Liberal Fascism

[bfp]

Saturday, January 12, 2008

This is a great Q and A with Jonah Goldberg about his new book Liberal Fascism, involving past ideologies and political methods that are tied into todays politics.





Fascism" is such an overused word that it has almost become meaningless. How are you defining it in this book?

Definitions vary wildly among academics. I would argue that's because they can't bring themselves to place it squarely on the left side of the ideological spectrum and part of the "revolutionary tradition" starting with the French Revolution. So they come up with these sometimes goofy or unwieldy definitions. Some define it by what it isn't. Other are simply descriptive, focusing on the "anatomy" of one fascist regime or regimes. One problem with that approach is that it is almost impossible to come up with a description of fascism that would exclude, say, Fidel Castro's Cuba or Joseph Stalin's Russia. That's a dilemma when fascism is supposed to the diametrical opposite of Communism. Many simply ignore the problem and keep moving. Gilbert Allardyce, a prominent scholar of fascism, put it well when he said "Put simply, we have agreed to use the word without agreeing how to define it."

I've got a long definition in the book, but a short one would be an instinctual religious impulse - usually gussied-up as a secular or modern ideology - that seeks to impose uniformity in thought and action throughout the entire society. All oars in a fascistic society must pull together. The personal is political because everything goes together. Political correctness is one name we give to such efforts in civil society.

What is the overall theme of Liberal Fascism?

If I had to pick a single overall theme in the book, I would say it's to rectify the misunderstanding of what fascism is and to highlight the deep historical, ideological and emotional ties between progressivism (now called liberalism) and fascism.

You state that "Woodrow Wilson was the twentieth century's first fascist dictator." Would you talk a little about that and the assault on civil liberties that occurred in this country during World War I.

The late sociologist Robert Nisbet once wrote, that the "West's first real experience with totalitarianism - political absolutism extended into every possible area of culture and society, education, religion, industry, the arts, local community and family included, with a kind of terror always waiting in the wings - came with the American war state under Wilson." Nisbet was right. Under Wilson, American newspapers and magazines were censored, threatened, harassed and intimidated. The Committee on Public Information, the first modern propaganda ministry, sent propaganda agents across the country - "four minute men" to whip-up war fever. The CPI released a string of propaganda films with such titles as The Kaiser, The Beast of Berlin, and The Prussian Cur. The Justice Department established the American Protective League, literally an army of goons a quarter-million strong at their zenith, who beat up "slackers" and other dissidents, spied on people and performed unconstitutional background checks. In 1920 a salesman at a clothing store in Waterbury, Connecticut, received a six-month prison sentence for referring to Lenin as "one of the brainiest" leaders in the world. Mrs. Rose Pastor Stokes was arrested, tried, and convicted for telling a women's group, "I am for the people, and the government is for the profiteers." These are just a few examples of what I'm talking about.

One could probably link the liberal impulse to everything from religion to feudalism to sociobiology. What is the point and what is the importance of linking liberalism to fascism?

Well, for starters, it's worthwhile to set the record straight. American Conservatism, with its limited ambitions for government, its belief in the imperfectability of mankind, its reverence for tradition and the US constitution and its innate opposition to radicalism are nearly the opposite of fascism. So calling conservatives fascists is not only a slander, but it prevents us from understanding our own political ideals and principles. Second, totalitarianism will never come on a white horse in this country. If it does come it will come with a friendly face. It will fancy itself a form of "progress" and do-goodery. If you use "fascism" as simply a stand-in for "evil" you will never recognize real fascism when it arrives.

The nastiest forms of fascism seem to arise when people are angry and frightened, such as the Weimar Republic. Isn't fascism a more likely possibility in rust belt America where people are without health care and unable to support their families, than say a socialist European country?

I think you make a fine point. Politically, fascism is indeed a form of populism. It was in Italy and it was in Germany. Huey Long and Father Coughlin were both populists and came fairly close to creating an American brand of fascism (particularly Coughlin). The sort of mass-movement we usually associate with classical fascism usually reaches out to "forgotten men" who feel left-out or run-over by rapid economic and social trends. Richard Hofstadter painted a picture of progressivism as quasi-fascistic and attributed it to "status anxiety" of the middle class. I think we are experiencing a frighteningly populist moment in American politics. The worst practitioner is John Edwards. His "two Americas" rhetoric strikes deeply fascistic chords. Mike Huckabee is another guy who plays this us-versus-them card deftly. Lou Dobbs is another.

One of the scariest moments in recent years, for me, was the controversy over the Dubai Ports deal. We saw, if you will, nationalists on the right and socialists on the left uniting to out demagogue each other over the evils of this supposed foreign peril. Nationalism + Socialism = "Not good stuff." Again, fascism will come during a moment of broad cross-class agreement, not disagreement. That's why I am so skeptical with all of this yearning for unity and post-partisanship. Democracy is about disagreements. Tyranny is about enforced agreement. Everyone puts down their partisan differences in North Korea, that's one reason I don't want to live there.

[bfp]

CONT.


Where do you specifically draw the line between an appropriate government program and fascism? Is the forty-hour work week fascist? Social Security? Medicare?

Well, first where do you draw the line between government programs and socialism? Or between government programs and corporatism? I think you can have an empirical debate about policies and draw the lines wherever you like. I'm not trying to use "fascist" the way the left does and simply declare any program I don't like "fascist" and therefore illegitimate.

There's nothing in conservatism that says the government can't be in the business of problem-solving. We might draw the line more narrowly than others about what problems government can or should solve, but I don't know any conservative who doesn't think government has important responsibilities to, say, fight crime, insure food safety and the like. Whether I, or someone else, calls those policies "fascistic" has no bearing on whether they're good, right or legitimate.

But at the philosophical level, I think you can tell when a program or initiative is fascist by the motivating spirit behind it. If there's a utopian impulse, if a "new age" or "new politics" are being promised, if the government is promising to create a kingdom of heaven on earth or "end" some basic feature of the human condition, then that policy is leaping out of the realm of problem-solving and into the realm of religion.

The United States now has a military presence in 130 countries. Isn't this effort—to police the world, to mold it to our objectives, to define those who don't share our views as the enemy—fascist by your definition? Why is this policy—outside of Ron Paul and a few paleoconservatives—embraced by the right.

I really don't see it that way at all. The British empire performed the task of policing the world. It wasn't fascist. We are not imposing our vision on 130 countries, we're helping secure the peace and stability of those countries and maintain trade and economic growth. In Iraq, yes, sure we're imposing our vision to a certain extent. But that's hardly a fascistic vision, now is it? Democracy and liberalism are not fascistic. We did not impose fascism on Germany and Japan after WWII, we helped cleanse them of fascism. As for declaring people who don't share our views our enemies, I think that's more than a small overstatement, one you hear from smart people all of the time. We haven't declared France, Russia, Saudia Arabia etc our "enemies." Though they each, in some respect, don't share our views. We declared, via the President, after 9/11 that those who help terrorists who attack us will be treated like terrorists themselves. Personally, I have no fundamental problem with that. Maybe it ratcheted-up the rhetoric too high or created problems. But I see nothing fundamentally wrong or fascistic about saying countries who harbor terrorist groups that attack us should watch out. I just wish we were better at implementing that policy.

What is the danger you foresee if this country pursues what you believe is liberal fascism? What is your nightmare scenario?

Well, I should say that I'm not trying to scare anybody. I don't think the nightmare scenario is likely, only more likely than I am comfortable with.

The twentieth century gave us two visions of a dystopian future, Huxley's Brave New World and Orwell's 1984. For a long time it was assumed that 1984 was the more prophetic tale. That made sense. The totalitarianism of 1984 was a product of the age of Stalin, Lenin, Hitler, and Mussolini, the dictators of a continent with a grand tradition of political and religious absolutism. Now Brave New World seems like the more plausible threat. It was a dystopia based on an American future, where the cult of youth defines society. Everything is easy under Huxley's World State. Everyone is happy. Huxley's totalitarianism isn't a "boot stamping on a human face forever," as in 1984. It's one of smiling, happy, bioengineered people chewing hormonal gum and blithely doing what they're told. Democracy is a forgotten fad because things are so much easier when the state makes all your decisions. In fact, the great dilemma for the reader of Brave New World is to answer the question, What's wrong with it?

I think we see all sorts of developments on the horizon, and much closer to us, that point in that direction. The old 1984 model rationalized dictators who fed the poor (much like Hugo Chavez). In the Huxlean world we're heading toward, the biggest problem with our poor people isn't hunger but morbid obesity. We have scientists at major research universities trying to figure out why conservatives are, in effect, so sick in the head. Bloombergism, with its "for your own good" sensibility is a much bigger threat than any kind of Wilson-like crack down on civil liberties or incipient Orwellian fascism. We're going to nicey-nice ourselves into oblivion, enjoying it all of the way down. That's my nightmare scenario.

[J. Fees]

bfp is back, i always just thought you were xian's ultra-conservative, evangelical alter ego.

[bfp]

Originally Posted by J. Feez

bfp is back, i always just thought you were xian's ultra-conservative, evangelical alter ego.

Now now. You're not being nice.

AT ALL!

[Keith P]

Oh christ.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by J. Feez

bfp is back, i always just thought you were xian's ultra-conservative, evangelical alter ego.

I'm my own ultra-conservative evangelical alter-ego

And... just to back up bfp.... fascism is a creature of the left... National Socialism is called socialism because its socialist. The left likes the attribute it to the right because they like to attribute anything they consifder nasty to the right. However, if you look at the tenents of national socialism (removing the eugenics and genocide) they look a hell of a lot more like progressive liberalism than classical liberalism or the modern right. Which, of course, will be strenuously denied by anyone of the left.

[bfp]

Originally Posted by xian

I'm my own ultra-conservative evangelical alter-ego

And... just to back up bfp.... fascism is a creature of the left... National Socialism is called socialism because its socialist. The left likes the attribute it to the right because they like to attribute anything they consifder nasty to the right. However, if you look at the tenents of national socialism (removing the eugenics and genocide) they look a hell of a lot more like progressive liberalism than classical liberalism or the modern right. Which, of course, will be strenuously denied by anyone of the left.

So true. In this link below the parallels of today's leftists and their ideology mirror what the fascists used to promote ie. the anti-smoking movement through government sanction, the love of animals, promoting animal rights, environmentalism, the use of organic foods, vegetarianism, etc.

All one has to do is look at which party wants more government control of our lives. For example I did not know this until today, but there is a bill that is close to passage in California, where the state wants to install temperature control readings in the thermostats in every house to make sure each home is not abusing their right to a certain amount of energy to keep their house cool. Hell in some cities and areas in California it is illegal to smoke in public.

If fascism is based on the amount of government control of our lives, espeically under the guise of do-goodery and goodness, as mentioned above, then it is obvious which party contains the traits that lead to fascism.

http://www.nysun.com/article/68954

[Adam D]

Originally Posted by bfp

So true. In this link below the parallels of today's leftists and their ideology mirror what the fascists used to promote ie. the anti-smoking movement through government sanction, the love of animals, promoting animal rights, environmentalism, the use of organic foods, vegetarianism, etc.

All one has to do is look at which party wants more government control of our lives.

You're right, you don't want to look at anything silly like "facts" because that would be absurd.

It's always amusing to see the great lengths the right needs to go to try to not only revise history, but black and white facts. I know, you can't help yourselves.

Let's consider a few passages from "The Doctrine of Fascism", the document with Mussolini's name attached to it that actually defined fascism:

"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."

"Fascism [is] the precise negation of that doctrine which formed the basis of the so-called Scientific or Marxian Socialism."

"Fascism is definitely and absolutely opposed to the doctrines of liberalism, both in the political and economic sphere."

And just one from "Fascism: Doctrine and Institutions" also written by Mussolini:

"The corporate State considers that private enterprise in the sphere of production is the most effective and usefu [sic] instrument in the interest of the nation. In view of the fact that private organisation of production is a function of national concern, the organiser of the enterprise is responsible to the State for the direction given to production."

Of course, I understand, the words of the man who first implemented fascism, Mussolini, may not be considered a qualified author on the subject.

[Keith P]

Originally Posted by Adam D

You're right, you don't want to look at anything silly like "facts" because that would be absurd.

It's always amusing to see the great lengths the right needs to go to try to not only revise history, but black and white facts. I know, you can't help yourselves.

Let's consider a few passages from "The Doctrine of Fascism", the document with Mussolini's name attached to it that actually defined fascism:

"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."

"Fascism [is] the precise negation of that doctrine which formed the basis of the so-called Scientific or Marxian Socialism."

"Fascism is definitely and absolutely opposed to the doctrines of liberalism, both in the political and economic sphere."

And just one from "Fascism: Doctrine and Institutions" also written by Mussolini:

"The corporate State considers that private enterprise in the sphere of production is the most effective and usefu [sic] instrument in the interest of the nation. In view of the fact that private organisation of production is a function of national concern, the organiser of the enterprise is responsible to the State for the direction given to production."

Of course, I understand, the words of the man who first implemented fascism, Mussolini, may not be considered a qualified author on the subject.

Can't help it, "oh snap" .

[J. Fees]

Originally Posted by Keith P

Can't help it, "oh snap" .

can't wait for the intense amount of bs to come from x and bfp

[PETA]

Originally Posted by Adam D

You're right, you don't want to look at anything silly like "facts" because that would be absurd.

It's always amusing to see the great lengths the right needs to go to try to not only revise history, but black and white facts. I know, you can't help yourselves.

Let's consider a few passages from "The Doctrine of Fascism", the document with Mussolini's name attached to it that actually defined fascism:

"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."

"Fascism [is] the precise negation of that doctrine which formed the basis of the so-called Scientific or Marxian Socialism."

"Fascism is definitely and absolutely opposed to the doctrines of liberalism, both in the political and economic sphere."

And just one from "Fascism: Doctrine and Institutions" also written by Mussolini:

"The corporate State considers that private enterprise in the sphere of production is the most effective and usefu [sic] instrument in the interest of the nation. In view of the fact that private organisation of production is a function of national concern, the organiser of the enterprise is responsible to the State for the direction given to production."

Of course, I understand, the words of the man who first implemented fascism, Mussolini, may not be considered a qualified author on the subject.

You highlight the differences between communism and fascism....

Fascism was statist and communism was internationalist. Otherwise... two ducks with slightly different feathers.

Read Goldberg's book. Then get back to us. Facism is no more that national socialism... which, again, is called socialist... because its socialist. Or were those clever cats, Mousolini and Hitler just covering everything up so that 75 years later people wouldn't really know that they were actually modern conservatives of 75 years later

[bfp]

You're right, you don't want to look at anything silly like "facts" because that would be absurd.

Sure, let's look at the facts.

It's always amusing to see the great lengths the right needs to go to try to not only revise history, but black and white facts. I know, you can't help yourselves.

Who's revising history?

Let's consider a few passages from "The Doctrine of Fascism", the document with Mussolini's name attached to it that actually defined fascism:

"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."

"Fascism [is] the precise negation of that doctrine which formed the basis of the so-called Scientific or Marxian Socialism."

"Fascism is definitely and absolutely opposed to the doctrines of liberalism, both in the political and economic sphere."

And just one from "Fascism: Doctrine and Institutions" also written by Mussolini:

"The corporate State considers that private enterprise in the sphere of production is the most effective and usefu [sic] instrument in the interest of the nation. In view of the fact that private organisation of production is a function of national concern, the organiser of the enterprise is responsible to the State for the direction given to production."

There is a difference. All of this is mere theory. Look at the policies he implemented and the subversive nature with which he used government to weild power over the citizens of Italy.

If one were to compare socialism to fascism, one would find that they are not at opposites with regards to the methods used to attain centralized governmental control. There are different variations of course, but the net result is one in the same.

Moreover, if anyone were to look at Mussolini's historical ideological stances, they would see that he had ideas and a philosophy that matched the ideas of today’s leftists, ie the anti-bourgeois savior for the working class, progressive taxation, he supported increased minimum wage, and once said "Therefore I desire that this assembly shall accept the revindication of national trades unionism”.

Now, if his theory of fascism preached against it, why would he then promote support for trade unions?

Now to his disdain for ‘liberalism’. European liberalism is different than todays American liberalism. European liberalism back then is today’s American conservatism, ie supporting limited government (classical or ‘Manchester’ liberalism). So I think that a totalitarian/fascist state being at opposites with a classic liberal who opposes centralized governmental power, makes complete sense.

“Mussolini's Marxist Roots

So, how many people today are aware that Mussolini, that great Fascist ogre, was in his youth an incandescent revolutionary socialist, a labor-union agitator who was jailed for his pains (Hibbert, 1962)? He was as radical as any student radical of today. Even in his childhood, he was expelled from two schools for his rebellious behaviour.

After that he became one of Italy's most prominent Marxist theoreticians and an intimate of Lenin. He was in fact first dubbed "Il Duce" (the Leader) when he was a member of Italy's (Marxist) Socialist Party and between 1912 and 1914 he was the editor of their newspaper, "L'Avanti". After his split with the Socialist Party he started his own Leftist newspaper "Il Popolo d'Italia" ("The people of Italy").

When he broke with the Socialist party in 1914, it was not over any dissatisfaction with socialist ideology but rather because the Socialists were neutralists in the First World War whereas Mussolini correctly foresaw that the Austro/German forces would not win the war and therefore wanted Italy to join the Allied side and thus get a slice of Austrian territory at the end of the war. Italians had suffered many humiliations at the hands of the Austrians and there must have been very few Italians who did not share Mussolini's desire to seize historically Italian territory from them. Like many Leftists then and since Mussolini did not have any principles that he allowed to stand in the way of a grab for power.

It should be noted that Mussolini's views in this matter did not at all disqualify him from continuing as a Marxist. Like many other Marxists of his time (See Gregor, 1979), Mussolini tempered his view of the importance of class-solidarity with the recognition that both Marx and Engels had in their lifetimes lent their support to a number of wars between nations. He looked, in other words, not only at broad Marxist theory but also at how Marx and Engels applied their theories. Such "pragmatism" was, of course, a hallmark of Mussolini's thinking. And, like the Communists, Mussolini had no aversion to war.

As further commentary on Mussolini's Marxist credentials, it may be worth noting that, long before the Bolshevik revolution, Mussolini had supported the orthodox Marxist (cf. the Mensheviks) view that backward States like Italy and Russia had to go through a capitalist or bourgeois democratic stage before evolving into socialism. It was this, as much as anything, that led Mussolini to collaborate with the Italian establishment when he eventually gained power.

Mussolini's disagreement with Lenin in this matter therefore meant that Mussolini and his Fascist friends greeted with considerable glee the terrible economic disaster (with national income at one third of the 1913 level) that emerged in Russia after the Bolshevik takeover. They saw both the Bolshevik disaster and their own eventual successes as proving the correctness of Marx's theory of history. When, in 1919, Lenin began to speak (in language that could have been Mussolini's) of the need to hold his country together with "a single iron will" (Gregor, 1979, p. 124) it put him belatedly but rather clearly in Mussolini's camp. It should also be noted that Mussolini was the son of an impoverished and very Leftist father who worked mainly as a blacksmith. Mussolini was very proud of these working-class roots and it was a great recreation of his, even after coming to power, to take drives in the country with his wife and stop at various farmhouses on the way for a chat with the family there. He would enjoy discussing the crops, the weather and all the usual rural topics and obviously just liked the feeling of being one of the people. His claim to represent the people was not just theory but heartfelt. And he never gave up his "anti-bourgeois" rhetoric. “

Of course, I understand, the words of the man who first implemented fascism, Mussolini, may not be considered a qualified author on the subject.

I obviously disagree.

[zymote]

Originally Posted by bfp

Like many Leftists then and since Mussolini did not have any principles that he allowed to stand in the way of a grab for power.

Between sentences like that demonstrating an obvious bias, and the lack of sources, I find it really hard to take your post seriously.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by zymote

Between sentences like that demonstrating an obvious bias, and the lack of sources, I find it really hard to take your post seriously.

lol - you think his off hand comment that Mousilini was a power grabber reveals bias? You're requiring sources for that claim? That's good stuff.

[J. Fees]

i think its the source of all of BFP rants that always trip people up. Sources like "Right Wing Monthly", and "The We Hate Liberals and Fags Report" are just not credible sources