Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of...

Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning | Jonah Goldberg | Historical Reminders Apparently Needed

books:

Liberal Fascism: T...

	Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning Jonah Goldberg Doubleday, 2008 - 496 pages average customer review:based on 324 reviews view larger image
	for more information click here

highly recommended

A History Lesson and a Warning for the Future

I have always been interested in history and remember reading many articles and books about FDR and the Depression. The opposition to the New Deal was usually painted as "those rich guys just don't want to share." Packing the Supreme Court I knew about, but not the realy reason for FDR's attempting to do this. How fitting that we are now living in the era of an "environmental crisis" where the people have to band to together and fight a new war. Hmmmmmmm, isn't this a basic premise of facisim? The need to rally the people, herd them like sheep to the pens where they will stand docile waiting for the elites to command them? What a timely book!!!

for more information click here

Historical Reminders Apparently Needed

Americans, you need to read this book and consider the pattern in politics that Goldberg's laid out for you with his fine research! You might find yourself as shocked as I was to realize that we haven't been as independent, individualistic and non-European as we may have thought (I did). Beginning with Woodrow Wilson, our leaders and intellectuals SHARED ALOT of ideas with the likes of Hitler (Socialism) and Mussolini (Italian Fascism)! The scary tactics of the French Revolution, the ideas of Hegel, Nietzsche, Bismarck and others - American leaders bought into them too. (Even W.E.B. DuBois was fascinated by Hitlerism.) A desire for CONTROL and UTOPIA fed our politicians just as much as many dictators in the past. As I read this book and watched our Presidential campaigning, I recognized some of the tactics/beliefs from the past are still present! Goldberg is right - coercion remains present, but with a smile and nicer manners! Elites who think they know what's "best" for the "masses" remain in play. I guess if you "trust" that "security" and "regulation of enterprise" are good trade-offs; that humans require "experts" and "herders" to guide them in proper living and attitudes, then you will continue in your rose-tinted "hope" and choose to avoid this book. But like the layers of an onion, or the rings seen in a cut tree stump (as my 19-yr-old son offered as another analogy) we must look back to the past and be CONSCIOUS of HOW WE GOT HERE to this present time in our history, and acknowledge that the battle has been ongoing for decades - between those in America who believe in laissez-faire economic policies, individuality (WE the PEOPLE) and free market innovation/problem-solving VERSUS statism and social behavior engineering and redistribution of wealth and elitism. Wilson and both Roosevelts and Kennedy and Johnson - made a lot of mistakes based on similar beliefs to people we claim to loathe! And those same IDEAS still motivate today's politicians. All the EXPERIMENTATION - with no stopping to think whether it's flawed - continues to be encouraged - Just keep on trying to make a Utopia, till you get it right! When we really need to admit mistaken paths taken, and admit we "listened to" the wrong ideas, and say ENOUGH! Aren't we on the brink of REAL destruction in America? If our leaders would return to the wisdom of our Founding Fathers - who saw civil duty as a SHORT-TERM obligation and the Best Interest of ALL Americans as the goal instead of self-aggrandizement, power-hunger, and CONTROL, maybe we could restore our country to the Shining Example to the rest of the world we once were. We need OUR PEOPLE to take responsibility once again for their own self-education and stop being so TRUSTING and GULLIBLE before it's too late! READ THIS BOOK!

for more information click here

Two Sides Of The Same Coin

The truth of the matter is that in terms of ideology the differences between Communism and Fascism are very, very small. Fascists are often mislabeled as "right-wing" because during the rise of Stalin all ideology that deviated from the Moscow approved line of Communism was dubbed "right-wing". Leon Trotsky, who was by no means a Nazi or right-wing conservative, was accused of trying to stage a Nazi coup and was labeled a "right-winger" by Stalin after his fall from favor. While in Germany the term "right-wing" usually referred to the different elements of the Weimar Republic of the time. An example of Fascist programs enacted by the Nazi party and Fascisti in Italy were: guaranteed employment for all citizens, confiscation of WWI profits, shared profits of labor, expanded old age pensions, communalization of department stores, outlawing of child labor, universal health care, and anti-smoking programs to name just a few. None of these programs can be called "right-wing" or Anti-Communist. Communism is an international struggle and as Karl Marx put it: "Working men have no country." Fascists believed that the dreams of Communism can be made INSIDE a country, and did not need to be part of an international struggle or subservient to Moscow.

Fascism has strong corporatist elements without completely subjugating industry under state ownership. While Communism, on the other hand, advocates the collective ownership of property and the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members. Fascist governments do maintain a significant control over private enterprise, but do not entirely co-opt it (as in, say, Communism). The German NAZI party, for example, considered themselves a "Third Way" between laissez-faire capitalism and socialism, in that rather than completely nationalizing industry and taking over the means of production, the government had a very powerful influence over it. That was the principle difference, as all Communist regimes have embraced corporatism in some aspect in their history. Hitler and Mussolini both wanted to create Volksgemeinschaft or "peoples (workers) communities." Communism and Fascism are two sides of the same coin, extreme but separate visions of the same ideology, with Fascism not being as controlling to private business as Communism but still very totalitarian. Keep in mind the Nazi (NSDAP) party was called the National SOCIALIST party, if that is any indication of their true leanings.

for more information click here

The left has a lot to answer for

I stopped reading Jonah Goldberg a few years back because what's happened to NR prejudiced me against any book by this author. I heard a friend was reading it and I wanted to join her. Goldberg has redeemed himself in my eyes, much to his relief I'm sure.

This book connected the following truisms for me:

Truism #1: everyone wants a meaningful existence.
Truism #2: all government power comes out of the end of a gun.

The age-old struggle begins when people think #2 (coercion) is a good way to get all of us to #1 (a meaningful life). But just like there's a world of difference between a wink and a blink, there's all the difference there is between deciding for yourself what to do and someone else deciding for you and making you do it, even if the outcomes are prit' near the same. From the Progressives, through the New Deal, the New Frontier, the Great Society and yes, even compassionate conservatism, generation after generation of Americans forget our power-skeptic heritage and are seduced by the Big Plans of Experts.

Visualize the following scenario: I want a clean house. It's better for me to train my kids how to clean a toilet and then stand over them while they do it. For someone else, it's better to hire a cleaning lady. I say, vive la difference. However, the government could see fit to hire (at taxpayer expense) an efficiency expert to find THE BEST way to clean houses (which no doubt will not be the way eleven-year-olds with tyrannical mothers do it). There will be a public "Clean! Don't be mean!" campaign encouraging full employment of cleaning ladies and discouraging ruining children's childhoods with Saturday-morning drudgery. There will be studies linking Ty-Dee-Bowl fumes and ADHD. As a result of studies, I will be provided a government cleaning lady. Of course my taxes will rise in order to pay for this wonderful entitlement. Then I will have to go get a job to cover my family's increased tax burden, but hey, at least someone else will be cleaning my toilets. And that makes me happy, doesn't it?

My example may be silly, but Goldberg is saying that like the devil, tyranny must appear attractive because otherwise nobody would go for it. Totalitarianism will arrive wearing a smile on its face.

Query: on p. 30 Goldberg mentions "Ernest Hemingway was skeptical of Mussolini almost from the start." Good old Papa! But that's it, and I want to hear more. Could someone point me in the right direction?

for more information click here

Great Book but What About Conservative Fascism?

The thesis of this book is that today's Liberals who demand increasing state-control, in matters of economics and sometimes free speech, share many political views in common with the infamous Fascist governments of Hitler and Mussolini. The author cites extensive examples of how the Nazis (short for National Socialists) adopted many programs that reflect the modern ideals of the Democractic Party. These include, but are not limited to, universal health care, public education, guaranteed jobs, large state-guaranteed pensions and comprehensive campus speech codes. To illustrate the parallel, Goldberg extensively discusses the sharp increase of central economic planning amongst the administrations of Wilson, FDR, JFK up until the agenda of Hillary Clinton.

This book is particularly rich in intellectual history. It delves into the infatuation of early 20th century intellectuals, such as notable Pragmatist John Dewey, with Mussolini's Fascist experiment in Italy. It also discusses the influence of thinkers such as:

* Georg Hegel's influence on Nationalism
* Georges Sorel's particular influence on Mussolini and his radical views on transforming a capitalist society through labor driven revolutions.
* Herbert Croly's ideas on encouraging state-worship in his work "The Promise of American Life" and his influence on the Progressive movement.
* Saul Alinsky's strategies on community political activism and his influence on modern Democrats such as Hillary Clinton.

The major drawback of this work is that it is blatantly partisan, which is especially self-defeating on this topic. While the author has correctly labeled the Liberal desire to increase central economic planning as Fascist, he has failed to identify the Conservative drive to increase social control by bridging church and state as another, arguably more dangerous, form of Fascism. Since William F. Buckley, Conservatives have been trying to restrict individual rights by curtailing birth control, abortion rights, flag burning (an issue of free speech), immigration as well as bringing religious views, such as intelligent design, into government-run schools and imposing ever-greater security restrictions with no objective end in sight. The fact that the author conspicuously evades Conservative forms of fashion makes it difficult to believe that he is objective in his scholarship.

In summary, this is an excellent book for all who are interested in the ideological origins of many Liberal forms of Fascism. However, I think this book could have been substantially better had it explored both Liberal and Conservative forms of Fascism without the blatant partisan bias.

for more information click here