On Liberal Fascism:

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

As this book keeps recurring as a topic in this community, I'll remind the apologists for this particular piece of fishwrap what exactly it is that they're trying to claim as high scholarship on international fascism of the 1920s through the 1940s:

Do these striking parallels mean that today’s liberals are genocidal maniacs, intent on conquering the world and imposing a new racial order? Not at all. Yet it is hard to deny that modern progressivism and classical fascism shared the same intellectual roots. We often forget, for example, that Mussolini and Hitler had many admirers in the United States. W.E.B. Du Bois was inspired by Hitler's Germany, and Irving Berlin praised Mussolini in song. Many fascist tenets were espoused by American progressives like John Dewey and Woodrow Wilson, and FDR incorporated fascist policies in the New Deal.

Fascism was an international movement that appeared in different forms in different countries, depending on the vagaries of national culture and temperament. In Germany, fascism appeared as genocidal racist nationalism. In America, it took a “friendlier,” more liberal form. The modern heirs of this “friendly fascist” tradition include the New York Times, the Democratic Party, the Ivy League professoriate, and the liberals of Hollywood. The quintessential Liberal Fascist isn't an SS storm trooper; it is a female grade school teacher with an education degree from Brown or Swarthmore.

_______________

So, let's have a look-see. WEB Du Bois is this guy:



......

Yes, I totally see it! The guy who invented modern civil rights tactics would be absolutely fond of a pan-German Jew hater like Hitler.

Wilson hardly could have espoused fascism given that it didn't exist until the HARDING Administration and by then he was insensible from strokes. Mussolini, an ex-socialist, invented the movement. I suppose Wilson also had magic voodoo powers to influence events before they even happened.

I also hardly think the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silver_Legion_of_America counts as "friendly." 

Someone also ought to talk to Goldberg about his misogyny issues. I mean, really, a schoolteacher giving a hug is equal to Babi Yar. *snerk*.

And that Irving Berlin song?

It goes like this:

In Japan our hands are tied, ve don't like it.
Mussolini's on our side, ve don't like it.

So those on this community that reference this particular book that could more or less define the TVTropes Critical Research Failure on its own........this is what you're referencing. And this, BTW, is why I have a hard time taking anything the Goldberg apologists say seriously.

Comments

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Again, as I try to show in my book, the reason we call fascism and National Socialism “right wing” is because these were forms of “right-wing socialism,” or, as both the Marxist theoretician Karl Radek and Leon Trotsky argued, “middle class socialism.” And while the academic literature is on my side of the argument that the Nazis appealed to the lower classes just as much as the Communists did (if not more so), I have no problem conceding that the nature of Nazi socialism was in some significant respects different from Soviet socialism. So call it right-wing socialism if you like. But don’t saw off the right-wing part and then bludgeon American conservatives with it.

The point here is that these were all different kinds of socialism. And in the Anglo-American tradition, socialism is a phenomenon of the Left. Period. And many, many more historians who would no doubt take issue with my book — Michael Mann and the Germans Götz Aly and Wolfgang Schivelbusch come to mind — nonetheless have written at length about the fundamental and indisputable antipathy the National Socialists had for capitalism.

_________________________

This is his argument, and I note that Bogey more or less plagiarizes it with regularity on this community. Not that integrity of any sort is ever particularly abundant on the Right-Wing as it is.

And yes, Fascists disliked capitalism. So did the leaders of the Confederacy. Is Jefferson Davis a socialist, too?

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Let's not forget that in the first book he attributes to Franklin Delano Roosevelt Fascism.

Let that sink in for a moment and see if you can tell me the major problem with this, especially if you remember a certain something from 1936-9.......

Some useful bits of this "analysis":

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

The German and American New Deals may have been merely whatever Hitler and FDR felt they could get away with. But therein lies a common principle: the state should be allowed to get away with anything, so long as it is for "good reasons." This is the common principle among fascism, Nazism, Progressivism, and what we today call liberalism. -- P.131

Today we unreflectively associate fascism with militarism. But it should be remembered that fascism was militaristic because militarism was "progressive" at the beginning of the twentieth century. -- P.106 (*reads the 14 points and ROFTLMAO).

Fascism, at its core, is the view that every nook and cranny of society should work together in spiritual union toward the same goals overseen by the state. "Everything in the state, nothing outside the state," is how Mussolini defined it. Mussolini coined the word "totalitarian" to describe not a tyrannical society but a humane one in which everyone is taken care of and contributes equally. -- P.80 (Yes, because the movement that pioneered breaking heads as a solution to social problems gives a damn about humanness).

What distinguished Nazism from other brands of socialism and communism was not so much that it included more aspects from the political right (though there were some). What distinguished Nazism was that it forthrightly included a worldview we now associate almost completely with the political left: identity politics. This was what distinguished Nazism from doctrinaire communism, and it seems hard to argue the marriage of one leftist vision to another can somehow produce right-wing progeny. If this was how the world worked, we would have to label nationalist-socialist organizations like the PLO and Cuban Communist Party right-wing. -- P.73 (BTW, the PLO was not the Palestinian Communist movement, that had a separate name: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine_Communist_Party and was prone to fight both the Fatah and Hamas types until 1991).

Heinrich Himmler was a certified animal rights activist and an aggressive promoter of "natural healing." Rudolf Hess, Hitler's deputy, championed homeopathy and herbal remedies. Hitler and his advisers dedicated hours of their time to discussions of the need to move the entire nation to vegetarianism as a response to the unhealthiness promoted by capitalism. Dachau hosted the world's largest alternative and organic medicine research lab and produced its own organic honey. In profound ways, the Nazi antismoking and public health drives foreshadowed today's crusades against junk food, trans fat, and the like. A Hitler Youth manual proclaimed, "Nutrition is not a private matter!" -- P.19 (Statler and Waldorf go DO-HOHOHOHOHOHO about a fat man whining about diets).

Indeed, it is my argument that during World War I, America became a fascist country, albeit temporarily. The first appearance of modern totalitarianism in the Western world wasn't in Italy or Germany but in the United States of America. How else would you describe a country where the world's first modern propaganda ministry was established; political prisoners by the thousands were harassed, beaten, spied upon, and thrown in jail simply for expressing private opinions; the national leader accused foreigners or immigrants of injecting treasonous "poison into the American bloodstream;" newspapers and magazines were shut down for criticizing the government; nearly a hundred thousand government propaganda agents were sent out among the people to whip up support for the regime and its war; college professors imposed loyalty oaths on their colleagues; nearly a quarter-million goons were given legal authority to intimidate and beat "slackers" and dissenters; and leading artists and writers dedicated their crafts to proselytizing for the government? -- P.11-12 (Pahahahahahahaha. Wilson was an authoritarian ass but he was no Lenin).

Before the war, fascism was widely viewed as a progressive social movement with many liberal and left-wing adherents in Europe and the United States... -- P.9 (wrong, it was viewed by the Right as restoring national pride in Germany and Italy, including by many notable leaders of the European mainstream conservative movements).

Re: Some useful bits of this "analysis":

[http://users.livejournal.com/-wanderer-/]

In profound ways, the Nazi antismoking and public health drives foreshadowed today's crusades against junk food, trans fat, and the like. A Hitler Youth manual proclaimed, "Nutrition is not a private matter!"

Interesting logic. Because the Nazis did many bad things, all things the Nazis did reflect those bad things. I wonder if they encouraged jazz music and peanut butter too?

Re: Some useful bits of this "analysis":

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

That's why this TVTropes page is so useful: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HitlerAteSugar

Re: Some useful bits of this "analysis":

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Not exactly. You're trying to apply a fallacy to an argument that's not actually being made.

Re: Some useful bits of this "analysis":

[http://users.livejournal.com/-wanderer-/]

Fair enough, the argument is not explicitly stated here.

Re: Some useful bits of this "analysis":

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

For ease of discussion, I'm only going to quote your editorials.

(*reads the 14 points and ROFTLMAO).

Okay. What's your actual argument here? Do you have evidence that militarism was not progressive at that time? Think long and hard about this one.

(Yes, because the movement that pioneered breaking heads as a solution to social problems gives a damn about humanness).

Clearly, it did. It's like saying that Hugo Chavez isn't terrible because, hey, the Venuzuelans are eating. The beauty of fascism is that it so easily can be masked in good deeds. "At least the trains ran on time" and such. It's why the modern idea where force is not by gun but by fiat is still fascistic in nature - you're too focused on the part you think defines a fascist as opposed to the parts that actually do define fascism.

(Statler and Waldorf go DO-HOHOHOHOHOHO about a fat man whining about diets).

Okay, but the point?

(Pahahahahahahaha. Wilson was an authoritarian ass but he was no Lenin).

So you can't have one person be more fascist than the next? Barack Obama's a liberal, but he's no Alan Grayson, right? You don't seem to be disputing Goldberg's point about Wilson at all.

(wrong, it was viewed by the Right as restoring national pride in Germany and Italy, including by many notable leaders of the European mainstream conservative movements).

That, again, doesn't dispute anything. Perhaps there were some on the right who viewed it that way - since you don't tell us who those people are, I couldn't tell you if it's true. But even if some on the right viewed it as such, it does not change the fact that it was "widely viewed as a progressive social movement," or do anything to dispute his claim.

Re: Some useful bits of this "analysis":

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

It is a problem closely connected with the limitation of naval armaments and the cooperation of the navies of the world in keeping the seas at once free and safe, and the question of limiting naval armaments opens the wider and perhaps more difficult question of the limitation of armies and of all programmes of military preparation. Difficult and delicate as these questions are, they must be faced with the utmost candour and decided in a spirit of real accommodation if peace is to come with healing in its wings, and come to stay. Peace cannot be had without concession and sacrifice. There can be no sense of safety and equality among the nations if great preponderance armaments are henceforth to continue here and there to be built up and maintained. The statesmen of the world must plan for peace and nations must adjust and accommodate their policy to it as they have planned for war and made ready for pitiless contest and rivalry. The question of armaments, whether on land or sea, is the most immediately and intensely practical question connected with the future fortunes of nations and of mankind.

4. Adequate guarantees given and taken that national armaments will be reduced to the lowest points consistent with domestic safety.

"Domestic safety" clearly implies not only internal policing, but the protection of territory against invasion. The accumulation of armaments above this level would be a violation of the intention of the proposal.

What guarantees should be given and taken, or what are to be the standards of judgment have never been determined. It will be necessary to adopt the general principle and then institute some kind [of international commission of investigation] to prepare detailed projects for its execution. '

________________________________

Yes, this is entirely the same attitude that the real militarist regimes like Wilhelmine Germany and Imperial Japan had.

Re: Some useful bits of this "analysis":

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Having a military policy != militaristic base.

Re: Some useful bits of this "analysis":

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

It can only be masked if you're already partial to the ideal of totalitarian one-party statism. Fascism was always honest that it was a movement of brutal thuggish SOBs.

Namely that http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HitlerAteSugar.

I do dispute his point. Wilson did nothing that Abraham Lincoln and John Adams didn't do. Unless we're willing to call the Washington Administration, the one that repressed the Whiskey Rebellion with a whiff of Grapeshot, the Adams Administration, the Lincoln and Jackson Administrations, and the Truman Administrations all fascist too.

Winston Churchill and Stanley Baldwin for just two of them. Henry Ford, Father Coughlin, the Silver Shirts, Douglas MacArthur and George Patton for other examples.

Re: Some useful bits of this "analysis":

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

It can only be masked if you're already partial to the ideal of totalitarian one-party statism.

Much like the progressive left.

Fascism was always honest that it was a movement of brutal thuggish SOBs.

Yes, and Goldberg discusses how we've moved to a kinder, gentler fascism. But it's still fascist.

I do dispute his point. Wilson did nothing that Abraham Lincoln and John Adams didn't do. Unless we're willing to call the Washington Administration, the one that repressed the Whiskey Rebellion with a whiff of Grapeshot, the Adams Administration, the Lincoln and Jackson Administrations, and the Truman Administrations all fascist too.

I would suggest he would be. I have no qualms doing as such, Washington excluded. In fact, Goldberg cites that very argument as how the left justified their love of Mussolini on page 103.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

The major problem? Other than it's spot on?

What about 1936-1939? That his policies failed and he was forced to change course? The fact that even fascists recognized FDR's New Deal as fascism should toss up some red flags.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Or it could just make them idiots.

The New Deal was not fascism, it was Keynesian Public works policy.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

You say that as if the two could never be similar.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

They weren't. Fascist Keynesianism was rigorously subordinated to ideological means. The public works all served in both Germany and Italy to help with re-armament by setting the stage for trained workforces needed for a war economy.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Which is fascistic at its base. Unless, of course, you're saying Mussolini didn't recognize fascism when he saw it.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

If they had considered the USA fascist in their vein they would not have declared war on what they expected would be a pushover in December 1941.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

This is his argument, and I note that Bogey more or less plagiarizes it with regularity on this community. Not that integrity of any sort is ever particularly abundant on the Right-Wing as it is.

That's a pretty unnecessary slam. Regardless, Goldberg's point is entirely valid, and your arguments against them, as I'm reading them below, are extremely poor.

And yes, Fascists disliked capitalism. So did the leaders of the Confederacy. Is Jefferson Davis a socialist, too?

One could possibly make the argument, I don't know - I can't claim to know much about the economic theories of Jefferson Davis to make that claim, though.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

What, that Obama's neutered health care plan is equal to the SS death squads gunning down thousands of Jews with machine guns at Babi Yar?

OK, I give up. If you think the leader of a society based on black slavery was a socialist it's obvious that you don't understand what the socialists themselves actually thought (namely that Marx hated the Confederacy as a fine example of what he actually disliked about large agrarian societies like say, Russia).

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

OK, I give up. If you think the leader of a society based on black slavery was a socialist it's obvious that you don't understand what the socialists themselves actually thought (namely that Marx hated the Confederacy as a fine example of what he actually disliked about large agrarian societies like say, Russia).

Did you miss the part where I said I didn't know?

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

That you considered the idea at all says all you need to know about your understanding of socialism. The ideology Davis espoused in The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government and that of Karl Marx was entirely unrelated, something Marx said AT THE TIME.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

That you considered the idea at all says all you need to know about your understanding of socialism

Wrong again. I didn't consider it, I said I didn't know. I do not make up answers for things I lack knowledge on.

[rasilio.livejournal.com]

Is it really so hard to conceive of a slave owning socialist society?

Socialism = All humans are equal.

Southern Racism = Blacks aren't full Humans

Ergo Southern Socialism = All whites are equal, blacks are sub human slaves.

Not saying that it was a socialist country, as with Jeff, I don't claim to know much about the economics of the Confederacy (nor do I care about it honestly) although given the focus on plantation farming I suspect it would have been closer to feudalism than anything else but the concept of a Slave owning socialism is not hard to imagine at all.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Yes, because socialism is connected to capitalism, which requires an urban working class. The Confederacy was a rural agrarian society where as everywhere the great agrarian masses were an unfree population, only slaves defined by race as opposed to serfs bound to the land as in Europe for most of the Medieval era.

The Gulag is more like a slave-owning socialism, and in fact is slavery in any honest look at it. However the Confederacy, which damned free labor with a passion as something that demeaned white men, had no means for a socialism unless we're talking an Anglo-American analogue to Maoism, which would be a very, very bad thing. And in the 1860s Mao Zedong wasn't even a hard on in his old man's tunic yet.