Springtime for Hitler

Either Jonah Goldberg is putting on a new production of the Producers or his latest book is a cry for help from a fractured and disoriented mind.

Titled... wait for it... Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning, it is a retelling of history through the lens of propaganda.

Let me do Goldberg and his publisher a favor by providing the fact checking they clearly failed to do prior to the publication of this nonsense. Let us go directly to the source, Mussolini himself, to get a good sense of just what fascism is.

"Anti-individualistic, the Fascist conception of life stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual only in so far as his interests coincide with those of the State, which stands for the conscience and the universal, will of man as a historic entity (11). It is opposed to classical liberalism which arose as a reaction to absolutism and exhausted its historical function when the State became the expression of the conscience and will of the people. Liberalism denied the State in the name of the individual; Fascism reasserts"

So, the state - not the citizen - is important. There is no individuality and fascism aims to restore that which liberalism has denied: the erasure of the person. Yes, obviously, Mussolini is very much a liberal according Jonah Goldberg.

"No individuals or groups (political parties, cultural associations, economic unions, social classes) outside the State (15). 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. But when brought within the orbit of the State, Fascism recognizes the real needs which gave rise to socialism and trade unionism, giving them due weight in the guild or corporative system in which divergent interests are coordinated and harmonized in the unity of the State (16)."

State controlled "unions" give the impression that workers have rights, but they don't. Nothing exists outside of the state and its power, not a free market, not political parties, nothing. Yes, indeed, clearly Mussolini is a bleeding heart liberal according to Jonah Goldberg.

"A nation, as expressed in the State, is a living, ethical entity only in so far as it is progressive. Inactivity is death. Therefore the State is not only Authority which governs and confers legal form and spiritual value on individual wills, but it is also Power which makes its will felt and respected beyond its own frontiers, thus affording practical proof of the universal character of the decisions necessary to ensure its development. This implies organization and expansion, potential if not actual. Thus the State equates itself to the will of man, whose development cannot he checked by obstacles and which, by achieving self-expression, demonstrates its infinity (21)."

This means constant war with an invisible constant outside threat in order to assert and maintain the authority of the state. Yes, Mussolini is a peace activist all right according to Jonah Goldberg.

I could go on, but why bother when facts and history clearly define what fascism is. The real question is why Jonah Goldberg has a column which is syndicated in the so called "liberal media." Surely someone so opposed to fascism would not sell their work to the enemy, would they?

Definition by false description

No, I think the pattern emerging from the far-right, the actual fascists is that they hope that by redefining what fascism is, no one will notice what they themselves are. That is why Islamo-fascism is all the rage on the far right. They hope that by defining what the  opposite of a democracy is - according to them - no one will stop to ask what differentiates it - the opposite - from Christo-fascism.

Really though, fascism is not about religion, it is only  fed to those on the extreme of  any religious movement because anyone who is willing to die for a myth is likely to kill for a lie.  If you doubt that the religious are targeted by the corrupt, consider then the current example of the far right evangelicals in America.

A Fascist's Tool

These Christians worship in mini-mall churches where God and shopping are merged for the convenience of the faithful. They claim to be believe in Jesus, yet they support the exact opposite of his teachings. Were Jesus to enter one of these mini-malls in which hate is taught as though it were scripture, he would likely declare the place a shrine to the golden calf, not to Christianity.

Would Jesus support torture, war, mass-murder of innocents, and the wants of the rich over the needs of the poor? If you have read the bible, then you know that Jesus would call these things evil and yet the far right of American Christianity seems capable of digesting this paradox whole, without chewing or tasting it,  let alone questioning the ingredients. These Christians do support war, helping the rich get richer at the expense of the poor, and anything the state demands as proof of loyalty. But they don't see these things as evil. Why do you suppose that is?

Because these types of Christian are a useful political tool, a state tool even, nothing more. They are popular with the fascist state mechanism because they provide a ready group of mindless drones, who can quickly be filled with political dogma, which they will accept as the teachings of God.

The same of course applies to Muslim extremists who while claiming to be doing the work of Allah are actually going against the very teachings of the Koran. After all, blowing up innocent people is not the work of a true Muslim. It is the work of a political system which prays on the minds of those who have faith, but no real understanding of the teachings of their religion.

And obviously this also applies to Jewish extremists who try to erase all Jewish identity and replace it with devout nationalism.

The State as Supreme Authority

A nation which proclaims the political as though it were religious, merges its own identity and interests with corporations, excludes for its citizens any sense of individualism and sense of self-worth outside of the state, and demands total power to know and control everything is not remotely a liberal model. It is a fascist model, yes, but it is not a liberal model, because the two are diametrically opposed views.

Liberalism strives to empower the individual, be it through partnerships with the state mechanism or working outside of the state mechanism. Through social contract, groups of citizens give certain permissions to the state mechanism, which can be taken away should the state fail to live up to its end of the contract.  The power to both decide the terms of the contract as well as terminate the contract is entirely with the people, not the state. The latter is nothing more than an employee and subservient to the individual and groups of individuals of a society. Traditionally, this is not only liberalism, it is the foundation of democracy.

Compared with Il Duce's world-view, could anyone actually call liberalism as similar to fascism in any way? On the contrary, authoritarians such as Hitler - who saw the role of the state in much the same way as Il Duce did - everything that is done, is done for the nation by the nationalists/patriots, unconditionally. There is no social contract, because anyone who disagrees with the state is simply erased, since the state is more important than its parts - the citizens.  The only similarity that Hitler had to any form of left leaning politics was that as a military operative, he infiltrated the National Socialist Party and decided to retain the name after the paper-coup in order to convince the public that his party was the people's party. Beyond that, to call Hitler, Il Duce, Franco or any other authoritarian a liberal is either to willfully lie or to be incredibly ignorant of history.

Goldberg Unhinged

What Goldberg has authored can be seen only in one of two ways. It is either propaganda, purchased by a sponsor and authored by a writer whose writing is at best tepid and inaccurate (How else is Goldberg supposed to make a living as a writer if not authoring propaganda then?), or it is a defense mechanism of guilty mind, struggling to balance out its own views in the context of history.

There is also a third possible interpretation of this bizarre effort. Goldberg could indeed be hoping to stage his own version of the Producers and this latest literary example is nothing more than parody.  I think we should also start betting on just how many charlatans and morons come running forward to proclaim Goldberg's fiction as a historically accurate masterpiece, courageous for its honesty even.

Comments

[ReasonIsMyReligion]

L,

Where are your essays on HuffPo's front, or sub-topic, pages?

Cheers.

[LeoMarvin]

You make some good points about intellectually sloppy right wing demagoguery, but then you proceed without a hint of irony to call them "the actual fascists." I suppose the ultimate irony is that ideology blinds left and right without bias.

[Bateman]

Larisa Alexandrovna: "No, I think the pattern emerging from the far-right, the actual fascists is that they hope that by redefining what fascism is, no one will notice what they themselves are."

You are as egregious as Goldberg himself or Chris Hedges ('American Fascists'), and even more egregious than those who use the ill-advised term Islamofascists (at least they can point to Haj Amin al-Husseini). The concept of "fascism" has long been used as a political football, a convenient way to tar those with whom one ideologically disagrees within the ordinary political discourse of a Western democracy.

Also, has it occurred to you that Mussolini - or for that matter, a number of others in 20th century political speech - are not referring to the meaning of "liberalism" as commonly understood in contemporary American politics (for example, Rush Limbaugh's tedious invective against "liberalism"). Rather, 20th century European political speech (and it is still used this way in Europe) refers to the individual rights and the free market. This is a broader Western tradition than "left of center but not far left" as it often understood in the US. This meaning of liberal appears in the US in the less commonly used terms "classical liberalism" and bourgeois liberalism." Mussolini was not using "liberalism" as a euphemism for the political left, which he also had problems with. (Come to think of it, this makes Goldberg's book title "Liberal Fascism" even more egregious because fascists, like communists, were anti-liberal.)

It hardly sheds light on the topic to quote fascists on "liberalism" (or "corporate state," as Richard Belzer and many others have done) and not understand the temporal and regional context with which they used these terms.

[NoFactsJustTruth]

Spinning opposite meanings and redefining terms are used especially by the self-righteous and religious, Larisa, to seemingly justify their crimes against fellow men and to marginalize the terms being MOST frequently being used by others to describe THEIR hypocrisy. Unfortunately, it is ALSO used by candidates on BOTH sides of the isle.

A GREAT example of this was in the second Democratic debate. When Hillary was asked if she considered herself a 'liberal', she refused that more generic label though and chose to say, "I prefer to think of myself as 'progressive'", thereby marginalizing those that would TRULY see 'EQUAL' civil rights for ALL, and who feel the ENTIRE Constitution must be defended INCLUDING the Establishment Clause, - as being something 'right' of progressive.

I personally cannot think of an easier way to PROVE you're REALLY 're'gressive than by wanting to institutionalize an ancient religious BIGOTRY against same-sex couples
...into OUR Constitution.
Hillary Clinton has in the past said she was in favor of the Defense of Marriage Act, and has NOT said otherwise. While she MAY be more progressive than, say, the preznutz, she was clearly attempting to redefine the meaning of progressive rather than embrace what that means.

I agree this is extremely mild compared to the administration's defenition of things like 'stability in Iraq'. But, rather than being attributable to conservative politics alone, I'd like to suggst it's instead really inherent in 'politics' itself.

Thank you, Larisa, this discussion needs to be frequently repeated.

[ReasonIsMyReligion]

Masterful as usual, from the incomparable Larisa Alexandrovna.

The emperor's got new clothes, and nudity is the rage.

[ScooterLiddy]

Read Naomi Wolf's "The End of America" for the real fascists and their moves to dismantle democracy in our country.

The Guardian has a short hand version here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2064157,00.html

When you are done with that read Naomi Klein's "The Shock Doctrine" for the Bush Crime Family's strategy to loot the treasury.

[ESerafina42]

This seems to be one of the talking points that is making its way around. Several times recently I've heard (or read) assertions that Hitler was on the left because he CALLED his party "National Socialist," when of course he was co-opting the term "socialist" and trying to grab some of the positive feelings some Germans had towards socialism for himself, while at the same time opposing his "national" socialism to the evil "international" kind. Yeah, people, and communism must be the same as democracy because all those countries call themselves "People's Democratic Republics."

[Sundialsvc4]

"The Karl Rove Doctrine" has been "Divide and Conquer." Throughout the last six years every single pronouncement from the political machinery has been aimed at sowing the apple of discord far and wide. There is nothing that has not been striving to "turn brother against brother."

There also has indeed been a conscious effort, and a largely successful one, to tilt the country toward fascism. Never mind the simple observation that it's going both politically and literally broke in the process.

I believe that the consequences of these actions will ultimately backfire, though. Not because of any action by the hamstrung American people nor its muzzled, propaganda spewing excuse for a "free press," but rather by the international community. War is both pointless and useless... these men know "war" extremely well... but there are other ways to teach the bully on the playground a very important lesson. The weakness is simply economic: America is broke. Having squandered trillions of dollars on useless "defense" spending, and upon unfathomable bribes, America is no longer a country whose national currency should be accepted as a trading-standard by anyone. And when that happens, the "magic money machine" will grind to a halt.

It will be the very best thing that ever happened to America.

[bradford]

Unless I have missed something along the way liberals believe that the solution to almost every problem is some sort of government intervention.Those who advocate the primacy of the individual, property rights etc are almost always attacked by the left as being selfish,
uncaring and otherwise the tools of the rich and powerful.As far as the defense of human rights is concerned the ACLU itself has declared that the greatest assault on human rights in American history was the incarceration of the Japanese-American community during WWII.This outrage was solely the work of the left.The whole affair was the result of an executive order from a President
who remains an icon of the left to this day.It was defended by leftist intellectuals like Walter Lippman.Another liberal hero Earl Warren was an active supporter of the plan.Warren declared that the absence of any evidence of sabotoge by the Japanese merely showed''how devious their plotting really is''what powerful reasoning is that.Also the post makes no mention of communism.Stalin killed at least twice as many people as Hitler did.Other Communist dictators such as Mao-tse-tung and Pol Pot murdered their opponents in the millions.Yet liberals have always manifested a wonderful tolerance toward Marxism.Curious is''nt it.Oh well merry Christmas!

[EspressoAtNoon]

Most liberals have serious deep seated problems with Israel's apartheid system and oppression of the Palestinians.

Perhaps this is Goldberg's motivation: to try and equate those who champion human rights as being "nazis" to try and demagogue all critics of Israel.

[Henry]

I believe it is a well known Karl Rove tactic: You pick someones pocket, then you accuse them of being a pick-pocket, while you implement an orchestrated victim opera. Maybe we've actually seen more of this than we are aware of. Diversions by the dozens manipulations by the score.
I grew up watching the powers that be bemoan communist governments. Only later in my life realizing that communism is not a form of government. (but why interrupt a good opera with details?)

[Bateman]

Both Jonah Goldberg and Chris Hedges have egregiously distorted the concept of fascism in order to score points against domestic political adversaries. (And how much tediously misguided verbiage has been produced by a common misinterpretation of the term "corporatism"?) Likewise, "Islamofascism" is another unfortunate genericization of fascism (arguably applicable in the case of Baath or Syrian Social Nationalist Party, but it is typically not used with any precision).

There is, however, a new book that correctly uses the term fascism: 'Eurofascism' by Ã"yvind Strømmen, which discusses the recent rise of European neo-fascist parties which are the direct descendants of classical fascist movements.

[realitytrumpsbull]

I think a lot of these people smoke some pretty
good dope, is what I think. So many -isms,
so little application of practical knowledge
toward solving their own problems, there does
come a point, I think, when all the politics
becomes counterproductive. It does tend to
dredge up some interesting facts here and there,
but mainly it's a lot of hype, and lately,
typically also an attempt at pan-handling
the United States for ANOTHER billion bucks
if they can manage. Kind of sad, but karma's
a bitch...the 20th century was a whirlwind,
the 21st promises to be even moreso...

[lgillooly]

It really is astounding that people cannot see what is happening to this Country right before their eyes.