Jonah Goldberg on His New Book, Liberal Fascism

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

Ken Shultz | December 28, 2007, 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 | December 28, 2007, 12:32pm | #

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

Guy Montag | December 28, 2007, 12:34pm | #

Third post!

Kaligula | December 28, 2007, 12:34pm | #

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

joe | December 28, 2007, 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 | December 28, 2007, 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".

Andrew | December 28, 2007, 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.

Taktix® | December 28, 2007, 12:40pm | #

Eighth post!

Ken Shultz | December 28, 2007, 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 | December 28, 2007, 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.

Jeff | December 28, 2007, 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.

joe | December 28, 2007, 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.

Jake Boone | December 28, 2007, 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 | December 28, 2007, 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!

Ron Bailey | December 28, 2007, 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 | December 28, 2007, 12:48pm | #

Actual political historians

Name a few.

joe | December 28, 2007, 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 | December 28, 2007, 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!

Daze | December 28, 2007, 12:53pm | #

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

joe | December 28, 2007, 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 | December 28, 2007, 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 | December 28, 2007, 12:56pm | #

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

joe | December 28, 2007, 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 | December 28, 2007, 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 | December 28, 2007, 12:59pm | #

Daze wins.

Ron Bailey | December 28, 2007, 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 | December 28, 2007, 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.

Kwix | December 28, 2007, 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 | December 28, 2007, 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 | December 28, 2007, 1:04pm | #

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

joe | December 28, 2007, 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 | December 28, 2007, 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.

joe | December 28, 2007, 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 | December 28, 2007, 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 | December 28, 2007, 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 | December 28, 2007, 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 | December 28, 2007, 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 | December 28, 2007, 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 | December 28, 2007, 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*

de stijl | December 28, 2007, 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.

mk | December 28, 2007, 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 | December 28, 2007, 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 | December 28, 2007, 1:13pm | #

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

John | December 28, 2007, 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 | December 28, 2007, 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!

joe | December 28, 2007, 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.

Michael Moynihan | December 28, 2007, 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 | December 28, 2007, 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 | December 28, 2007, 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.

joe | December 28, 2007, 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.

joe | December 28, 2007, 1:20pm | #

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

Guy Montag | December 28, 2007, 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 | December 28, 2007, 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?

John | December 28, 2007, 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.

Lawrence | December 28, 2007, 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 | December 28, 2007, 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.

joe | December 28, 2007, 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 | December 28, 2007, 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.

John | December 28, 2007, 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 | December 28, 2007, 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 | December 28, 2007, 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 | December 28, 2007, 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.

joe | December 28, 2007, 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 | December 28, 2007, 1:35pm | #

*impulses

Guy Montag | December 28, 2007, 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.

joe | December 28, 2007, 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.

Jamie Kelly | December 28, 2007, 1:39pm | #

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

Like disarming Jews?

joe | December 28, 2007, 1:40pm | #

RC,

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

Dustin | December 28, 2007, 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.

joe | December 28, 2007, 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.

de stijl | December 28, 2007, 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 | December 28, 2007, 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.

anon | December 28, 2007, 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 | December 28, 2007, 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.

Jamie Kelly | December 28, 2007, 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 | December 28, 2007, 1:44pm | #

RCD,

See? I told you they are not online :)

Dustin | December 28, 2007, 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?

joe | December 28, 2007, 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.

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.

Jamie Kelly | December 28, 2007, 1:45pm | #

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

joe | December 28, 2007, 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 | December 28, 2007, 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 | December 28, 2007, 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.

joe | December 28, 2007, 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 | December 28, 2007, 1:52pm | #

OMG this is getting too funny.

joe | December 28, 2007, 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 | December 28, 2007, 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.

joe | December 28, 2007, 1:53pm | #

Yes, this is indeed getting funny.

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

Jamie Kelly | December 28, 2007, 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.

joe | December 28, 2007, 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?

joe | December 28, 2007, 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 | December 28, 2007, 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.

Jamie Kelly | December 28, 2007, 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!

Jamie Kelly | December 28, 2007, 2:00pm | #

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

SIV | December 28, 2007, 2:00pm | #

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

joe,

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

anon | December 28, 2007, 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 | December 28, 2007, 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 | December 28, 2007, 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 | December 28, 2007, 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.

JasonL | December 28, 2007, 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 | December 28, 2007, 2:05pm | #

Dr. Sudarho?

R C Dean | December 28, 2007, 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 | December 28, 2007, 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.

Jamie Kelly | December 28, 2007, 2:10pm | #

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

Joetopia?

joe | December 28, 2007, 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.

Jamie Kelly | December 28, 2007, 2:11pm | #

I keed, I keeeeeeeeed.

Episiarch | December 28, 2007, 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.

Jamie Kelly | December 28, 2007, 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.

joe | December 28, 2007, 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 | December 28, 2007, 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.

Rattlesnake Jake | December 28, 2007, 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... | December 28, 2007, 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?

Jamie Kelly | December 28, 2007, 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.

joe | December 28, 2007, 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 | December 28, 2007, 2:14pm | #

Rattlesnake Jake,

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

joe | December 28, 2007, 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.

Rattlesnake Jake | December 28, 2007, 2:16pm | #

Brandybuck's analysis is better than mine.

Jamie Kelly | December 28, 2007, 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 | December 28, 2007, 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 | December 28, 2007, 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!

joe | December 28, 2007, 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 | December 28, 2007, 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 | December 28, 2007, 2:17pm | #

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

Jamie Kelly | December 28, 2007, 2:18pm | #

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

Since the dawn of the left.

joe | December 28, 2007, 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.

joe | December 28, 2007, 2:21pm | #

Jamie Kelly,

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

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

Tacos mmm... | December 28, 2007, 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 | December 28, 2007, 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.

anon | December 28, 2007, 2:24pm | #

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

Guy Montag | December 28, 2007, 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!

Jamie Kelly | December 28, 2007, 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.

joe | December 28, 2007, 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 | December 28, 2007, 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.

joe | December 28, 2007, 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 | December 28, 2007, 2:29pm | #

"Fascism" is right-wing collectivism

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

Jamie Kelly | December 28, 2007, 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... | December 28, 2007, 2:30pm | #

Because things aren't nearly confusing enough:

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

Episiarch | December 28, 2007, 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.

joe | December 28, 2007, 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 | December 28, 2007, 2:32pm | #

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

Jamie Kelly | December 28, 2007, 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.

de stijl | December 28, 2007, 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 | December 28, 2007, 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 | December 28, 2007, 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.

joe | December 28, 2007, 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 | December 28, 2007, 2:34pm | #

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

Jamie Kelly | December 28, 2007, 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.

joe | December 28, 2007, 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.

JasonL | December 28, 2007, 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... | December 28, 2007, 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?

joe | December 28, 2007, 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 | December 28, 2007, 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.

Jamie Kelly | December 28, 2007, 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 | December 28, 2007, 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".

joe | December 28, 2007, 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.

Jamie Kelly | December 28, 2007, 2:41pm | #

You need to get over this partisan thing

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

Guy Montag | December 28, 2007, 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 | December 28, 2007, 2:41pm | #

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

Jamie Kelly | December 28, 2007, 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.
:-)

Jamie Kelly | December 28, 2007, 2:43pm | #

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

joe | December 28, 2007, 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 | December 28, 2007, 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.

joe | December 28, 2007, 2:47pm | #

Jamie Kelly,

Speak mangled Spanish or dei!

Episiarch | December 28, 2007, 2:48pm | #

Por que no te callas!

joe | December 28, 2007, 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 | December 28, 2007, 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

Jamie Kelly | December 28, 2007, 2:51pm | #

Dime liberdad o dime la muerta!

Guy Montag | December 28, 2007, 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 | December 28, 2007, 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 | December 28, 2007, 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.

Jamie Kelly | December 28, 2007, 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 | December 28, 2007, 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 | December 28, 2007, 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 | December 28, 2007, 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.

John | December 28, 2007, 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 | December 28, 2007, 2:56pm | #

5) Heterosexism
We're against it.

Speak for yourself, maricone.

John | December 28, 2007, 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 | December 28, 2007, 2:57pm | #

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

Progressives believe that homosexuality is genetic.

John | December 28, 2007, 2:57pm | #

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

Guy Montag | December 28, 2007, 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 | December 28, 2007, 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 n