- #1
thomasxc
- 140
- 0
i am reading a book called liberal fascism by jonah goldberg. it draws parallels between hitler and mussolini's fascism and modern day liberals. its very interesting. i reccomend it.
thomasxc said:i am reading a book called liberal fascism by jonah goldberg. it draws parallels between hitler and mussolini's fascism and modern day liberals. its very interesting. i reccomend it.
Crosson said:George Orwell remarked in 1946 that the term 'fascist' no longer had any meaning other then 'something undesirable.'
http://www.nysun.com/arts/americas-fascist-moment/68954/...Readers will learn that the very term "liberal fascism" came from the pen of H.G. Wells, the famed socialist author who delivered a speech at Oxford University in 1932 that included hosannas to both Stalin's Russia and Hitler's Germany. "I am asking," Wells told the students, "for a Liberal Fascisti, for enlightened Nazis." Democracy, he argued, had to be replaced with new forms of government that would save mankind, producing a "'Phoenix Rebirth' of liberalism" that would be called "Liberal Fascism."...
lisab said:A book on "liberal fascism"? Wow, can't wait for the sequel...it's about "conservative socialism"!
Goldberg, who has no credentials beyond the right-wing nepotism that has enabled his career as a pundit, has drawn a kind of history in absurdly broad and comically wrongheaded strokes. It is not just history done badly, or mere revisionism. It’s a caricature of reality, like something from a comic-book alternative universe: Bizarro history.
The title alone is enough to indicate its thoroughgoing incoherence: Of all the things we know about fascism and the traits that comprise it, one of the few things that historians will readily agree upon is its overwhelming anti-liberalism. One might as well write about anti-Semitic neoconservatism, or Ptolemaic quantum theory, or strength in ignorance. Goldberg isn't content to simply create an oxymoron; this entire enterprise, in fact, is classic Newspeak.
1. Who says he's comparing to modern day liberals? Much of the book is history. 2. Are you claiming Wells' 1930's socialism has nothing in common with its modern forms? Why?edward said:Using something Socialist H.G, wells said in a speech in 1932 to make a comparison with modern day liberals is ludicrous.
Goldberg, who has no credentials beyond the right-wing nepotism that has enabled his career as a pundit, has drawn a kind of history in absurdly broad and comically wrongheaded strokes. It is not just history done badly, or mere revisionism. It’s a caricature of reality, like something from a comic-book alternative universe: Bizarro history.
The title alone is enough to indicate its thoroughgoing incoherence: Of all the things we know about fascism and the traits that comprise it, one of the few things that historians will readily agree upon is its overwhelming anti-liberalism. One might as well write about anti-Semitic neoconservatism, or Ptolemaic quantum theory, or strength in ignorance. Goldberg isn't content to simply create an oxymoron; this entire enterprise, in fact, is classic Newspeak.
BWV said:Goldberg probably poisoned the well on the issue with his polemic, but it is a fact that FDR's closest economic advisors took Mussolini and Stalin as their models.
Facism was a "worst of both worlds" mix of socialism and nationalism. It combined state control of industry with traditional conservative social values. Instead of appropriating assets from the private sector by force, like communism, it created cozy and lucrative arrangements with big business, protecting them from competition in exchange for political submission. The economic playbook of the New Deal was very much in line with this model and was one of the reasons the Depression lasted as long as it did.
mheslep said:Note the title is a quote from 1930s socialist HG Wells, not a comparison dreamed up by Goldberg:
http://www.nysun.com/arts/americas-fascist-moment/68954/
lisab said:A book on "liberal fascism"? Wow, can't wait for the sequel...it's about "conservative socialism"!
BWV said:Goldberg probably poisoned the well on the issue with his polemic, but it is a fact that FDR's closest economic advisors took Mussolini and Stalin as their models.
BWV said:Facism was a "worst of both worlds" mix of socialism and nationalism.
BWV said:The economic playbook of the New Deal was very much in line with this model and was one of the reasons the Depression lasted as long as it did.
OrbitalPower said:Notice how the OP provides no evidence or documentation that the regimes of Mussolini and Hitler were "fascist" or "liberal."
That is because these books are not made to be serious studies of Nazi Germany, or of Fascism in general, but are made to get conservatives to throw around words without understanding their meaning or historical usage. Goldberg is not trained as a political scientist or historian, and his views are the equivalent of the "politically incorrect guide to evolution." Conservative economics and political science is about as well grounded as conservative "creationism" and "intelligent design."
The evidence Goldberg used is weak straw man arguments such as the Nazis were powerful because of their harsh gun control (they actually weakened gun legislation, the first act the Nazis passed on guns gave citizens the right to own guns), that they were environmentalists (the Nazis actually banned environmental policies, and if they were such environmentalists, why then were they such war mongerers, which destroys the earth), and so on.
None of it is a serious analysis of Nazi Germany. The truth is, in Mussolini's own anatomy of fascism, he writes that Fascism is the opposite of liberal concept of the individual, and is opposed to their calls for civil rights, civil liberties, equality, and so on.
Gentile also said that fascism "ought to be called corporatism" as it is the "merge of corporation and state."
This is the ideology more likely supported by Ron Paul supporters, McCain supporters, and so on, than "liberals." The fact is Mussolini himself was at one time a pascifist and more economically liberal; however, when he came to power, he became the opposite of both fascism, and socialism, and became a war supporter and an economic capitalist.
Thankfully, these quacks have as minor of influence in PoliSci, in academia, as intelligent design supporters have in biology.
For a real analysis of Fascism, try these sources:
Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, by William Shirer.
In it, Shirer notes the conservative tendencies of Hitler, and also, that the Nazi "charter of labor" gave corporations complete control over their corporations.
He was a real journalist who lived in the Third Reich, not a quack like Goldberg.
Anatomy of Fascism, by Paxton.
This book, written by a scholar, shows the complex nature of the fascists. Really, you can see how fascism is an extention of capitalism in such a work, although the author does differentiate the kind of capitalism that exists in a fascist state from the kind that can exist under a social democracy.
OrbitalPower said:What the hell are you talking about? Which plan of FDR's was "stalinist."
Roosevelt’s advisers didn’t know Stalin was a monster, or at least not so much, and very naively they copied him. In the book I trace how some of the characters go to the Soviet Union in 1927 and are bowled over by Stalin. They get six hours with him and they come back and you see them, especially [former Columbia University professor] Rex Tugwell, implementing things they learned from fascist Italy or from the world of Stalin. The influence of these European entities from Russia to Italy was not parenthetical. These people were not working for Moscow, but they were influenced by Moscow.
OrbitalPower said:Fascism (not "facism") was an extention of "capitalism," there were never any socialist policies enacted in Nazi Germany, or Mussolini's Italy.
Private property was protected, and labor unions that called for more workers' rights were banned.
"Most cruel joke of all, however, has been played by Hitler & Co. on those German capitalists and small businessmen who once backed National Socialism as a means of saving Germany's bourgeois economic structure from radicalism. The Nazi credo that the individual belongs to the state also applies to business. Some businesses have been confiscated outright, on other what amounts to a capital tax has been levied. Profits have been strictly controlled. Some idea of the increasing Governmental control and interference in business could be deduced from the fact that 80% of all building and 50% of all industrial orders in Germany originated last year with the Government. Hard-pressed for food- stuffs as well as funds, the Nazi regime has taken over large estates and in many instances collectivized agriculture, a procedure fundamentally similar to Russian Communism."
The difference between the systems (Naziism and communism) , wrote Mises, is that the German pattern "maintains private ownership of the means of production and keeps the appearance of ordinary prices, wages, and markets." But in fact the government directs production decisions, curbs entrepreneurship and the labor market, and determines wages and interest rates by central authority. "Market exchange," says Mises, "is only a sham."
The Nazi economic system developed unintentionally. The initial objective in 1932-33 of its economic policy was just to reduce the high unemployment associated with the Great Depression. This involved public works, expansion of credit, easy monetary policy and manipulation of exchange rates. Generally Centrally Administered Economies (CAE's) have little trouble eliminating unemployment because they can create large public works projects and people are put to work regardless of whether or not their productivity exceeds their wage cost. Nazi Germany was successful in solving the unemployment problem, but after a few years the expansion of the money supply was threatening to create inflation.
The Nazi Government reacted to the threat of inflation by declaring a general price freeze in 1936. From that action the Nazi Government was driven to expand the role of the government in directing the economy and reducing the role played by market forces. Although private property was not nationalized, its use was more and more determined by the government rather than the owners.
Eucken uses the case of the leather industry. An individual leather factory produces at the direction of the Leather Control Office. This Control Office arranged for the factory to get the hides and other supplies it needed to produce leather. The output of leather was disposed of according to the dictates of the Leather Control Office. The Control Offices set their directives through a process involving four stages:
1. The collection of statistical information by a Statistical Section. The Statistical Section tried to assemble all the important data on past production, equipment, storage facilities and raw material requirements.
2. The planning of production taking into account the requirements of leather by other industries in their plans; e.g. the needs of the Shoe Control Office for supplies of leather. The available supply of hides limited the production of leather. There had to be a balancing of supply and demand. The result of the planning of all the control offices was a Balance Sheet. There was some effort at creating some system for solving the planning, such as production being limited by the narrowest bottleneck, but in practice the planning ended up being simply scaling up past production and planning figures.
3. The issuing of production orders to the individual factories.
4. Checking up on compliance with the planning orders.
In practice the authorities of the control offices often intervened and there was continual negotiation and political battles as the users of products tried to use political influence to improve their allocations. The prices of 1936 made little economic sense, particularly after Germany was at war. So there economic calculations using the official prices were meaningless. In particular, the profitability of a product was of no significance in determining whether it should be produced or not. Losses did not result in a factory ceasing production; the control offices made sure that it got the raw materials and that the workers got rations of necessities.
At the beginning of the war the Government established a priorities list for allocating scarse resources. Activities associated with the war got top priority and consumer goods production was near the bottom of the list. If two users wanted gasoline any available stocks went to the user with the highest priority. This seems reasonable but, in fact, it led to major problems. Suppose one use of gasoline is for trucks to haul raw materials to factories. If the Government always gives the available gasoline to the Army then the truckers cannot deliver supplies to the factories and they shut down and eventually other factories dependent upon them also shut down. At first the Government tried to handle the problem by revising the priorities list and moving up uses such as gasoline for trucks. But whatever uses got put at the bottom eventually created bottlenecks. In the middle of the war the Government abolished the priority list. It was an unworkable system.
The problem with making production decisions without reference to relevant prices is that the control offices may dictate the production of goods which are of less value to the economy than the opportunity costs of the resources that go into their production.
Because of the mistakes and failures of Centrally Administered Economies there are often black markets operating. Although the authorities typically persecute people for dealing in these markets the reality is that such markets are essential for preventing a collapse of the Centrally Administered Economy.
Production decisions may be made on political criteria that are economically foolish, such as locating a factory in a region to benefit the supporters of some political figure. Even aside from such corruption of the decision process the centrally administered economy suffers from major weaknesses. The centrally administered economy can mobilize resourts quickly for big investment projects but there is no guarantee that there will be a balance of investments. For example, there may be big programs to build railroads but not enough trains to make use of those railroads.
Although Centrally Administered Economies may appear to be efficient and effective initially their errors and inefficiencies accumulate and eventually result in stagnation if not collapse. Often the apparent successes of such economies are just illusions. Outsiders who do not know how such economies really work are often fooled by these illusions.
OrbitalPower said:The New Deal reversed the great depression, and lowered unemployment levels, for every year except the recession of '37.
It was caused by the insane policies of coolidge, and it had to be ended by reversing them, which was done under FDR, and which did reverse the Great Depression
It was the fastest turn around in US history, and the growth rate overall was even high than the overall GDP growth rate under Reaganism.
OrbitalPower said:Fascism did not work to "eliminte" class differences. As shown in that quote, Mussolini believed in "inequality" and Hitler said it was "natural." Neither of them supported equality, and their systems were not equal. If they were equal, they would have given rights to Jews, Socialists, and so on.
The quotes above say it all.
Yes, private property and corporations flourished in both systems, and in all other fascist systems, such as in Pinochet's Chile and Videla's Argentina.
Junk scholarship like Hayek (who advocated a corporate dictorship in place of democracy, who himself was fascist) has no relevance to the facts of political science and history.
The real scholarly sources have been cited, junk scholarship is as irrelevant in biology and physics as it is in polisci, and if polisci does let itself be overtaken by junk scholarship (which would be sad as America has some of the best political scientist) it would indeed be the end of the field.
OrbitalPower said:That is not an excuse for Goldberg's blatant ignorance.
Hitler himself said that Nazism was designed to protect "free-enterprise" and that this was the basis of his economic policy. He also believed in the Libertarian concept of the individual, noting that if a corporate CEO rises to the top, he has the "right to lead" and Hitler even wrote in the Nazi charter of labor that corporations have the right to run businesses how they want.
[/quote]Hitler also said that his version of "socialism," a term used in the way Bush uses "democracy," is a protection of private property:
We stand for the maintenance of private property... We shall protect free enterprise as the most expedient, or rather the sole possible economic order."
- Adolf Hitler
Adolf Hitler, the Road to Resurgence (see the Jewish Virtual Library's entry on Nazism for the story of how this came about, which was to ensure the industrialists that he would not be implementing any real socialists policies).
"The suspicion was whispered in German Nationalist circles that we also were merely another variety of Marxism, perhaps even Marxists suitably disguised, or better still, Socialists… We used to roar with laughter at these silly faint-hearted bourgeoisie and their efforts to puzzle out our origin, our intentions and our aims." -- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf
"Marxism is anti-property; true Socialism is not.” –Hitler
And so on. A simple reading of history and an encyclopedia is enough to debunk Goldberg. Certainly, most history sources and political science journals will disagree with him, such as "The Nazi Roots of Privatization" available on JSTOR I believe.
H.G. Wells was an author. When he said that, he may not have been serious, or may have been joking, who knows. But he had no role in forming the ideologies of either socialism, or fascism.
Hitler did, however, and we can see that they were not "liberal" systems that gave rights to all people, protected women (even though conservatives call the liberation of women "Feminazism"), banned leftist groups, and even imprisoned leftists.
Conservative socialism would be "corporate socialism," the conservatism of Ronald Reagan, Coolidge, et al., which indeed seems quite close to fascism, especially the propaganda they used, the conservative social policies they favored, and so on.
Wrong. FDR's curbing of corporate power had absolutely NOTHING to do with Stalin or Mussolini, nor were any Stalinist policies implemented in the US.
What the hell are you talking about? Which plan of FDR's was "stalinist."
Fascism (not "facism") was an extention of "capitalism," there were never any socialist policies enacted in Nazi Germany, or Mussolini's Italy.
Private property was protected, and labor unions that called for more workers' rights were banned.
The New Deal reversed the great depression, and lowered unemployment levels, for every year except the recession of '37.
It was caused by the insane policies of coolidge, and it had to be ended by reversing them, which was done under FDR, and which did reverse the Great Depression.
It was the fastest turn around in US history, and the growth rate overall was even high than the overall GDP growth rate under Reaganism.
OrbitalPower said:Neither Time Magazine, nor Mises.org, is an academic "source."
Hitler did not implement any 25 plank nationalist program; in fact, he deliberately went out of his way to not implement any socialist parties and kicked all the socialists that may have existed in the Nazi party, such as Rohm.
Hitler had no love of free-enterprise and did not believe the economy should be left to its own devices:
Which source does he say that? I've read George Strasser, a National Socialist theologian, said the following:
"Real socialism" would be outright nationalization.
There are plenty of other economic sources and books on fascism that would agree with him as well.
Not true.
As an example, in 1933 Hitler introduced workers holidays into Germany (similar to a bank holiday). This was very popular. He then almost immediately banned trade unions which protected workers rights. Any protests over this were banned as a result of the Enabling Act - Hitler did not bargain with anyone.
There is some truth to this. Most landowners, industrialists, and middle-class people saw Mussolini as Italy’s savior because he brought social order and enacted pro-business policies. However, the majority of working-class Italians saw their standard of living drop after the Fascist government gave free rein to businesses, and many remained hostile. So did many Catholics when Mussolini banned many of their organizations. The peasant population, very numerous in this still rural country, was divided: Landowners favored Mussolini, while the landless were indifferent, if not hostile to him, especially after his government halted land reform measures in 1923.
WheelsRCool said:Time Magazine was ONE source, and I quoted how they saw the Nazi regime back in the 1930s; otherwise, I did not at all quote Mises.org. I listed other books for you to check.
He kicked out Rohm because Rohm was openly-homosexual, a no-no in the Nazi party. Hitler supported him at first for awhile.
--Parenti (political scientist)Who did Mussolini and Hitler support once they seized state power? In both countries a strikingly similar agenda was pursued. Labor unions and strikes were outlawed, union property and publications were confiscated, farm cooperatives were handed over to rich private owners, big agribusiness farming was heavily subsidized. In both Germany and Italy the already modest wages of the workers were cut drastically; in Germany, from 25-40%; in Italy, 50%. In both countries the minimum wage laws, overtime pay, and factory safety regulations were abolished or turned into dead letters. Taxes were increased for the general populace, but lowered or eliminated for the rich and big business. Inheritance taxes for the wealthy were greatly reduced or abolished. Both Mussolini and Hitler showed their gratitude to their business patrons by handing over to them publicly owned and perfectly solvent steel mills, power plants, banks, steamship companies ("privatization," it's called here). Both regimes dipped heavily into the public treasury to refloat or subsidize heavy industry (corporate welfarism). Both states guaranteed a return on the capital invested by giant corporations and assumed most of the risks and losses on investment. (Sounds like S&Ls, doesn't it?)
russ_watters said:Interesting exchange, but does anyone else find it ironic to the bizarre extreme that one of the pillars of OP's arguments is the assumption that Hitler was honest?
Who are the historians who agree that liberalism is fascism?
Mussolini was also favored by the land owners and capitalists:
In fascism, unions are curtialed, like they are in capitalism and were in Reaganism as well.
OrbitalPower said:Wheels 'R' cool and BMV are taking Hitler's propaganda and anti-jewish nonsense and propaganda at face value, which is pretty bad.
OrbitalPower said:These are Hitler's private conversations and assurances to big business; that's why they're published in books such as "Hitler's Table Talk" and in letters to the leader's of industry.
Wheels 'R' cool and BMV are taking Hitler's propaganda and anti-jewish nonsense and propaganda at face value, which is pretty bad.
In an attempt to obtain financial contributions from industrialists, Hitler wrote a pamphlet in 1927 entitled The Road to Resurgence. Only a small number of these pamphlets were printed and they were only meant for the eyes of the top industrialists in Germany. The reason that the pamphlet was kept secret was that it contained information that would have upset Hitler's working-class supporters. In the pamphlet Hitler implied that the anti-capitalist measures included in the original twenty-five points of the NSDAP programme would not be implemented if he gained power.