It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Fascism Is Far Left, Not Far Right on Political Spectrum

page: 72
23
<< 69  70  71    73  74  75 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 03:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
Oh Look !!



Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning is a book by Jonah Goldberg in which he argues that fascist movements were and are left-wing. Published in January 2008, it reached #1 on the New York Times Best Seller list of hardcover non-fiction in its seventh week on the list.[1] Goldberg is a syndicated columnist and the editor-at-large of National Review Online.

Liberal Fascism







Just as progressives were generally enthusiastic about socialist movements in the Soviet Union and Europe, they were also overwhelmingly supportive of the fascist movements in Italy and Germany during the 1920s and 1930s. “In many respects,” writes journalist Jonah Goldberg, “the founding fathers of modern liberalism, the men and women who laid the intellectual groundwork of the New Deal and the welfare state, thought that fascism sounded like ... a worthwhile 'experiment'”:

PROGRESSIVE SUPPORT FOR ITALIAN AND GERMAN FASCISM



scrubb-a-dub-dub

Deus meus !!




Silly fox. "Liberal Fascism" is nothing more than a distortion of both "liberal" and "fascism." Sigh.


The bottom line is that Goldberg wants to attach a defaming epithet to liberals and the left, to “put the brown shirt on [your] opponents,” as he accuses the liberals of doing (p. 392). He goes about this task with a massive apparatus of scholarly citations and quotations. But Goldberg’s scholarship is not an even-handed search for understanding, following the best evidence fully and open-mindedly wherever it might lead. He chooses his scholarly data selectively and sometimes misleadingly in the service of his demonstration.

Jonah Goldberg knows that making the Progressives, Woodrow Wilson, Theodore Roosevelt and FDR the creators of an American fascism – indeed the only American fascism, for George Lincoln Rockwell and other overt American fascist or Nazi sympathizers are totally absent from this book – is a stretch, so he has created a new box: Liberal Fascism. The Progressives and their heirs who wanted to use government to rectify social and economic ills, and who, in Goldberg’s view, thereby created an American Fascism, acted with good intentions, rarely used violence, and had nothing to do with Auschwitz. Even so, they share an intellectual heredity and a set of common goals with the European fascists. So they go into the “Liberal Fascist” box.

Liberal Fascism is an oxymoron, of course. A fascism that means no harm is a contradiction in terms. Authentic fascists intend to harm those whom they define as the nation’s internal and external enemies. Someone who doesn’t intend to harm his or her enemies, and who doesn’t relish doing it violently, isn’t really fascist.

...
Goldberg simply omits those parts of fascist history that fit badly with his demonstration. His method is to examine fascist rhetoric, but to ignore how fascist movements functioned in practice.
- See more at: historynewsnetwork.org...


And from another source...


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.

Indeed, Goldberg even makes some use of Orwell, noting that the author of 1984 once dismissed the misuse of "fascism" as meaning "something not desirable." Of course, Orwell was railing against the loss of the word's meaning, while Goldberg, conversely, revels in it -- he refers to Orwell's critique as his "definition of fascism."

And then Goldberg proceeds to define everything that he himself considers undesirable as "fascist." This is just about everything even remotely and vaguely thought of as "liberal": vegetarianism, Social Security, multiculturalism, the "war on poverty," "the politics of meaning." The figures he labels as fascist range from Woodrow Wilson and Franklin D. Roosevelt to Lyndon B. Johnson and Hillary Clinton. Goldberg's primary achievement is to rob the word of all meaning -- Newspeak incarnate.
Link

And another...


Not without reason was Jonah Goldberg’s Liberal Fascism widely expected to be a bad book. As many predicted from the title, Goldberg does not content himself with rebuking those who call anyone who disagrees with them a fascist. Instead, he invents reasons of his own for calling anyone who disagrees with Jonah Goldberg a fascist. Liberal Fascism confirms anew George Orwell’s remark—cited by Goldberg without irony—that fascism has no meaning today other than “something not desirable.”
The American Conservative


Following Goldberg's logic, I could rewrite this book and berate American liberals not for being closet fascists but for being closet conservatives or closet Christian Democrats. But that would puzzle Americans, not shock them. Shock, it seems, sells books.
The Washington Post - "Sticks and Stones"

And there are plenty of others... Shall I go on? This is a terrible source, you rascally fox.




posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 03:51 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen


All part of the complicated ongoing "denazification" agenda.


There you go again,using words improperly. Denazification referred to the process during the Occupation of removing Nazi Party members from government office, while permitting others who joined for career purposes to retain their jobs, particularly academics, engineers and so forth.



posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 03:57 PM
link   
Continued...

Yes, yes I think I shall go on, for it illuminates the argument further...



No Decency (Review of “Liberal Fascism”)
First Exhibit. Here is the July 1, 1933 issue of Das Neue Tagebuch, a newspaper for German exiles in Paris. We read of a Jewish dentist, Maier, who was forced into poverty through a ban on Jewish practitioners. In mid-July, with his wife (also a dentist) on a quick vacation, Maier clandestinely worked in her office, but was later kidnapped by four S.A. men during lunch at his own apartment. According to the report Schwarzschild received, the men had stabbed Maier twenty-one times, broken his feet by crushing them with a copying press, and shot him in the head, causing his skull to explode.
Second Exhibit. Here is the January 20, 1941 Wannsee Protocol, the minutes of a meeting between Nazi leaders at the luxurious Wannsee Villa southwest of Berlin. We read that an alternative has emerged to merely forcing the Jews to emigrate from German-controlled Europe, one that will be of greatest importance to the “final solution of the Jewish question”. All of the estimated 11,000,000+ Jews in Europe are to be “allocated for appropriate labor in the East”, in effect a euphemism for their transport to the death camps.
National Socialism was one of, if not the, most violent ideologies of the twentieth century, and yet one hardly gets that impression reading Jonah Goldberg’s new book, Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left from Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning.
Link

Honestly, do you think I am the sort to do the above acts? Fascism is VIOLENT. Where in American Liberal policies do you see this? Do you think I am capable of this horror, this excrescence, this vile natured bestial use of gratuitous force?

THAT is one MAJOR way the "liberals are fascist" argument falls apart. You know it. Liberals seek the opposite, generally speaking, they see peace, they seek greater equality and unity through peaceful protest, they don't act like Nazis. To be fair, the moderate Conservative is no fascist nazi either - my God! I would never think this.

(ETA - I should say neither liberals nor conservatives in America deserve this label. If Obama deserved that 'Hitler stash" the right has painted him with, you would be dead or slowly dying in internment camps akin to the Nazi concentration camps. History is there so we can REMEMBER, and its no good to twist it for some shallow political 'win.' This goes for whatever part of the political spectrum you inhabit. My Dad is very conservative - pretty extreme right - but I would NEVER call him fascist or Nazi-like. This is getting disgusting.)

This is why labels are dangerous. They are so often deceitful, like Mr. Goldberg's book...

- AB
edit on 29-8-2015 by AboveBoard because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-8-2015 by AboveBoard because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 04:05 PM
link   
a reply to: AboveBoard


Honestly, do you think I am the sort to do the above acts? Fascism is VIOLENT. Where in American Liberal policies do you see this? Do you think I am capable of this horror, this excrescence, this vile natured bestial use of gratuitous force?


Exactly. Contrast the "Occupy Movement," which espoused grass roots socialism and mounted large, peaceful demonstrations all over the country, with the gun toting militiamen who came to the defense of Cliven Bundy. Which group was leftist? Which group rightest? Which most resembled the Brown Shirts in the way they sought "social justice?"
edit on 29-8-2015 by DJW001 because: Edit to add an Oxford comma!



posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 04:32 PM
link   
Perhaps this needs stating outright.

In this "discussion" the crucial disagreement is whether "right wing" means strongly authoritarian/totalitarian, hyper-nationalistic and corporatist or whether that's the "left wing."

Here's the key ... fascist means, in general, strongly authoritarian/totalitarian, hyper-nationalistic and corporatist. I don't think any of us really debate that. Some want to throw in socialist/communist but again, those are more directed at economic systems than governmental and as such are extraneous to the definition.

Are we agreed, at least, on what fascism is? Does anyone have a different suggestion, or can we work with the above?


edit on 16Sat, 29 Aug 2015 16:34:04 -050015p042015866 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 04:36 PM
link   
a reply to: AboveBoard

I think many people see those statements as a credit to Goldberg's insight.



Nothing actually proves him wrong does it.



posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 04:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: xuenchen


But it takes an authoritarian government to implement policies as it suggests.


You have obviously never belonged to a food co-op or "actor's theatre"company.


And I'm sure those examples can run an entire country.




posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 04:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: xuenchen

I guess I can play your game and google for the books.

How about this one?

www.goodreads.com...


Well that's the whole point isn't it.

You must BUY those books to see what's in them


Great "sources" aren't they.

Most libraries don't even have them.

Great way to simplify a definition of Fascism indeed.

All part of the complicated ongoing "denazification" agenda.

Keep the whole concept away from everything else to protect the "innocent" governments.

Superb.


edit on Aug-29-2015 by xuenchen because: [3456]99+1%


Are you arguing that there is a plot between Wikipedia, American academia, and book manufacturers and sellers to be misleading about the meaning of fascism?

And please, just this once, you can just answer the question yes or no if you wish.



posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 04:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: AboveBoard

I think many people see those statements as a credit to Goldberg's insight.



Nothing actually proves him wrong does it.



What proves him right?

Sorry, what proves him correct?

Not his logic, reasoning, sources, et. al.

So what? Pre-disposed political beliefs?

Confirmation bias?



posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 04:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Twist & Shout as they say.

Nothing really proves the guy's views and assessments are wrong.




posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 04:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Gryphon66

Twist & Shout as they say.

Nothing really proves the guy's views and assessments are wrong.



Right, so you're arguing for a belief-based system.

Claiming that there is an leprechaun riding a unicorn outside my window right this moment is "equally true" because you can't disprove it then?

Interesting worldview.

ETA: The fact that AboveBoard gave you example after example of the errancy of Goldburg's claims, that means nothing?

Did you read them?


edit on 16Sat, 29 Aug 2015 16:48:21 -050015p042015866 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 05:03 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen


And I'm sure those examples can run an entire country.


How odd. Whenever anyone points out that it is possible for groups of people to work together cooperatively and without coercion, you dismiss that as impossible. Are you sure you are advocating the form of government you actually believe in? It sounds like you think people cannot be trusted to work things out democratically, but need to be ruled by a strong central authority.



posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 05:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66



Did you read them?


I have demonstrated that he do deliberately ignore the rebuttals and claim that they are biased and left-wing. I have shown him that some of those are not left-wing.

He does sound young and naive though.



posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 05:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: xuenchen


And I'm sure those examples can run an entire country.


How odd. Whenever anyone points out that it is possible for groups of people to work together cooperatively and without coercion, you dismiss that as impossible. Are you sure you are advocating the form of government you actually believe in? It sounds like you think people cannot be trusted to work things out democratically, but need to be ruled by a strong central authority.


But this thread is about massive authoritarian governments and how those compare to each other.

Everybody knows small groups of people can "work together cooperatively".

I've been saying that all along.

Small government is less coercive obviously and has less harmful impacts on a majority of a population.

Fascism is not a small group of people, it's a large government policy.




posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 05:30 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

I think that you've dodged my question.

You must think I'm capable of horrible violence?

I think you are just having fun giving ridiculous answers. Goldberg himself acknowledges his entire book is based on "fascism" equaling "something bad" which he defines as "liberal." Goldberg is stretched so far from truth and history as to be the epitome of Newspeak.

Unless you have something of quality to add, I can't remotely take you and your smiley icons seriously. So, more points lost for evasion. It's really getting ridiculous.

- AB
edit on 29-8-2015 by AboveBoard because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 05:53 PM
link   
Let's take a closer look at the wiki definition of Fascism

Again, they "establish" a "rock solid" definition citing 4 references.

Those "references" are simply cherry-picked from within sentences.

It amounts to a whopping few words found deep within hundreds of pages.

Note also the wiki page links to yet more pages with "sources" to similar book "references"

And of course, people are expected to just accept all that as absolute truth without question.

Hillary-ous.



Fascism (/fæʃɪzəm/) is a form of radical authoritarian nationalism[1][2] that came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe. Influenced by national syndicalism, fascism originated in Italy during World War I, in opposition to liberalism, Marxism, and Anarchism. Fascism is usually placed on the far-right within the traditional left–right spectrum.[3][4]


[1]
Turner, Henry Ashby, Reappraisals of Fascism. New Viewpoints, 1975. p. 162. States fascism's "goals of radical and authoritarian nationalism".

[2]
Larsen, Stein Ugelvik, Bernt Hagtvet and Jan Petter Myklebust, Who were the Fascists: Social Roots of European Fascism, p. 424, "organized form of integrative radical nationalist authoritarianism"

[3]
Roger Griffin. Fascism. Oxford, England, UK: Oxford University Press, 1995. pp. 8, 307.

[4]
Aristotle A. Kallis. The fascism reader. New York, New York, USA: Routledge, 2003. p. 71






posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 06:05 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

So you think the first and second references are wrong? Explain what Fascism mean then, oh wise one.



posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 06:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: xuenchen

So you think the first and second references are wrong? Explain what Fascism mean then, oh wise one.


I want to see the entire context of those cherry-picked references.

I want to be able to assess the methodologies and analytics used by those authors.

My own research confirms Fascism is closer to the systems known as "Left Wing" than "Right Wing".

It's the "Authoritarianism" levels that matters most.




posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 06:17 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen



I want to see the entire context of those cherry-picked references.


There you go. They are cheap. Happy reading.

www.alibris.com...
books.google.co.uk...
www.amazon.com...
www.historyinreview.org...



posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 06:25 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Okay, according to your research, what is "left wing" about Fascism?



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 69  70  71    73  74  75 >>

log in

join