![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Liberal Fascists?
Jan. 15th, 2008 08:52 amOver on John Scalzi's site, there's a big debate about Jonah Goldberg's new "novel" (calling it "history" is an insult to the term) Liberal Fascism. In the book, Goldberg claims that Mussolini and other founding fathers of Fascism were liberals, and that modern liberalism derives from them.
Perhaps needless to say, I think this is bullshit. So does Scalzi. Copying in (and correcting a few figures I pulled from memory) here is my response in support of Scalzi's post.
There’s a couple of issues with Fascism that I think are being overlooked. First, form follows function. There’s a reason dolphins look a lot like fish - they both live in the same environment. Likewise, all totalitarian governments have similarities.
Second, Mussolini, Hitler (and Stalin, for that matter) were very opportunistic politicians. They tended to say whatever they felt the populace would buy to get and keep power.
However, and back to point #1, much like a careful examination of dolphins will show that they are different then fish, fascism can be distinguished from then-contemporary liberal thought. Specifically:
A) Liberals of the time wanted to abolish corporations and severely restrict if not abolish private wealth. Fascists kept corporations in business, so to speak. As long as the holder of wealth was loyal to the State (AKA, “me the dictator”) they could keep their money.
B) Liberals believed in collective rule - via unions or “soviets” (Russian for “committee”). Fascists did not. Yes, in practice rule by committee didn’t work well, which is a different discussion. (There are a number of design flaws in communism, which I'll discuss later - probably after I get my sock drawer reorganized.)
C) Liberalism of the time rejected tradition, especially nationalist traditions. Mussolini revived traditions, specifically that of ancient Rome. That’s why he named the party after the badge of office of ancient Roman Tribunes.
Regarding "C" above, a lot of liberals / leftists were also down on nationalism. After all, a blind nationalist fervor had led to the slaughter of WWI.
On a related point, did FDR and others attempt to increase the power of the Federal government? Well, yes. Although with 25% of the US population out of work and nearly as many banks bankrupt, the system of capitalism as then practiced was seriously ill. Since Fascism at least recognized the problem, one will find, especially in the late 20s and early 30s, people saying nice things about Fascism.
It was also not immediately clear that Mussolini in particular posed a big risk of aggression to the rest of the world. He took power in 1922 and, other then some adventurism in Africa, didn’t do much invading. For that matter, Franco’s Spain, one of the longest-lived Fascist states, sat out WWII.
In short, Goldberg is either an idiot or decided to get on the Ann Coulter "say outrageous stuff and get paid" gravy train.
Since my flight to Mexico leaves at oh-dark hours tomorrow, and the laptop is staying in the US of A, expect light postings.
Perhaps needless to say, I think this is bullshit. So does Scalzi. Copying in (and correcting a few figures I pulled from memory) here is my response in support of Scalzi's post.
There’s a couple of issues with Fascism that I think are being overlooked. First, form follows function. There’s a reason dolphins look a lot like fish - they both live in the same environment. Likewise, all totalitarian governments have similarities.
Second, Mussolini, Hitler (and Stalin, for that matter) were very opportunistic politicians. They tended to say whatever they felt the populace would buy to get and keep power.
However, and back to point #1, much like a careful examination of dolphins will show that they are different then fish, fascism can be distinguished from then-contemporary liberal thought. Specifically:
A) Liberals of the time wanted to abolish corporations and severely restrict if not abolish private wealth. Fascists kept corporations in business, so to speak. As long as the holder of wealth was loyal to the State (AKA, “me the dictator”) they could keep their money.
B) Liberals believed in collective rule - via unions or “soviets” (Russian for “committee”). Fascists did not. Yes, in practice rule by committee didn’t work well, which is a different discussion. (There are a number of design flaws in communism, which I'll discuss later - probably after I get my sock drawer reorganized.)
C) Liberalism of the time rejected tradition, especially nationalist traditions. Mussolini revived traditions, specifically that of ancient Rome. That’s why he named the party after the badge of office of ancient Roman Tribunes.
Regarding "C" above, a lot of liberals / leftists were also down on nationalism. After all, a blind nationalist fervor had led to the slaughter of WWI.
On a related point, did FDR and others attempt to increase the power of the Federal government? Well, yes. Although with 25% of the US population out of work and nearly as many banks bankrupt, the system of capitalism as then practiced was seriously ill. Since Fascism at least recognized the problem, one will find, especially in the late 20s and early 30s, people saying nice things about Fascism.
It was also not immediately clear that Mussolini in particular posed a big risk of aggression to the rest of the world. He took power in 1922 and, other then some adventurism in Africa, didn’t do much invading. For that matter, Franco’s Spain, one of the longest-lived Fascist states, sat out WWII.
In short, Goldberg is either an idiot or decided to get on the Ann Coulter "say outrageous stuff and get paid" gravy train.
Since my flight to Mexico leaves at oh-dark hours tomorrow, and the laptop is staying in the US of A, expect light postings.
