A useful essay, over at Hot Air:
Modern audiences, raised on a steady diet of movies about World War II, think of fascism as either inhumanly horrifying, or completely absurd, and wonder how anyone in their right minds could have fallen for the fascist sales pitch. In fact, fascism did not seem absurd at all to the intellectuals of the early twentieth century. They thought a wise and all-powerful State, run by the most brilliant minds, would be able to engineer a more advanced society, much as engineers were designing increasingly advanced scientific marvels. The pioneering author of modern science fiction, H.G. Wells, was an outspoken advocate of authoritarian control by a benevolent government of geniuses and academics. His novel The Shape of Things to Come envisions such a government seizing control of the entire world to create a global utopia, called “The Dictatorship of the Air” because the government controls the technology of air travel – which it occasionally uses to drop bombs on those who resist. Here are some excerpts from a famous speech Wells gave to the British Young Liberals Society at Oxford in 1932, reprinted in Jonah Goldberg’s indispensable Liberal Fascism – a phrase Wells actually coins in the speech:
We have seen the Fascisti in Italy and a number of clumsy imitations elsewhere, and we have seen the Russian Communist Party coming into existence to reinforce this idea… I am asking for a Liberal Fascisti, for enlightened Nazis… And do not let me leave you in the slightest doubt as to the scope and ambition of what I am putting before you… These new organizations are not merely organizations for the spread of defined opinions… the days of that sort of amateurism are over-they are organizations to replace the dilatory indecisiveness of democracy. The world is sick of parliamentary politics…
The world is sick of parliamentary politics. This is an idea that occurs in every strand of collectivist thought. Collectivists only revere democracy until it has voted them sufficient power… then democracy becomes a cumbersome inconvenience that allows selfish, ignorant fools and corporate shills to interfere with the brilliant work of great men. The Democrats fleeing from town hall meetings are also sick of parliamentary politics, as is the President who defiles American government with dozens of unelected, unconfirmed, unaccountable “czars.” Parliamentary politics proved very inconvenient for the President’s health-care takeover and cap-and-trade bills, and have been driving global-warming cultists mad with frustration for years.
…Is America sliding into fascism? Not completely, or quickly… but it’s a potent venom, deadly in small doses. We should not dismiss the menace of fascism by reasoning that it always comes dressed in black uniforms and jackboots, patrolling the perimeter of concentration camps – so we’re in good shape as long as those horrors are not in evidence. We shouldn’t be fooling around with such a toxic ideology at all. No matter how noble the stated goals at the beginning of the collectivist journey, it always ends at the same destination. Promoting his latest propaganda film, Michael Moore said that “capitalism is evil, and you cannot regulate evil. You have to replace it with something that is good for all people, and that something is democracy.” This is more than just laughable hypocrisy from a millionaire leftist. Capitalism is the exchange of goods and services between free men and women. In the end, there is only one alternative to it, and it is not “democracy.”
And it is particularly not a Republic.
[Update a few minutes later]
Some related advice from Kevin Hassett:
…if you pursue a radical left-wing agenda, you will inevitably arouse fear of fascism. Obama’s big mistake has been to ignore this dynamic and the fears that his own powerful charisma will inflame in his opponents.
When you think fascism, you think of the evil tyrants of the 20th century. But the first fascist nation in the world was, Goldberg insists, the U.S., and Woodrow Wilson the first fascist dictator.
The case is surprisingly strong. The “progressive” Wilson centralized power, shut down members of the press he didn’t like and pressed his brand of nationalism on American children, who were asked to pledge, “I make a promise that I’ll do my honest, earnest part, in helping my America with all my loyal heart.”
Given Goldberg’s definition of fascism, it makes sense that Americans would be nervous today.
A government that rapidly attempts to consolidate power over everything from automakers to health care will naturally give people pause. Attempting to do so by following the lead of a charismatic politician who rose to power by organizing massive rallies will naturally give people pause. That such a leader would surround himself in the White House with political thugs will naturally give people pause.
Yes. A lot of pause.
Michael Moore said that “capitalism is evil, and you cannot regulate evil. You have to replace it with something that is good for all people, and that something is democracy.”
When democracy displaces property, you get such entities as the German Democratic Republic or the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.
“Democracy” in the name of those dictatorships is a cruel misuse of words, you might say, there is nothing democratic about North Korea or about what used to be East Germany. But is it? Is not “one person, one vote, one time” to logical end state of the abolition of private property, i.e. capital and capitalism?
Given Goldberg’s definition of fascism, it makes sense that Americans would be nervous today. Except Goldberg’s definition of fascism doesn’t make sense.
Except Goldberg’s definition of fascism doesn’t make sense.
Proof?
Evidence?
Argument?
Hello?
If “liberals” dislike being compared to fascists, the first step they might take is to tone down the statism. Just a thought, State-fellators.
Related to which, I’d be curious to see what Chris Gerrib (after, I’m sure, a close reading of LIBERAL FASCISM) sees as Goldberg’s definiition of fascism, and how Goldberg’s definition differs from the historcal phenomenon of fascism. This should be entertaining.
If “liberals” dislike being compared to fascists, the first step they might take is to tone down the statism. Just a thought, State-fellators.
Related to which, I’d be curious to see what Chris Gerrib (after, I’m sure, a close reading of LIBERAL FASCISM) sees as Goldberg’s definiition of fascism, and how Goldberg’s definition differs from the historcal phenomenon of fascism. This should be entertaining.
Chris,
Whether or not you think Goldberg’s definition of fascism makes sense, do you not feel uneasy with the concentration of power (real and intended) that is occurring with this administration? Acton’s maxim is still valid.
I think that Chris means that it doesn’t make sense because Barack Obama isn’t Adolf Hitler, and Barack Obama has nothing but good intentions for us all.
And it is particularly not a Republic.
Rand, I continue to be puzzled by your use of the word “republic”. I asked(*) you for your definition, but you replied by suggesting that I review Burke, Locke and the Federalist Papers. I know you are in the process of moving, and I have no wish to pester you, but may I resepectfully ask if you think there are any republics in NATO besides the USA? The reason I ask is becauase all of the other countries in NATO have a higher degree of socialism than the USA, and a higher degree of socialsim than anything proposed by the Obama administration, and while all of the NATO countries are quite democratic (even Turkey), I wondered if you thought any or all of them were republics, using your definition.
(*) http://www.transterrestrial.com/?p=21670
Argument and proof? How about The Doctrine of Fascism by one Benito Mussolini? It says in part 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.
Fascism looked back to tradition, in everything from the name (taken from the Roman consul’s badge of office, a fascia or bundle of reeds), to the way society should be organized. Socialism does not, it rejects tradition in favor of modernity.
Fascism reveres authority and the state, while socialism looks to the people or, in communism’s case, the workers (a class of people). Even in communism, the ultimate source of authority is a popular election. (Obvously in practice the communist elections had to be rigged).
From the same document above “Fascism is therefore opposed to Socialism to which unity within the State (which amalgamates classes into a single economic and ethical reality) is unknown, and which sees in history nothing but the class struggle. Fascism is likewise opposed to trade unionism as a class weapon.” Socialists (and Obama) like trade unions.
That’s just one example where Goldberg mis-read one of the most seminal documents of Fascist thought. I have provided other citations in this and other blogs where Goldberg got it wrong.
Just because Mussolini decided to uniquely (and as is often the case with the children of Rousseau, duplicitously) attempt to redefine “right” to differentially brand his particular form of collectivism and statism doesn’t separate him from the adulation he received from so many “progressives” in the twenties and thirties, including many of Roosevelt’s “brain trust.” Were they “right wingers” too?
Rand – you claim many of Roosevelt’s Brain Trust adored Mussolini. Please provide citations.
Mussolini did not redefine “right” – Goldberg redefined “left.” The “classic American liberal” of Goldberg’s book is and was a leftist – and in the 1700’s, a radical.
Rand – you claim many of Roosevelt’s Brain Trust adored Mussolini. Please provide citations.
I don’t know if they adored him personally, but they certainly admired his policies. Go read the book that you continue to attempt (pathetically) to ignore.
The “classic American liberal” of Goldberg’s book is and was a leftist – and in the 1700’s, a radical.
The Founders (other than Tom Paine) were “leftists”? Really? Before the French revolution? By the way “radical” is an extremely unuseful word in a discussion like this. I consider myself a radical, but I’m not a collectivist. It’s individualism that’s the truly radical philosophy.
Yes, Rand, really. The idea that common men could decide their own fate without referring to a king was radical. Look at every European revolution of the following century – the goal of the anti-revolutionary forces was to restore a monarchy. Greece, when it won independence from Turkey in 1837 had to import a monarch from Germany. I could go on.
BTW, Mussolini in the document I linked to provided a perfectly acceptable definition of socialism – which he then denounced.
Fascism reveres authority and the state, while socialism looks to the people or, in communism’s case, the workers (a class of people).
A very weak argument since what ideals a society collectively reveres and other ideological matters have little to do with how that society actually works. A society can revere people (or “workers” in the nomenclature of Marxism), but that doesn’t tell us whether the society is authoritarian as in the case of the USSR or near libertarian as in the case of the Iroquois Confederacy. The real question with this aspect is what parts of society are expected to fulfill these aspirations? Do you depend on government to fulfill the ideals you revere or the populace?
When you think fascism, you think of the evil tyrants of the 20th century. But the first fascist nation in the world was, Goldberg insists, the U.S., and Woodrow Wilson the first fascist dictator.
Recently, I finished a book on the 1918 influenza epidemic, “The Great Influenza: The Epic Story of the Deadliest Plague in History” by John M. Barry. In an earlier thread, I discussed with Chris Gerrib the remarkable change in the US medical system (as part of an overall revolution in the US’s academic system over that time). This was the book that inspired that musing.
The book also discusses some events with relevance to the current subject. In a few chapters he describes how the authorities in the US (this is a book primarily about how the US dealt with the epidemic) handled or ignored the brewing epidemic. A key aspect of the time was the vast control of US society by government as part of the militarization for the First World War. He claims that this was probably the closest the US has ever come to a totalitarian state, even considering the Civil War and Second World War periods.
Opposing politicians had been imprisoned; the media was tightly controlled; various forms of “voluntary” rationing were imposed; and neighborhood watches were organized to report people who were suspicious or not following the “voluntary” rationing.
One terrible effect of this was to greatly worsen the effects of the 1918 influenza epidemic when it hit. Governments, particularly the incompetent self-serving local governments, were more interested in reducing public panic and anxiety than in saving lives. So media reports routinely lied or outright ignored the spreading influenza epidemic.
It got to the point that people stopped believing in the authorities or media. That along with the terrible variety of symptoms that one could get from influenza fed fear and distrust in the populace. He gives examples of numerous people, who decades later still called the pandemic, the “Black Death” simply because they didn’t believe the horrid symptoms they had witnessed and suffered through could be caused by the flu.
The most notable story in the book is what happened to Philadelphia. There the government was run by a patronage machine (similar to Tammany Hall in NYC of the time). The head of health services (do not recall his proper title) was far less interested in saving lives (at least in the beginning) than in not rocking the boat.
When influenza first appeared in the region, it appeared in military training camps. There was high mortality (usually 5-10%) of the total camp (not just the numbers infected). It had every sign of being a disaster for the populace as a whole. The politician in charge of health services starts by denying there’s a problem at all. The media faithfully propagates this lie. At the time, the mayor is too busy defending himself from corruption charges in court to matter.
A couple weeks later it’s becoming clear that influenza got into the general population. But Philadelphia still hosts a huge parade to raise war bonds. The show must go on. Early on, the above politician would say that influenza wasn’t serious and in the next breath threaten people with serious jail time, if they spit on the street.
End result is that Philadelphia suffers one of the worst influenza outbreaks and a complete breakdown in medical care. Further the populace wasn’t warned till after the epidemic was well underway. At one point, health services are taken over and run by the rich families of Philadelphia (I’d guess you could call them “plutocrats” though they usually influenced behind the scenes rather than run things directly) simply because nobody else was doing the job.
The only fortunate thing about the epidemic was that it abruptly fell off at a stage when nearly everyone who could be infected was infected. That meant that government and society might have been tested to the breaking point, but only for a short while.
So what does this have to do with fascism? It’s yet an example of how, when they are given the sort of power that the Obama administration seeks, government fails to behave in a way that serves the public. My view is that the original seekers of power may revere something other than power, but the parasites that take over from them will revere nothing else.
“Michael Moore said that “capitalism is evil, and you cannot regulate evil. You have to replace it with something that is good for all people, and that something is democracy.” ”
If Michael Moore truly believes that, he should cease his hypocracy and stop raiding the refrigeratior of Capitalism.
The idea that common men could decide their own fate without referring to a king was radical.
<rolling eyes>
Slick change of subject.
I think Moore’s statement is a sign that the statists are going to return to a euphemism they tried thirty years ago, when Tom Hayden told his followers not to use “the ‘S’ word” but to call it economic democracy.
Following Mike’s link:
Hayden’s ambitions are-evident in his statement that “We’re going to take over.-The next big generation will be those who came to political life during Vietnam, my generation. The country will be under our influence for a long time to come..”
/shudder
I like it when RICH, FAT guys like Michael Moore talk of doing away with the evil(s) of Capitalism. Just like the rest of the Hollywood crowd he wallows in the very system he supposedly abhors.
If clowns like Moore, his personal net worth an estimated $50 Million, gave half or even a paltry quarter of it away, would they miss it? What can they buy or leverage with that 50 Mil, that 25 wouldn’t also get? Imagine the good his 12.5 or 25 MILLION dollars would do for cities like his hometown of Flint Michigan if he opened a good charter school, a trade school or free clinic or, God forbid, a for profit business with a decent wage and benefits package.
How many BILLIONS do his lib Hollywood crowd of friends own, that could be plowed into the projects they want the government to fund? But perish the thought that HE give up HIS money. He’ll never give way his money, like the rest of the Uber Lib ilk, he wants to give away MINE!!
He is, an egotistical, arrogant swine. As are most of his fellow self loathing, hand wringing, low esteemed, boobs on the left. They doubt the system, because they doubt themselves.
Titus,
oddly, there are some of us who came to political life as super young anti-Viet Nam protesters, who realized quickly that it wasn’t the fault of Nixon or any serious Republicans or the infamous Military – Industrial Complex, or even the Trilateral Commission, the Pope, the Dixie Mafia or the Masonic Lodge, it was none but THE DEMOCRATS who screwed the pooch in SE Asia.
There are those of us who had their eyes opened by the hypocrisy of the left and the blatherings of nuts like Hayden and Hanoi Jane, et al, when we listened and then had the audacity to give THOUGHT, about what was said, instead of FEELING something nebulous about this or that subject du jour.
I joined the military just two years after the last Marines flew off the Embassy in Saigon. I lost (supposed) friends over that move. How dare I go over to the other side!?! But like Moore, Clooney, Striesand and the top lefties, they are so blinded by their politics that even though several of them are rich now through business and politics, they work daily to bring about “change” in America.
I hate to say they’re shooting themselves in the foot working for that change. Most of them, as avowed anti-gun nuts, would be offended by the mere term “shooting”. But working to level the money supply will un-rich them if they ever achieve their anti-American goals, just as surly as capitalism enriched them.
“Fascism reveres authority and the state. . . .” Yeah, that’s not like modern “liberalism” at all. Modern “liberals” are such free-spirited independents. But seriously . . . Gerrib makes the mistake of confusing “accidents” and “essentials” (using those terms as they’re used in formal philosophy.)
The best part of Goldberg’s book to me was reading the quotes from various fascists and left-authoritarians and having a good laugh (along with a chil down the spine) at seeing how similar they were to the statements of ObamaNation, Clintonistas, etc. Goldberg obviously wrote it when Hillary was clearly the frontrunner (Obama is mentioned only twice), but I read it after Obama’s election and reading the chapter on Mussolini it struck me, “My God, this is about Obama!” The never-waste-a-crisis approach, the constant invocation of “unity,” the glorification of the State, the cult of the leader, etc.
I also enjoyed reading how so many American “progressives” admired “Il Duce, ” who in turn admired FDR and the New Deal. Mussolini even praised FDR’s book. I forget the title: it was FDR’s “Audacity of Hope,” outlining his plans to expand the American State and deminish individual liberty. Recently the book was reissued in trade paperback with cover-copy saying, “Milton Friedman is ‘out’–John Maynard Keynes is ‘in’!”
(Get hep with the new statism, kids! Liberty is so 1776!) There’s a bunch of blurbs from prominent contempoary State-fellators and Roosevelt-admirers, and I thought it might be a fun prank to print up Mussolini’s blurb on a sticker and go to various bookstores and stick them on the front covers. Sure, that would be a violation of private property–but isn’t that what our own “Il Dufe” is all about?
Slick change of subject. Not really, considering that Mussolini ruled under the Italian king, Franco styled himself as Regent and handed power over on his death to the king, and Hitler let all the German aristocracy serve as generals in his army while keeping their estates and money. Socialists stripped aristocracy of their titles, money and power, while communists just shot them.
Regarding Goldberg’s book – But why should I buy it? I don’t have to buy the book about how the Earth is flat and the center of the universe to refute it.
Karl Hallowell – authoritarian is not the same as fascism. Fascism and communism are types of authoritarian government. Implying that they are the same is like saying a dolphin is a fish.
Regarding Goldberg’s book – But why should I buy it?
Because you asked for a citation. I offer you one, and you hold your hands over your ears saying “Nyaa, nyaa, I can’t hear you…”
Goldberg obviously wrote it when Hillary was clearly the frontrunner (Obama is mentioned only twice), but I read it after Obama’s election and reading the chapter on Mussolini it struck me, “My God, this is about Obama!” The never-waste-a-crisis approach, the constant invocation of “unity,” the glorification of the State, the cult of the leader, etc.
I haven’t read it, but supposedly in the paperback edition that came out recently, he has an afterword in the context of Obamanation:
Yes, R., re Obama’s career as a “street organizer” I had forgotten about the very interesting section about fascism’s fascination with “the street,” a tradition carried on by the New Left.
Yes, the New Left of the sixties were the intellectual heirs of the Black Shirts, even if they didn’t realize it, as was Alinsky. Again, this is discussed in the book.
Chris, I think it also wasn’t a change of subject because Rand brought up “republics” first.
I have a question for anyone: What are the most right-wing countries on Earth right now? A list of 5 to 10 would be great! (Please specify whether you are using Goldberg’s definition or Gerrib’s). I ask because if we’re talking about what correlates with right-wing and left-wing, it would be helpful to compare internationally.
R., do you think “Il Dufe” has been having private screenings of the movie GABRIEL OVER THE WHITE HOUSE in the White House movie room?
I decided to try to answer my own question.
“www.associatedcontent.com/article/1826317/top_5_most_economically_free_countries.html?singlepage=true&cat=3”
The Heritage Foundation and the Wall Street Journal list the following countries as the economically most free today:
5th: New Zeeland (and yet there is socialized medicine)
4th: Ireland (and yet there is socialized medicine)
3rd: Australia (and yet there is socialized medicine)
2nd: Singapore (see below)
1st: Hong Kong (see below)
Singapore is interesting — no free speech, no true political freedom. Are they left-wing or right-wing (and by which definition).
Hong Kong’s economic freedom is a product of its past, but on the other hand, it has been under communist control for 10 years now.
Also: “Singapore’s health care system, which is often referred to as a free-market or mixed system, makes use of a combination of compulsory participation and state price controls to achieve the same goals [as socialized medicine]” Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialized_medicine
I don’t see the trends predicted by Rand or by the article he linked to over at Hot Air. The world is an interesting place!
I offer you one, and you hold your hands over your ears saying “Nyaa, nyaa, I can’t hear you…” I don’t want one from Goldberg, because I don’t trust him to accurately quote sources. I want an original source. You will note that I provided as my proof an original source – something written by Mussolini. Provide something written by one of FDR’s brain trust and I will consider it.
Bob-1: Singapore is a right-wing country in my book. I suspect that some of the African “kleptocracies” would go on the books as right-wing. Hong Kong is vaguely left-wing, in that the Chinese Communist Party is vaguely left-wing. “Red China” has been moving right-ward as they redefine their economic system.
I don’t want one from Goldberg, because I don’t trust him to accurately quote sources.
Gee, what a nice slander.
Well, if he mis-reads a document called “The Doctrine of Fascism” written by the founder of the movement, why should I expect him to do any better with other documents? By the way, this distrust cuts both ways – I don’t trust Ward Churchill’s writings either.
Well, if he mis-reads a document called “The Doctrine of Fascism”
Just because you disagree with his reading of it doesn’t mean he misread it. In fact, to me, it would be counterevidence of it.
By the way, this distrust cuts both ways – I don’t trust Ward Churchill’s writings either.
Gee, even nicer. Now you’re lumping him in with someone who lost his tenured position over academic fraud. You’re getting more unjustifiably slanderous by the minute.
“It’s not fascism, because we’re not going to call it that.” –Kyle’s dad on SOUTH PARK.
Chris said: “Socialists (and Obama) like trade unions.” For a while, when they can rely on the brainless goons to do their dirty work. Eventually, they bring them to heel under the auspices of The State. They do not like truly independent labor organizations. See Walesa, Lech.
“But why should I buy it? I don’t have to buy the book about how the Earth is flat and the center of the universe to refute it.”
You forfeited your right to be considered a serious interlocutor with that statement.
Just because you disagree with his reading of it doesn’t mean he misread it. Well, if he reads “apple” as “orange” I’d say that was a misread.
Now you’re lumping him in with someone who lost his tenured position over academic fraud. If the shoe fits…
Well, if he reads “apple” as “orange” I’d say that was a misread.
If he did, I’d say that too. Sadly for your case, he didn’t.
If the shoe fits…
It doesn’t. The unjustified-slander shoe fits you quite well, though.
Truth is not slander. Find me a reputable historian who endorses Goldberg’s book and we can talk.
When you compare him to an academic who lost tenure for fraud, you do not speak truth. And any historian who I mention will be disreputable by Gerrib definition, so why bother?
And any historian who I mention will be disreputable by Gerrib definition Try me. I’ll help out – a reputable historian is somebody who has tenure in a history department of a reasonably-sized four-year college. So, the adjunct lecturer and the local junior college doesn’t count, but a professor at Oral Roberts University (or whatever they are calling it now) does.
That’s nice, but I’m still not inspired to do it in the middle of a move, when it will surely still prove a waste of time.
Karl Hallowell – authoritarian is not the same as fascism. Fascism and communism are types of authoritarian government. Implying that they are the same is like saying a dolphin is a fish.
Well, how do they differ? I just hear some ideological hair-splitting. And which one is the dolphin? Personally, I ignore most labels for authoritarian governments because they’re based on superficial aspects like what priority sorting they put their ideals in. My impression is that the labels are often propagated by intellectuals who have a vested interest in one choice or another. A communist wouldn’t fare well, if the communist brand were mixed in with the fascist brand. People might accidentally support the wrong flavor.
As I see it, the only real distinction between a fascist state and a Marxist/Leninist one is that business is coopted into cooperating closely with the fascist state, while business is absorbed and managed directly by the state in the other. That is it. Blather about “workers”, right versus left, and other such things are merely minor quirks of the implementation and the propaganda narrative chosen by the leadership.
Um, a dolphin is a fish. They serve it in restaurants sometimes under the name of “mahi-mahi” so the kids won’t think they are eating Flipper. (Yes, I know, “dolphin” is also the name of the mammal we also call “porpoise,” but really, in order to stave off this sort of confusion, you should really have used a less easily-confused analogy.)
Yes, I know, “dolphin” is also the name of the mammal we also call “porpoise,”
Actually, they’re different species.
I thought they were related.
They are related — they’re both cetaceans (like whales), but they’re different families.
And good eats, the lot of them…but then I am a bohemian bastage…