Historians Rally Round to Attack "Liberal Fascism"

[Lemur]

This kinda made me laugh—the History News Network is featuring a series of articles ripping Jonah Golderg's Liberal Fascism (http://books.google.com/books?id=wHihWKJE3asC&dq=goldberg+"liberal+fascism") to shreds. This is noteworthy since the book is being heavily promoted on Fox News Network, National Review (where Goldberg is a contributor (http://author.nationalreview.com/?q=MjE5NQ==)) and NewsMax. Glenn Beck is flogging this thing like it's the second coming of Ayn Rand.

Of particular note are the three articles penned by experts in the field of (what else?) fascism.

Introduction (http://www.hnn.us/articles/122469.html)
The Scholarly Flaws of Liberal Fascism (http://www.hnn.us/articles/122231.html)
An Academic Book—Not! (http://www.hnn.us/articles/122473.html)
Poor Scholarship, Wrong Conclusions (http://www.hnn.us/articles/122247.html)
The Roots of Liberal Fascism: The Book (http://www.hnn.us/articles/122245.html)

[Vladimir]

Interesting and entertaining; thank you.

Unfortunately it seems that many people never outgrew such foolish and simplistic comparisons.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Liberal Fascism (http://books.google.com/books?id=wHihWKJE3asC&dq=goldberg+%22liberal+fascism%22) ¿Que?



Wow.


Uh...when you think about it, Atilla the Hun was really a libreal Marxist. Imma gonna write myself a book about it and get rich.

[Aemilius Paulus]

Unfortunately it seems that many people never outgrew such foolish and simplistic comparisons.
Yeah, it seems the whole book is based on 'if A does B and if C does B, the A and C are the same'. Or do they have anything else up their sleeves that I am not aware of?

I wonder what Fragony thinks of this... He seems to be quite fond of comparing liberals with stereotypically radical-right (mis)actions...

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

He does have a few points. The left does tend to throw around the term "fascist" far too often with regard to conservatives, and they do often attempt to blur the line between the right and far-right, especially here in Europe. He is also correct in saying that some of the things the Nazis did were policies that the modern left has adopted today.

Where he is incorrect is where he tries to tie the modern left to the Nazis, which is false, regardless of whatever anti-smoking policies they may have in common. If he wants to debate whether the Nazis were far-left or far-right, well, that's fine, even though I'll disagree with him. But to connect the modern left to the Nazis is just as hyperbolic as the left calling the right fascists.

[Aemilius Paulus]

He does have a few points. The left does tend to throw around the term "fascist" far too often with regard to conservatives, and they do often attempt to blur the line between the right and far-right, especially here in Europe.
Mmm, how true, especially the first point. But who doesn't throw labels around? Sure beat the hell out of actually debating, when all the audience/media cares about are the so-called 'soundbites'.

[Beskar]

Where he is incorrect is where he tries to tie the modern left to the Nazis, which is false, regardless of whatever anti-smoking policies they may have in common. If he wants to debate whether the Nazis were far-left or far-right, well, that's fine, even though I'll disagree with him. But to connect the modern left to the Nazis is just as hyperbolic as the left calling the right fascists.

Since the left are anti-authoritarian and egalitarian in nature, it is impossible for the left to be associated with a totalitarian regime, and especially the far-left which simply are anarchists.

While the line might get blurred with the right and far-right (the latter being fascists totalarian) which can be argued is over-used, trying to associate a totalarian regime with a leftist ideologically is like peeing facing the wind.

(Also, anyone claiming to be "left" while spousing authoritarian views is not actually on the left.)

[Subotan]

Really superb series of articles. I read them all non-stop, and my politics teacher will love them :2thumbsup:

I particularly liked

One of the more striking aspects of Goldberg’s dishonesty is how he manipulates his definitions in self-serving fashion that lets him move the goalposts at will, as though we were playing Calvinball.



Liberal Fascism is a Business Class airport read for those who sit smugly in Priority Lounges and, once airborne, feel a sense of superiority as they sip alcohol in front of the flimsy curtain which separates them from ‘economy class’ fellow passengers whose fate they are likely to share only in the event of a crash (in contrast to The Titanic, where passenger class determined death rates).

EDIT:


He does have a few points. The left does tend to throw around the term "fascist" far too often with regard to conservatives, and they do often attempt to blur the line between the right and far-right, especially here in Europe. He is also correct in saying that some of the things the Nazis did were policies that the modern left has adopted today.
Commander Adama explains this quite well.


Manipulative. Cunning. The only problem with Leoben isn't that he lies - that would be too easy - its that he mixes lies with truth

[Crazed Rabbit]

Since the left are anti-authoritarian and egalitarian in nature, it is impossible for the left to be associated with a totalitarian regime, and especially the far-left which simply are anarchists.

While the line might get blurred with the right and far-right (the latter being fascists totalarian) which can be argued is over-used, trying to associate a totalarian regime with a leftist ideologically is like peeing facing the wind.

(Also, anyone claiming to be "left" while spousing authoritarian views is not actually on the left.)

The 'No True Scotsman' fallacy, in the wild, ladies and gentlemen.

CR

[Lemur]

The 'No True Scotsman' fallacy, in the wild, ladies and gentlemen.
True dat. Are we to take it that Stalin and Mao were right-wing totalitarians? Eh, I think it's more likely that "left" and "right" are meaningless when it comes to authoritarians. Seems like most any political scheme can produce authoritarians, in the right circumstances and with the right people.

That said, it warms my heart to see real historians gang-tackling a work of pseudo-historical polemic.

[CountArach]

Jon Stewart (http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-january-16-2008/jonah-goldberg) did a great interview with Goldberg a long time ago.

"That's like saying moustaches are Fascist because Hitler had a moustache."

[Ironside]

Since the left are anti-authoritarian and egalitarian in nature, it is impossible for the left to be associated with a totalitarian regime, and especially the far-left which simply are anarchists.

While the line might get blurred with the right and far-right (the latter being fascists totalarian) which can be argued is over-used, trying to associate a totalarian regime with a leftist ideologically is like peeing facing the wind.

(Also, anyone claiming to be "left" while spousing authoritarian views is not actually on the left.)

This in this thread? :shame:

While I agree on that anarchic socialism and Stalinism is very different idealogues from the same root, what do you call authoritarian figures that uses communist or socialist related ideologues when they are in power and/or actually believes in them? And what do you call the society they build? To use a less extreme example: Fidel Castro.

[Beskar]

Are we to take it that Stalin and Mao were right-wing totalitarians?

Since totalitarianism is extreme right-wing, there is no need of a prefix as there isn't a left-wing variation. The idea of "left-wing totalitarian" is oxymoronic paradox since the absolute main value of egalitarianism in left-wing philosophy is being violated

Let's say egalitarianism is a cat and a totalitarianism is a dog. The idea being suggested is defining a dog as a cat, when it clearly walks like a dog, barks like a dog, and pees on the lamppost as a dog. In all definitions, it is actually a dog, thus the label you try to apply on the dog is meaningless, as if you label a dog as an ice-cream, the dog won't magically be an ice-cream either.

Going back to CR:

The 'No True Scotsman' fallacy, in the wild, ladies and gentlemen.

This is a completely different situation. Thus you are incorrect. Quoting the example from wikipedia:

Teacher: All Scotsmen enjoy haggis.
Student: But my Scottish uncle Scotty McScottscott doesn't like haggis!
Teacher: Well, all true Scotsmen like haggis.


This would be akin to what CountAnarch says with his example. The definition of what is to be Scottish is being born in Scotland and having a Scottish family heritage, it is nothing to do with Haggis. So it is completely irrevelent and has absolutely nothing to do with any real and binding definitions.

I explain it this way. As soon as you start murdering multiple people, you go from "innocent" to "serial killer". In the same way, if you was lets say in a socialst utopia then you turn it into a totalitarian regime, it is no longer a socialist utopia, it is something else.



tl:dr version: If you thought what I said was wrong, you need to open your minds to read what I just wrote to see why you are wrong.

[Ironside]

Since you're going that way Beskar, CR is now your cousin on the left. :smug: :laugh4:

[Crazed Rabbit]

You're wrong Beskar. You're redefining the evidence to prevent your original argument from going under.

Observe:

No True Scotsman Explanation

This is actually a combination of several fallacies, but since it rests ultimately on shifting the meaning of terms — a form of equivocation — and begging the question, it receives special attention.

The name “No True Scotsman” comes from an odd example involving Scotsmen:

1. Suppose I assert that no Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge. You counter this by pointing out that your friend Angus likes sugar with his porridge. I then say “Ah, yes, but no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.”

Obviously the original assertion about Scotsmen has been challenged quite well, but in attempting to shore it up the speaker uses an ad hoc change combined with a shifted meaning of the words from the original.


Let's change a few terms:


1. Suppose I assert that no [left wing person] [is totalitarian]. You counter this by pointing out that [Castro, Stalin and Mao are/were totalitarian]. I then say “Ah, yes, but no true [left wing person] [is totalitarian].

It's a textbook example.

From wiki:

A universal claim is of the form "All x are y" or "No x are y." In the example above, the universal claim is "No Scotsmen are brutal maniacal rapists." The counterexample is given by the Aberdonian, who, it is implied, is a brutal maniacal rapist. The response relies on a continued insistence that No Scots are brutal maniacal rapists, and to thus conclude that the brutal maniacal and rapacious Aberdonian is no true Scot. Such a conclusion requires shifting the presumed definition of "Scotsman" to exclude all brutal maniacal rapists.

Read the last sentence very carefully. Change a few terms, and that is exactly what you're doing:

Such a conclusion requires shifting the presumed definition of "Left Wing" to exclude all totalitarian rulers.

Basically, faced with evidence disproving your original statement, you insist your statement disproves the evidence.

CR

[Beskar]

Since you're going that way Beskar, CR is now your cousin on the left. :smug: :laugh4:

Why so?

Main value of the left is as follows:

Egalitarianism - The principle of equality. Thus, monarchy (inequal by birth), racism (inequal by race), nationalist (inequal by social constructs), etc are opposing ideas.

Then to define terms which others misunderstand:

Society (Socialism) - The principle of the society. The end means is that society looks after itself and its needs.

Community (Communism) - The principle of the community. The end means is that the community looks after itself and its needs.


Using this information, you can start to construct political ideals which people have used, and are used to achieve these arms.

Republic - The idea we become more equal by removing heretical power figures.

Democracy - The idea everyone has an equal influence on the power. Greater the Democratic functions, the Greater the Freedom and Equality.

Constitution - Primarily goal of a consitution is to provide regulation to prevent abuse to cause inequality.

Free Speech - The idea of Free Speech is that it should be perfectly fine for you to speak the truth without prosecution, to allow you to speak out against corruption, so this can be acted against.


Either way, the end goal of left-wing philosophy is basically equality. Thus the idea of a totalitarian government by its very definition is very inequal, does not mean it left-wing. While there has been some governments involving aspects of a community, it violates the first law of robotics left-wing, thus they are not left-wing.

[Beskar]

You're wrong Beskar. You're redefining the evidence to prevent your original argument from going under.


I am not redefining any evidence. You're wrong, and instead of actually accepting that, you are trying to cover-up your ignorance of the facts and attempting to say I am wrong when I am not.

You could try to actually understand you are incorrect, instead of insulting a political ideology for cheap points on FauxNews to do high-fives with your "anti-left agenda" buddies backstage.

Edit: Crazed Rabbit is Bill O'Reilly.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Well I tried. :shrug:

Anyone else pine for the time when conservatives wrote books with names like "God and Man at Yale"? Where has the classiness gone?

EDIT: You gots me! You've found out I'm Bill O'Reilly and Lemur is Sean Hannity! Oh noes!

CR

[ajaxfetish]

Since you're going that way Beskar, CR is now your cousin on the left.Why so?

Main value of the left is as follows:

Egalitarianism - The principle of equality. Thus, monarchy (inequal by birth), racism (inequal by race), nationalist (inequal by social constructs), etc are opposing ideas.

Which, if I understand him correctly, is the main right-wing value CR espouses. So apparently, you two are both lefties by your definitions, suggests Ironside.

Ajax

edit: and your explanation sounds exactly like 'No True Scotsman,' Beskar.

[Beskar]

Which, if I understand him correctly, is the main right-wing value CR espouses.

Never heard him expose it.

Though on the otherhand with this sites right-wingers such as Furunculus and EMFM are big on the whole nationalism and monarchy. So how is egalitarianism rightwing? :juggle2:

Oddly enough, I am egalitarian, so is CA, Louis, and others, and they self-identify as being left-wing.

Wait... something isn't adding up here... maybe I was correct!

[ajaxfetish]

Never heard him expose it.

Though on the otherhand with this sites right-wingers such as Furunculus and EMFM are big on the whole nationalism and monarchy. So how is egalitarianism rightwing? :juggle2:

Oddly enough, I am egalitarian, so is CA, Louis, and others, and they self-identify as being left-wing.

Wait... something isn't adding up here... maybe I was correct!

You're certainly correct if you're arguing that egalitarianism is independent of left-right. Of course a left-winger can be egalitarian. Has anyone been suggesting otherwise? The tricky thing is you seem to be suggesting a right-winger can't be egalitarian and/or a left-winger must be. That's the problem.

Ajax

[Crazed Rabbit]

Never heard him expose it.
...
Wait... something isn't adding up here... maybe I was correct!

So you're using your lack of knowledge as proof? :inquisitive: :dizzy2:

Here we go; I believe very strongly in egalitarianism, along with liberty. I don't like kings or monarchies or anything but Republics and democracies.

As for Furunculus and EMFM; they don't matter, because they aren't right wing. All true right wing people believe in liberty, so somebody opposed to that by supporting a monarchy can not be right wing. No authoritarian or totalitarian person can be right wing, because those concepts are directly opposed to liberty.
:smug:

CR

[Beskar]

So you're using your lack of knowledge as proof? :inquisitive: :dizzy2:

Here we go; I believe very strongly in egalitarianism, along with liberty. I don't like kings or monarchies or anything but Republics and democracies.

As for Furunculus and EMFM; they don't matter, because they aren't right wing. All true right wing people believe in liberty, so somebody opposed to that by supporting a monarchy can not be right wing. No authoritarian or totalitarian person can be right wing, because those concepts are directly opposed to liberty.
:smug:

CR

Unfortunately for you. Definitions of right-wing are contrary to your position, especially when I use the concept of "extreme right", you get the moustaches and their extreme authoritarian and totalitarian beliefs, opposed to "extreme left" where you get anarchy, which is a completely stateless, non-authoritarian entity.

In otherwords, you are a deluded right-winger who actually closer to the left than they realise if what you said is true.

Is there such as term as "in-the-closet lefty" (shorterned to "Closet Lefty") ? I think that should be your new useritle. :beam:

[Crazed Rabbit]

Unfortunately for you. Definitions of right-wing are contrary to your position,

Says who? You? Good grief, you don't get to define everything in world. Do you want me to bring in all sorts of definitions of left wing that include Stalin and Mao and Castro?

You need to realize there's bad folks on both sides of politics.

CR

[ajaxfetish]

Unfortunately for you. Definitions of right-wing are contrary to your position,
You seem to be not using the definitions of left and right that the rest of the world does, but instead definitions where left=good and right=bad. I'm not sure that's really helpful. I'll agree with you that good stuff is good and bad stuff is bad, but I'm going to stick to the usual definitions of left and right, so that I can communicate accurately with people besides you.

Ajax

[Beskar]

You seem to be not using the definitions of left and right that the rest of the world does, but instead definitions where left=good and right=bad. I'm not sure that's really helpful. I'll agree with you that good stuff is good and bad stuff is bad, but I'm going to stick to the usual definitions of left and right, so that I can communicate accurately with people besides you.

Ajax

You are mistaken. Good and Bad is relative to the eye of the beholder. As a egalitarian, monarchy = bad for example to me, however, to Evil_Maniac from Mars, it is something good.

The classic definitions which Europe and the world uses is that the Left is Libertarianism/Anarchism and the right is Authoritarian/Totalitarian. (the top v. bottom aspect to politicalcompass.org)

However, there is a trend in America, for whatever reason, decided to be different and base it on economy (collectivism and capitalism/freemarket). Personally, I think this routs to that the founders in a sense in their opinion, eliminated all authoritarian aspects, thus it only leaves the economy, thus used that as their scale, while in Europe and the world, we have multiple different systems of government.

So if you want to use political compass as your guide, the more "left" you are, using the general definition as we, the world use it, is basically how close to the bottom you are.

Using this link for example, you get an idea of how it is:
http://politicalcompass.org/uselection2008

Republican candidates such as Sarah Palin are far more authoritarian than Obama. this also fits in with the idea of the Republicans being on the "right" of America politics, and Democrats being on the "left". As you can see, even using this scale, the definitions I am using are still 100% valid.

Take examples quotes such as Stalin. Where do you think he will be? Let's take a look.
http://politicalcompass.org/analysis2

Ignoring political compass US left-right bias, and again, using the why we define left-right in Europe and the World (top and bottom). Where is Hilter and Stalin on that scale?

You will notice both Hilter and Stalin are the the top (along with Thatcher too). The most left-wing as we use it on the scale is infact, Gandi.

Are you starting to see it now? In the rest of the World outside of the US where you some hold adopted a different meaning to it. My comments are 100% perfectly valid. You are trying to group Stalin, who is clased as right-wing here, who is at the top of that scale, on our left-wing, which is at the bottom of that scale. As you can clearly see, Stalin is not on the bottom, hence why my comments saying Stalin cannot be left-wing are perfectly valid.

So to directly counter a point with what I just said:

You seem to be not using the definitions of left and right that the rest of the world does,

Incorrect, I am infact using the definition of what the World outside of US does. In my explanation, I re-remembered American's are a "special case". So unfortunately Ajax, you just ironically pointed out you use a different definition to us in the world.

[ajaxfetish]

You are mistaken. Good and Bad is relative to the eye of the beholder. As a egalitarian, monarchy = bad for example to me, however, to Evil_Maniac from Mars, it is something good.


Of course I meant relative to you. I wasn't asserting that monarchy is bad, but rather that you consider it bad, and thus right-wing.

Ajax

[Beskar]

Of course I meant relative to you. I wasn't asserting that monarchy is bad, but rather that you consider it bad, and thus right-wing.

Ajax

Oh, no, that isn't why it is right-wing. It just that in the classic definitions (at least to some one from the US), monarchy is on the right.

I used bad as it is opposing to what I think is correct and my way of life. Obviously not everything I disagree with is bad, I just used very simple terms in that example.

Hopefully you understood with my last big long tl;dr post how what I was isn't is definitely not a "true scotsman" example.

[Lemur]

Beskar, I think you need to come to grips with the truth: left and right are meaningless constructs invented as political shorthand. It's foolish to say "left is this" and "right is that," as though you were privy to their true, ultimate meanings.

And don't get me started on "liberal" and "conservative," which have been twisted beyond all recognition into meaningless words.

[Meneldil]

The classic definitions which Europe and the world uses is that the Left is Libertarianism/Anarchism and the right is Authoritarian/Totalitarian. (the top v. bottom aspect to politicalcompass.org)

This is certainly not the definition I've been given in any of my (numerous) law or poli sci class. There are hundred of books and authors who've been trying to define what the left is and what the right is. Oversimplication such as the one that appears on politicalcompass.org doesn't really hold any sociological value.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

There is absolutely no way that Beskar is serious. He's too smart to be serious about this, and therefore must be trolling. That is the only logical conclusion I can reach.

[AlexanderSextus]

Liberal Fascism (http://books.google.com/books?id=wHihWKJE3asC&dq=goldberg+"liberal+fascism")

Che? Questo é pazzo!

[Aemilius Paulus]

There is absolutely no way that Beskar is serious. He's too smart to be serious about this, and therefore must be trolling. That is the only logical conclusion I can reach.
Yeah, I mean, I almost always side with Beskar, but this time, it is only reasonable to conclude you have a more balanced view...

[Beskar]

There is absolutely no way that Beskar is serious. He's too smart to be serious about this, and therefore must be trolling. That is the only logical conclusion I can reach.

Thank you for the compliment, though it wasn't necessarily trolling. It was working out a little gripe of mine I had around for ages and really wanted to just bash out this once.

However, it is all good and we are all friends. Even got a new nickname for CR: Closet Lefty. Obviously meant as a term of endearment.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Beskar, I think you need to come to grips with the truth: left and right are meaningless constructs invented as political shorthand. It's foolish to say "left is this" and "right is that," as though you were privy to their true, ultimate meanings.

And don't get me started on "liberal" and "conservative," which have been twisted beyond all recognition into meaningless words.

Boy, do we ever agree on this. Left/Right, Liberal/Conservative have become conflated and confused. At BEST, we must acknowledge multiple continua which ALL can be used to label a particular political philosophy/policy/program/statement.


Centralized Authority v. Diffused Authority

Government Control of Economic Activity v. Un-regulated Economic Activity

Government Ownership of the Means of Production v. Private Ownership of the Means of Production

Equality of Outcome v Equality of Opportunity

Egalitarianism v Privileged Status

Complete Secularianism v Complete Theocracy

True Democracy v Complete Autocracy


...and more could be posited.


Beskar: You're trying to label your concept too simply and getting trapped in your own labeling.

[Askthepizzaguy]

He does have a few points. The left does tend to throw around the term "fascist" far too often with regard to conservatives

Mmm. What drives me nuts is the excessive hyperbole. In my view, at least in the United States, conservatism and liberalism are about a dash of sugar away from being the exact same cake.

When we talk about a difference of a few percentage points in terms of tax rates, almost the exact same foreign policy, same stance regarding bailouts of the economy, same stance on gay marriage (didn't see the Dems do a darn thing about don't ask, don't tell even... what a screw-job), almost identical stance on abortion (I didn't see the Republicans outlaw abortion) same stance on giving all sorts of pork spending to every state, red or blue...

Honestly, when either party calls the other fascist, nazi, whatever, I really have to laugh. If that's the case, then the only difference between the parties is what shade of brown their shirts are. :laugh4:


and they do often attempt to blur the line between the right and far-right, especially here in Europe. He is also correct in saying that some of the things the Nazis did were policies that the modern left has adopted today.

Yes, but it's such a terrible argument. I'm sure if say, a white supremacist party came to power, they would also have an opinion on whether smoking in public should be legal or illegal. That doesn't mean that people who agree with them are white supremacists. If we're going to identify a tiger by its stripes alone, then zebras and candy canes are also tigers.


Where he is incorrect is where he tries to tie the modern left to the Nazis, which is false, regardless of whatever anti-smoking policies they may have in common. If he wants to debate whether the Nazis were far-left or far-right, well, that's fine, even though I'll disagree with him. But to connect the modern left to the Nazis is just as hyperbolic as the left calling the right fascists.

I also love the oversimplification and blurring of terms.

I can find a mass murderer who believes that eating meat is evil. I can find a mass murderer who believes that eating meat is just fine. But if I use either one as an example of what all people who believe eating meat is fine are like, then I'm being intellectually dishonest, to put it too kindly. Also known as being (expletive) stupid.

Those who want to abolish the state entirely (anarchists) are called left wing or right wing. :inquisitive:
Those who want to reduce the state's power (conservatives) are called right wing. :inquisitive:
Those who want to increase the state's power (liberals) are called left wing :inquisitive:
Those who want the state to decide everything (authoritarians) are called either left wing or right wing :inquisitive:

This is primarily why I rejected being placed on the Political Compass. Where people stand on any issue deserves at the very least its own compass for that issue, and sometimes issues are more complex than a More/Less dichotomy. First you simplify everything into a nebulously defined Left/Right dichotomy, and then you take the median of all of your scores on a range of unrelated issues, and that's where you stand. Now, you get to pick one word to define you, Left, Right, or Center.

Yeah, that conveys accurate information. Especially when people can't seem to understand what Left, Right, or Center stands for, as people with wildly different ideas are often grouped together in this mess of a system.

If people are too lazy to be identified as anything besides left or right, this is what we get. One man writes a book about how liberals are actually a lot like the people who would have thrown liberals or conservatives into political prisons, and a bunch of people with no firm grasp on the issues believes that liberals must be Nazis. And then the polarized opposition will write a book about how a principled stance against embryonic stem cell research (right or wrong) means you must be a fundamentalist christian conservative bible-thumper who is going to turn everything into a theocratic state, and inevitably, they will compare conservatives to the radical religious extremists that want to blow them up with an explosive vest or a shoe bomb.

It's nothing more than schoolyard taunting, but with a slightly expanded dictionary, and yet no firmer grasp on the words themselves than children might have.

[The Wizard]

¿Que?



Wow.


Uh...when you think about it, Atilla the Hun was really a libreal Marxist. Imma gonna write myself a book about it and get rich.

American "liberal", mind.

But still, yeah.

EDIT: Also, Seamus is looking like he's played a little too much HoI2 ~;)

[naut]

Liberal Facisim? In a purely semantic sense, the oxymoronic nature of the book title is enough for me to disregard it out of hand. Now, if that was an album name. That would sound awesome.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Well hold one one moment. Imagine if a corporatist state mandated that everyone shall accept the validity of gay marriage under penalty of death.

Thus, we would have a liberal fascist.

[naut]

Well hold one one moment. Imagine if a corporatist state mandated that everyone shall accept the validity of gay marriage under penalty of death.
Who's board was voted in by the people. But, able to overruled by a supreme chairman....

[Furunculus]

Egalitarianism - The principle of equality. Thus, monarchy (inequal by birth), racism (inequal by race), nationalist (inequal by social constructs), etc are opposing ideas.

Though on the other hand with this sites right-wingers such as Furunculus and EMFM are big on the whole nationalism and monarchy. So how is egalitarianism rightwing? :juggle2:
Oddly enough, I am egalitarian, so is CA, Louis, and others, and they self-identify as being left-wing.

Wait... something isn't adding up here... maybe I was correct!
egalitarian -
Affirming, promoting, or characterized by belief in equal political, economic, social, and civil rights for all people.

egalitarianism -
a social and political philosophy asserting the equality of all men, especially in their access to the rights and privileges of their society. Also equalitarianism. — egalitarian, n., adj.

Our monarchy is not now a construct of power, and it is isolated to one idividual, it does not thus represent an advantage of one group over another, because there is no group and there is no <real> power.

I'm disappointed to see I don't qualify in your definition on the basis of race, but i would hasten to assure you that i do not affirm, promote, or characterise the belief that some races are more equal than others.

I think you misunderstand the definition of egalitarianism, to quote; "especially in their access to the rights and privileges of their society". Nationalism does not equate or negate egalitarianism, it is an unrelated concept. if you had a global society then you can have egalitarianism, if you have a [non-global] society you can have egalitarianism.

I believe in equal political, economic, social, and civil rights for all people, but i am not arrogant enough to demand that my understanding of how an equal society be accepted by other people whose societies will have their own ideas on how an egalitarian society should be ordered.

I believe I am egalitarian, how am i wrong?

[Furunculus]

There is absolutely no way that Beskar is serious. He's too smart to be serious about this, and therefore must be trolling. That is the only logical conclusion I can reach.
agreed, he has been far too ridiculous, and yet far too amusing, for this not to be a hilarious wind-up.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Beskar, I think the problem is that you are trying to define the left and right purely along the lines of how 'big' the government should be. The problem with this is that the state is not the fundamental aspect of the divide. What separates the left and right is ideology. The state is simply a tool used to varying degrees to help to put those ideologies into practice.

If you're going to continue to say big government = right-wing, and small government = left-wing, then you're never going to be able to have any meangingful discussions on the topic or help develop any sort of understanding between the two sides.

When it comes what the standard left/right values are, I think we're all in agreement. Ideologically, the left sees class as the main social division, and sees the competition in trade and production as an oppressive force for the working class. The right sees culture/race/nationality/religion as the main divisions between people, and sees a competetive market as a source of opportunity and driving force for progress. Those are the main social/economic aspects of each ideology. Now before people object, these are simply a product of the historical roots that gave rise to the ideologies - of course, there are divisions on either side as to how far the state should aim to enforce these.

And that is, I think, where the misunderstandings in this thread are coming from. Stalin was left-wing - he used a totalitarian state structure for the promotion of class struggle, as well as waging war against anti-revolutionaries such as minority ethnic groups (which Marx directly calls for, stating in one example that the Slavs of the Hapsburg Empire should be genocided). Today, your standard Green party is also left-wing, as they call for the removal of traditional class divides - but without the strong, centralised state structure.

Whereas on the right, you have the Nazis. National Socialism (and having 'socialism' in the title doesn't make it any more left-wing that Marx's vision of 'state capitalism' makes his ideology right-wing) sought to use the state to manage relations between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, for the good of the nation as a whole. That's clearly a right-wing ideology, using big government to promote it. On the other hand, in the USA, you have the Christian right which draws its morality from right-wing elements (religion, patriotism etc), while at the same time being paranoid about giving the right to enforce this morality to any strong state structure.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Society (Socialism) - The principle of the society. The end means is that society looks after itself and its needs.

That is not at all the definition of socialism. Below is a more accurate one from the Free Online Dictionary:

so·cial·ism (ssh-lzm)
n.
1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.

Going by your definition, just about every government that's ever existed is socialist, because they all claim to act for the good of society. The difference is that a socialist sees the main line of division in humanity as being that of class, as opposed to other factors.

Also, the bolded bit doesn't really chime with what you said about socialism meaning small government, or Stalin not being a true socialist and in fact being right-wing because he used a strong, centralised state structure to plan the economy.


Community (Communism) - The principle of the community. The end means is that the community looks after itself and its needs.

Again, you're using definitions nobody else does.

com·mu·nism (kmy-nzm)
n.
1. A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.
2. Communism
a. A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.
b. The Marxist-Leninist version of Communist doctrine that advocates the overthrow of capitalism by the revolution of the proletariat

Now in the above definitions, the 1st point shows what communism hopes to achieve in theory, and you're in agreement with it that far. But you're ignoring the fact that communism achieves this through the advancement of the proletariat class through a powerful state structure. If you only like point 1 and not points 2 and 3, then you sound more like a communalist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communalism) than a communist.


Republic - The idea we become more equal by removing heretical power figures.

This is an issue of limiting the power of the government, not a left-right issue. Otherwise, why would all the radicals which revolted agains the old feudal and colonial orders in order to establish a free market, then go on to found republics?


Democracy - The idea everyone has an equal influence on the power. Greater the Democratic functions, the Greater the Freedom and Equality.

Wouldn't the liberal left value 'liberal democracy' over 'democracy'? Because the latter is just a tryranny of the majority. The authoritarian left is closer in ideals to a pure democracy, since it calls for a dictatorship of the proletariat, with one class having all the power. It's only after this transitory state that Marxism becomes the ideology you want it to be.


Constitution - Primarily goal of a consitution is to provide regulation to prevent abuse to cause inequality.

Again, nothing to do with left/right lines.


Free Speech - The idea of Free Speech is that it should be perfectly fine for you to speak the truth without prosecution, to allow you to speak out against corruption, so this can be acted against.

So you utterly condemn the UAF for violently disrupting EDL marches? And you fully support the right of the BNP to take their place on Question Time and similar shows?

Actually, when you say it's "perfectly fine for you to speak the truth", does that mean it's not OK to say something wrong? Who says what the truth is? The state?


Either way, the end goal of left-wing philosophy is basically equality. Thus the idea of a totalitarian government by its very definition is very inequal, does not mean it left-wing. While there has been some governments involving aspects of a community, it violates the first law of robotics left-wing, thus they are not left-wing.

A totalitarian government is not necessarily by definition unequal, since as a leftist you should believe that the government is the collective will of the people. In fact, it this belief in egalitarianism that can make left-wing governments so totalitarian. At least in the older stages of society as Marx categorised them, the oppressive orders were only authoritarian. They might have kept the lower classes down, but a strong government rarely actively intervened in their lives (since as a left-winger, you'll believe it is social and market forces that cause this inequality - the left has rarely complained about an over-powerful state, after all, it's what is used to correct these negative forces). But with the totalitarian ideology of communism, suddenly the peasants aren't some useless underclass that contribute little to economic growth and barely leave their isolated little villages. No, with communism, every individual was now equal, and every individual could contribute to the community - and if they didn't, they paid the consequences.

[Subotan]

Well hold one one moment. Imagine if a corporatist state mandated that everyone shall accept the validity of gay marriage under penalty of death.

Thus, we would have a liberal fascist.

Corporatism is even harder to define than Fascism. Although Fascist Italy is the most commonly used example of it, one definition occurred in post war Germany, and another in North Korea (According to some authors)

[Kralizec]

Since the left are anti-authoritarian and egalitarian in nature, it is impossible for the left to be associated with a totalitarian regime, and especially the far-left which simply are anarchists.

While the line might get blurred with the right and far-right (the latter being fascists totalarian) which can be argued is over-used, trying to associate a totalarian regime with a leftist ideologically is like peeing facing the wind.

(Also, anyone claiming to be "left" while spousing authoritarian views is not actually on the left.)

Some other people here have already critizised most of your definitions, so...

The USSR was in practice a totalitarian state where all power was exercised by a relatively small olichargy within the party. But on paper, it was a paradise.
The reason why Stalin and the USSR are associated with the left is not because totalitarianism is a leftist trait, but because the self-described left is where the USSR draw its support from. European communists didn't support the USSR because they like gulags or show-trials, but because they first didn't know about them, then denied their existence (although gradually, many of them came to their senses)

Wether someone who does recognise Stalin's practices and supports him regardless should be grouped among the leftists...I'd say no. I don't think that either Stalin's or Hitler's policies should be considered either left- or right wing (if so, the catagories would be largely useless) but that's my personal opinion.

[drone]

The reason both the left and right wing can become totalitarian is that not everyone in a society wants to go to the extremes necessary to implement those philosophies. Therefore, they must be asked, then told, then coerced, and finally forced at gunpoint to go along. The more skewed from center* the type of society, the more of a police state it will need to become.

* where "center" is in the whole scheme of things depends on cultural norms of the society.

[Kralizec]

Well, it's always debatable if this or that dictator was really "honest" in the sense that they really believe in their espoused ideals or that they're just machiavellian scumbags who use their supposed ideology as a justification for their regime.

However I think that it's not plausible that all the members of the Soviet communist party (for example) were involved in a deliberate conspiracy to keep the peasants down. I think that most of them probably did believe they were building a paradise for workers, even if they were (un)consciously hypocritical in implementing it. So broadly speaking, their "goal" was a leftist ideal. Their used methods were totalitarian.

Another issue is that in such organisations keeping power becomes de facto a goal in itself, even if individual members of the organisation are not aware of it.

[Lemur]

Goldberg responds (http://www.hnn.us/articles/122667.html). At great, tedious, and self-congratulatory length. He seems to believe that by calling his critics "hysterical" he can seize the high ground. As Spock would say, fascinating, Captain.

[The Wizard]

Nauseating. From the first sentence onwards.

[Idaho]

Those who want to abolish the state entirely (anarchists) are called left wing or right wing. :inquisitive:
Those who want to reduce the state's power (conservatives) are called right wing. :inquisitive:
Those who want to increase the state's power (liberals) are called left wing :inquisitive:
Those who want the state to decide everything (authoritarians) are called either left wing or right wing :inquisitive:

Other than anarchists and certain kinds of libertarians, all groups want to increase state power.

Conservatives and Liberals want to increase the state's power to control the side-effects of creating a wealthy powerful elite. The only difference between the two is how to deal with those side-effects. The Conservatives want to deal with the side effects by controlling and preventing worker co-operation, and by strict suppression of crime in areas of their own supporters. The Liberals do the same to a lesser extent, as well as throwing a bit of money behind a few social programmes.

Socialists and Communists want to increase state power in a different way, although one could argue that 'theoretical communists' would be closer to anarchists in principle.

[Furunculus]

Other than anarchists and certain kinds of libertarians, all groups want to increase state power.

Conservatives and Liberals want to increase the state's power to control the side-effects of creating a wealthy powerful elite. The only difference between the two is how to deal with those side-effects. The Conservatives want to deal with the side effects by controlling and preventing worker co-operation, and by strict suppression of crime in areas under their control. The Liberals do the same to a lesser extent, as well as throwing a bit of money behind a few social programmes.

Socialists and Communists want to increase state power in a different way, although one could argue that 'theoretical communists' would be closer to anarchists in principle.

there, fixed it for you.

[Beskar]

there, fixed it for you.

Not exactly, they usually declare war to put other peoples areas under their control too.

[Furunculus]

Not exactly, they usually declare war to put other peoples areas under their control too.

que?

[PanzerJaeger]

Goldberg’s book is obviously meant for political consumption, and not as a historical annal. That this small collection of historians has “rallied” to contest it says more about their ability to see the forest for the trees than about Goldberg’s grasp of history.

He does make an interesting point, though. For far too long, the Left has successfully forced the Right to “own” the Nazis, as some sort of example of the horrors of right-wing thinking, when in reality Fascism is a completely different animal than contemporary right-wing ideology – especially in the United States where libertarianism is deeply ingrained in the political Right.

Only recently has the Right fought back. In my opinion, a better – and more historically accurate – tack, is to highlight the horrors of Communism, which is just as close to the Left as Nazism is to the Right. However, Goldberg’s approach, which is basically to point out the socialist elements of National Socialism, is potent – even if he did not carry it out as well as he could have.

[Ironside]

Welcome back PJ.


He does make an interesting point, though. For far too long, the Left has successfully forced the Right to “own” the Nazis, as some sort of example of the horrors of right-wing thinking, when in reality Fascism is a completely different animal than contemporary right-wing ideology – especially in the United States where libertarianism is deeply ingrained in the political Right.

While I agree on the term fascist is thrown around loosely, such is also done with the terms Communist or Marxist, the dark ghosts of the left. And while the libertarianism is ingrained in the US right, remember that the conservative religous right is also there. Whom the case of Franco's Spain shows, can be a very strong driving part of a facist goverment.


Only recently has the Right fought back. In my opinion, a better – and more historically accurate – tack, is to highlight the horrors of Communism, which is just as close to the Left as Nazism is to the Right. However, Goldberg’s approach, which is basically to point out the socialist elements of National Socialism, is potent – even if he did not carry it out as well as he could have.

The way he does it is evidently a political hack though, the name comes from before the left wing of the party was purged and simply putting it in your name doesn't make it so. Eastern Germany wasn't democratic and neither is the democratic republic of Kongo. For a US example, Compassionate conservatism borrows socialist elements, but does hardly belong to the left wing.

[Lemur]

That this small collection of historians has “rallied” to contest it
Well, you've got five of 'em in this series, and three of 'em have expertise in the field of fascism. That's more historians with a focus on fascism than you could normally hit if you ran your humvee into the local history department, so I'm not sure what your "small collection" signifies. Do we need ten to make a quorum? Fifteen? Seems to me that getting five historians to agree on much of anything is interesting.

[CountArach]

Well, you've got five of 'em in this series, and three of 'em have expertise in the field of fascism. That's more historians with a focus on fascism than you could normally hit if you ran your humvee into the local history department, so I'm not sure what your "small collection" signifies. Do we need ten to make a quorum? Fifteen? Seems to me that getting five historians to agree on much of anything is interesting.
Yep, my own studies of Fascism (Took a Uni course first Semester last year) have shown me that it is an incredibly contentious concept and ideology. So many pages have been written just trying to define it, let alone arguing about what qualifies within that definition. Paxton (who is the first author there) wrote The Anatomy of Fascism, which is a fantastic book and provides the best (chapter-long) definition of Fascism I have encountered. But yes, I guess my point is that I agree with Lemur, that you would hardly be likely to find more than a handful of Historians of Fascism who agree on any given point, and that the Historians who wrote these articles are quite certainly highly regarded in their field (for example, Paxton's book was the main book we were expected to use for reference. That and Payne's A History of Fascism).

[Strike For The South]

Goldberg’s book is obviously meant for political consumption, and not as a historical annal. That this small collection of historians has “rallied” to contest it says more about their ability to see the forest for the trees than about Goldberg’s grasp of history.

He does make an interesting point, though. For far too long, the Left has successfully forced the Right to “own” the Nazis, as some sort of example of the horrors of right-wing thinking, when in reality Fascism is a completely different animal than contemporary right-wing ideology – especially in the United States where libertarianism is deeply ingrained in the political Right.

Only recently has the Right fought back. In my opinion, a better – and more historically accurate – tack, is to highlight the horrors of Communism, which is just as close to the Left as Nazism is to the Right. However, Goldberg’s approach, which is basically to point out the socialist elements of National Socialism, is potent – even if he did not carry it out as well as he could have.

Yes, yes all of what you wrote is well and good and on some level is right, however Goldberg is simply feeding the hyperbole that is US politics and passing it off as historical fact. He completley throws aside such subtles nuances as time period or the history of the respective countries where facism took hold and when he doesn't ignore these things he stiches them and modern day America togethor like some sort of Frankstein monster.

That is really the basic reason why our system is fubar. Because two parties which are basicaly the same have managed to convince the majority of the populace that any move to the other end of the spectrum would doom us all to facism/communism/playing soccer.

It's been what has stiffiled bi partisanship and the lack of any change in this country for the past 20 years. Can anyone name our greatest legislative achivement in the last 20 years???? From 1950-1970 we built the highways, passed civil rights, and put a man on the moon. From 1990-2010 we have stained blue dress, no new taxes, and noocleuar.

A white man from Texas signed the civil rights act into law. Could you imagine anyone going against the proverbial grain that much into todays political cliamate without being called a nazi/communist?

[Subotan]

What about from 1970-1990?

[PanzerJaeger]

Welcome back PJ.

Thank you. Good to see you're still hanging around. :)


While I agree on the term fascist is thrown around loosely, such is also done with the terms Communist or Marxist, the dark ghosts of the left. And while the libertarianism is ingrained in the US right, remember that the conservative religous right is also there. Whom the case of Franco's Spain shows, can be a very strong driving part of a facist goverment.

That is a good point. I would only add that the religious right in America is far more fragmented than the Catholic religious majority in Spain. Evangelicals have no pope and usually no higher religious authority than their own minister. Karl Rove was brilliantly able to capture them between 2000 and 2004, but that is not to say they can be counted on as a solid base of support in the way that they could in Franco's Spain.


The way he does it is evidently a political hack though,

I agree. I'm not defending Goldberg, only the general point he's making. His book is obviously coffee-table reading, not a thorough analysis of anything. That said, separating Fascism from the modern Right is a worthwhile venture, imo.


Well, you've got five of 'em in this series, and three of 'em have expertise in the field of fascism. That's more historians with a focus on fascism than you could normally hit if you ran your humvee into the local history department, so I'm not sure what your "small collection" signifies. Do we need ten to make a quorum? Fifteen? Seems to me that getting five historians to agree on much of anything is interesting.

I would have to concur if we were discussing a subject such as the basket weaving techniques of the Chickasaw Indians between 1660 and 1700, but I would hardly call a collection of three historians that specialize in Fascism and two others anything near a consensus on a subject that has been so broadly studied and written on as Fascism.

[PanzerJaeger]

Yes, yes all of what you wrote is well and good and on some level is right, however Goldberg is simply feeding the hyperbole that is US politics and passing it off as historical fact.

As has Michael Moore, Anne Coulter, the esteemed Senator from Minnesota, and many others in the political chattering classes. Just to reiterate, I don't think Goldberg's book deserves to be anywhere other than the political section of the bookstore, certainly not the history section. I just think the broader point has merit. Comparing the modern Right to the Nazis is just as accurate as comparing the modern Left to them. All's fair in love and war.

While I agree with your broader point about America's malaise, I think attributing it to such political commentary is innacurate and doesn't reflect the real problem(s). Read some Thomas Paine. Hell, read the Declaration of Independence. Manipulation of history and facts to support a political agenda is a time honored American tradition, old friend. :beam:

[Strike For The South]

As has Michael Moore, Anne Coulter, the esteemed Senator from Minnisota, and many others in the political chattering classes. Just to reiterate, I don't think Goldberg's book deserves to be anywhere other than the political section of the bookstore, certainly not the history section. I just think the broader point has merit. Comparing the modern Right to the Nazis is just as accurate as comparing the modern Left to them. All's fair in love and war.

A valid point, but Goldberg is masquerading it more so.



While I agree with your broader point about America's malaise, I think attributing it to such political commentary is innacurate and doesn't reflect the real problem(s). Read some Thomas Paine. Hell, read the Declaration of Independence. Manipulation of history and facts to support a political agenda is a time honored American tradition, old friend. :beam:

True the rheotric has always been there but our leaders used to have something of a backbone and would go against the grain for the good of the country....That's suicide today.

@Subotan I was simply picking examples

[Lemur]

I don't think Goldberg's book deserves to be anywhere other than the political section of the bookstore, certainly not the history section. I just think the broader point has merit. Comparing the modern Right to the Nazis is just as accurate as comparing the modern Left to them.
Hm, but I don't see how that is Goldberg's "point." The one you're making is logical and sensible; authoritarianism is its own creature, and can arise independent of or commingled with any political philosophy. But that's not Goldberg's thing; he attempts to explicitly tie the left (whatever that means) to Nazism. That's his point. I think you're seeing reason and nuance where there is none, or maybe grafting your own onto an unworthy vessel.

And let's not forget that both Goldberg and his book have been relentlessly flogged in Beckistan. That is probably the reason these historians are talking history smack about it. Big lie + popularization = danger, danger Will Robinson.

[PanzerJaeger]

Hm, but I don't see how that is Goldberg's "point." The one you're making is logical and sensible; authoritarianism is its own creature, and can arise independent of or commingled with any political philosophy. But that's not Goldberg's thing; he attempts to explicitly tie the left (whatever that means) to Nazism. That's his point. I think you're seeing reason and nuance where there is none, or maybe grafting your own onto an unworthy vessel.

And let's not forget that both Goldberg and his book have been relentlessly flogged in Beckistan. That is probably the reason these historians are talking history smack about it. Big lie + popularization = danger, danger Will Robinson.

I have not read the book, only what you posted and two other independent reviews - so you may just be right. Goldberg's a known hack, so I wouldn't be surprised.

[Brenus]

“Manipulation of history and facts to support a political agenda” is History, as History is a representation, an image a society/culture/country give to itself of itself.

E.g. Azincourt is not Agencourt. The French and the English have a different representation of it, as presented as a surprising victory in ageneral defeat by the French and as great victory by the English who will forget they lost the war, ultimately, long before and after…

Nice to see you again PJ

[The Wizard]

As has Michael Moore, Anne Coulter, the esteemed Senator from Minnesota, and many others in the political chattering classes. Just to reiterate, I don't think Goldberg's book deserves to be anywhere other than the political section of the bookstore, certainly not the history section. I just think the broader point has merit. Comparing the modern Right to the Nazis is just as accurate as comparing the modern Left to them. All's fair in love and war.

While I agree with your broader point about America's malaise, I think attributing it to such political commentary is innacurate and doesn't reflect the real problem(s). Read some Thomas Paine. Hell, read the Declaration of Independence. Manipulation of history and facts to support a political agenda is a time honored American tradition, old friend. :beam:

You give him too much credit. Goldberg is not making a "broader point", he is simply trying to link the Nazis to the Democratic Party.