Liberal Fascism
If the plans that the Obama administration has for General Motors – a blend of government and union ownership of the company – look like something out of Mussolini’s Fascist Italy, don’t be surprised.
Careful observers have long noticed that the modern “progressive” economic program looks more like classical fascism than like pure socialism. And indeed, the historical and ideological ties between “progressivism” and classical fascism are extremely close – as documented exhaustively by Jonas Goldberg, in his 2008 study, Liberal Fascism. (The title is not Goldberg’s invention, but that of H.G. Wells, a “progressive” who in the 1930s urged Westerners to be “liberal fascists” and “enlightened Nazis.”)
Essentially, Goldberg’s conclusion is that progressivism and fascism are non-identical twins born from the same ideological womb. Progressives don’t buy into the concentration-camp stuff (neither did many early fascists), but progressive and liberal prescriptions for economics and some other areas of life either parallel those of fascism or have common roots with classical fascist ideology.
Needless to say, ID’ing the link between ”progressive” and fascist economic programs drives Leftists stark-raving nuts – especially since they have long used the “fascist” label to smear anyone who disagrees with them – but the historical and programmatic affinities between classical fascism and modern progressivism are undeniable.
Anyway, a business column today from AP (not yet on the web) profiles the government’s restructuring plan for GM and has financial advisors offering this recommendation to potential buyers of GM stock: “Stay away.”
Given the ideology of the Obama administration and the resources it can wield in support of that ideology, we can expect similar restructuring for other companies. We also can expect a long-term hemorrhage from the U.S. financial markets, as investors increasingly look outside the U.S. for investment opportunities and for hedges against dollar inflation.
“A totalitarian regime crushes all autonomous institutions in its drive to seize the human soul” — Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.
This wrestling match over the semantics reminds me of the current flu scare. This bug is a hybrid of human, swine, and avian flus. The one common element is that it is still flu.
Whether what we see is facism or growing socialism, the march toward totalitarianism is clear.
Stumbled on this yesterday, The Facts on Fascism: http://spectator.org/archives/2009/04/30/the-facts-on-fascism
Thanks for calling a spade a spade. The short-sighted media is too focused on trees to see the forest. But perhaps enough down to earth people will awaken. People just want freedom. See:
http://libertydiscourses.blogspot.com/
The govt. did such a great job running Freddie and Fannie, what could possibly go wrong?
Probably one of the most offensive pieces you have ever written, and deliberately provocative to boot. What a jerk!
Since right-wing Germans slaughtered Jews in the mid-twentieth century, there’s been a systematic effort on your side to distance yourself from him and the whole notion of fascism leading to barbarism. Who can blame you? You’re not the first to equate fascism with liberalism and socialism and to link unions to boot, even as Mussolini crushed the unions after consolidating power. The psychological term for what you are doing is “projection”.
But fascism is what it is – an extension of corporatism. It’s not thuggery or despotism – it has an academic meaning, even though the word itself is tainted. Roosevelt said it best:
In our country, we are governed by two parties who are very much like one another, as each derives its financing from the same essential source – corpoirations, wealthy individuals and families. There is slight variance in objectives, where, say for instance, Bush/Cheney leaned heavily towards the oil sector, Obama leans heavily towards finance and insurance. When either comes to power after meaningless and trivial campaigns, they pursue essentially the same policies, with slight variations that have no meaning for ordinary folks. So it is reasonable to suggest that the United States is leaning fascist. That is elementary.
But it is not “liberals” or “conservatives” that are taking us down that road. It is the moneyed interest who have hired faux-liberals and conservatives to front for them.
Generally, the term “fascism” is used as another way of saying “I don’t like you.” Goldberg’s book was well-received on your side because he added some footnotes to your general mindless ranting. But to overlook the essential nature of fascism, to assign it to American liberals when it is infecting us from both “sides” of our extremely narrow ideological spectrum, is pure sophistry.
I have come to expect more from you, Rob. Just kidding! No I haven’t.
Mark, your view is far too narrow, and self-serving. http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/01/left_fascists_are_fascists_too.html
Craig Moore: “Mark, your view is far too narrow, and self-serving.”
You spelled that wrong Craig. It’s not M-a-r-k, it’s spelled R-o-b.
This part was my favorite:
“Needless to say, ID’ing the link between ”progressive” and fascist economic programs drives Leftists stark-raving nuts – especially since they have long used the “fascist” label to smear anyone who disagrees with them – but the historical and programmatic affinities between classical fascism and modern progressivism are undeniable.”
He’s accusing the left of being fascist, and commenting that the left uses the term to smear anyone who disagrees with them. Maybe I’m the only one that sees the irony in that statement?
Craig – you’re not getting it, I think. I’m saying that our American form of governance has slid towards fascism, not because I am calling people names, but because both our “left” and our “right”, which really differ very little from one another, are both financed and run my our corporations. I’m using the classical definition of fascism – the merger of corporation and state – the one that Mussolini used.
Confusion enters when people equate fascism with things like Hitlers’ imperialism and extermination programs, or (modest by comparison) the Bush/Cheney torture/surveillance regime. Those things are brutal and undemocratic, but not fascist, per se, any more than they are “communist”. They are merely evil.
The torture/surveillance regime was (is) the policy of the US Government sanctioned by both houses of the congress and the judicial system.
That would include the teleprompter’s little bitch Obama.
Mark – Your not getting it, Mussolini merged corporation, LABOR and state. This is very similar to what has been proposed for GM. I don’t believe there is any standard definition of fascism which is why it covers all stripes in the extreme and allows all to accurately use it as a pejorative by right and left.
wolfpack … we are inching closer … Labor unions indeed supported Mussolini. Then he crushed them. There is no love for labor unions in Washington by either party. One, however (begins with ‘D’…) has to pay them lip service.
Truth be Told: “The torture/surveillance regime was (is) the policy of the US Government sanctioned by both houses of the congress and the judicial system.”
Really? What was the vote in the senate?
“That would include the teleprompter’s little bitch Obama.”
Hm, I’ve never understood this “teleprompter” thing that Republicans seem to have an issue with. They’ll call Obama a “little bitch”, but you never hear anybody saying anything about “the teleprompter’s little bitch Reagan”. Maybe after 8 years of watching W fumble around with note cards they’ve forgotten that Obama isn’t the first or only President to use the teleprompter. If you think he can’t speak without one, just run over to Youtube and watch any of the Presidential debates. He didn’t need one to kick the snot out of McCain. The fact that I read so much about Obama and the teleprompter just seems like desperation on the part of the Right to find SOMETHING to make fun of Obama for. Quite honestly, it’s pretty pathetic.
Uh Uh …uh …uh ok milhouse
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ThEAO0lt4Dw
Mark, I appreciate your clarification. Thank you.
Tripe be Told: “Uh Uh”
Good one, you came up with a video compilation put together for comedic effect. I wish I could do that!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqBeqHreu3Y
You’ve proven exactly, wait for it, wait for it, NOTHING.
Mihalis for the win!
McCain is president? I could have posted a speech by any other retarded bowler milhouse, but I posted Obama the teleprompter reader. Now back to the point.
Congress knew about the so called torture and did nothing to stop it. Even with the jr senator’s party in control they did nothing to stop it, thus they approve.
Liberal Fascism is redundant. Natelson is spot on.
Tripe be Told: “Congress knew about the so called torture and did nothing to stop it. Even with the jr senator’s party in control they did nothing to stop it, thus they approve.”
Hm, so not stopping is equal to agreement? By that logic, you agree with genocide, communism, drug abuse, murder, etc. Do I really need to go on? Your “logic”, if it could be called that, is sorely lacking.
Oh, I almost forgot. Obama and the “jr senator’s party” voted to outlaw waterboarding as torture in 2006, and in 2007. In 2006, they were overriden by the Republicans, and in 2007 the bill was vetoed by President Bush. Doesn’t really spell “approve” now does it?
Mihalis, when you begin your comment with a snarky insult, do you consider others may switch off to anything that follows at that point?
Mark T:
Your reference to FDR’s definition is absolutely wrong. Fascism was then and remains the governments control of the means of production through use of the prviate sector. Mr. FDR, being a Progressive was a master at deception and propoganda.
He simply reveresed the meaning, something you have seen me refer to here as being a magician. Both sides today may do this but the “moder progressive” or “modern liberals” are masters at it.
Rob’s comment only misses one key point. Both political parties have been taking us down this road since the first “Progressive” held the high office. That would be the other Roosevelt.
Craig, it’s a blog comment.
What makes you believe that it matters what “others” might think?
Craig Moore: “Mihalis, when you begin your comment with a snarky insult, do you consider others may switch off to anything that follows at that point?”
Should I have waited until the second sentence like Tripe did? I guess that makes it better in your book. Oh wait! The comment before that he made a “snarky insult” in the first sentence! I guess that’s not it.
I’m going to have to repeat what Wulfgar said. What makes you think it matters what “others” might think?
Wulfgar, you missed my point. On purpose I might add. Really, I don’t care. I just thought Mihalis wanted to be taken seriously. Otherwise, what’s the point of writing 3 paragraphs after the insult?
Floating feel good bills and taking action are two different things. If it was illegal and congress believed so they had it in their power to stop it. Symbolic votes “wink wink” provide political cover for cowards.
Mihalis, I guess I see a difference between insulting each other here and the “they” out there. IF you are merely performing for Wulfgar’s approval, then I have misjudged the motivation as to why you chose to comment here. My mistake. Carry on.
JAC – FDR harmonizes with Mussolini, who defined fascism as “the marriage of corporation and state”. But it was more than that – it was a movement, like tea parties, but only effective, one that consumed Italy. Mussolini hated socialism and democracy both – majority rule was an abomination.
In the wake of the events of the mid-twentieth century, many ahve looked back and identified features of Italian and German fascism, and set them up as bullet points for the reappearance of the disease. I don’t know how useful this is, as history does not repeat, but there are always “wild men in the wings” who take advantage of crises and impose totalitarian rule. SO I don’t suppose it hurts to repeat a few of these so-called guideposts:
• Nationalism and super-patriotism with a sense of historic mission
• Aggressive militarism even to the extend of glorifying war as good for the national or individual spirit
• Use of violence or threats of violence to impose views on others.
• Authoritarian reliance on a leader or elite not constitutionally responsible to the electorate
• Cult of personality around a charismatic leader
• Reaction against the values of modernism, usually with emotional attacks against both liberalism and communism.
• Exhortations for the homogeneous masses of common folk to join voluntarily in a heroic mission, often metaphysical and romanticized in character.
• Dehumanization and scapegoating of the enemy, seeing the enemy as an inferior or subhuman force, perhaps involved in a conspiracy that justifies eradicating them.
• The self-image of being a superior form of social organization beyond socialism, capitalism, and democracy.
• Elements of national socialist ideological roots, for example, ostensible support for the industrial working class or farmers; but ultimately, the forging of an alliance with an elite sector of society.
• Abandonment of any consistent ideology in a drive for state power.
Again, I don’t know how valid this is, nor how self-fulfilling, but judging by these bullet points, fascism is a right wing phenomenon – especially the parts about perpetual war, cult of the leader, nationalism and super patriotism. It sounds like the modern American right wing.
The idea that liberals and progressives are somehow responsible for what happened in Europe last century is something your intellectuals and think thanks have pursued with great energy. They have many converts … on your side, but have never made a substantial and defensible case. It’s utter nonsense.
Mark T:
You other post regarding todays condition of merger between govt and pvt sector is valid in my opinion. Not because industry purchased or controled govt. It was more the other way until recently. A few big boys liked to play the game to their advantage. Those who call themselves “progressives” today like to use the term crony capitalism but it is fascism. They use the other term to twist the meaning in the publics mind. Recently we are seeing the capitulation of many more business leaders to this cozy govt/pvt sector partnership.
However, it will not be run to the exclusive advantage of business. It will be run to meet the utopian goals of the central planners. Those that play will be rewared greatly. They will be villified when they don’t. Like the Chrysler bond holders.
And for the record, when the govt takes actual ownership that is socialism. It has nothing to do with redistribution of wealth itself. It is govt ownership of the means of production.
It would be nice if we could use the words as they were intended. To describe various social/political/economic systems throughout history. And one more for the record, free market capitalism is on the opposite end of the political/economic scale from socialism and fascism. But it has yet to have its chance in the sun. It has always been coopted by one of the others.
Best Wishes
JAC
free market capitalism can embrace any ideology. Witness China.
Truth be Told: “Floating feel good bills and taking action are two different things. If it was illegal and congress believed so they had it in their power to stop it. Symbolic votes “wink wink” provide political cover for cowards.”
Yes, because the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 is a “feel good”, “symbolic” vote. You really have no idea what you’re talking about do you?
Craig Moore: “Mihalis, I guess I see a difference between insulting each other here and the “they” out there. IF you are merely performing for Wulfgar’s approval, then I have misjudged the motivation as to why you chose to comment here. My mistake. Carry on.”
I’m not “merely performing” for anybody Craig. Not for Wulfgar, and not for you. It’s called reciprocation. I wasn’t the first to insult, but that slipped past you for some reason. Maybe a slight name change and you’ll start looking at the other half of the conversation?
Mark and JAC, I agree with both of you to some extent. However, Mark, free market capitalism, is an abstraction without substance. Avarice, greed, lust for power, etc. all embrace the human ego whether expressed through the likes of China, Russia, Iran, NK, or the US (left or right).
Mihalis, as I said, “Carry on.”
Mark T
Your off the track I’m afraid. The Progressives and Liberals of today had nothing to do with Europe and no one I know or have studied has said so.
Goldberg and others have shown that the original “progressive movement” had certain characteristics which manifested in Teddy R., Woodrow W., and Mussolini’s Fascisti. Hitler came along as a “social democrat” and took some of these characteristics and added pure hell on earth with it. FDR was next in line.
Many of the bullets you use were developed after WWII. What I have found was that the references to militarism and such evolved out of academia’s categorizaton of Hitler as a fascist. His characteristics got blended with the others.
The modern liberals and progressives are decendents of the philosophies and characteristics of the originals and thus the “original fascism”.
You have identified one key point without mentioning it. The modern definition, as per your bullets, creates an ambiguous description that can be used by both extremes, if you only use left and right as radical terms. You can’t tell me as many of those don’t fit the “liberals” or “progressives” today as the “right”. Once again, this is all useful for muddling the mind of the average person but historically incorrect.
Also, you really shouldn’t assume anything about “my side”.
Mark T:
You were doing so well. Free market capitalism can not embrace any ideology. And certainly not that of China or Russia or anyone else on this planet at this time.
It can only embrace one of minimum interference by govt, or no interference. The USA in 1787 came real close. But then Mr. Hamilton decided we needed to use the power of govt to create a “great nation” to be envied by all.
Oh how I wish Mr. Burr had just got PO’d a few years sooner.
China and Russia have adopted capitalistic tendencies but not free market capitalism. In fact you could say they have moved from communism to the socialism/fascism hybrid (fascialism or social fascism). It is certainly not the liberal fascism we have.
Mark T: You were doing so well. Free market capitalism can not embrace any ideology. And certainly not that of China or Russia or anyone else on this planet at this time.
It can only embrace one of minimum interference by govt, or no interference. The USA in 1787 came real close. But then Mr. Hamilton decided we needed to use the power of govt to create a “great nation” to be envied by all.
Oh how I wish Mr. Burr had just got PO’d a few years sooner.
China and Russia have adopted capitalistic tendencies but not free market capitalism. In fact you could say they have moved from communism to the socialism/fascism hybrid (fascialism or social fascism). It is certainly not the liberal fascism we have.
Craig Moore:
So are you saying it never existed, doesn’t exist and can’t exist?
If so then I guess lifes a bitch and then you die. Right?
By the way it does exist in small form throughout the world. It is the black market or the underground economies in which people avoid interaction with the govt. Exchange between traders on their terms. Its not a perfect example but it is certainly better than China or Russia.
JAC, positioning for advantage has always existed and comes by many names. It only seeks an unfair advantage while selling a story about a pure heart, intentions, and lofty purposes.
Craig M: Sorry my friend but you lost me with that one. What has that got to do with what we are discussing?
Enlighten me please!!!!
JAC – you’re putting together a jigsaw puzzle of unmatched shaped pieces, crafted here and there by shaving the edges to make it appears as though they fit. Goldberg did as much, and it’s fairly contrived. As I’ve said, the right has been hard at work since the end of World War II top shed the notion that fascism grew out of its rigid authoritarianism. Mussolini wrote many words about it, denouncing socialism especially, but also holding majority rule in contempt. Moden parallels, if there are any, are contained in human nature, in the authoritarian personality, which for the most part is a right wing phenomenon, but which can take power in any crisis in any system, be it Bush after 9/11, Hitler after the Reischtag fires, Pinochet in Chile or Pol Pot in Cambodia. These are not progressives or socialists.
The bullet points are, I think, self-fulfilling, and I don’t hold much respect for them. But they do point out the fact that fascism was a movement with many manifestations that reappear throughout history, though not all at once. The most important thing to remember was that it was about a militaristic state and was absent democracy. In its most recent manifestation (partly, anyway), is was Bush, the war president, off making preventive war, declaring total and permanent war, torturing, wiretapping and grabbing as much executive power as he could get hsi hands on. That is reminscient of Mussolini, who beleived in aggressive miltarism and a strong central executive.
But every analogy is going to fail. History does not, for the most part, repeat. There are themes that run consistent, and one of them is that standing armies usually lead to totalitarian societies. We’ve had standing armies now forover half a century, and are ruled now by what Ike called the M/I Complex. We have centralized authority, a one-party system with an aggressive right wing subparty and a complacent center-right wing “alternative”. We have lobbyists that have more power than congress itself, and a presidency that has all the trappings of royalty. That has happened before. But I think if you want to trace our decline into this situation to its beginnings, it is the period after World War II, when we should have disarmned, and decided instead to have perpetual war and a permanent standing army. From there on, it was a search for the enemy de jour.
Anyway, your notion that FDR and Wilson inherited somehow the legacy of Mussolini sounds Goldbergish, contrived, and parroted. I give it zero weight.
Your idea that free markets promote individual freedom doesn’t stand up well under examination. Regulated capitalism promotes individual freedom when it is coupled with progressive taxation, a social safety net, and estate taxes. What you are talking about is a system that leads to huge wealth inequality and eventually, tyranny. Pinochet loved free markets. I know of no country on earth that has both an unregulated free market and strong individual freedoms. Capitalism is like fire – a camp fire that can keep you warm, or a forest fire that can destroy you. Regulated capitalism is a powerful force for good.
JAC, I was trying to answer your inquiry. I was addressing -isms of all shapes and sizes and names.
Rob. Is exactly right. Not sure what the rest of you are arguing about?
More reading on the issue:
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/04/30/the-facts-on-fascism
The more I learn about the Chrysler “deal” (http://wjr.com/Article.asp?id=1301727&spid=6552) just reinforces my belief this country is on the road to fascism.
“Needless to say, ID’ing the link between ”progressive” and fascist economic programs drives Leftists stark-raving nuts”
Nailed it.
Your bullet points Mark, were they some form of confession?
Captblackeagle: “Rob. Is exactly right. Not sure what the rest of you are arguing about?”
We’re saying Rob is, and now by association, you are, wrong.
Dinosaurs like GM will fail with or without federal meddling. All the government is doing is pumping air into a blown out tire. The fundamentals remain unchanged and once the air is removed the tire will run flat. Smart money is already offshore to wait out the storm.
Why these social fascists don’t fess up and show some pride is the question. Blovating about the past and blaming Reagan Bush-Bush for all their ills. Just say it comrades, I’m not good enough to do it on my own. I need a nanny state to control my life. Only bureaucrats can manage business and raise my offspring. The state is god. Obama is the messiah.
Your bullet points Mark, were they some form of confession?
First, Ken, I disown them. I repeated them, but I heavily qualified them. I do not beleive that history repeats. One has to be flexiable and allow for nuance. Even though Bush and Hitler both engaged in preventive war and torture, Bush is no Hitler. He is surrounded by a durable system that, at this point, seems to be bringing back some order. I don’t know that for sure, however. Bush did openly what we have always done in secret, and Obama may have merely gone behind the green door again.
I don’t know where I got the 14 points I repeated above – I’ve had them in my quotation file for years, without a source. It appears to be an altered version of Laurence Britt’s 14 points, which you can peruse here:
http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/britt_23_2.htm
And it’s simplistic wisdom-after-the-fact. I don’t embrace the points at all. I’m going to delete them from my files.
We use “fascism” as epitaph to insult people. That’s all the perfesser did here – he insulted us. Goldberg was more academic about it, but contrived and finessed his way to a preordained conclusion. The phenomenon of dictatorial rule, preventive war, torture, and racist massacres is repeated in every decade since World War II, but what happened then has not repeated. Fascism was a well-thought out philosoophy of government that justified abuse. Free market capitalism results in abuse. Communism results in abuse. They are not the same phenomena.
I’ll say one more time: The best system we have yet devised is regulated capitalism, known to your side by its misnomer “socialism”.
Mark, the capitalistic horse gets upset and bucks when the ideological rider, in his Hollywood cowboy outfit, thinks he knows what he is doing, pulls back on the reins and digs in spurs at the same time. Very few govt politicos, including Obama, haved ever run a sustainable business in a competitive world.
Including Bush as well.
But that’s off-point. We don’t disagree that capitalism is a wonderful wealth creation machine. I’m just saying that unfettered capitalism is massively destructive.
Unfettered anything without a discipined process with accountability leads to abuse. Govt aparatuses are no exception when they rig the game for votes.
The way govt intends to regulate Chrysler is case in point. The long-term bondholders who had contractual superior rights are now taking a secondary postition to lesser creditors like the unions. Much more votes with the unions, so nail the BHers and merely tear up their contracts because the fascist govt, which is now the compressed entity of both govt and business, says so.
You sound angry about this. I don’t like what is going on either.
Questions for you, however:
1) Why are unions the culprit?
2) Why do you think it would be any different under Republicans?
I’ve said time and again to the wall and the carpet that elections do not change government policies when corporations own the government (which is the academic definition of fascism). American elections are sideshows. McCain now would be doing what Obama is doing. You’re way off-point.
Focus on this: There are centers of power in this country:
– the corporations, broken down into sectors but often enough supporting one another;
-the military and intelligence agencies, vast and largely funded in secret;
-the presidency, powerful, but less so than the corporations or the military;
-wealthy families with large fortunes who have heavy influence on politicians;
-think tanks funded by corporations and wealthy families (staffed with revolving door officials)
-the Senate
-the House of representatives
-land owners
-state and municipalities
-land owners
Notice how, in this mix, the president is but one center of power, and not even the most powerful? And if this structure reflected reality at all, it would mean that changing presidents would not alter policy much.
Also note that I have not included labor unions. They fit in there somewhere, but they are not very powerful and don’t matter much.
Damn did I mess it up – where I meant to put “public opinion”, I put “land owners” a second time. Public opinion is interesting to powerful people, in the same way that scientists take an interest in how species behave. But it is not something they consult or listen to. And where necessary, they control it.
Mark T: thanks for being civil. “We use “fascism” as epitaph to insult people. That’s all the perfesser did here – he insulted us.” Not “we” but rather you and your progressive friends. The professor didn’t insult us, he was trying to lighten our load of ignorance by making some useful distinctions. Take it slowly, one paragraph or maybe one sentence at a time. Ask others for help.
It seems to me that there is plenty of dissatisfaction to go around, on both sides of the aisle. While we argue about terminology, philosophy, and root causes, the DC folks just keep on keepin’ on.
Ken – there’s a word for your post: “dissembling”.
Mark, unions aren’t the culprit. The political patronage process is. Screwing the BHer’s is the evidence.
Yeah – I agree. It’s about who has power. It’s complicated. I have spent time trying to understand how power works, who’s got it, who don’t. Take a look over at this:
http://pieceofmind.wordpress.com/2009/05/02/where-is-power/
Your input would be very welcome.
Mark T: I don’t think that’s the word you really want. The main idea of “dissemble” is to hide something. I thought I was being fairly clear though not nasty.
Mark T:
You said: ” when corporations own the government (which is the academic definition of fascism). ”
This is FALSE. We discussed yesterday then you repeat today. That makes you either ignorant or a deliberate lier.
Mark, that is excellent. I’m going to give it some more thought before tearing into it. I would add schools to the list. Perhaps the corollary questions of “what is power?” and “what enables power?” need exploration in conjunction with your question. Perhaps the intersection of all 3 is in the mind and compliant acceptance of those that yield to it. The rise of fascism, communism, capitalism, socialism, and Hitler’s national socialism all come to mind.
I believe this would be a worthy topic for Gregg’s retreat.
JAC – if Mussolini, who invented fascism, said it was the “marriage of the corporation and the state”, who am I to argue?
If Goldberg, who wants to hang fascism on the left and exorcise it from the right, says otherwise, why should I care? He’s got a conflict of interest.
Mark: A marriage or partnership is not ownership of govt by corporations. THe latter is a distorted and untrue definition that has been put forth by those on the far left. Your own argument to me yesterday does not support you claim about corporate ownership. Yet you put such a definition forth as a definitive truth and then claimed it was the academic definition. So I go back to my comment regarding your intentions. Explain how I am wrong in either or both of my assumptions.
And by the way Mussolini didn’t marry govt and corporations he executed control over them by using the govt. That is the traditional definition of fascism with respect to its political/economic system. Just as nationalism was a key part of the socio/political component. But not the adventurous militarism as you stated yesterday.
Control in this respect does not mean simple regulation, it is the control to direct prodcution in a manner deemed desrirable by govt central planners.
And what is this accusation you make so oftern about “conflict of interest” against those with apparent jewish surnames. Are jewish citizens now not allowed to reach academic conclusions that differ from yours without being discounted due to their heritage?
Have you read Mr. Goldberg’s book?
“I believe this would be a worthy topic for Gregg’s retreat.”
Except you won’t be there, Craig.
Have I read Mr. Goldberg’s book? Yes. It was repeated verbatim here, by you. The last book to create such a stir on the right was the “Black Book” – an attempt to lay all of the ills of the 20th century on communism. It’s all blather.
Your comment is kind of convoluted, hard to deal with. I can’t decipher it.
I’ll restate – history does not repeat. Fascism was a phenomenon of the mid-20th century. It is often confused with things that went on at that time that are going on now – preventive war, torture, violation of civil liberties. Those things are always going on, and are committed under all regimes that gain too much power, Bush being the latest.
Fascism was “marriagae of the corporation and the state”, a new concept during Mussolini’s time. Roosevelt adequately defined it as the ascent of private power, exceeding that of the democratic state. He regarded it as old wine in new bottles. He was probably right.
The attempt by Goldberg to assign fascism to political enemies is crude and inept, but charms you and the perfesser.
Goldberg is probalby Jewish. Means nothing.
2nd Grade Bike Rack brings us to an interview of Lisa Jackson. One commenter calls this new govt – business marriage, “economic fascism.” I tend to agree.
http://www.cafehayek.com/hayek/2009/04/the-woman-and-man-of-system.html
=======================
Jackson: The President has said—and I couldn’t agree more—that what this country needs is one single national road map that tells auto makers who are trying to become solvent again, what kind of car it is they need to be designing and building for the American people.
===============
Lisa Jackson is also Obama’s foil on “regulating” commerce through attacking carbon dioxide as dangerous to human health. http://www.forbes.com/2009/04/20/epa-carbon-dioxide-opinions-columnists-epstein.html
Spurs and taught reins at the same time. The only place for the horse to go is straight up.
Well, in the words of Mark Twain “History doesn’t always repeat itself but it sometimes rhymes.”
Now, as to your reading of the book. If you read it you either didn’t understand the underlying theses or you dismissed it outright from page one.
First, what Goldberg wasn’t trying to lay the blame off on the left. What he did, and I think successfully, was to show that the left’s pejorative use of the term “fascist” directed at America’s right was wrong and ignored history. Moreover, the increasing gathering and abuse of power in the U.S. had its genesis in collectivist thought and was a departure from 17th enlightenment philosophy and was much more affected by the writings of Marx and then Heidegger.
The linkage in this evolution of thought is clearly documented in the book showing the members of various cabinet members and advisers of progressive administrations to the new “third way” – that is to say not capitalism and not communism but a public/private partnership of business and government to effectuate a more egalitarian system while maintaining the best of both. I can understand why you reject it inasmuch it’s exactly the paradigm that you embrace.
The notion that Roosevelt had it correct that fascism was the take over by government by the economic upper class is wrong. Economic fascism is the conscription of business to realize the objectives of government without the overt underlying ownership. No administration in the history of the U.S did more to attain these goals than did FDR. As Goldberg points out and is well documented, FDR thought that anti-trust laws were inefficient, he trashed all markets with price controls, and he set up a system with the National Recovery Act where he recruited neighbors to rat on neighbors to enforce his draconian effort. His labor practices were a page taken right out of socialist doctrine and his bullying of the court eventually trashed economic federalism.
Now, don’t get me wrong. I have disagreements with parts of Goldberg’s thesis. Michael Ledeen, also of National Review and a foremost scholar on Fascism, made a compelling argument that Mussolini was not a leftist and Italian fascism was not altogether a product of the left. But he goes on to argue that the sentiments that enabled Mussolini were in fact a product of the left that Mussolini exploited. Hence, he doesn’t reject the linkages that Goldberg makes only says that he over-reaches in parts.
The reaction to the book was quite predictable with many on the right embracing the theme without question and all of the left indignant that they could in any fashion be tied to jack-booted thugs – an argument that Goldberg never makes with regard to American fascist tendencies.
But the facts in the book are generally true and well documented and Goldberg’s point is only to disabuse the notion that only the right in America have parallels to fascist doctrine. In fact, it is more pronounces in its linkages to the left.
A couple of final points. First, what you need to trash, besides that simple-minded list of bullet points you’ve used ad nausium for years, is the idea that FDR had anything but an excuse in his definition of fascism for the way he was behaving (and remember how much he complemented Mussolini prior to the discovery of the regime’s violence by America.) Secondly, your even bringing up Goldberg’s religion is a logical fallacy ad hominem – his religious affiliations have nothing to do with the argument he makes or the arguments against it. Your comment only shows your bias – not his.
Last, but not least, I don’t think you read the book beyond a few selected snips. Otherwise you would have made a substantive argument.
Dave:
Thank you for saving me the time. I was debating with myself as to whether it would even be worth it.
I think one thing Goldberg touched on but did not explore enough was the switch in what we even mean by right and left today as compared to what it meant during the period after Wilson to today. Our forfathers were Liberals and would have sat on the left in France only because those supporting the status quo monarchies sat on the right.
I will have to reread his work but I have never been able to find where or who from the socialist/marxist movement decided to put themselves on the left. I can only conclude it came from Europe as the socialists and communists would have seen themselves as opposing the constitutional monarchies and what they viewed their capitalist economies. I have read references by Marx and Lennin to the right so must assume this is the beginning. At this point there becomes no place on the spectrum for our founders or those of us seeking liberal republican govt. The scale becomes one with statism on both sides.
It is no wonder the general public is so confused.
By the way I have shared some of your writings with others across the country regarding economic issues. I have urged them to visit your site. I hope you don’t mind.
Best Regards
JAC
Craid M:
“Spurs and taught reins at the same time. The only place for the horse to go is straight up.”
You missed the end result. It is not just straight up, it is up and over…..on his back.
Hook em in the ear
JAC
I did not bring up Goldberg’s religion. JAC did. Read a little closer.
I have not read the book. I said that I had in effect read it because JAC was spilling it all over the page here. My time is limited. (I did read the BlackBook of Communism – the last book to spark such a group-think phenomenon on the right.)
I disowned the 14 points, if you had read, thinking they were wisdom after the fact. I learn as I go, picking up on my own mistakes. Read a little closer.
Roosevelt was a wartime president, an excuse used by Bush to violate civil liberties. But in Roosevelt’s case, there was a real war going on, not a fictitious one, and price gouging and shortages were a real problem. You might think that the market might naturally resolve those problems, even in wartime, and you’d be wrong.
Civil liberties (and free pricing) were very quickly restored after the war. That has not yet happened in Bush’s wake. It’s important to note with Roosevelt that we inherited an era of personal freedom and prosperity. You must put him in his place in history, and not isolate the war years. Further, his hand was forced by popular movements of the time – the depression, like the Vietnam war, was a wellspring for popular organization. The country was more democratic back then.
I am not a fascist. Neither was Roosevelt. A good sophist can make a rational case for anything – usually such efforts are ignored, but Goldberg’s resonated on the right, which is why Natelson and JAC parrot him. He gave them the hammer they needed to go after us leftist nails. Roosevelt’s efforts led to more personal freedom and wealth, and decades of prosperity. Some fascist.
Sophistry.
PS – if you want to put things in order, try this: We on the left gave the world communism. American leftists openly supported it. We own it, and cannot explain it away or hang it on you.
Fascists like Hitler and Mussolini despised communists (and socialism). There’s a very clear and bright line between right and left in communism and fascism, though people living under either system might dispute it.
Mark, study your history a bit. The biggest violations to the constitution that FDR did were in 1933 with the passage of the National Recovery Act fully eight years before the war. The Supreme Court found the NRA unconstitutional in 1935.
It takes a lot of balls to critique a work you haven’t read. And it’s completely obtuse of you to argue that which you obviously don’t understand.
Secondly, show me the “personal freedoms” that FDR’s policies brought. Name them. Don’t just tell me it’s true.
I have a stack of books six feet high have you haven’t read. Don’t care if you do either. They don’t contain ‘truth’ – they are just analysis of events from differing perspectives. Goldberg reverse engineered hisotry, just like creationists do, staring with a conclusion and working backwards. That’s visible from ten miles away. It starts with hatred of liberals, is padded by the love of ‘freedom’, not even knowing what the term embraces, and then proceeds to project all the evil that you and yours do on us. We become the source of all that is bad. It’s not like anything new or creative is going on here.
Personal freedoms? I know how your mind works. the only freedom you think important is to accumulate wealth. From your narrow frame of reference, all other freedoms follow. From higher above, we can see more and better – that wealth inequality precedes loss of all other freedoms. Under Roosevelt we got progressive taxation and Social Security, and that introduces and preserves all the other freedoms.
hard for you to embrace, but your philosophy inexorably leads to tyranny, torture, dictatorship, and loss of democratic freedoms. I don’t blame yo for projecting it all on us. I’m going to write a book about you someday. It’s going to be called “My Own Private Pinochet”.
“…your philosophy inexorably leads to tyranny, torture, dictatorship, and loss of democratic freedoms.”
I don’t know Dave was Castro, Chaves, Putin, Kim Jong-Il, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and Obama all rolled into one. Learn something every day.
Mark, I haven’t ever attempted to review the work of something I haven’t read. Secondly, you still haven’t given me any of those “personal freedoms” that FDR delivered except that notational value of the social safety net. What “freedoms” do they protect? All you’ve given me is some pap rather than anything real. You want to argue that they provide a Rawlsian distributive justice? Fine, argue it and I’ll tell you how they violate Rawls. You want to argue it on the basis of egalitarianism? Do it, and I’ll tell the moral problems with egalitarian philosophy from the vantage point of libertarianism. But you got nothin’. You haven’t the basis to argue the philosophical problems with your political philosophy – which is the prerequisite for making a cogent argument – no less have enough of a background to argue mine regardless of your pathetic attempt to paint me as a monster loving capitalist from your Naomi Klein Shock Doctrine crap (and yes I read about half of that unsubstantiated, under-researched pile of sh_t before I realized that it was built on falsehoods and misinterpretation.)
Let me just reiterate; critiquing a book you haven’t read makes you seem like a total moron. You want a debate, then start with facts as opposed to your typical leftist axioms. Otherwise I’ll have no choice but to think you’re an idiot.
Dave et al.; Mark T is partly correct in that I raised the issue of Mr. Golberg possibly being jewish. But being the master of dark magic what he failed to explain was the context in which I brought it up. The following was a comment Mark T made in response to my comment:
“If Goldberg, who wants to hang fascism on the left and exorcise it from the right, says otherwise, why should I care? He’s got a conflict of interest.”
I have noticed that he uses a similar accusation against Mr. Natelson and a few others and it seems that it always has something to do with an issue that relates to them being Jewish. It smells like a dead carp so I’m thinking there might be something dead. So I asked him the following:
“And what is this accusation you make so oftern about “conflict of interest” against those with apparent jewish surnames. Are jewish citizens now not allowed to reach academic conclusions that differ from yours without being discounted due to their heritage? ”
And Mark T’s response to my question was a trite:
“Goldberg is probalby Jewish. Means nothing.”
So you see, as usual Mark T’s response to me didn’ t answer the question I asked, it deflected it in a manner to make it look like I was raising it as an issue with the post. My issue is with what appears to be a habit of Mark T that seems to only apply to folks who he knows are jewish or who have jewish sounding names.
I ask again Mark T, whats up with that??
Dave – as I suggested over at my blog, you are what my daughter’s former teacher referred to as “supremely stupid” – that is, you operate on densely worded arguments and strong beliefs, but are blind to outcomes. Further, since your philosophy is never implemented in full (even small doses produce large disasters), you always have the option of stepping back and disowning the outcomes. You are insulated, which leads to use of the adjective “supremely”, which my daughter’s teacher was using in reference to a creationist anti-abortion nut. Note that you are not stupid, not do I call you stupid. I carefully mesh the two words – they are meant to be one phrase. You take stupidity to a very high level.
As I said, and which you ignored, the only freedom that you fight for is that to accumulate wealth. It is central to every word you have ever written and guides your beliefs on American governance and taxation. Since unhampered wealth accumulation leads inexorably to accumulation of power as well, it naturally leads to loss of democratic functions. We live with that now, as we are surrounded by an imperial state and a poltiical system funded by bribes that hardly functions at all. We are struggling to hold on to the last of the remnants of Roosevelt’s legacy – security in old age.
Breaking up the wealth accumulation game is the essence of core democracy – it preserves all of the freedoms guaranteed under the bill of rights because it preserves democratic rule. Want me to list them? Best you could do was to dismiss it as “egalitarian”, which is nothing but a sideshow. The Bill of Rights is egalitarian in that it is meant to apply to all of us, regardless of status. If we follow your libertarian claptrap to its logical outcome, the Bill of Rights is irrelevant. Hence, Roosevelt preserved personal freedoms. You, thinking the only freedom is wealth accumulation, cannot see that you are the enemy of personal freedom.
Naomi Klein dealt with the real world. As it plays out. Real dictators, real support given by free traders and free marketers. The IMF and imperialsim operate hand-in-hand, free trade and free markets prevent the developing countries from gaining any ground on teh already wealthy. In the real world free trade is a tool of imperialists – a way of overcoming democratic institutions and home rule. Free trade, free markets, enemies of freedom. I don’t doubt you dismiss Klein, threw the book aside with great force without reading it in total (10 pages?), while you accuse me of being a moron for only having read synopsis of Goldberg. What a f***** moron.
JAC – that’s tripe. If Mr. Natelson is Jewish, it’s news to me. Mr. Goldberg is Jewish I’ve not doubt, but that thought didn’t enter my brain until you brought it up. Hence my words, “Goldberg is probalby Jewish. Means nothing.” The conflict of interest I referred to was that Mr. Goldberg, being a member of the right wing, has it in his best interests to pursue every academic angle he can to hang it on the left. Get real. You’re witch hunting.
So perhaps it wasn’t a dead fish I smelled. Just the incantations of the witch’s dark magic.
[...] David Crisp at Billings Blog, writing about a post by Professor Rob Natelson at Electric City Weblog: : I am not as far to the left as Mr. Natelson is to the right, but I admit [...]