On Liberal Fascism:
28/9/10 09:42![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
underlankers.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsAs 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.
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.
Re: Some useful bits of this "analysis":
Date: 28/9/10 21:02 (UTC)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":
Date: 28/9/10 21:15 (UTC)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.
Re: Some useful bits of this "analysis":
Date: 28/9/10 21:20 (UTC)Kinder and gentler weren't fascist virtues. They emphasized hardness as kindness toward the future. That was one of the biggest reasons they lost the damned war.
Washington led an army on the field to repress a bunch of tax revolts. Surprised a libertarian would defend that.
Re: Some useful bits of this "analysis":
Date: 28/9/10 21:22 (UTC)I won't prove points I didn't make and don't share, sorry.
Kinder and gentler weren't fascist virtues. They emphasized hardness as kindness toward the future. That was one of the biggest reasons they lost the damned war.
Yes. Fascism modernized, however.
Washington led an army on the field to repress a bunch of tax revolts. Surprised a libertarian would defend that.
Who said I'm defending it? Can you stick to what I say, and not what you think you're hearing?
Re: Some useful bits of this "analysis":
Date: 28/9/10 21:29 (UTC)I can't agree with that given the actual Neo-Fascist movements like the Aryan Nations still want to refight WWII for the losing side.
You said that Jackson, Lincoln, and Adams were all fascists but Washington, who actually personally oversaw armed repression of revolutionaries was not.
Re: Some useful bits of this "analysis":
Date: 28/9/10 21:34 (UTC)You've provided no citations for your claims anywhere here. You're the one trying to claim Goldberg's a crank, but have zero to support it. I have no issue with Goldberg's claims, and have referred you directly to information that supports them. Your move.
You said that Jackson, Lincoln, and Adams were all fascists but Washington, who actually personally oversaw armed repression of revolutionaries was not.
One action does not a fascist make.
Re: Some useful bits of this "analysis":
Date: 28/9/10 21:38 (UTC)But FDR is a fascist despite having done everything possible to sabotage international fascism and allying with the USSR and the UK? *eyeroll.* Yeah, and I suppose you've a nice used car, too.
Re: Some useful bits of this "analysis":
Date: 28/9/10 22:46 (UTC)When did I mention Obama? Again, focus on what I do say, not what you think I say.
But FDR is a fascist despite having done everything possible to sabotage international fascism and allying with the USSR and the UK? *eyeroll.* Yeah, and I suppose you've a nice used car, too.
one does not fight fascism by embracing it.
Re: Some useful bits of this "analysis":
Date: 29/9/10 00:31 (UTC)The Soviets actually beat the fascist Blitzkrieg with their own similar idea, so your conclusion is debatable.
Re: Some useful bits of this "analysis":
Date: 29/9/10 00:38 (UTC)Didn't mention Democrats, either. Please keep up.
Re: Some useful bits of this "analysis":
Date: 29/9/10 00:54 (UTC)Re: Some useful bits of this "analysis":
Date: 29/9/10 01:54 (UTC)Re: Some useful bits of this "analysis":
Date: 29/9/10 01:55 (UTC)Re: Some useful bits of this "analysis":
Date: 29/9/10 01:58 (UTC)Re: Some useful bits of this "analysis":
Date: 29/9/10 01:59 (UTC)Re: Some useful bits of this "analysis":
From:Re: Some useful bits of this "analysis":
From:Re: Some useful bits of this "analysis":
Date: 29/9/10 00:11 (UTC)You are sitting here saying Apples are Red and since that isn't red it isn't an apple while completely ignoring the fact that the person you are talking to is saying that A pear has a lot in common with an apple.
No one serious (yes there are always demogogues and idiots who don't know any better) is saying Obama or the modern Progressive movement are NAZI's, they are saying that their policies are closer to Fascism than any other ism that we currently have a term for.
Fascism is not defined as "Pan German Nationalism", that was the way that Fascism manifested in Nazi Germany.
Further the point you consistantly refuse to address is that everyone from Goldberg on down to the posters you are arguing in here are saying that the Fascism of the 1930's is dead, however many of it's central features (No not all, and no Pan German Nationalism is not one of them, that is merely one way it was expressed) have been resurrected in the modern Progressive movement.
That resurrection of course is not a clone but an evolution. Nationalism has been replaced by Globalism, Rigid discipline has been replaced by infantilization and paternalism, and Racial purity has been replaced by political correctness and so on. That said the point stands that many of the policies and platforms would have been equally home in Germany/Italy/Spain of 1935 as the Democan national convention of 2008.
Re: Some useful bits of this "analysis":
Date: 29/9/10 00:34 (UTC)Fascism is defined as paramilitary nation-statism, but nobody ever brings up the Ustase, the Arrow Cross, or the Legion of the Archangel St. Michael, the only ones commonly mentioned are the Italians, WHO ACTUALLY INVENTED IT, and the Germans.
And they're full of shit until they can point to the analogue of the Fascio de Combattimento or the SS/SA or the Legion.
Internationalism is more a Communist vice, fascism is nationalist statism. Internationalism is something actual fascists then and now attribute to them ebil Jews.
Re: Some useful bits of this "analysis":
Date: 29/9/10 00:41 (UTC)That it is a juicy seed bearing fruit that grows on a flowing tree is irrelivant, all that matters is that the skin isn't red and therefore it cannot possibly be compared to an apple.
Re: Some useful bits of this "analysis":
Date: 29/9/10 00:55 (UTC)Re: Some useful bits of this "analysis":
Date: 29/9/10 02:35 (UTC)Those are the red skin I am referring to, or are you claiming those are the ONLY features that define Fascism?
If so...
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fascism
1) ( sometimes initial capital letter ) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.
It seems that the official dictionary definition includes more than just ethnic focus and paramilitarism
www.m-w.com
1) often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
It seems as if the official Dictionary definitions of Fascism disagree with you. In fact even in the second Nationalism is not a prerequisite, merely placing the nation as supremely important over the individual qualifies in that definition.
So now, about that Red Skin, are you ready to admit that apples have more than 1 defining property?
Re: Some useful bits of this "analysis":
Date: 29/9/10 11:26 (UTC)Note also that the Merriam-Webster dictionary is a popular dictionary where I'm arguing from the specific subset of history dedicated to studying interwar and WWII-era fascism, with my main sources those of Michael Mann, as they're the most recent analysis of *all* the historical fascists.
Re: Some useful bits of this "analysis":
Date: 29/9/10 14:43 (UTC)In both cases there is much in common between his policies and beliefs and those political systems, are they a perfect match? No of course not because no one of any import actually practices either anymore however since both in their strict definition are dead political systems and there is no name for what Obama actually is it is entirely reasonable for people to draw parallels between that which has no name and that which is known where there is similarity.
Re: Some useful bits of this "analysis":
Date: 29/9/10 19:37 (UTC)Marxism-Leninism was a revolutionary Vanguardist movement which saw repression as a virtue, not a vice, and encouraged the creation of a new kind of militaristic Communist state. The Soviet state developed a system where the Communist party performed tasks usually done by a multiplicity of distinct bureaucracies in liberal democracies, and where dissension was counter-revolution and hence free to be met with a whiff of grapeshot.
Fascism was also a statist movement but it wrapped statism in regionally-ethnically specific types of statism. The main thing both had in common was party states where the Nazis/Fascists/Ustase/Legion did everything liberal democratic regimes do by distinct bureaucracies, and both developed elaborate repressive apparati.
Re: Some useful bits of this "analysis":
Date: 29/9/10 19:52 (UTC)