the people who are trying to have a serious discussion.

|12.28.07 @ 1:42PM|#

Mussolini originally identified as a leftist anarchist.

Since no one apparently read this when I posted it before, I'll do it again:

"Granted that the XIXth century was the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy, this does not mean that the XXth century must also be the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy. Political doctrines pass; nations remain. We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the 'right', a Fascist century. If the 19th century was the century of the individual (liberalism implies individualism) we are free to believe that this is the 'collective' century, and therefore the century of the State."

Don't make me use bold tags, people.

Also, I agree with the sentiment that fascism is right wing totalitarianism and communism is the left wing totalitarianism. Both can be totalitarians. The book is merely an excuse to bash the people that Jonah dislikes; the opposite book would be equally as stupid.

Episiarch|12.28.07 @ 1:43PM|#

The example of Mussolini switching ideologies is important here. It illustrates the point that the roots of totalitarianism are irrelevant. Getting there is what matters, so he picked the path that was most useful at the time.

Both left and right will still get you there, depending on the situation.

|12.28.07 @ 1:43PM|#

Joe, you seem to be using the far left's (specifically Soviet communism's) definition of "right" to support your claim that fascists were far right.

Guy Montag|12.28.07 @ 1:43PM|#

If any of the flaiming Leftists here pipes up that Mussolini shoved government money to corporations while leaving out that he nationalized almost the whole country and made himself head of all of the corporations can be ignored for their lack of genuine discourse.

Same with Mussolini and Hitler both forcing corporations to be the welfare state checkbook AND soup line.

|12.28.07 @ 1:43PM|#

Libertarianism 101:
The "right-left" analogies are grossly inept, and fail to take into account that there are only really two types of societies: Those that recognize and uphold individual and civil rights and those (*cough* fascism, totalitarianism) that don't.

Guy Montag|12.28.07 @ 1:44PM|#

RCD,

See? I told you they are not online :)

Dustin|12.28.07 @ 1:44PM|#

And suddenly, upon reflection, I'm a little confused. Is Goldberg arguing that fascism is fundamentally liberal (since he thinks liberalism a bad thing) or that liberalism is fundamentally fascist?

|12.28.07 @ 1:45PM|#

Dustin,

The differences between what I wrote, and what Goldberg has written, are two:

First, I wasn't defending Wilson's actions.

Second, Goldberg doesn't discuss the intrusions into our civil liberties as the exigencies of war, but as the proper sphere of government at all times. Wilson didn't advocate for mass imprisonments and the like before the war, while everything in the Patriot Act, for example, was on National Review's wish list before 9/11.

|12.28.07 @ 1:45PM|#

I'd posit that the viciousness of the infighting between fascists and communists was partly due to the fact that they were going after the same constituent class: the urban proletariat.

|12.28.07 @ 1:45PM|#

Any really good totalitarian society begins with leftist impulses carried out by hypernationalists.

|12.28.07 @ 1:48PM|#

anon,

If you are saying that free-minds-free-markets is distinct from corporatist security-statism, I agree. I do not count the former as "the Right," for two reasons: the statist model has been overwhelmingly more common throughout history, and anarchist/anti-government leftism has been no less common than anarchist/anti-government rightism.

I am NOT trying to make the point that libertarianism is akin to rightism.

Dustin|12.28.07 @ 1:50PM|#

Joe,

Thanks for the clarification. And I figured you weren't defending, just explaining.

I only know the review by reputation, and can't claim to have ever actually read it. But I've heard that Buckley himself is pretty disgusted with the current lot.

Guy Montag|12.28.07 @ 1:50PM|#

Episiarch,

He was a Leftist Anarchist, for some time a Communist (IIRC) and then a National Socialist.

I am not seeing where he "switched ideology", he stayed with the far Left the whole time. National Socialism did not get a "bad name" with the Left until Hitler attacked Stalin.

|12.28.07 @ 1:51PM|#

Anon,

Anon | December 28, 2007, 1:45pm | #

I'd posit that the viciousness of the infighting between fascists and communists was partly due to the fact that they were going after the same constituent class: the urban proletariat.

You would be wrong. Naziism drew its support mainly from the middle classes, especially the petit bourgeoisie. Hitler added the word "socialist" to the name of the party specifically because he realized he need to make propaganda efforts to attract the working class to his movement, as its core ideology was so opposed to that of the socialism they overwhelmingly supported.

Guy Montag|12.28.07 @ 1:52PM|#

OMG this is getting too funny.

|12.28.07 @ 1:53PM|#

National Socialism did not get a "bad name" with the Left until Hitler attacked Stalin.

Guy Montag has never heard of the Spanish Civil War, and would lecture us on fascism.

BTW, where were the anarchists in that fight, again?

Episiarch|12.28.07 @ 1:53PM|#

Guy, I think it's pretty clear that I am not interested in distinctions between left and right. The desire to control people is the same. When I said "switched ideologies" I meant going from Communist to National Socialist/Fascist.

|12.28.07 @ 1:53PM|#

Yes, this is indeed getting funny.

Lord knows the left never had a problem with fascists before 1941.

|12.28.07 @ 1:55PM|#

Joe,
You are having such a terrible time admitting that good old-fashioned leftist thought contains many of the seeds of fascism that, well, I feel sorry for you.

|12.28.07 @ 1:55PM|#

Episiarch,

If somebody put out a widely-read book that said you could only get food poisoning from eating raw beef, and not from raw chicken, would you consider it unimportant to correct him?

|12.28.07 @ 1:56PM|#

Jamie K,

I couldn't help but notice that you haven't made any arguments.

Do you know the difference between an argument and an assertion?

Plainly not.

Guy Montag|12.28.07 @ 1:56PM|#

Guy, I think it's pretty clear that I am not interested in distinctions between left and right. The desire to control people is the same. When I said "switched ideologies" I meant going from Communist to National Socialist/Fascist.

I was not really accusing you of anything, I was just saying something similar but different.

|12.28.07 @ 1:58PM|#

To me, whether the impulse is from the "left" or "right" (again with the inept analogy), the desire to control, purify, cleanse, protect, contain, steer, monitor and herd individuals in the name of "society" or "the state" is the heart of fascism.
Hey Joe! It comes from the "left," too!

|12.28.07 @ 2:00PM|#

There's my argument, joe, you bagga doucha.

SIV|12.28.07 @ 2:00PM|#

BTW, where were the anarchists in that fight, again?

joe,

IIRC they were getting betrayed and massacred by the (Stalinist) Leftists

|12.28.07 @ 2:02PM|#

The big differences between any kind of comparison between social democratic "liberalism" and fascism/totalitarianism/whatever are the lack of state control of all media and opinion and the fact that social democracy is still fundamentally democratic and not led by a national leader or party that was maybe chosen in one election.

Episiarch|12.28.07 @ 2:02PM|#

If somebody put out a widely-read book that said you could only get food poisoning from eating raw beef, and not from raw chicken, would you consider it unimportant to correct him?

I am doing just that, joe. I think this book is as stupid as you do, because it's trying to pin "fascism" on the left and only the left.

Where we differ is that you think fascism is solely a product of the right, which to me is as ridiculous as Goldberg's assertion that it is solely a product of the left.

Sulla|12.28.07 @ 2:02PM|#

The "left" (to the extent it was a true entity) was very unhappy with national socialism during the Spanish Civil War, but didn't they change their opinions when the Hitler-Stalin non-agression pact came about, then once again when Hitler attached the Soviet Union?

SIV|12.28.07 @ 2:04PM|#

Mussolini originally identified as a leftist anarchist.

The lame wiki entry only has him as a child of socialists, a socilaist party member and a socialist journalist before he "switched" to an authoritarian State Socialist. I believe he identified as a "Socialist anarchist" while writing for the newspaper.

|12.28.07 @ 2:05PM|#

I move to eliminate the word 'fascism' from common usage. I philosophically object to the left having claimed liberalism as a name for their preferred state of high regulation, but I accept that I've lost that fight.

Similarly, 'fascism' long ago stopped having any meaning other than 'what my opponent favors that I find too onerous'. Since all modern political movements involve the police, some form of flag waving, some use for the military, and so forth, everyone is a fascist. Whee!

j|12.28.07 @ 2:05PM|#

Dr. Sudarho?

R C Dean|12.28.07 @ 2:06PM|#

If somebody put out a widely-read book that said you could only get food poisoning from eating raw beef, and not from raw chicken, would you consider it unimportant to correct him?

Whoa. Did JG actually say that fascist governments only arise from the left, and that you could never get fascism from a rightist?

Sulla|12.28.07 @ 2:09PM|#

I move to eliminate the word 'fascism' from common usage.

I agree - as a practical matter, the way people throw around political labels these days, the only difference between "communism" and "fascism" is that (almost) nobody claims fascism was a great idea in theory and we've never seen a truly fascist state.

|12.28.07 @ 2:10PM|#

I move to eliminate the word 'fascism' from common usage.

Joetopia?

|12.28.07 @ 2:10PM|#

Jamie Kelly,

Hey Joe! It comes from the "left," too!

When have I ever said otherwise?

You see that word at the end of your sentence? "Too?" That means, "also." It modifies your sentence to mean that "it," being totalitarianism, come from both left and right.

I agree with that statement. Jonah Goldberg does not. He recently wrote this book, you see, arguing that there is no such thing as rightist totalitarianism, and that "it" comes only from the left.

Take it up Jonah Goldberg.

|12.28.07 @ 2:11PM|#

I keed, I keeeeeeeeed.

Episiarch|12.28.07 @ 2:11PM|#

I move to eliminate the word 'fascism' from common usage.

Totalitarian works just fine. That way we can avoid the squabbling about whose ideology led to a particular form of it.

|12.28.07 @ 2:12PM|#

I agree with that statement. Jonah Goldberg does not. He recently wrote this book, you see, arguing that there is no such thing as rightist totalitarianism.

And therefore I disagree with Mr. Goldberg.

|12.28.07 @ 2:12PM|#

SIV,

Yes, the leftist anarchists were betrayed by their allies, the leftist Stalinists, while they fought together against the rightist fascists. They would have to be, in order for them to be "betrayed" by "allies."

Thanks for the assist.

Brandybuck|12.28.07 @ 2:12PM|#

Fascism is leftist. As such it's much closer to progressivism than conservatism.

The political left and right can be distinguished primarily in their attitudes towards property. The left is distrustful of private property while the right encourages it. Fascism is the indirect control of property by the state; property "mobilized" for the use of the state. Private ownership was not condemned (as in socialism) but the owners were definitely not trusted to act in the best interest of the greater good without directions from the state. Examples of fascism include Nazi Germany, Mussolini's Italy, and <gasp> FDR's wartime USA.

The reason people think of fascism as being on the right side of the spectrum, is that it allows for the accumulation of wealth of capital. But anything short of pure Marxism allows for that as well.

|12.28.07 @ 2:13PM|#

What determines if a position is right or left? Is the more interventionist a government is, the more to the left it is and the less interventionist a government is, the more to the right it is? If that's the case, I would think that fascism is "left" in the direction of socialism.

Tacos mmm...|12.28.07 @ 2:13PM|#

With the exception of anti-communism and possibly corporatism, that all strikes me as pretty consistent with most flavors of leftism.

What, did you miss the phrase "POLITICAL and economic liberalism" in there? And since when has militarism been a major part of the political left?

|12.28.07 @ 2:14PM|#

Also, having not read the book, you see, joe, I don't know if it's the case that Goldberg actually argues that fascism cannot arise from the right. My guess is that he's making the case for liberal fascism because most people think of "liberal" as the antithesis of totalitarian.

|12.28.07 @ 2:14PM|#

Episiarch,

Where we differ is that you think fascism is solely a product of the right, which to me is as ridiculous as Goldberg's assertion that it is solely a product of the left.

Fascism comes solely from the right, as fascism is rightist totalitarianism.

Communism comes solely from the left, as communism is leftist totalitarianism.

Are you making the mistake of thinking that "fascism" is a synonym for "totalitarianism," rather than a subset?

SIV|12.28.07 @ 2:14PM|#

Rattlesnake Jake,

I would agree with that in regards to American right wing ideology.

|12.28.07 @ 2:16PM|#

Jamie Kelly,

And therefore I disagree with Mr. Goldberg.

..and agree with me.

J,

I might have the spelling wrong. Head (or former head) of the Political Science Department at The George Washington University.

You'll have to forgive me, as Al Gore hadn't invented teh intertubez in 1992.

|12.28.07 @ 2:16PM|#

Brandybuck's analysis is better than mine.

|12.28.07 @ 2:16PM|#

What determines if a position is right or left? Is the more interventionist a government is, the more to the left it is and the less interventionist a government is, the more to the right it is?

Remember the Nolan Graph! Remember the Nolan Graph!

VM|12.28.07 @ 2:16PM|#

joe-

example of what you're saying: Spanish Civil war, where the one side was supported by the USSR while the other by Nazi Germany?

SIV|12.28.07 @ 2:17PM|#

Fascism comes solely from the right, as fascism is rightist totalitarianism.

joe,

See Mussolini, the socialist who invented fascism. Looks like it came from the left!

|12.28.07 @ 2:17PM|#

Sulla,

The CPUSA changed its stance after the Hitler-Stalin pact. That was the main reason why membership dropped so dramatically in the late 30s and early 40s.

More important, most liberals never supported the fascists, before, during, or after the Nazi-Soviet pact.

Episiarch|12.28.07 @ 2:17PM|#

Yes, the leftist anarchists were betrayed by their allies, the leftist Stalinists, while they fought together against the rightist fascists. They would have to be, in order for them to be "betrayed" by "allies."

Whoa, here. The Republican alliance was composed of very different groups, ranging from secessionists to communists to anarchists to even libertarians. They were against a slightly more monolithic Nationalist alliance of monarchists, Catholics, and fascists.

Most of these groups were allied for common interests only. For instance, Catalon separatists joined the Republicans because they said secession was a possibility upon victory.

Timothy|12.28.07 @ 2:17PM|#

Didn't this already get published by Anne Coulter with the title "Treason"?

|12.28.07 @ 2:18PM|#

And since when has militarism been a major part of the political left?

Since the dawn of the left.

|12.28.07 @ 2:20PM|#

SIV,

Then Reaganism came from the New Deal.

I don't think individual personalities, completely separated from their ideological beliefs, are a good way to understand the theoretical underpinnings of political ideologies.

|12.28.07 @ 2:21PM|#

Jamie Kelly,

You don't understand the definition of "militarism," either.

It doesn't mean "the willingness to use force."

Tacos mmm...|12.28.07 @ 2:21PM|#

The hard left wants to eliminate the bourgouis. The hard right wants to eliminate the outside race or nationality. It is the same principle just applied to different classes of people.

"Fascism" is right-wing collectivism, "communism" is left-wing collectivism. Both are authoritarian and oppressive to the individual, but with a different ideological basis. Really, though, these are both 20th century poltical constructs that are becoming progressively less applicable. Still, the book sounds like garbage.

Episiarch|12.28.07 @ 2:23PM|#

Are you making the mistake of thinking that "fascism" is a synonym for "totalitarianism," rather than a subset?

It is not a "subset", it is a different flavor. Both Fascism and Communism are totalitarian. Kind of like a Porsche and a Mercedes--they're both cars, and have all the same basic car features. While they have slightly different options, this in no way changes the fact that they are cars.

|12.28.07 @ 2:24PM|#

Ultimately, "right-wing" and "left-wing" are stupid descriptors, as is "political spectrum."

Guy Montag|12.28.07 @ 2:25PM|#

The big differences between any kind of comparison between social democratic "liberalism" and fascism/totalitarianism/whatever are the lack of state control of all media and opinion and the fact that social democracy is still fundamentally democratic and not led by a national leader or party that was maybe chosen in one election.


Thus the resurgance of the "Fairness Doctrine" to bring the sliver of media not controlled by the Left under 'Donkiests' control. But they are not National Socialists? BAHAHAHA!

|12.28.07 @ 2:27PM|#

I'll give joe an example that he won't like:
Welfare is fascism.
Pure and simple. Money extorted by the government from individuals to benefit "society," far outside the purview of what government's role is protecting individual rights.
Granted, it's not the degree of fascism that will lead to gas chambers ... but it's still fascism.
So is the local parking commission.
Yeah, I said it.

|12.28.07 @ 2:27PM|#

OK, flavor. No one is questioning that they are both totalitarian, but that is not the only issue.

You say that people who wish to avoid totalitarianism need only avoid people and movements that call for a strong state to push people around.

Karl Marx defined the strong state pushing people around as a tool of the capitalists, and called for the elimination of the state, and we all know how that turned out.

Fascism, and other political ideologies, are not merely an undifferentiated mass of "anti-libertarianism." They have their own specific characteristics and logic, and you need to understand what they are to recognize them, especially in their infant state.

Guy Montag|12.28.07 @ 2:28PM|#

And since when has militarism been a major part of the political left?

Since before the Red Army, maybe even before the Red/Black alliance.

|12.28.07 @ 2:28PM|#

Jamie Kelly,

The first welfare state was set up by Bismarck.

Collecting taxes to fund society-wide benefits has been done by governments left, right, and center.

SIV|12.28.07 @ 2:29PM|#

"Fascism" is right-wing collectivism

Right wing collectivism is about as common as left wing individualism.

|12.28.07 @ 2:29PM|#

Collecting taxes to fund society-wide benefits has been done by governments left, right, and center.

Still don't make it NOT fascism.

Tacos mmm...|12.28.07 @ 2:30PM|#

Because things aren't nearly confusing enough:

http://interglacial.com/~sburke/pub/Umberto_Eco_-_Eternal_Fascism.html

Episiarch|12.28.07 @ 2:30PM|#

They have their own specific characteristics and logic, and you need to understand what they are to recognize them, especially in their infant state.

All you need to see is the desire to force people to behave certain ways. Since all ideologies besides libertarianism do this, they are, to all intents and purposes, a mass of anti-libertarianism.

|12.28.07 @ 2:30PM|#

Ummm...Papal States. Feudalism. Louis XIV. Imperial Japan. Pharonic Egypt. The Taliban.

Right-wing collectivism is very, very common throughout history.

Guy Montag|12.28.07 @ 2:32PM|#

Where do "Boss" Tweed and the Honerable Mayor Richard Joseph Daley (39th Mayor of Chicago) fit into all of this?

|12.28.07 @ 2:33PM|#

Where do "Boss" Tweed and the Honerable Mayor Richard Joseph Daley (39th Mayor of Chicago) fit into all of this?

They're kind of the gooey center of the shit sandwich.

|12.28.07 @ 2:33PM|#

You can actually read some excerpts (scans, mostly) here. Along with some commentary by the bloggers that you or may not agree with (left wing site).

dhex|12.28.07 @ 2:33PM|#

wait wait wait

is that cover for real?

Right wing collectivism is about as common as left wing individualism.

yup no religious collectivism in america. thank goodness!

Sulla|12.28.07 @ 2:33PM|#

Sulla,

The CPUSA changed its stance after the Hitler-Stalin pact. That was the main reason why membership dropped so dramatically in the late 30s and early 40s.

I was focusing on the "left," I think there is a huge difference, particularly in the U.S. between the "left" and "liberals." I guess what I really meant was the "hard left," not everyone on the left side of the spectrum. I have not read the book or listened to the podcast yet (I'm at work), but if Golderg is making substantive comparisons between fascists and most liberals in the U.S., then he better have some much more compelling evidence and arguments than Mussolini was a socialist while growing up.

|12.28.07 @ 2:33PM|#

Episiarch,

The Communist Manifesto is an anti-government, anti-force document that denounces using force to get people to behave in certain ways, and goes on in lyrical ecstasy about how they would behave if allowed to pursue their own desires free from outside force.

Everybody talks about how free they want people to be, and everybody accuses everyone else of pushing people around.

Guy Montag|12.28.07 @ 2:34PM|#

OT: I just heard that William F. Buckley, Jr. will be on the Charlie Rose show tonight.

|12.28.07 @ 2:34PM|#

Richard M. Daley has to be the closest thing to a fascist mayor in the history of the United States. Read "Boss" by Royko.
Good ol' Democrat, too, joe.

|12.28.07 @ 2:35PM|#

Guy,

Where do "Boss" Tweed and the Honerable Mayor Richard Joseph Daley (39th Mayor of Chicago) fit into all of this?

I'd say that the machine politics you talk about are pragmatic efforts to remain in power, and don't have much of an ideological component.

If Richard Daley could have been Mayor for Life by acting like Ludwig von Mises, he would have done so.

|12.28.07 @ 2:36PM|#

"I don't think individual personalities, completely separated from their ideological beliefs, are a good way to understand the theoretical underpinnings of political ideologies."

I'm not sure I agree. Most ideologies these days aren't ideologies except in hindsight. At the time, they are responses to current events. They are panders to voters. They are disparate proposals in the face of conflict or disaster or economic distress. The ideology part is really post hoc marketing to create group cohesion - its a way to justify the particular panders you have made.

It's actually for this reason that I think it's a mistake for people to go to the 'roots' of an ideology and see which modern label applies. Modern labels aren't the same thing as their forebears. Liberal doesn't mean what liberal used to mean. Conservative doesn't mean what it used to mean. Simple set theory tells you that the best way to include everyone in your group is to define yourself as Not Something Bad.

For a long time conservatives were more Not Communist than liberals were, but before that, liberals did just fine. Not Fascist doesn't come up very often because there is no modern threat of honest to golly fascism. People use it because it's an easy bogeyman to set yourself in opposition to.

Tacos mmm...|12.28.07 @ 2:36PM|#

The political left and right can be distinguished primarily in their attitudes towards property. The left is distrustful of private property while the right encourages it.

No, it's conservatism that has traditionally encouraged private property rights. Conservatism is not the totality of right-wing political philosophy, which frequently includes frankly non-conservative components, such as militarism and statism. There are more than a few a few right-wing politicians (like Huckabee) who are not conservative in the least.

To put it more simply, "right wing" is a list of political philosphies that generally, but not always, coincide. "Conservatism" is a specific political philosophy that is variably a component of right-wing politics. "Fascism" is a totalitarian, collectivist ideology with a basis philosophies that generally cluster witin the right-wing of political thought, such as statism, corporatism and militarism. Got it all?

|12.28.07 @ 2:37PM|#

Jamie,

He was a Democratic, but he was no liberal.

He sent the police against the liberals, remember?

You need to get over this partisan thing - especially before the 80s, it's of very little use in understanding left vs. right.

Guy Montag|12.28.07 @ 2:37PM|#

BTW, the US Military attracts/grows no shortage of Leftists. Just look at the last failed presidential candidate General, Wesley Clark (now a FOX news contributor) who spent a whole campaign quoting the Communist Manifesto as the 'values' that our country was founded on.

I have run into a ton of them besides him.

|12.28.07 @ 2:38PM|#

The Communist Manifesto is an anti-government, anti-force document that denounces using force to get people to behave in certain ways, and goes on in lyrical ecstasy about how they would behave if allowed to pursue their own desires free from outside force.

Wax eloquent all you want on that document of death, joe. It all led to the point of a gun. Besides "Mein Kampf" and the teachings of the Catholic church, it's the most anti-libertarian screed in history.

SIV|12.28.07 @ 2:39PM|#

Ummm...Papal States. Feudalism. Louis XIV. Imperial Japan. Pharonic Egypt. The Taliban.

Right-wing collectivism is very, very common throughout history.


Wow joe, I guess in joe-deology castor oil, liver and spinach are all "right wing".

|12.28.07 @ 2:40PM|#

Jamie Kelly,

It all led to the point of a gun.

That's my point, and my rebuttal to Episiarch's point that we can recognize the roots of totalitarianism by whether a figure or movement says good things about freedom and bad things about oppression.

That's two assists now. Mucho gracias.

|12.28.07 @ 2:41PM|#

You need to get over this partisan thing

Still waiting for my libertarian Democrat, joe. Still waiting. :-)

Guy Montag|12.28.07 @ 2:41PM|#

Jamie,

If any of the Leftoids bring up the 1968 Democrat National Convention, it was closed-shop union cops who voted almost 100% Democrat who were 'tuning up' the Marxist college students in the streets.

Left on Left, just like the Spanish Civil War and WWII.

MCW|12.28.07 @ 2:41PM|#

Fascism is when the government is subservient to corporate, capitalist interests. Sound familiar? Its America circa 2008.

|12.28.07 @ 2:42PM|#

And it's "muchas gracias," joe.
You know, if you're going to live in a pluralistic society, at least learn the rudiments of them other languages.
:-)

|12.28.07 @ 2:43PM|#

Oh fuck, MCW, don't you have children to molest or something? The big kids are playing here.
Go away.

|12.28.07 @ 2:47PM|#

No, one aspect of fascism is when the government cooperates with corporate, capitalist interests. It's called Corporatism. Some of the actions of the Nazis demonstrate quite well how it works.

'...Hitler decreed alaw bringing an end to collective bargaining (I guess he was a right-to-work kind of guy)...Ley promised "to restore absolute leadership to the natural leader of a factory - that is, the employer...'Only the employer can decide. Many employers have for years had to call for the 'master in the house.' Now they are once again to be called the 'master in the house.'" - Shirer, William, "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, pp 282-283.

"Earlier, the Law Regulating National Labor of January 20, 1934, known as the 'Charter of Labor,' had put the worker in his place and raised the employer to his position as aboslute master...The employer became the 'Leader of the Enterprise,' the employees the "following," or Gefosgschaft. Paragraph Two of the law set down that the 'leader of the enterprise makes the decisions for the employees and laborers in all matters concerning the enterprise.'" - Ibid, p. 363

Those darn socialists, with their application of the Fuhrer Principle to business owners!

Episiarch|12.28.07 @ 2:47PM|#

That's my point, and my rebuttal to Episiarch's point that we can recognize the roots of totalitarianism by whether a figure or movement says good things about freedom and bad things about oppression.

Not what they say, joe. What they do.

|12.28.07 @ 2:47PM|#

Jamie Kelly,

Speak mangled Spanish or dei!

Episiarch|12.28.07 @ 2:48PM|#

Por que no te callas!

|12.28.07 @ 2:49PM|#

Episiarch,

What they do? The American Revolutionaries tarred and feathered people, confiscated their farms to give to political allies, and conducted all sorts of other thuggishness - not because of their ideology, but because of the exigencies of war.

MCW|12.28.07 @ 2:49PM|#

Hitler was a right winger and not amount of wingnut revisionism can change that basic fact.

Simialrities between Hitler and the wingnuts:

1) Aggressive wars

2) Corporate control

3) Racism

4) Patriarchy

5) Heterosexism

|12.28.07 @ 2:51PM|#

Dime liberdad o dime la muerta!

Guy Montag|12.28.07 @ 2:51PM|#

MCW,

Wanna expand on that 'heterosexism' bit after you read up on who the Brown Shirts really were and where they went?

Episiarch|12.28.07 @ 2:52PM|#

not because of their ideology, but because of the exigencies of war.

Well, yeah--it was war (for independence). I'm talking about political ideologies advertising themselves in peacetime.

MCW|12.28.07 @ 2:52PM|#

"Wanna expand on that 'heterosexism' bit after you read up on who the Brown Shirts really were and where they went?"

Ernst Rohm was executed for being homosexual, and homosexuals were exterminated in the holocaust as one of the persecuted groups.

|12.28.07 @ 2:53PM|#

1) Aggressive wars
We're against it.

2) Corporate control
We're against it.

3) Racism
We're against it.

4) Patriarchy
We're against it.

5) Heterosexism
We're against it.

And yet, most of us are capitalists. Funny that.

rho|12.28.07 @ 2:54PM|#

Remember when some NRO-types got all exercised over Ron Paul's "when fascism comes to America" quip? This book is released at exactly the right time.

Guy Montag|12.28.07 @ 2:54PM|#

Racism? Is someone under the impression that there was a "Dixiepublican" party during the 1950s?

The Soviets were "right wing" with their agressive wars?

The Kennedys are "right wing"?

Wow, the things you learn around here!

Episiarch|12.28.07 @ 2:54PM|#

5) Heterosexism

OK, whoever is doing MCW, that is damn funny. But I think you just ruined your cover as possibly being real.

|12.28.07 @ 2:55PM|#

"...Hitler decreed alaw bringing an end to collective bargaining (I guess he was a right-to-work kind of guy)...Ley promised "to restore absolute leadership to the natural leader of a factory - that is, the employer...'Only the employer can decide. Many employers have for years had to call for the 'master in the house.' Now they are once again to be called the 'master in the house.'" - Shirer, William, "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, pp 282-283."

Joe,

It is illegal to even speak to another person about forming a union in Cuba. Yes, Hitler took power away from the workers and gave it to the employers that Hitler controlled. I don't see how that is any different than communism. Yes, the industries were not state owned, but they were certainly state controlled.

Episiarch|12.28.07 @ 2:56PM|#

5) Heterosexism
We're against it.

Speak for yourself, maricone.

|12.28.07 @ 2:57PM|#

"The Kennedys are "right wing"?"

Well, John Kennedy campained on ending the missile gap with the Soviets, cut the top tax rate by a ton, used the CIA to sponsor a coup to overthrow a democraticlly elected government in South Vietnam, and damn near started a nuclear war with the Soviets over the Cuban missile crisis.

Margaret Sanger|12.28.07 @ 2:57PM|#

and homosexuals were exterminated in the holocaust as one of the persecuted groups.

Progressives believe that homosexuality is genetic.

|12.28.07 @ 2:57PM|#

And Robert Kennedy ran illegal wire taps on Martin Luther King.

Guy Montag|12.28.07 @ 3:00PM|#

Ernst Rohm was executed for being homosexual, and homosexuals were exterminated in the holocaust as one of the persecuted groups.

ROFLMAO!!! Rohm was arrested and executed when the Brown Shirts were no longer needed by Hitler to intimidate opponents and he negotiated that his 'troops' be given positions in the Army and in the SS before his execution. All of his troops, including the majority homosexual ones. Homosexuality was just a tag to execute political opponents, not a general rounding up of anybody homosexual.

Might want to read the book Hitler's Jews for a better perspective on the Jewish stuff too, or at least catch the author on C-SPAN. Many a Jewish family was saved by their Iron Cross awardee young men on leave from the front by simply walking into the relocation offices in full dress uniform and asking the officials where they were sending his family.

alan|12.28.07 @ 3:03PM|#

This quote is attributed to Goering,

http://books.google.com/books?id=jrVW9W9eiYMC&pg=PA947-IA14&lpg=PA947-IA14&dq=our+movement+took+a+grip+on+cowardly+marxism+and+from+it+extracted+the+meaning+of+socialism&source=web&ots=NxJwAvFZJG&sig=9eQJRvMDkFeSutR_IEZZSqE45d4#PPA952,M1

and I personally like to tweak liberals with it, by noting that it is the original, undiluted Third Way:

"Our movement took a grip on cowardly Marxism and from it extracted the meaning of socialism. It also took from the cowardly middle-class parties their nationalism. Throwing both into the cauldron of our way of life there emerged, as clear as a crystal, the synthesis: German National Socialism." -- Hermann Goering, the Sports Palast,

More seriously though, the Norman Davis book is an interesting source on the subject matter of this thread. You'll find he discusses the origins of both Fascism and Communism in modern democratic movements, as when he quotes from José Ortega y Gasset that with democracy you derive the tyranny of the majority. Both communist and fascist attempt in rhetorical terms to appeal to the broad sentiments of the majority either in nativist terms or to their sense of being victim in the class struggle.

We are fortunate in America to have had our founding fathers who saw the potential abuses that majoritarian rule can lead without strict limitations on power, hence Europe and Asia were the main victims of Totalitarianism of the right and left varieties throughout the Twentieth Century.

It seems though, our politicians find
our political system to be too confining for their ambitions, be it, Bush's unified executive, Hillary's 'million ideas', or Edwards in general.

Guy Montag|12.28.07 @ 3:04PM|#

And Robert Kennedy ran illegal wire taps on Martin Luther King.

I am not sure that they were, or should have been, illegal. I do suspect that they were the result of other information that some of Dr. King's advisors were in the employ of the Soviet Union, but I have seen nothing to convince me that Dr. King knew of that aspect of the advisors.

MCW|12.28.07 @ 3:05PM|#

Guy-

From Wikipedia:

"Estimates vary wildly as to the number of gay men killed in concentration camps during the Holocaust ranging from 5,000 to 15,000. Larger numbers include those who were Jewish and gay, or even Jewish, gay, and communist. In addition, records as to the specific reasons for internment are non-existent in many areas, making it hard to put an exact number on just how many gay men perished in death camps. See pink triangle.

Gay men suffered unusually cruel treatment in the concentration camps. They faced persecution not only from German soldiers but also from other prisoners, and many gay men were beaten to death. Additionally, gay men in forced labor camps routinely received more grueling and dangerous work assignments than other non-Jewish inmates, under the policy of "Extermination Through Work". SS soldiers also were known to use gay men for target practice, aiming their weapons at the pink triangles their human targets were forced to wear."

There was clearly a persecution of homosexuals in Nazi Germany. And the wingnuts in this country would do the same if they could.

|12.28.07 @ 3:05PM|#

Guy,

There is a DVD called "Eichmann in Jerusalem". It is footage of Eichmann's trial that was broadcast on Israeli TV. It makes for compelling viewing to say that least. One of the most compelling parts involves the testimony of a Jew who was a member of a Jewish Committee in Holland. These committees acted as liaisons between the Jews in the ghetto and the authorities. They also provided names for people to be deported. Literally the authorities would tell the committees "we need a hundred people to be deported next week" and the committees would produce the names and the bodies. The committee member testifying swore that they had no idea that those deported were going to their deaths. At this point, someone from the audience stands up and charges the podium screaming "you saved yourselves and your families and sent us to death!". The guards have to restrain the man and take him out of courtroom. There was a lot of collaboration going on during the holocaust.

|12.28.07 @ 3:05PM|#

You know what I just thought about?. That on most other blogs, commenters like MCW are numerous and, on some blogs, in the majority. But here, this type of idiot is quite rare. This thread gets its share of wierdos - and we all differ as to who the wierdos are - but the comments thread equivalents of Islamic Rage Boy (Comments Rage Boy? Commentsrageboi?) don't come around here too often.

alan|12.28.07 @ 3:08PM|#

whoops, sorry about that -- I didn't realize the URL was as long as War and Peace when I copied it.

The book is Europe: A Hiistory by Norman Davies. A decent snippet can be found on Google Books.

|12.28.07 @ 3:08PM|#

Stubby,

Don't forget the infamous Jersey McJones.

What you were thinking|12.28.07 @ 3:08PM|#

MCW calling others a wingnut. That's priceless!

|12.28.07 @ 3:10PM|#

Wanna expand on that 'heterosexism' bit after you read up on who the Brown Shirts really were and where they went?

Actually, one of Goldberg's implied arguments (in my reading from the quotes cited on Sadly, No) is that fascism is an inherently left wing phenomena because there were so many homosexauls Nazis because, nowadays, most homosexuals idently as left wing.

Bonus! The lolcat pic on the lnik is from Cats That Look Like Hitler!

VM|12.28.07 @ 3:11PM|#

MCW: are you thinking of organized, sanctioned, institutionalized Matthew Sheppard treatments? Or extra legal like 11/9 in Germany/Austria or lynchings?

Guy Montag|12.28.07 @ 3:12PM|#

MCW,

I don't doubt what you say is based in fact, but denying the fact that Hitler knowingly incorporated a majority homosexual group as his not-so-secret police and then into his military is just silly. It is as silly as the notion that every Confederate soldier went off to battle dragging a slave on a leash.

Also, denying the fact that Jews were subject to conscription throughout it's practice under Hitler, rather than being segregated out and sent to the camps, is equally silly.

None of these facts deminishes the assaults on homosexuals, Jews and others, but they are facts that refute the notion that every single person discovered posessing these qualities was turned into a lampshade.

From The Keystrokes of John Q.|12.28.07 @ 3:14PM|#

*Puts Hand Up* OOoo oo me me!

"Anti-individualistic, the Fascist conception of life stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual only insofar as his interests coincide with those of the State"~ Mussolini

"Liberty is not a right but a duty... the individual, left to himself, unless he be a saint or a hero, always refuses to pay taxes, obey laws or go to war."~ Middle Class Worker...err.. Mussolini

"Economic initiatives cannot be left to the arbitrary decisions of private, individual interests. Open competition, if not wisely directed and restricted, actually destroys wealth instead of creating it. The proper function of the State in the Fascist system in that of supervising,regulating and arbitrating the relationships of capital and labor, employers and employees, individuals and associations, private interests and national interests. More important than the production of wealth is its right distribution, distribution which must benefit in the best possible way all the classes of the nation, hence, the nation itself. Private wealth belongs not only the individual, but, in a symbolic sense, to the State as well." Mario Palmieri's "The Philosophy of Fascism" (1936)

As is usually the case, Episarch summarized this beautifully. What it all comes down to is someone telling you how to live your life as they see fit and using the government as an instrument to do it!

Episiarch|12.28.07 @ 3:16PM|#

Bonus! The lolcat pic on the lnik is from Cats That Look Like Hitler!

Ha, the one on the car even looks like Hitler pausing during a speech.

|12.28.07 @ 3:16PM|#

If the nineteenth century was the century of the individual we are free to believe that this is the 'collective' century, and therefore the century of the State.

Thank you joe for making it clear that fascism is just a subset of socialism.

|12.28.07 @ 3:18PM|#

John Q.

The entire world both right and left believed that the market had to be controlled and centrally planned in the 1930s. That is one of the better points Goldberg seems to make. Roosevelt and the new dealers certainly were not murderers, but they made no secret of their admirmation for the economic policies of both Stalin and Hitler. We see all of this with the knowledge of how things turned out. At that time though, the educated opinion in the late 1930s was that Stalin and Hitler had both performed economic miracles for their populations and that central plannning was the only answer.

|12.28.07 @ 3:20PM|#

John,

Yes, Hitler took power away from the workers and gave it to the employers that Hitler controlled. I don't see how that is any different than communism.

It's very simple how they're different, John. One give that power to the wealthy industrialists that pre-existed the regime, and one seizes power from them.

From the pov of the workers, the experience is likely quite the same, but the dispute here not about whether the totalitarianism of the fascists is similar to that of communist regimes. The question is about their ideological roots.

|12.28.07 @ 3:20PM|#

There was clearly a persecution of homosexuals in Nazi Germany.

Bill Moyer persecuted homosexuals working for the Goldwater campaign.

Yup you are right democrats are fascists.

|12.28.07 @ 3:22PM|#

Joe,

I think the Palmeiri quote given by John Q Public goes a very long way to show that two really have the same roots.

|12.28.07 @ 3:24PM|#

If the nineteenth century was the century of the individual we are free to believe that this is the 'collective' century, and therefore the century of the State.

Thank you joe for making it clear that fascism is just a subset of socialism.

Third time I'm quoting this and everyone is ignoring it so this time I bold, people. You asked for it.

Full quote:

"Granted that the XIXth century was the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy, this does not mean that the XXth century must also be the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy. Political doctrines pass; nations remain. We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the 'right', a Fascist century. If the 19th century was the century of the individual (liberalism implies individualism) we are free to believe that this is the 'collective' century, and therefore the century of the State."

alan|12.28.07 @ 3:24PM|#

BTW Joe,

You may want to google, Der magyarische Kampf + Friedrich Engels

You'll find that leftist ideology and racism have held hands from the very beginning. Sure the sentiment is more noblesse oblige than genocidal
among the left today, but it is still there.

Sulla|12.28.07 @ 3:24PM|#

Dime liberdad o dime la muerta!

Brilliant!

|12.28.07 @ 3:24PM|#

Guy Montag writes,

ROFLMAO!!! Rohm was arrested and executed when the Brown Shirts were no longer needed by Hitler to intimidate opponents and he negotiated that his 'troops' be given positions in the Army and in the SS before his execution. All of his troops, including the majority homosexual ones. Homosexuality was just a tag to execute political opponents, not a general rounding up of anybody homosexual.

Quite right, but you also left out the part about Roehm being the leader of a genuinely socialist minority faction of the NSDAP, which urged the adoption of a number of leftist positions, such as the nationalization of industry and department stores.

Hitler was quite willing to use leftist imagery and rhetoric to bring leftists into the fold, but as Episiarch says, it's their actions that count. The Nazi political and ideological leaders demonstrated what they thought about leftism on the Night of the Long Knives.

VM|12.28.07 @ 3:25PM|#

Not sure which confirmation bias is funnier. The one hier, where there's the entrenched "can't say anything that could possibly mitigate my hatred of the left wing" or the gymnastics above where RP gave a creationist-style bullshit answer about evolution.

both are really entertaining.

Then HFCS boi in the California Mall one.

Happy days. And the Kitlers are fantastic!!

R C Dean|12.28.07 @ 3:27PM|#

The entire world both right and left believed that the market had to be controlled and centrally planned in the 1930s.

Actually, the Republicans and the Supreme Court (up until the famed "court-packing" incident) believed rather the contrary, and were consistently opposed to FDRs socialist experimentation.

Not sure about the Brits. Did they start down the socialist road before or after WWII? I had the impression it was after, but really don't know.

R C Dean|12.28.07 @ 3:29PM|#

Would anyone care to argue with the notion that it really doesn't matter if the jackboot is on the right foot or the left?

Or that the difference between rightist totalitarians and leftist totalitarians is mainly one of PR and political expediency?

R.C. Dean - a uniter, not a divider!

|12.28.07 @ 3:32PM|#

'...Hitler decreed alaw bringing an end to collective bargaining (I guess he was a right-to-work kind of guy)...Ley promised "to restore absolute leadership to the natural leader of a factory - that is, the employer...'Only the employer can decide. Many employers have for years had to call for the 'master in the house.' Now they are once again to be called the 'master in the house.'" - Shirer, William, "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, pp 282-283.

Hey joe please tell us how well collective bargaining faired in the gulag or during the great leap forward?

Funny that...the fascists ended unions just like the communists did.

You are putting your foot in your mouth in nearly every post you make today.

|12.28.07 @ 3:32PM|#

RC,

The American Right during that time is probably the loan exception to the statist loonacy that infected the rest of the world.

|12.28.07 @ 3:33PM|#

In liberal fascism, do the trains to WingNutzLand run on time?

|12.28.07 @ 3:33PM|#

John,

I think the Palmieri quote demonstrates your point quite well - that the belief in central planning in the mid-20th century was NOT aligned with either left or right. As opposed to today.

The every-amusing Guy Montag writes, denying the fact that Hitler knowingly incorporated a majority homosexual group as his not-so-secret police and then into his military is just silly.

Hitler wiped out the SD leadership, disbanded the organization, put the remaining membership under the control of the Reichsfuhrer SS, acceded to the old Prussian military's insistence that they be under the command of the existing military high command, and used anti-gay rhetoric to justify and build support for his purge - a purge, once again, that was carried out against an organization that was ideologically at odds with the antisocialist, corporatist ideology of the Nazi leadership.

|12.28.07 @ 3:33PM|#

Or that the difference between rightist totalitarians and leftist totalitarians is mainly one of PR and political expediency?

Yup that is joe...trying to shine up the dullness of the democrat's totalitarian ambitions

|12.28.07 @ 3:36PM|#

joshua corning, do try to keep up.

Thank you joe for making it clear that fascism is just a subset of socialism.

The debate here is whether collectivist beliefs of the fascists are a leftist or rightist phenomenon, not whether they had collectivist beliefs.

We're all discussing the best design for the Shuttles nose cone, and you're interrupting us to opine that objects heavier than air fall down.

Please go away, son.

|12.28.07 @ 3:36PM|#

Hi all: Has anyone had a chance to listen to the interview yet?

Tacos mmm...|12.28.07 @ 3:36PM|#

Wow joe, I guess in joe-deology castor oil, liver and spinach are all "right wing".

Ironically, olio di ricino was used as a weapon of torture and even murder by Mussonlini's blackshirts, who would use it to give their victims severely debilitating, if not fatal, cases of diarrhea. Castor oil continues to have strong associations with fascism even today.
I don't know about spinach and liver, but the answer for castor oil is a definite "yes." :)

|12.28.07 @ 3:37PM|#

a purge, once again, that was carried out against an organization that was ideologically at odds with the antisocialist, corporatist ideology of the Nazi leadership.

And Trotsky had an icepick put in his scull. Joe it is almost getting embarrassing watching you fail so badly.

What is your contention that unlike the fascists the communists didn't purge its own and therefor they are different?

|12.28.07 @ 3:38PM|#

alan,

Everybody was a racist, by today's standards, in the 1800s. The matter being discussed is about ideology, not the conventional beliefs that were held across the ideological spectrum.

You know, Engels thought the atom was the smallest unit of matter, too. This is incredibly important.

Guy Montag|12.28.07 @ 3:38PM|#

John,

Let's not forget the french, shipping trainloads of Jews to Germany without even being asked to do so.

I wonder what the German rail yard masters were saying when all of those unscheduled loads of people were showing up and ruining their timetables?

|12.28.07 @ 3:38PM|#

Hi all: Has anyone had a chance to listen to the interview yet?

I am at work...sound from my computer are only allowed after 5pm pacific.

Transcript?

|12.28.07 @ 3:40PM|#

corning, you fool,

Hey joe please tell us how well collective bargaining faired in the gulag or during the great leap forward?

1. Already answered.

2. Completely irrelevant.

You don't ever add anything to threads. You just make them worse. Leave us alone.

Episiarch|12.28.07 @ 3:41PM|#

Hi all: Has anyone had a chance to listen to the interview yet?

Can't; some of us work, you know. Unlike fat cat science writers.

|12.28.07 @ 3:41PM|#

The debate here is whether collectivist beliefs of the fascists are a leftist or rightist phenomenon, not whether they had collectivist beliefs.

No the debate is weather socialism and fascism is the same thing with different names.

Quack like a duck...etc

|12.28.07 @ 3:41PM|#

I love the fact that the opposition here is led by corning and Montag.

Love it.

It's a good way to know you're right.

|12.28.07 @ 3:44PM|#

"John,

Let's not forget the french, shipping trainloads of Jews to Germany without even being asked to do so.

I wonder what the German rail yard masters were saying when all of those unscheduled loads of people were showing up and ruining their timetables"

Yeah. I always point that fact out to Paleocons who give the old "Hitler would have taken care of himself and his empire would have collapsed like the Soviet Union did" line. Fascism was very popular, more popular than communism and Hitler had millions of collaborators.

Tacos mmm...|12.28.07 @ 3:45PM|#

Would anyone care to argue with the notion that it really doesn't matter if the jackboot is on the right foot or the left?

I would take that position, except that people like Goldburg would spin it and say "you don't need to worry about our authoritarian intentions... all the bad stuff really just comes from the left."

It's important to realize that authoritarianism can emerge from both ends of the political spectrum.

Guy Montag|12.28.07 @ 3:45PM|#

Dr. Bailey,

Hi all: Has anyone had a chance to listen to the interview yet?

I can't speak for those who have not answered, but it seems like most of us are busy laughing at the resident Leftists as they try to deny their roots.

Like JC, I must wait until I get home sometime after 1730, well later than that because my blood level of Foster's is dangerously low. If you wish to venture up to Champps at Pentagon Row and perform a live re-play there is a shot of Scotch in it for you :)

Guy Montag|12.28.07 @ 3:47PM|#

Authoritarianism is all Left boots, no matter which feet they are on.

|12.28.07 @ 3:48PM|#

RC Dean, you big unificator you,

Would anyone argue with the statement "We need to realize that they make jackboots for the right foot?"

Brandybuck|12.28.07 @ 3:49PM|#

Ummm...Papal States. Feudalism. Louis XIV. Imperial Japan. Pharonic Egypt. The Taliban.

But what makes those right wing? Several of them I would consider left wing. Without a definition of what is left and what is right, your pronouncements mean nothing. I've given you my definition, and it fits the modern usages. So where is yours?

|12.28.07 @ 3:49PM|#

Well, apparently, Guy Montag would argue with that.

Tacos mmm...|12.28.07 @ 3:50PM|#

No the debate is weather socialism and fascism is the same thing with different names.

They aren't. Fascism is statist, socialism is international. Fascists believe that the state should be the fundamental organization of human society, transcending class. Socialists believe that class is the fundamental unit, transcending nationality. A fascist would say that all frenchmen, worker and aristocrat, stand together by dint of their being French. A socialist would say that the French worker is more naturally allied to the British worker. Got it?

|12.28.07 @ 3:51PM|#

Brandybuck,

They are all traditionalist, theocratic, define power relations as ordained by God or nature, and hierarchical.

IE, rightist.

|12.28.07 @ 3:52PM|#

Anyway, I see I leave the sane side of the argument in good hands.

Bye for now.

Tacos mmm...|12.28.07 @ 3:54PM|#

But what makes those right wing? Several of them I would consider left wing. Without a definition of what is left and what is right, your pronouncements mean nothing. I've given you my definition, and it fits the modern usages. So where is yours?

Your definition was wrong, because it conflated "conservatism" with "right wing," and error I addressed earlier. The societies listed are right wing because they are largely monarchial, and monarchy is a right-wing political philosophy. In fact, it is the original right wing political philosophy. The term right-wing originated from the French Estates General and legislative assemblies, where the monarchists sat to the right of the President's chair.

Guy Montag|12.28.07 @ 3:58PM|#

In applied authoritarianism, the state decides that it is more efficient to make nothing but left boots and the humanaties departments of the world write papers and distribute grants for papers proving that this notion is so much more 'fair' than letting self-serving Corporate interests decide what sort of boots people should wear by their 'proven' methods of advertising until people buy the 'over-priced' boots and steal the money of the people for their Corporate profits.

Variations: National Socialists order corporations to make nothing but left boots, the range goes from the coercion of taxing non-left boots at a prohibitive rate to banning unapproved boots with threat of prison (corporate or public).

International Socialists nationalize the factories and put the finest poets in charge of the factories to produce nothing but state ordered left boots.

Liberal Arts departments decry the black-market of right boots as being more Capitalist profiteering, while making sure to grant fellowships to the finest factory running poets on the globe.

|12.28.07 @ 4:02PM|#

Yeah. I always point that fact out to Paleocons who give the old "Hitler would have taken care of himself and his empire would have collapsed like the Soviet Union did" line. Fascism was very popular, more popular than communism and Hitler had millions of collaborators.

Huh?

And communism by contrast was unpopular and had no collaborators?

Guy Montag|12.28.07 @ 4:05PM|#

jc,

Yea, I am feeling the same reaction as you.

I do not recall every freaking English teacher espousing the Hitler flavour of Leftism, they were pretty much all Marxists.

Guy Montag|12.28.07 @ 4:06PM|#

Marxism: The opiate of dumbasses.

|12.28.07 @ 4:06PM|#

A fascist would say that all frenchmen, worker and aristocrat, stand together by dint of their being French. A socialist would say that the French worker is more naturally allied to the British worker. Got it?

And both would say therefore your rights are suspended and the state will now take control of the economy...then millions of people start dying.

Knowing that one socialist likes vanilla while another likes strawberry really does not enlighten anything.

By the way, not that it matters...hatred of jews by the nazis was class driven.

alan|12.28.07 @ 4:07PM|#

Everybody was a racist, by today's standards, in the 1800s. The matter being discussed is about ideology, not the conventional beliefs that were held across the ideological spectrum.


Joe, Der magyarische Kampf is a work of ideology. He justifies the slaughter of an entire race because he believed them to be primitive throwbacks who did not measure up to the proletariat and the backwards cultural tendencies of the Magyar threatened Socialist progress.

Kind of similar to how Kremlin during Stalin's National Bolshevism fealth concerning the Ukraine.

Clearly, there are leftist origins to
what we now identify as Fascism in the general sense of nativism and collectivism, and the synthesis of nativist and socialist creeds with an overlying ideology justifying mass murder has been there since the beginnings of Communism.

Tacos mmm...|12.28.07 @ 4:11PM|#

Knowing that one socialist likes vanilla while another likes strawberry really does not enlighten anything.

The point is that anyone who says that nationality takes priority of class is by defintion, not a socialist. Socialism is an international movement. You seem to be confusing collectivism with socialism. Socialism is a collectivist philosophy, but not all collectivist philsophies are socialism. All apples are fruit, not all fruits are apples. It's a simple logical mistake.

|12.28.07 @ 4:11PM|#

"Huh?

And communism by contrast was unpopular and had no collaborators?"

It had lots and of course took 50 years and a cold war to fall. I am not sure a fascist Europe would have ever ended. The fascists did a much better job or providing for their people than the communists did. I think most paleocons like Pat Buchanan if they were honest don't look upon a fascist Europe as a bad thing. Its the whole "Hitler had some good ideas but he just went a little to far" crap.

alan|12.28.07 @ 4:12PM|#

blah, ugly sentence:

Kind of similar to how Kremlin during Stalin's National Bolshevism fealth concerning the Ukraine.

Kind of like how the Kremlin during Stalin's National Bolshevism phase felt concerning the Ukraine.

Guy Montag|12.28.07 @ 4:13PM|#

Tacos mmm,

You are cheating by only recognizing International Socialism as Socialism and ignoring National Socialism, that is also Socialism.

Guy Montag|12.28.07 @ 4:16PM|#

John, in my book I count Pat Buchanan as a National Socialist with a different set of priorities than his sister Socialist, Hillary Clinton.

Tacos mmm...|12.28.07 @ 4:16PM|#

Clearly, there are leftist origins to
what we now identify as Fascism in the general sense of nativism and collectivism, and the synthesis of nativist and socialist creeds with an overlying ideology justifying mass murder has been there since the beginnings of Communism.

Nativism is a right-wing political philosophy. Unless, of course, you think Tom Tancredo is a left-winger. Collectivism is neither right wing nor left wing, and their are collectivist movements from both wings.

Right-wing collectivism -> fascism
Left-wing collectivism -> communism

|12.28.07 @ 4:19PM|#

The fascists did a much better job or providing for their people than the communists did.

Yeah they did such a good job of it that they only lasted less then 20 years and were beaten in a war by those same communists who did such a poor job of helping it poeple that they lasted longer.

By the way, not to defend good ol Pat B...but what is the libertarian response to Hitler and WW2?

If none intervention is automatically out becouse Fascism will out compete Liberal democratic capitalism and last forever as you seem to think...what is a good libertarian to do?

Tacos mmm...|12.28.07 @ 4:21PM|#

You are cheating by only recognizing International Socialism as Socialism and ignoring National Socialism, that is also Socialism.

That's because National Socialism is a misnomer. The word was tacked on to the Nazi's party name as an afterthought, and socialist policy was never a plank of their platform. The Nazis never argued for redistribution of wealth, for example, or class equality, the hallmarks of socialism as a political movement.

|12.28.07 @ 4:23PM|#

Nativism is a right-wing political philosophy.

Bullshit, nativism is the natural state of almost any social mammal short of a mutant sociopath.

Socialism is an ideology that has been known to manipulate nativist sentiment to win political ends.

|12.28.07 @ 4:23PM|#

You're all fucking wrong. No fewer than fourteen angels can dance on the head of a pin, you fucking retards.

Tacos mmm...|12.28.07 @ 4:24PM|#

It had lots and of course took 50 years and a cold war to fall. I am not sure a fascist Europe would have ever ended.

A fascist Europe would have ended when the Soviets over-ran the Third Reich. The Germans would never have beaten the Soviets, even without having to fight America on the Western front.

|12.28.07 @ 4:25PM|#

The Nazis never argued for redistribution of wealth, for example, or class equality

Bullshit...they had no problem portraying jews as an upper class bleeding the poor German folk.

Guy Montag|12.28.07 @ 4:26PM|#

jc,

If none intervention is automatically out becouse Fascism will out compete Liberal democratic capitalism and last forever as you seem to think...what is a good libertarian to do?

Being a hawkish libertarian, I say nuke the bastards and kick their ass.

alan|12.28.07 @ 4:27PM|#

Nativism is a right-wing political philosophy. Unless, of course, you think Tom Tancredo is a left-winger. Collectivism is neither right wing nor left wing, and their are collectivist movements from both wings.

Right-wing collectivism -> fascism
Left-wing collectivism -> communism

You need to read more closely. Subject was the ideology expressed in the writings of Engels (you surely don't need me to point out hos relation to Marxism do you?). I know this rips a freaking canyon wide gap in the Chomskyite definitions of left and right that liberals are advocating here, but if you are not willing to look into how Communist from the beginning viewed the racial/class axis you are not being intellectually honest.

|12.28.07 @ 4:27PM|#

Ron Bailey needs to get some better friends.

Tacos mmm...|12.28.07 @ 4:30PM|#

Bullshit, nativism is the natural state of almost any social mammal short of a mutant sociopath.

Nativism is a specific political position defined by opposition to immigration. You're the one pulling the meanings of words out of your ass. All you have to do to find out, for example, what "fascism" and "right-wing" are is open a dictionary. Nothing I'm saying is out of accord with common usage.

Guy Montag|12.28.07 @ 4:31PM|#

A fascist Europe would have ended when the Soviets over-ran the Third Reich. The Germans would never have beaten the Soviets, even without having to fight America on the Western front.

Actually, if our National Socialist leader had not allied with the Soviets we would have been fighting the last dozen Nazis in Siberia with the nukes that we did not use on Japan. "Just stay where you are Germans, we ran our stock down to 0 on Japan, but we put another shift on at Oak Ridge just for YOU!"

|12.28.07 @ 4:31PM|#

"The Nazis never argued for redistribution of wealth, for example, or class equality"

Their concept of that involved things like lebensraum.

I don't know that you can call "let's kill or enslave all the slavs and take all their land and raw materials for ourselves--that'll be good for everybody!" a socialist take.

Guy Montag|12.28.07 @ 4:34PM|#

I don't know that you can call "let's kill or enslave all the slavs and take all their land and raw materials for ourselves--that'll be good for everybody!" a socialist take.

Vs. taking all of the labor of Eastern Europe for the comfort of Moscow?

Tacos mmm...|12.28.07 @ 4:34PM|#

Bullshit...they had no problem portraying jews as an upper class bleeding the poor German folk.

That's ethnic scapegoating, and old european tradition.

|12.28.07 @ 4:34PM|#

The Nazis never argued for redistribution of wealth, for example, or class equality

Further more the soviets had no trouble rewarding the political elite and raising them up to a higher class.

The only difference you are showing is the choice they made picking out a boogy man for propaganda they used to seize power.

|12.28.07 @ 4:42PM|#

"It had lots and of course took 50 years and a cold war to fall. I am not sure a fascist Europe would have ever ended. The fascists did a much better job or providing for their people than the communists did. I think most paleocons like Pat Buchanan if they were honest don't look upon a fascist Europe as a bad thing. Its the whole "Hitler had some good ideas but he just went a little to far" crap."

I'm not so sure that Hitler had designs on taking over Europe. He only wanted to get back the lands Germany lost at the Treaty of Versailes. Hitler was a monster on domestic policy concerning the Holocaust, but I'm not so sure he was such a monster on foreign policy. Even if he had taken over Europe, how long would he have been able to hold onto it?

Guy Montag|12.28.07 @ 4:42PM|#

jc,

Great observation. The whole thing is just a big word-play game from the dorks who live in the Student Union after they were evicted from their mother's basements and nobody else will talk to them.

The Star Wars geeks are the same as the Star Trek geeks, but they have a big fit if anybody confuses them with the other.

Oh, if one does not liek their fiction then they are assumed to have a psychiatric disorder.

Guy Montag|12.28.07 @ 4:43PM|#

Even if he had taken over Europe, how long would he have been able to hold onto it?

Until Patton showed up at his castle.

|12.28.07 @ 4:49PM|#

Nothing I'm saying is out of accord with common usage.

Bullshit...more like usage developed by Marxist professors in defense of socialism which places more importance on where some French monarch sat 400 years ago then on actual similarities how the the types of governments operate.

Guy Montag|12.28.07 @ 4:55PM|#

Will we be discussing sword-tossing by watery tarts and it's implications on the Thatcher government?

|12.28.07 @ 4:57PM|#

"Even if he had taken over Europe, how long would he have been able to hold onto it?"

"Until Patton showed up at his castle."

We wouldn't have had to intervene. The Europeans would have sooner or later overthrown him or his own people would have overthrown him eventually.

Guy Montag|12.28.07 @ 4:59PM|#

RJ,

I will never understand you pacifists and the utopias that you dream of. But, pacifists are people too.

Paul|12.28.07 @ 5:01PM|#

Might Benito Mussolini have some insight into the foundations of fascism?

Yep:

Mussolini became a member of the Socialist party in 1900, and his politics, like his culture, were exquisitely bohemian. He crossed anarchism with syndicalism, matched Peter Kropotkin and Louis Blanqui with Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. More Nietzschean than Marxist, Mussolini's socialism was sui generis, a concoction created entirely by himself. In Socialist circles, nonetheless, he first attracted attention, then applause, and soon widespread admiration. He "specialized" in attacking clericalism, militarism, and reformism. Mussolini urged revolution at any cost.

Mussolini was born in Dovia di Predappio, Italy, on July 29, 1883. He was named Benito for the Mexican revolutionary Juarez. A restless, disobedient child, he grew up a bully. He became a Socialist in his teens and worked, often as a schoolmaster, to spread the party doctrine. The newspaper he founded, La Lotta di Classe (The Class Struggle), won such recognition that in 1912 he was made editor of Avanti! (Forward!), the official Socialist daily published in Milan.

Mussolini, at the time, was an official party functionary in the Socialist Party, as well as editor of the Socialist newspaper "Avanti!" ('Forward'). Massimo Rocca and Tullio Masotti asked Mussolini to settle the contradiction of his support for interventionism and still being a Socialist, so Mussolini responded by resigning from the paper, and he was expelled from the party. Two weeks later, he joined the Milan fascio. Source:
en.wikipedia.org Mussolini occupied several provincial posts as editor and labor leader until he suddenly emerged in the 1912 Socialist Party Congress. Shattering all precedent, he became editor of the party's daily paper, Avanti, at a youthful 29. His editorial tenure during 1913-1914 abundantly confirmed his promise. He wrote a new journalism, pungent and polemical, hammered his readership, and injected a new excitement into Socialist ranks. On the Socialist platform, he spoke sharply and well, deft in phrase and savage in irony.

|12.28.07 @ 5:06PM|#

Left-wing collectivism -> communism

Care to describe left-wing non-collectivism?

Oh yeah sorry...I should realize, like any idiot would, that such a thing DOES NOT EXIST!

Hey Tocos...now would be a good time to pull your head out of your ass.

|12.28.07 @ 5:15PM|#

joshua corning, do try to keep up....Please go away, son...corning, you fool...You don't ever add anything to threads. You just make them worse. Leave us alone.

Joe, you're doing your impression of Vyvyan from the Young Ones again. Please stop it.

|12.28.07 @ 5:20PM|#

The point is that anyone who says that nationality takes priority of class is by defintion, not a socialist. Socialism is an international movement. You seem to be confusing collectivism with socialism. Socialism is a collectivist philosophy, but not all collectivist philsophies are socialism. All apples are fruit, not all fruits are apples. It's a simple logical mistake.

Ya those poor soviats had a hell of time trying to get everyone to stop calling mother russia, mother russia.

I call bullshit on your claim that Marxist states were not nationalist states.

Yes i can concede that a few Hollywood types and New York bohemians in the 50s got confused on the subject and felt they were under the employ of an international movement. The reality of how these states function and from where they draw their support does not in any way fit your definitions

From The Keystrokes of John Q.|12.28.07 @ 5:33PM|#

The entire world both right and left believed that the market had to be controlled and centrally planned in the 1930s. That is one of the better points Goldberg seems to make. Roosevelt and the new dealers certainly were not murderers, but they made no secret of their admirmation for the economic policies of both Stalin and Hitler. We see all of this with the knowledge of how things turned out. At that time though, the educated opinion in the late 1930s was that Stalin and Hitler had both performed economic miracles for their populations and that central plannning was the only answer.


John, that's my understanding as well. After World War 1, Academics and Politicians alike began speculating on the overall benefit of planned economies. Which was how the economies were devised during wartime. The National Recovery Act was essentially a borrowed Cartel system from Italy,Germany and Russia. Progressives at the time believed, including FDR's "Brain Trust", that these three countries were the future of mankind. A fact you are already clearly aware of.

The point I wanted to make in the face of all these generalizations is a simple one: Political Spectrum aside, noone owns Fascism. The idea is simple; using government to force individuals to live as you see fit. A point I think you are making as well throughout your posts.

In the hope that highlighting this fact will help disperse the distractions of identity politics and remind partisans that absolute power corrupts absolutely. No D or R by anyone's name can change this fact. Only A Constitution that restricts the government and protects individual liberties can rectify this. Something all visionaries, benign or malignant, praised or reviled, seek to refute instantly and unapologetically.

|12.28.07 @ 5:40PM|#

Political Spectrum aside, noone owns Fascism. The idea is simple; using government to force individuals to live as you see fit.

So i can still call joe a fascist?

Ok, I can live with your definition.

Jon Swift|12.28.07 @ 5:42PM|#

Though I have not actually read "Liberal Fascism" I would be very surprised if Jonah Goldberg's version is better than my version:
http://jonswift.blogspot.com/2007/06/jonah-goldbergs-shining.html (or click on my name)

thoreau|12.28.07 @ 6:18PM|#

We're well on the way to 300 pages, as Jake Boone predicted.

|12.28.07 @ 6:38PM|#

"Vs. taking all of the labor of Eastern Europe for the comfort of Moscow?"

That may have been the end result, but it wasn't the actual stated public policy of the USSR.

...lebensraum on the other hand really was the actual stated public policy of the Nazis. Was it not?

|12.28.07 @ 6:46PM|#

So, to summarize: "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."

PC|12.28.07 @ 7:16PM|#

No Humpty, the marginalized other victimized group defines what your hate speech means. You STFU, apologize, and attend mandatory diversity training.

highnumber|12.28.07 @ 8:31PM|#

Mr Bailey,

I am listening to it right now. Goldberg has some great points.

anonymous|12.28.07 @ 8:41PM|#

Actual political historians list five defining attributes of fascism:

1. Extreme nationalism

2. Racism/biological determinism

3. Militarism in both foreign policy and domestic social organization

4. Corporatist economics

5. Anti-leftism.

You know. Liberal stuff like that.

By definition #5, fascism cannot be leftist. Sort of like the "it's God's will" tautology.

Besides, Science has proven that there is no such thing as a Left Wing Authoritarian.

anonymous|12.28.07 @ 8:47PM|#

joe at December 28, 2007, 2:10pm

Hey Joe! It comes from the "left," too!

When have I ever said otherwise?

December 28, 2007, 12:41pm, when you claim fascism is "anti-left" by definition.

And December 28, 2007, 2:14pm, when you state that "Fascism comes solely from the right, as fascism is rightist totalitarianism.

alan|12.28.07 @ 9:33PM|#

Mr Bailey,

forgot to mention earlier, I gave the audio a listen. Jonah did a pretty good job of speaking unscripted on the subject and he brought up some things that I've long stashed away and half way forgotten. Having done his homework, he should do well facing the leftist who are getting bent out of shape over the matter ('cause it is not anecdotal nor a quirk of particular leftist personalities, but instead it is systemic to the underlying value system).

anonymous|12.28.07 @ 9:44PM|#

In fairness to joe, after re-reading Jamie Kelly's post of December 28, 2007, 1:58pm, joe was probably referring to "the desire to control," and not "the heart of fascism."

Guy Montag|12.29.07 @ 1:58AM|#

That may have been the end result, but it wasn't the actual stated public policy of the USSR.

Holy crap! The perfect defense for EVERYTHING!

If I load my shotgun, track down a foe and blast them to bits then I am not guilty if I claim that it was not my stated policy to kill the person.

If I take 99 exemptions on my income tax and then don't pay any taxes I am fine as long as tax fraud was not my stated purpose.

I can do your 10 yo. daughter as long as I state that I do not wish to harm her.

All of my speeding tickets are void because I never had a stated purpose to speed, on top of my actual followed stated purpose of driving safely at any speed.

The Soviets were not murderous enslavers, because, as we all know, their stated policy was to bring happieness to the world with an iron fist.

Thank you Sir! Thank you so much!

I hope this "get out of jail free card" works in dirt world.

dave|12.29.07 @ 2:52AM|#

Why the fuck is Reason endorsing a book by Jonah Goldberg?
He's a militant nationalist who is too weak of an author to criticize liberals without calling them Nazis.

Get Bailey off the staff now.

|12.29.07 @ 4:25AM|#

Listened to the interview.

I guess what i came away from it is that the left calling fascism right wing is a bit like Catholics in the 1400s saying that Protestants are not Christians but in fact they are Muslims.

A good part is him pointing out once you take out the genocide there is very little that a modern democrat would disagree with a fascist of the 1930s and in fact it is the classical liberals and conservative who fundamentally disagree with them on the role of the state.

Guy Montag|12.29.07 @ 8:07AM|#

Ron Bailey,

So can we nuke the bastards now?

dave | December 29, 2007, 2:52am, go stand over there by the DNC.

Episiarch|12.29.07 @ 9:34AM|#

Anybody who said 286 posts wins the bet. What, no one did? So I keep all the money. HAHAHA

La Raza|12.29.07 @ 9:38AM|#

Nativism is a right-wing political philosophy. Unless, of course, you think Tom Tancredo is a left-winger.

Hear, hear!

Samuel Gompers|12.29.07 @ 9:50AM|#

Nativism is a right-wing political philosophy.

Espoused by the founders of the American labor movement. Yeah that sure is right wing. The Progressive era saw the creation of tight immigration quotas and racial exclusion.

|12.29.07 @ 10:29AM|#

"The Soviets were not murderous enslavers, because, as we all know, their stated policy was to bring happieness to the world with an iron fist."

I didn't say the Soviets weren't murderous enslavers. I said lebensraum wasn't specifically socialist.

While murderous enslavement may have been the end result of Soviet Socialism, Soviet Socialism didn't have murderous enslavement as a core identified principle.

I think Nazism did have murderous enslavement as a core identified principle. I think that's what they were talking about when they were talking about lebensraum.

SIV|12.29.07 @ 10:43AM|#

I think Nazism Hillary Clinton did have murderous enslavement National Service as a core identified principle.

SIV|12.29.07 @ 10:45AM|#

These comments have a lot of those people who wouldn't take cover from a tornado if it was reported on "Faux News".

SIV|12.29.07 @ 10:55AM|#

The Instapundit podcast interview is well worth a listen.

I found minor amusement in Reynolds' reference to Le Corbusier's RADIANT CITY as an "autobiography" and Goldberg not knowing who the author was.

|12.29.07 @ 11:34AM|#

anonymous,

The "IT" in that sentence is "totalitarianism," not "fascism."

I've never claimed that TOTALITARIANISM can't come from the left, just that fascism does not.

|12.29.07 @ 11:36AM|#

Paul,

You've done an excellent job demonstrating that, prior to being a fascist, Mussolini was a socialist.

This is, of course, completely irrelevant to the matter at hand, which is about ideas and ideology, not individuals.

Prior to becoming a conservative and writing for National Review, Whittaker Chambers was a communist. This tells us precisely nothing about the intellectual roots of conservatism.

|12.29.07 @ 11:42AM|#

The reason the Progressive Era is called an "Era" and not a "Movement" is because it was a period in which certain ideas and practices were adopted on a society-wide basis. Teddy Roosevlet was a Progressive, for example, as was Herbert Hoover.

Liberalism - as the term is used today - has some elements in common and some intellectual roots in the ideas of the Progressive Era. But then, so does conservatism, as the term is used today.

The the term "progressive" is used today to refer to the liberal/left does not enlighten us very much about the relationship between the ideas of that era and liberalism.

|12.29.07 @ 11:47AM|#

At about 4:00 yesterday, the argument from the righties appears to have become "Yeah, well, you and you're stupid WORDS!"

Guy Montag|12.29.07 @ 1:15PM|#

This

Guy Montag|12.29.07 @ 1:16PM|#

is

Guy Montag|12.29.07 @ 1:16PM|#

the 300th post!

|12.29.07 @ 1:17PM|#

"Liberalism - as the term is used today - has some elements in common and some intellectual roots in the ideas of the Progressive Era. But then, so does conservatism, as the term is used today."

This is all very well and true, which is why Jonah spends the final chapters of his book drawing the parallels between, say, Teddy Roosevelt's "New Nationalism" and The Weekly Standard's "National Greatness" theme; or, for that matter, the Social Gospel of the Progressive Era and Compassionate Conservatism. But with all this said, the fact remains, the contemporary American Right is still infused with a strong (albeit extremely compromised) anti-government, classically liberal disposition (thanks in part to magazines like Reason) while the contemporary Left demonstrates virtually nil on this front.

Look, there is no doubt Jonah is a partisan and his book a work of a partisan. But there is a productive role for partisans -- namely, pointing out the excesses, flaws, deceptions of their perceived opponents -- and "Liberal Fascism" does an excellent job in performing this feat. If serious people take its serious arguments seriously -- which there are aplenty -- it may actually succeed in what it has sought out to do: encourage further, more pointed, discussion on the nature of Fascism, Progressivism, Liberalism, Conservatism, etc. so as to offer the citizenry a more accurate understanding of recent history, and in doing so, contemporary politics.

alan|12.29.07 @ 1:23PM|#

Joe,

Your reaction has been --

'LA LA LA - I'm Not Listening!- LA LA LA - What your saying doesn't fit the theoretical model my professors taught me -- LA LA LA -- so I'm not listening!'

Engel wasn't being a proto-fascist when he advocated destruction of races and ethnicities that he and Marx considered lumpenproletariat because those races hindered the advancement of Socialism (in their opinion), and then suddenly he switched to being a Communist when advocating that the Workers of the World Unite.

This aspect of Communist ideology had a huge influence on those we identify as Fascist today.

|12.29.07 @ 1:28PM|#

alan,

Engels racism was little different from the racism that pervaded his society, so it tells us very little about his political philosophy that he included racism in it.

And I have answered every single objection and argument that has raised against me. Maybe you should have jumped right to the rubber/glue argument.

|12.29.07 @ 1:28PM|#

Except one, that is.

anon, you are right, that is a tautology. I should have written, "anti-Marxism."

|12.29.07 @ 1:51PM|#

Aha!

But with all this said, the fact remains, the contemporary American Right is still infused with a strong (albeit extremely compromised) anti-government, classically liberal disposition (thanks in part to magazines like Reason) while the contemporary Left demonstrates virtually nil on this front.

Really?

I present to you: the ACLU, the Democrat-led opposition to warrantless eavesdropping, the Democrat-led opposition to the president's broad claims of executive privilege, the liberal-led opposition to sodomy laws, the liberal-led expansions of the rights of the accuses/restrictions on police power from the Warren court, the Church Commission, and the dramatic loosening of on-air speech restrictions brought about the Clinton administration.

Goldberg manipulates libertarians' philosophy that individual and economic freedom are linked by pointing to conservatives' support less activist government in economic affairs, hoping that you will draw the conclusion that they must therefor be better on personal liberties as well.

|12.29.07 @ 2:26PM|#

But who cares what a partisan, dishonest, statist hack thinks about Bailey's review of Goldberg's book?

|12.29.07 @ 2:54PM|#

"But with all this said, the fact remains, the contemporary American Right is still infused with a strong (albeit extremely compromised) anti-government, classically liberal disposition (thanks in part to magazines like Reason) while the contemporary Left demonstrates virtually nil on this front."

As someone who came from the "American Right" tradition that was anti-government and classically liberal, I think I was kicked out more than I left--I still have a bruise where the door hit me in the ass on the way out.

I'd maintain that the traditional right is still skeptical of progressive style compassionate conservativism. I've heard more than one real live conservative describe using public money to fund private school tuition as a government attempt to dictate the curriculum to bible schools through the back door.

...I just don't think those "conservative" ideas are particularly Republican anymore. Is that what we're talking about? Republicans vs. Democrats? ...or is this about conservatives vs. progressives? Because the distinction between Republicans and Democrats has become so blurred, it's hard for me to tell them apart anymore.

If candidates really do reflect their constituents, I suppose that's what we'd expect to see. There's little question in my mind that the overwhelming majority of Americans are progressives now.

alan|12.29.07 @ 2:56PM|#

Engels racism was little different from the racism that pervaded his society, so it tells us very little about his political philosophy that he included racism in it.

And I have answered every single objection and argument that has raised against me. Maybe you should have jumped right to the rubber/glue argument.

Excuses only satisfy those who are making them. Marxism and Fascism cannot be easily un-twined, historically speaking. That is really the key difference I have with how you outlined the ideologies.

I present to you: the ACLU, the Democrat-led opposition to warrantless eavesdropping, the Democrat-led opposition to the president's broad claims of executive privilege, the liberal-led opposition to sodomy laws, the liberal-led expansions of the rights of the accuses/restrictions on police power from the Warren court, the Church Commission, and the dramatic loosening of on-air speech restrictions brought about the Clinton administration.

I agree entirely. To the extent Democrats still hold to classical liberal tenets on civil matters and see to the advancement of them, they hold a valuable place in society.

|12.29.07 @ 2:58PM|#

Joe-

There is no way one of us will convince the other, but let me say this: The American Left is very good on civil liberties issues when they are out of power. However, when they are in power (or, to be fair, when the Democrats are in power), they are just as intrusive, if not more so, than their Republican counterparts. From Wilson to FDR to Kennedy to LBJ to Carter to Clinton, this has always been the case. Quite frankly, both Left and Right, Democrat and Republican, have terrible records on civil liberties. This is simply the nature of the Modern State.

Your fundamental denial of a linkage between economic and "personal" life proves my point -- that there is hardly any classically liberal disposition on the American Left. To deny this linkage is to claim that deciding for Americans what they can buy, what they can't buy, what they can sell, what they can't sell, what they can eat, what they can't eat, where they can build, where they can't build, what technology they can use, what technology they can't use, what medicines are authorized, what medicines are not authorized, what health insurance is permissable, what health insurance is impermissable, what to smoke, what not to smoke, who they can hire, who they can't hire, what they can spend their income on, what they can't spend their income on, who they can associate with, who they can't associate with, what they can say, what they can't say, etc. is not at all a "personal" matter; when in fact, these things intrude greatly -- dare I say far more greatly than the already dying sodomy laws you speak of the regrettable "War on Terror" provisions -- on the everyday lives of most Americans. This is why partisan, popular books like Harsanyi's "Nanny State," or John Stossel's latest or, yes, Goldberg's "Liberal Fascism" are useful: they demonstrate the inextricable link between economic life and "personal" life -- that if one is allowed full intrusion (which Modern Liberalism has, as of yet, not expressed limit), the other is fully vulnerable as well.

You can respond to this post by mentioning one Republican intrusion after another, all of which I will most likely equally disdain, but you will never convince me the American Left is entitled any privilege on this count (much to the contrary). The American Right at least has libertarians or libertarianish conservatives to keep their party representatives in line. With the exception of so-called "civil libertarians," whose interests in liberty are extremely narrow and opportunistic (to say the least), the American Left obtains no real philisophical, intellectual restraint on further government intrusion. Ask a self-avowed liberal or leftist what the end of government is, when we can stop passing laws, funding more programs, making more regulations, the answer (if you get any at all) is usually until "justice" or "equality" is secured. This is what Thomas Sowell calls the "quest for cosmic justice," and it is an intrinsically endless, totalitarian, illiberal quest. The American Right's political vision, thanks to whatever classical liberalism remains, is limited and thus more accomodating to actualized liberty, be it economic or "personal," as you say.

|12.29.07 @ 9:53PM|#

I've had a look now at this "book".

If you really believe that a female grade school teacher is more dangerous than a bl*ckwater agents hired by the bush admin to confiscate guns in New Orleans after Katrina, then I guess you would agree with Ole' Jonah. (not to underestimate the negative influence of insane grade school teachers, I had one or two)

And Jonah thinks accepting gay rights is more facist (and I'm not thinking of job protection rights, I'm thinking Lawrence v Texas, and what consenting adults do in their bedrooms), then people who deplore homosexuality publicly but tolerate it privately. Last time I read my history books, and the relationship of traditional fascism (Germany, Italy) to homosexuality most resembled the modern republican relationship (think Jeff Gannon) seems to be (right now at least, this could change) closer to a direct historical comparison than any liberal camp presently is.

Who man, it is a really weird and scary book, real "world Jewish bankers control" us all kinda stuff.

Reminds me of Hoover and his weirdness.

SIV|12.30.07 @ 4:23PM|#

Comment #311 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Guy Montag|1.1.08 @ 9:18AM|#

Lawrence,

If you are speaking of anything from the book "Blackwater" I suggest independant verification.

I am not a fan of that firm either, but I must say that when I watched the guy who wrote it express a string of total fabrications in a few moments time to support another assertion of his I really could not continue believing anything the man has to say.

Actually, your assertion that Blackwater was hired by president Bush to confiscate guns needs a bit more than your keyboard. Starting with just exactly where in the procurement process, created by many a Congress over time, that the president has any authority at all on who gets a contract.

Back to the "Blackwater" guy, by his own words he was asking soldiers in Irak what they thought of contractors working in the dining facility making $100/hour tax free. If he is going to bring up the tax nonsense he shoule know, or may have been informed right away by soldiers, that they are the income-tax free folks (Enlisted, Warrant and most Commissioned), not the contractors. IF there were 'coke pouring' contractors making in exess of $200,000/year (in the box they do work a lot more than 2,000 hrs/yr. so I am being nice here) he should have been informed that they must meet the 330 day rule and, no, they are not "tax free".

He kept putting the Iraq Blackwater conmtractors under the umbrella of Defense too, when in fact he was talking about State Department security assigned to an embassy.

Neu Mejican (authentico)|1.1.08 @ 11:09PM|#

http://www.themodernword.com/eco/eco_blackshirt.html

Umberto Eco on fascism...

In spite of some fuzziness regarding the difference between various historical forms of fascism, I think it is possible to outline a list of features that are typical of what I would like to call Ur-Fascism, or Eternal Fascism. These features cannot be organized into a system; many of them contradict each other, and are also typical of other kinds of despotism or fanaticism. But it is enough that one of them be present to allow fascism to coagulate around it.

1) cult of tradition
2)Traditionalism implies the rejection of modernism.
3)Irrationalism also depends on the cult of action for action's sake.
4)The critical spirit makes distinctions, and to distinguish is a sign of modernism (disagreement is treason)
5) Besides, disagreement is a sign of diversity (fear of difference)
6)Ur-Fascism derives from individual or social frustration (Appeal to the frustrated middle class)
7) To people who feel deprived of a clear social identity, Ur-Fascism says that their only privilege is the most common one, to be born in the same country.
8)The followers must feel humiliated by the ostentatious wealth and force of their enemies.
9)For Ur-Fascism there is no struggle for life but, rather, life is lived for struggle.
10)Elitism is a typical aspect of any reactionary ideology, insofar as it is fundamentally aristocratic, and aristocratic and militaristic elitism cruelly implies contempt for the weak.
11) In such a perspective everybody is educated to become a hero.
12) Since both permanent war and heroism are difficult games to play, the Ur-Fascist transfers his will to power to sexual matters.
13) Ur-Fascism is based upon a selective populism, a qualitative populism, one might say (individuals as individuals have no rights, and the People is conceived as a quality, a monolithic entity expressing the Common Will.)
14) Ur-Fascism speaks Newspeak.

I think Eco's book The Mysterious Flame of Queen Loana is a good meditation on fascism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mysterious_Flame_of_Queen_Loana

|1.2.08 @ 2:13PM|#

joe: You're going to waiting a long time, then, since my notes and handouts from Dr. Sudarho aren't online.
Guy: RCD,
See? I told you they are not online :)

If you want a laugh at the expense of the talkative goofus known as 'joe', try googling the Dr's name.

|1.3.08 @ 8:26AM|#

I claim victory.

Quick, get me a talk show!