Wordnik.com: Liberal Fascism: Comments

Comment by chained_bear, about 1 year ago

Wed, 27 Aug 2008 23:11:14 +0000

Thanks for your post, TYP! I'm glad to hear more about this book even if I probably (sadly) won't have the time to read it. I agree with you we definitely need more reasoned, thoughtful debate. Hallelujah, yes we do.

Comment by taciturnyetprolix, about 1 year ago

Wed, 27 Aug 2008 22:59:32 +0000

Chained Bear: Goldberg takes pains to try not to make his case too damning, and he ends the book with an analysis on fascistic trends on the Right. But, he made two points (each of which I agree with) that made it more than just a "do as I say, not as I do" type of thing. First, he argued that the idea that communism is the far Left, and on the opposite end is fascism on the far Right does not hold water. The heavy amount of government regulation of life and business that is part of fascism makes it much closer to communism than the minimalist state of classical liberals, a.k.a. Libertarians, that the Right (at least as viewed by Goldberg) espouses. Secondly, in the past eight years we've had no end of the "Bush = Hitler" business, but not much in the opposite direction. That's not to say it can't come from the Right, (he cites Falwell and Robinson as rightwingers who are knocking on the door of fascism) but that people on the Right tend to get pegged with the name more often.

And yes, it's a very detailed, meticulously footnoted book. For a work directed at the general populace, it's rather discursive.

P.S. You should get some of the old footage of Buckley and Chomsky debating. I'm nerdy enough (I know you're shocked) that I actually find it kind of fun to see two very intellectual people on the far ends of the spectrum debate like civilized humans.

Whichbe: Agreed. I hesitate saying this because I know I'm biased, but I recently read American Fascist, about the threat of the Christian Right, and it was not nearly as academic. We need more books, from all points of view, that rely less on preaching to the choir and more towards reasoned debate.

He actually takes the title Liberal Fascist from a speech H.G. Wells gave where he said Hitler and Mussilini (sp) had the wrong ideology but the right methods.

Comment by chained_bear, about 1 year ago

Wed, 27 Aug 2008 21:58:13 +0000

Agreed. Sad, but that sort of thing moves books, and that's the point of it, I suppose.

Comment by whichbe, about 1 year ago

Wed, 27 Aug 2008 21:50:06 +0000

The air of 'SECRET-LEFT TAXATION PRISON-CAMP MASTER-PLAN' which might make an excellent eau de toilette brandname. But I'm pleased to see that it's more of an academic argument with a flashy cover to push paper. Defaulting to "you hitler" is a weak way to debate, naturally, but I so rarely, rarely see a sustained, intelligent, civil-minded debate (or even better: a discussion!) from either side of the so-called LEFT/RIGHT. It seems to inherently devolve into name-calling, over-generalization, presuppositions, and self-righteousness. Like pro-wrestling for lawyers.

Comment by chained_bear, about 1 year ago

Wed, 27 Aug 2008 21:32:05 +0000

It does seem that anyone, anywhere on the political spectrum, who demonizes the opposition (by using names such as "Nazi" or "fascist") to "get out of rational debate" has the same philosophical parentage as the Nazis and the Brown Shirts. I'm not sure that's as cogent an argument when it's applied to only one side of the spectrum. In such a case (not saying this is one), it would seem like such an argument itself could be seen as essentially the activity it decries.

Disclaimer: I didn't read the book; I'm only commenting on the discussion here. :) With all good faith and no intentions to start any kind of flame war or argument.

Whichbe, what kind of fucking nuts marketing are you referring to? (Signed, Living in a Cave.)

Comment by taciturnyetprolix, about 1 year ago

Wed, 27 Aug 2008 21:24:16 +0000

I think it delivered on what it promised. Goldberg goes to great lengths to say that liberals are nowhere near Nazis or Brown Shirts, but he shows how they have the same philosophical parentage and how they espouse some of the same ideas.

Essentially, he wanted to counter the "get out of rational debate free" card that certain liberals use by calling any one right of center a Nazi or fascist. His contention was the Left has at least, if not more, in common with fascism than the Right, and I think he proved his point.

John, I don't recall off hand what he used "yeasty" to describe, but I think it had something to do with the philippic he had against Buchanan.

Comment by john, about 1 year ago

Wed, 27 Aug 2008 02:40:55 +0000

I'd love to know what he describes as "yeasty."

Comment by whichbe, about 1 year ago

Wed, 27 Aug 2008 02:12:06 +0000

What do you think of this book? I haven't read it but the marketing of it sounds fucking nuts.