63 Comments

1. David W. Lincoln:

Michael, when I read you describe Mussolini’s efforts as “a very broadly based movement that enabled him to seize power in 1922″, this came to mind:

Is this more to do with tactics than with strategy.

For this is what Garry Kasparov is trying to attempt via the ballot box in Russia, and there are differences between Mr. Kasparov and Il Duce.

But, this is a very interesting first instalment of a timely, in deed needed, debate.

Jan 15, 2008 - 6:33 pm 2. David Thomson:

Jonah Goldberg thankfully emphasizes that Mussolini, Charles E. Coughlin, Adolph Hitler, and Huey Long were all radical socialists. Few people realize that one was often accused of being a right wing fascist merely for disagreeing with the Left on any particular point. How many Americans, for instance, know that Fr. Coughlin was more of a socialist than the New Dealers in Washington? I personally distinguish between national socialist movements vs. their allegedly international counterparts. In this regard, the distinction between right and left seems appropriate. The evil Joseph Stalin at least provided lip service on behalf of values transcending racial and ethnic categories. On the other hand, Hitler’s whole movement revolved around the concept of German specialness in the universe. Frederick Hayek may have said it best in his seminal The Road to Serfdom. A number of individuals during the era preceding WWII were not sure whether they were Communists or Nazis—but they were certain of their contempt for individual liberty. This is what they all had in common!

ML:

Well I don’t think Hayek is the last word on this subject. Lots of people despised liberty, as they do today, but, as today, most of them know exactly what they are. And that doesn’t make them “the same thing.”

Jan 16, 2008 - 12:42 pm 3. Richard Jansen:

This is what Hayek wrote in the Road to Serfdom
The connection between socialism and nationalism in Germany was close from the beginning. It is significant that the most important ancestors of National Socialism-Fichte, Robertus, and Lassalle-are at the same time acknowledged fathers of socialism. While theoretical socialism in its Marxist form was directing the German labor movement, the authoritarian and nationalist element receded for a time into the background. But not for long. From 1914 onward there arose from the ranks of Marxist socialism one teacher after another who led, not the conservatives and reactionaries, but the hard-working laborer and idealistic youth into the National Socialist fold. It was only thereafter that the tide of nationalist socialism attained major importance and rapidly grew into the Hitlerian doctrine. The war hysteria of 1914, which, just because of the German defeat, was never fully cured, is the beginning of the modern development which produced National Socialism, and it was largely with the assistance of old socialists that it rose during this period.

Perhaps the first, and in some ways the most characteristic, representative of this development is the late Professor Werner Sombart, whose notorious Handler und Helden (“Merchants.and Heroes”) appeared in 1915. Sombart had begun as a Marxian socialist and, as late as 1909, could assert with pride that he had devoted the greater part of his life to fighting for the ideas of Karl Marx. He had done as much any man to spread socialist ideas and anticapitalist resentment of varying shades throughout Germany; and if German thought became penetrated with Marxian elements in a way that was true of no other country until the Russian revolution, this was in a large measure due to Sombart. At one time he was regarded as the outstanding representative of the persecuted socialist intelligentsia, unable, because of his radical views, to obtain a university chair. And even after the last war the influence, inside and outside Germany, of his work as a historian, which remained Marxist in approach after he had ceased to be a Marxist in politics, was most extensive and is particularly noticeable in the works of many of the English and American planners.

ML:

In this treatment, Hitler is trivialized, while Sombart, a relatively minor figure, gets elevated to major status. Not good enough! Although he’s got the importance of the war absolutely right.

Jan 16, 2008 - 5:45 pm 4. Richard Jansen:

The last person one can fairly accuse of trivializing Hitler is F. A. Hayek
Here is some more from the Road to Serfdom.
Fight against liberalism in all its forms, liberalism that had defeated Germany, was the common idea which united socialists and conservatives in one common front. At first it was mainly in the German Youth Movement, almost entirely socialist in inspiration and outlook, where these ideas were most readily accepted and the fusion of socialism and nationalism completed. In the later twenties and until the advent to power of Hitler a circle of young men gathered round the journal Die Tat and, led by Ferdinand Fried, became the chief exponent of this tradition in the intellectual sphere. Fried’s Ende des Kapitalismus is perhaps the most characteristic product of this group of Edelnazis, as they were known in Germany, and is particularly disquieting because of its resemblance to so much of the literature which we see in England and the United States today, where we can watch the same drawing-together of the socialists of the Left and the Right and nearly the same contempt of all that is liberal in the old sense. “Conservative Socialism” (and, in other circles, “Religious Socialism”) was the slogan under which a large number of writers prepared the atmosphere in which “National Socialism” succeeded. it is “conservative socialism” which is the dominant trend among us now. Had the war against the Western powers “with the weapons and spirit of economic organization ” not almost succeeded before the real war began?

ML:

I am not going to debate this matter with you here, except to say that Hayek is quite wrong about the nature of the German Youth Movement–its “socialism” is wildly overstated, and its volkisch/racist/mystical elements not mentioned at all. And again in this passage it seems to me that Hitler’s centrality is considerably diluted.

Jan 16, 2008 - 7:28 pm 5. Steve M. Galbraith:

What was particularly striking for me reading Goldberg’s book - along with Dr. Ledeen’s review - was how much ideological fervor and upheaval was taking place during this period.

World War I and the economic collapse a decade later were twin blows that threw all existing structures into the wind. It was not for nothing that Trotsky observed, “If one wanted a quiet life, one picked the wrong century in which to be born.” Chambers pointed out elsewhere that “history had hit his generation like a freight train.”

And so I think it’s extremely difficult historically - less so theoretically - to place fascism on the left. The left/right dichotomy is difficult to employ today; it was almost impossible at the turn of the 20th century.

Liberal Fascism is an interesting theoretical work. Historically, it less beneficial.

Still fun.

Jan 16, 2008 - 7:43 pm 6. anton riviera:

Michael Ledeen illustrates in this review the difference between an expert in the field and a dabbling controversialist.

I’ll take slight issue with one point, which is the national/global vision, in the context of WWI.

Historians point to the conditions of those states that adopted fascist or right-totalitarian regimes in the aftermath of that cataclysm: Italy, a young nation lacking a coalescent national identity; Germany, a power that suddenly found itself without the Prussian military hegemony that had unified the state; the carved-out quasi-nationalist states of Eastern Europe.

In that context, Mussolini (and subsequently Hitler, to a lesser degree) were engaged in a project to remanufacture the nation and national identity — I use the term ‘manufacture’ with a nod to Marinetti. The Futurist impulse was to disavow tradition, but that was pushed aside by one that used the past to re-mythologize the present. EUR was created to be fit for the heroes of Mussolini’s Italy.

Any global vision came long after the national one, as an augmentation.

ML:

Thanks for the kind words. I think we should remind ourselves that Hitler’s Reich was Aryan, not just German…race is the core concept. Hugenberg was a traditional nationalist, etc.

In Italy, there was an ongoing debate over the nature of fascism, and it was really never resolved, altho the “revolutionaries” dropped from favor as the totalitarian state was constructed, and then the wars started, beginning with africa.

I don’t really think that Marinetti was all that important, but I could well be wrong about that. I like him primarily because he opposed the racial laws in 38, one of the very few (along with Croce); there’s now a fascinating debate going on in Italy about the generation of intellectuals that signed on to the racial laws, and then after the war pretended they were good antifascists all along…mostly they were coopted by the Communist Party, which gave them “cover”. One of the uglier stories in contemporary Italian history.

Jan 16, 2008 - 9:14 pm 7. Richard Jansen:

It is a fact, an obvious fact, that national socialism combined nationalism and socialism. Among the 25 points of the Nazi party were these
11. That all unearned income, and all income that does not arise from work, be abolished.

12. Since every war imposes on the people fearful sacrifices in blood and treasure, all personal profit arising from the war must be regarded as treason to the people. We therefore demand the total confiscation of all war profits.

13. We demand the nationalization of all trusts.

14. We demand profit-sharing in large industries.

15. We demand a generous increase in old-age pensions.

16. We demand the creation and maintenance of a sound middle-class, the immediate communalization of large stores which will be rented cheaply to small tradespeople, and the strongest consideration must be given to ensure that small traders shall deliver the supplies needed by the State, the provinces and municipalities.

17. We demand an agrarian reform in accordance with our national requirements, and the enactment of a law to expropriate the owners without compensation of any land needed for the common purpose. The abolition of ground rents, and the prohibition of all speculation in land.

18. We demand that ruthless war be waged against those who work to the injury of the common welfare. Traitors, usurers, profiteers, etc., are to be punished with death, regardless of creed or race.

Of course other elements were involved: ein folk, ein Reich, ein fuhrer, but socialism was strongly in the mix.

ML:

Racism is the core of Nazism, these economic/social “principles” are epiphenomena. I don’t know a serious scholar of Nazism who thinks otherwise, frankly, except the Holocaust deniers, who are ’serious’ in a sick way.

Jan 16, 2008 - 10:26 pm 8. Tony Ryba:

I found the comment dismissing Nazis as obsessed with identity politics a bit unfair. Paul Johnson has argued that the Nazis and Soviets were socialists of different stripes and both definitely were of the totalitarian bent. So why must fascism continually be the great dirty word of the right? If a people’s history tells them to translate their totalitarianism differently, does it not stand to reason there are simply different strains of how totalitarian goals are reached? It is for these reasons, Jonah makes it clear in his book that Americans can never really be like Europeans in this way, hence he bends over backwards to say Liberal Fascists are not prone to so much “revolutionary” means, as they are prone to suffocating the individual for “the greater good” to solve social ills.

Jan 16, 2008 - 11:06 pm 9. Robert Romano:

Off the bat, I want to say that I have not had the chance to read Mr. Goldberg’s book, but I did want to address the claim that fascism is a left-wing ideology, a claim which predates his book to which I am familiar with and believe does not hold up under scrutiny. It is true that Mussolini started out in the socialist camp, but by no means did he stay there, and it is quite clear that fascism was an ideology to contend with both classical liberalism and communism, just based upon readings of both Mussolini himself and Alfredo Rocco. Not only that, but Mussolini himself described fascism as being of the right. (See: Ball & Dagger’s Ideals and Ideologies, 5th Edition, pp. 309 for a translation of Mussolini’s doctrine of fascism where he writes that the 20th century would be “a century of the ‘Right,’ a Fascist century…”)

While totalitarian in many ways like the commmunists, the fascists parted ways with them on economics in particular, with regards to private property and business ownership (to be sure to advance the interests of the state), but also with regards to religion within the state (again because they saw utility for the state). While Marx had no place for either private property or religion in society, Mussolini did.

And against liberalism, the fascists viewed liberty not as a right, but as a method again to advance the objectives of the state, and only to the degree that the state permitted.

One mistake I’ve seen made time and again is to put fascism on the left precisely because of its inherent authoritarianism. But is this to suggest that there could not be a dictatorship run by a right-wing party? It’s an absurdity. Fascism is and was an abomination in political thought, but it was an abomination born of the right.

To be fair, I will get myself a copy of the book to see if I can be convinced otherwise, but I am very skeptical of this claim.

ML:

Maybe we could say that fascism was an abomination born on the left and then carried out by the right?

Obviously I agree with you that the claims are greater than the evidence will support.

Jan 17, 2008 - 1:04 am 10. Ed Tryon:

Having great respect for both Goldberg (G) and Ledeen (L), it seems likely to me that disagreements can largely be explained by the fact that “Many modern thinkers question whether the left-right distinction is even relevant in the 21st century. After all, in most countries left-right appears more a matter of historical contingency and local politics than any coherent statement of principle.” (Quotation from “Left-right politics,” Wikipedia). That said, I will henceforth take Mussolini’s fascism as defining the term.

It appears to me that L has been overly contentious in several places. For example, it is an exaggeration to say that G “concludes that fascism really has a left-wing genetic code . . .” In so far as genes are an apt metaphor, G clearly regards Mussolini’s fascism as a complex hybrid, with socialism a major but only partial factor therein.

As for G’s conclusion that “it’s wrong to ‘blame’ fascism on the right,” L grants that “On this central claim, Jonah is at least half right.” But what part of Mussolini’s fascism can be blamed on the right? Any answer depends, of course, on the meaning of “right,” but consider the widespread conception of “right” as “conservative” in the literal sense: “The Right is generally against intentional political, economic and social change, the Left is in favour of it.” (Ibid) G and L agree that fascism was revolutionary, with L claiming to be more emphatic on this point, hence the antithesis of conservative.

In a puzzling remark, L says that G “shies away from the revolutionary nature of fascism . . . because it shows that revolution is not just a leftist political phenomenon. Jonah wants to have us believe that fascism was ‘of the left.’” But precisely because G regards fascism as (substantially) “of the left,” he has no reason to shy away from its revolutionary nature: indeed, that aspect of fascism is part of G’s argument that it did not arise from the right.

L also remarks that “many fascists continued to believe in a . . . spiritual revolution, and as the years passed they could not avoid the realization that Mussolini was not leading that revolution . . . The smart Communists in Italy knew that such fascists could be recruited to the Communist Party . . . So yes, there were fascists with leftist tendencies, but they were alienated from the regime, embittered by its reactionary nature, and eventually went elsewhere. If anything, their stories show how little ‘leftism’ survived the twenty years of fascist rule.”

Well - - - how many supporters of the Bolshevik revolution were embittered by twenty years of rule by Lenin and Stalin? Quite a few of the survivors, and all of the millions already executed by gunshot, deprivation in the gulag, or genocidal famine (in the Ukraine). This comparison does not imply that fascism had leftist roots, but is surely consistent with it. In any case, L offered the above remarks about disillusioned fascists as part of his explanation why he only granted “at least HALF right” (caps added) to G’s conclusion that it’s wrong to blame fascism on the right. I myself would not blame fascism on any single aspect of a one-dimensional political spectrum, and/but especially not on the right. Thus I am comfortable with G’s simple assertion.

G also states that “Fascism, at its core, is the view that every nook and cranny of society should work together in spiritual union toward the same goals overseen by the state.” L takes issue, saying “That is not fascism; it’s absolute monarchy, it’s the Sun King . . . . But it’s not Mussolini or his imitators, and certainly not Hitler, whose vision was global not just national.” Apart from “nook and cranny” and “spiritual union” being hyperbole, in what way does that view differ from Mussolini’s, at least in the early years of his regime? It appears to describe the vision of any totalitarian while he still hopes to mold the people to his will through propaganda (with necessary elimination of the uneducable).

And why does the globality of Hitler’s ambitions “certainly” exempt him from the same assessment, if by “society” one means only Aryans already under his rule? He included the “right” and imperative for lebensraum in some (many?) of his speeches, and also that a nation must grow or die (or words to that effect). Thus he attempted, with considerable success, to inculcate these goals into his people, rendering them in “spiritual union” with each other and himself.

As for G’s remark that Hitler worshiped Mussolini, L replies that “the Fuhrer was driven by racism and anti-Semitism, not by the sort of nationalism the Italians embraced.” But racism and anti-Semitism were consistent with much of the “sort of nationalism the Italians embraced,” certainly a sense of superior culture, pride in one’s ancestors (real or imagined), and restoration of former glory (ditto). I remind younger readers that Mussolini brutally invaded and conquered Ethiopia in 1936, using phosgene and mustard gas during the invasion and later executing rebels and civilians thought complicit. This conquest was intended and asserted to be a partial restoration of the Roman Empire.

As G has remarked somewhere (Heritage Foundation on 1/9?), the consequences of an ideology adopted by a nation depend very much on the prior socio/cultural/psychological makeup of its people. He contended that the Italians and Germans were significantly different in these respects when Mussolini and Hitler, respectively, came to power. This surely helps explain the differences between Mussolini’s and Hitler’s regimes – especially the Holocaust, which G regards the Italians as incapable of carrying out, even had Mussolini ordered them to do so.

Rarely mentioned is the fact that Italy simply lacked the potential might of Germany, so that Mussolini’s military ambitions were necessarily more modest than Hitler’s. That said, even Hitler bit off more than he could chew. Had he launched his invasion of Russia a month earlier, however, he might have succeeded, leaving his military largely intact in 1943. One can only guess how things might then have unfolded, and we should be profoundly grateful that we do not know.

ML:

There are so many things here with which I disagree that it would require an entire blog. Basically Mr Tryon misunderstands several of my points and confuses Jonah with me several times. I don’t know how to sort it out, frankly.

On what I believe to be matters of fact, it was I, not Jonah (altho maybe he did too) who said that Hitler adored Mussolini. You say that the Italians were quite capable of the antisemitism that led to the Holocaust, but I doubt that, as does Jonah. It was precisely the racial doctrines that were stimulated by the occupation of Ethiopea and Libya that drove a wedge between important sectors of the ITalian people and the regime. And whereas there was a lot of mass racial antisemitism in Germany, there was none in Italy, where the pope declared racism a heresy.

Jan 17, 2008 - 4:20 am 11. tim irwin:

Michael writes of Hitler and Mussolini:

“It is very hard to find a political box big enough to accommodate the two.”

I don’t mean to be flippant, but how about the fact they were allies (along with Japan) in World War II? It certainly seemed as if there was a significant sized box big enough for the two of them.

Let me state up front that Michael Ledeen has forgotten more about Fascism than I will ever know. But that comment strikes me as very odd. It appears that in trying to come up with a perfect theory to describe and explain fascism, somehow the obvious was overlooked. Political systems are based on people, and we are far from perfect. It is unlikely there is a perfect “political theory” that neatly ties up all the similarities and differences between Hitler and Mussolini. But do we really need one, given what we know?

ML:

Well we were allied with Stalin in that same war, does that give us a common box?

I don’t think so.

Jan 17, 2008 - 8:21 am 12. Anderson:

Mr. Jansen dwells on the “points” of the Nazi platform, even though historians are quite clear that Hitler took next to no interest in the platform, which was drawn up in large part by Gregor Strasser, a more genuine “national socialist” whom Hitler had murdered in 1934.

Common threads between fascism, Nazism, Japanese military dictatorship, the Franco regime, etc., are relatively few, but there is one thing they all had in common: a deep detestation of liberalism. Mr. Ledeen is entirely too kind to Mr. Goldberg.

ML:

Hah! Thanks for that, I love it when I’m accused of excessive kindness :=)

Jan 17, 2008 - 10:01 am 13. Andrew:

What a lukewarm review for a friend. Goldberg’s book has been widely dismissed as way off the mark. The publisher should feel embarrassed by the book; its cover and contents. It isn’t possible to have a serious discussion between two sides when one side clearly does not understand the terms and history of the issues.

ML:

Don’t be so pessimistic; we’re having quite a fine discussion here, without having to choose “sides.” Historical understanding isn’t always a partisan matter, and I’m grateful and impressed at the tone and seriousness of the comments here.

Jan 17, 2008 - 11:07 am 14. Justin K.:

The political upheavals of 1919-1945 saw a lot of ideological ferment and a lot of strange bedfellows, so yeah, I’d be surprised if you didn’t have some leftists, seeing the liberal-capitalist order fall into crisis during the Depression and look admiringing on Mussolini making the trains run on time. But this faint praise you give Jonah still doesn’t do him any good, because he’s trying to use the historical tidbits he digs up as ammunition against modern American Democracts. And that dog won’t hunt. HG Wells saying something nice about Mussolini in the 20s or Woodrow Wilson’s Palmer Raids in the teens don’t reflect at all on, say, Hillary Clinton, as Jonah insists.

ML:

I think Jonah will be pleased to have opened the debate on the extent to which the contemporary left shared in at least some of the elements of the fascist world view. And he’s certainly done that. He’s careful to say that he is not equating liberalism and fascism.

Jan 17, 2008 - 11:40 am 15. Bad:

“Despite the provocative title, he’s not saying that liberalism is the same as fascism, or that fascists were really liberals, or any such thing.”

I have to here suggest that anyone who actually desired to avoid this implication would have taken a great deal more care than Jonah has. For all his complaints about how the book has been received, it’s almost impossible not to get the impression that this is exactly what he wanted: that complaining about liberals not taking it seriously is precisely what he wanted to be doing: not having a serious argument about his thesis with them.

ML:

So we’re having that discussion here, thanks to you and many others.

Jan 17, 2008 - 11:52 am 16. Antonio Tellez:

“Various radical anarcho-syndicalists supported Mussolini”. This is just unhistorical crap! The Italian anarcho-syndicalists were amongst the most active partisans against the Italian fascist dictatorship. Not only did they fight the fascists in Italy, but in Spain as well where Franco could only establish his bloody fascist regime with the help of German and Italian troops and the catolic church. In 1945 several Italian cities (e.g. Carrara) were liberated by anarcho-syndicalist partisan units.

ML:

Ever hear of Alceste de Ambris? He was with D’Annunzio at Fiume, was one of the principal authors of the revolutionary Carta del Carnaro, and joined the fascist movement afterwards. There is a substantial literature on the anarcho-sindicalists who, for a while, believed in the fascist revolution. Others did not, but that doesn’t make the basic fact into an error.

Jan 17, 2008 - 11:56 am 17. cw:

Can you make this generalization?

In fascism, the individual’s place is to work for the glory of the state, and his reward was being part of something glorious. In the left movements, the individual’s place is to work to for the common good as directed by the state, and his reward is an improved life, mostly in an economic sense.

To restate, the aim of fascism is for the state to do glorious things, the aim of socialism/communism is to improve the lives of the citizens.

I’m not saying that either aim was ever achieved. Where the right fits into this I don’t completely understand.

ML:

Certainly the glory of the state is a central fascist theme. And certainly the heroic individual shared in that glory, according to fascist doctrine.

The Communists had a similar concept of shared glory, although they tended to be far less nationalistic; it was a class thing. But once you move from theory to practice, you find that the Soviet Union was the incarnation of the working class, and Soviet glory becomes the same thing as proletarian glory. Soviet spies in the West generally believed they were working for the advancement of the proletariat on a global scale.

Does that help?

Jan 17, 2008 - 12:06 pm 18. Gabriel:

I would like to congratulate you Mr. Ledeen for this courageous review. I am a trained historian and unabashed liberal who disagrees vehemently with a lot of your views, but who always enjoys a good honest debate. I have been stunned by the reception Jonah’s book has had in conservative circles, because it is not a serious piece of scholarship. It is agitprop and satire trying to pass off as reputable history. I agree that academia is mostly liberal, but it also (mostly) strives for a search of the truth for its own sake. Jonah’s book comes nowhere close to this, and I was taking the reaction of the book by conservatives as an indication of just how decadent and intellectually exhausted the movement has become. By policing your own in such an honest manner, I can see I was jumping to conclusions. I am still surprised no one sat down with him and disabused him of the idea of writing this book. Once again, congratulations on standing up to one of your own in such as firm but honest manner.

ML:

Thanks. maybe you might reconsider your opinion of other thoughts of mine as well. There are lots of honest people out there, but as I was taught in graduate school by the great George L. Mosse, the most precious thing in intellectual life is honest criticism, and for the most part it’s impossible to get any…I’ve always tried to give my friends honest criticism, and I have several friends–who really cannot be categorized politically–who do the same for me.

Many thanks for your thoughtful remarks.

Jan 17, 2008 - 12:06 pm 19. dSmith:

Mr. Ledeen starts by referring to “Liberal Fascism” as a “fun book” and it might be best not to analyze it too deeply.
During the Cold War, when arguing with a conservative, when things started to degenerate he could call me a commie and I could call him a fascist.
Since the collapse of the Soviet Union this has not been a fruitful line for the conservative to pursue. By attempting to connect Fascism with Liberalism,Mr.Goldberg is merely attempting to offer to the right a term to replace “commie”

Jan 17, 2008 - 12:39 pm 20. glasnost:

As I believe one of Jonah’s reviewers states specifically, Liberal Fascism’s thesis only makes sense if you believe that the political spectrum of “left” vs. “right” is identical with the governance spectrum of “communal rights” vs. “individual rights”. Once you’ve defined those terms, you can go one to lump all forms of totalitarianism as “leftist”.

The problem is that this ignores the actual historical record, not to mention the history of ideas.

The historical record, Ed, demonstrates that rightist movements can be indeed revolutionary: there is no socialism in the OAS (Algerian civil war) or in Pinochet, yet they were revolutionary, in the sense of a radical break from preexisting governance.
A primary feature of 20′th century leftism - including revolutionary leftism - is its anti-nationalism and racial indifference. Nationalist and racially-based totalitarianism has most often been the province of the radical right wing. (Although, to be fair, some of those have included socialist economic policies and should be considered hybrids, of which Mussolini is the most obvious example)

Jan 17, 2008 - 1:33 pm 21. cw:

I’ve thought more about the general aims of socialism/communism vrs fascism and where modern american conservatives fit in and I think I have it.

Fascism: citizen works for glory of state, state goal, glory.

Communisim: citizen works at direction of state, state goal, improve citizen’s life.

Modern American liberalism and conservatism: state works for citizen (democracy) to improve citizen’s life. The difference between liberal and conservative is the extent to which the state is involved in improvement.

Socialism: some kind of a mixture of the last three?

Again, I’m not saying that any of these state goals are ever fully reached, or even honestly persued.

Jan 17, 2008 - 2:22 pm 22. steve davis:

The columnist here is remarkably generous towards Goldberg, who I gather, based on the columnist’s critique, has made elementary errors of political science.

My Bachelor of Arts was in Political Science, and my remembrance–even out of the field for twenty years–is that one of the first groups the National Socialists went after as they accumulated power was liberal columnists and government officials.

I think the biggest problem here can probably be boiled down to the following: Goldberg doesn’t know what the hell he’s talking about. He doesn’t seem to understand that there is a profound gulf between “Leftist” in the European sense and “Liberal” in the American, that a liberal in continental Europe is a far, FAR different animal from a liberal in America, and that wiser heads than his long ago charted all the ideologies and rightly deduced that Fascism is an ultra-right variety of totalitarianism, and Communism is an ultra-left variety. American liberalism is actually mainstream moderation, as really is conservatism. The simple fact of the matter is that, aside from some mostly irrelevant policy issues, liberalism and conservatism in this country are virtually identical. And of course, one can look, as National Review has, at the current administration and realize why so many of us–both liberals and conservatives–find ourselves heartsick.

Jan 17, 2008 - 2:30 pm 23. gh:

Well we were allied with Stalin …

Stalin started out with Hitler. I think your response here is a bit unfair.

ML:

Sorry if you feel that way, it certainly wasn’t intended to be mean.

Jan 17, 2008 - 2:30 pm 24. apl:

Wasn’t us sharing a box with the Soviets the result of them climbing out of the box with Hitler & Mussolini?

ML:

Actually it was the result of the Nazi invasion of Poland and then the Soviet Union. Stalin was flabbergasted.

Jan 17, 2008 - 2:43 pm 25. apl:

OK, Hitler kicked Stalin out of the Axis box. But before the Nazi invasion of the USSR, Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin were in cahoots, right?

ML:

Not Mussolini. He was still trying to figure out which side he was going to be on when the big war started…dealing secretly with the Brits, etc.

Jan 17, 2008 - 3:04 pm 26. David Thomson:

Collectivism underpinned both Communist and Nazi ideologies. The new converts were existentially anxious to lose their individual selves. Becoming part of the greater whole was their number one goal. Eric Hoffer in his The True Believer perceived such an individual to be “a guilt-ridden hitchhiker who thumbs a ride on every cause from Christianity to Communism. He’s a fanatic, needing a Stalin (or a Christ) to worship and die for.”

Why did one person become a Nazi while the other a Communist? I think it was just a matter of which true believing ideology got to them first. At the end of the day, however, as Frederick Hayek pointed out—they were contemptuous of individual rights. Human beings were to find their true selves only through the benevolent state. No dissent was to be tolerated. Moreover, passive adherence wasn’t good enough. One had to enthusiastically and totally embrace the Great Cause. A socialist economy is therefore indisputably required in this set of circumstances.

ML:

I was with you until that final “therefore.” Why is a socialist economy required?

Yes, Eric Hoffer was something quite wonderful.

Jan 17, 2008 - 3:07 pm 27. cw:

” Soviet spies in the West generally believed they were working for the advancement of the proletariat on a global scale.”

But, theoretically, didn’t the advancment of the proletariate mean the economic improvement of their lives? There was glory there, but also the explicit promise of economic improvement. Whereas Fascism seemed to go back to the old Germanic/Norse ethic of Glory equals valiant death in battle. That’s overstated, but I when you talk about the nazis at least, I don’t think the were really promising that followers would live long peaceful lives doing meaningful work through a reationally run economy. I think the promise was kind of, we will take over the world and if you are strong and survive, you will share in the spoils, if not, see you in valhalla.

ML:

Indeed.

Jan 17, 2008 - 4:19 pm 28. DoktorNo:

Funny thing. The conclusion of this book is obvious for anyone who had paid attention on history classes in my country…

Jan 17, 2008 - 5:12 pm 29. Colugo:

Here is my take (a fairly unoriginal one - see Zeev Sternhell, Sheri Berman, A. James Gregor to name a few), and I would be very interested in both Michael Ledeen’s and Jonah Goldberg’s responses to it.

There was an early 20th century ’statist moment’ which sought to address the geopolitical, economic, and cultural disruptions caused by capitalism. This statist reaction had both democratic (progressivism, social democracy) and undemocratic (communism, fascism) manifestations.

Modern American liberalism was created by the civil libertarian reaction to progressivism while modern conservatism was created by the economic libertarian reaction to progressivism. Modern liberalism retained progressivism’s economic intervention, acceptance of birth control and abortion, and environmental regulation while modern conservativism retained progressivism’s strong executive, democratic imperialism, and Comstockery. (And, in some quarters of modern conservatism, Sanger-esque scientific racism. See LF blurbist Charles Murray.)

Modern liberalism and modern conservatism are contrasting combinations of classical liberalism (emphasizing either civil or economic aspects) and early 20th c statism (in its progressivist form).

If anyone wants to call all statist tendencies (even democratic statism) “fascism” then let’s be consistent about how that descriptor is applied. If fascism it is, then there is an equally good - I mean, dubious - case for “conservative fascism.” And it is ahistorical to suggest that any regulation or redistribution is utterly antithetical to the ethos of classical liberalism; even Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, and Hayek would fail to meet such absolutist standards.

ML:

I don’t think in such enormous categories. Historians deal with specific events, people, etc. It’s hard enough for me to figure out, for example, to what extent antisemitism was “built in” to Italian fascism from the beginning, and to what extent is was an import from the Fuhrer. I used to believe it was mostly an import, but there has been a lot of convincing scholarship showing the enormous support for antisemitism in Italy, Hitler or no Hitler.

So these huge issues are too tough for me, and I am suspicious of people who think they can answer them.

Jan 17, 2008 - 5:15 pm 30. Joe E:

I enjoyed this review, and I’ve immensely enjoyed the amount of intelligent (and some flatly stupid) debate it’s generated. Maybe I’ve thought myself into a box, but exactly what does the Right mean any more, if I accept your critique of Jonah’s book? If you are correct that Mussolini and Italian Fascism eventually were of the Right, exactly what did they have in common with modern conservatives?

I’m a conservative, and I often read National Review, but I can’t think of anything that Mussolini did that NR supports or that I would personally support. Wouldn’t it be more accurate to say that Fascism had some things in common with the modern American Left and other things that no mainstream American supports anymore? Why should the Right be forced to accept everything the Left eventually discards?

Jan 17, 2008 - 5:31 pm 31. RCC:

ML:
I think Jonah will be pleased to have opened the debate on the extent to which the contemporary left shared in at least some of the elements of the fascist world view. And he’s certainly done that. He’s careful to say that he is not equating liberalism and fascism.
Jan 17, 2008 11:40 AM

Jan 17, 2008 - 5:45 pm 32. Ran:

Michael,
First, a marketing nudge. Forgive me, BUT…

Your NRO page, way down at the footer, lists your latest book as ‘Terror Masters’. Ought to be ‘Time Bomb’ - timely and important read.

Here at PJ media your page doesn’t link to ‘Time Bomb’ either.

I’d purchased ‘Freedom’ via the link above… for ‘Time Bomb’ I went to Amazon directly.

I’ll post comments on your review above, later. Once the beer buzz settles. One comment really struck home: “And there is no American nationalism of the sort that exists in Europe, either. They’re nationalists, we’re patriots, and the two are quite different.” I’m wrapping grey cells around that idea.

Jan 17, 2008 - 6:12 pm 33. David Thomson:

“I was with you until that final “therefore.” Why is a socialist economy required?”

The term socialism is only another way of describing a slave economy. It is existentially demanded by the True Believer. They want to be told what to do. Freedom is a threatening concept. The state is something of a mother to these immature individuals. Liberal economies require commitment and risk. One may have invented the best tiddlywinks of all time, but there is no guarantee that anyone will be willing to buy them. The true believer wants security and to spend their waking hours on things that truly matter—like destroying those unwilling to enthusiastically embrace the true faith. This working for a living stuff can be a real pain. Shouldn’t the enemies of the state be performing these unpleasant tasks?

The true believer is ultimately a nihilist. Adolph Hitler’s followers were eventually going to commit suicide. It was merely a question of time. Joseph Stalin’s top people lost the true faith and evolved into cynical gangsters. Their tacit apostasy is what saved them from self destruction. Also, never forget that Stalin was a hypocrite. His Communist beliefs, for instance, were shelved during the building of the space program. The scientists involved in this undertaking were amply rewarded. Pure socialism is intrinsically impossible. A lot of hypocrisy has to be tolerated.

ML:

Whoa! If you’re talking about a dictatorship, let’s just call it that. “socialism” means something else, at least to me…

As for the true believers, they come in all colors. since you enjoy this subject so much, have a look at Canetti’s “Crowds and Power,” I promise you’ll thank me for years to come…

Jan 17, 2008 - 9:17 pm 34. Robert Levine:

“What is missing from Jonah’s book—he mentions it in passing a few times, but never gives it the weight it deserves—is the specific historical context from which fascism was born: the First World War.”

Absolutely correct. What makes this worse is his lack of understanding of what key terms meant in the context of the inter-war period, particularly “nationalism” and “socialism.” He certainly doesn’t understand that nationalism was a political movement in response to trans-national empires, in particular the Austro-Hungarian empire and the Russion empire. It was not understood as the opposite of “international,” as in the Third International.

Likewise with “socialism.” Neither Italian fascism nor the Nazis had anything like a coherent economic theory analogous to Marxism. What the Nazis meant by “socialism” had nothing to do with the state owning, or controlling, the means of production. There had been a long history of government control of economic behavior in Germany; what changes the Nazis made in the relationship between the state and the economy were surprisingly incremental.

What the Nazis meant by “socialism” was negative; it was opposition to Jewish ownership of capital. Even before the Nazis, anti-Semitism was described in Germany as “the Socialism of fools.” To say that the Nazis were “right-wing Socialists” completely misunderstands the guts of Nazi ideology, which at is core was based on racial exclusion and the Fuehrerprinzip - not economic theory.

ML:

Well said. Nazism is all about race, and killing and enslaving the inferior races. All the talk about “socialism” is beside the point.

Jan 17, 2008 - 10:38 pm 35. tim irwin:

Michael responded:

“Well we were allied with Stalin in that same war, does that give us a common box?

I don’t think so.”

Touche! I suppose one quick quip deserves another.

I have two comments:
We were in the same box as Stalin - the anti-fascist box.

On a more serious note, I would contend the political alliance of Hitler and Mussolini was based on mutual attraction of shared interests. The alliance of the Allies and Soviet Union was a defensive response to Hitler’s aggression. From this admittedly layman’s perspective, the latter was reactive based on survival and not any common link of political systems.

I realize I’m probably setting myself up again, but I look forward to the response/education.

ML:

The short answer is that Hitler tricked Stalin, which gave Hitler time to organize the invasion of the Slavic territories (there’s “identity politics” again, heh).

The longer answer is that they shared a hatred of the free world and so cooperation made a certain amount of sense. There was some cooperation that surprises even cynical historians, e.g. the Soviets gave Mussolini secret information about the activities of the Italian Communist Party…

The still longer answer is that they both knew they would end up in a fight to the death…

Jan 17, 2008 - 11:37 pm 36. Mr. Beamish:

Robert Romano writes:

It is true that Mussolini started out in the socialist camp, but by no means did he stay there, and it is quite clear that fascism was an ideology to contend with both classical liberalism and communism, just based upon readings of both Mussolini himself and Alfredo Rocco.

And classical liberalism (i.e. conservatism) contended with both fascism and communism. And communism contended with classical liberalism (i.e. conservatism) and fascism.

Is anything actually being said here?

Communism and Fascism are both left-wing ideologies in the same sense that Coke and Pepsi are both cola.

Somehow Stalin fighting Hitler for 6 months longer than Roosevelt makes Hitler a zealous flag waving “right-wing” nationalist in Russia’s “Great Patriotic War.”

Never mind that the only conservative voice among the Allies belonged to Churchill, who’s country was fighting the leftist Nazis when Hitler and Stalin were still swapping dead Jew stories over bomb materials to kill Londoners.

To say Fascism was in fact left-wing is nothing short of brutal honesty.

ML:

Some fascists started out on the left, then became fascists. Hell, Reagan started out as a pro-union Democrat, then became Reagan.

Jan 18, 2008 - 12:07 am 37. David W. Lincoln:

Michael, the thought occurred to me: how tribal is any form of totalitarianism?

For my understanding of Fascism would not allow the prophet Nathan to rebuke King David after the king messed around with Bathsheba.

Could this play a role in how politics looks in this, the early part of the 21st. Century.

Thanks.

ML:

I don’t think I’m smart enough to answer that. But you should read Elias Canetti, who has a lot to say about tribalism, and was, I am sure, an admirer of the Prophet Nathan.

Jan 18, 2008 - 1:19 am 38. Antonio Tellez:

Alceste de Ambris was kicked out of the USI (the anarcho-syndicalist union) because he supported Italy taking part in WW I. He later left Mussolini even before the fascist “march to Rome”. Former anarcho-syndicalists that later converted into “national syndicalist” (a contradiction in itsself) in Italy can be counted on two hands in a union of hundreds of thousands. Hundreds of USI members died fighting the fascists right from the beginning. Ever heard of the “battle of Parma” for instance? Repeating the arguments of some leninist historians whos only aim was to libel any workers movement that was a possible alternative to the teror the stalinists imposed on the global working classes, doesn’t make infactuality more reliable.

ML:

Heh, it doesn’t make infactuality a word, either. Take it easy, this is not a partisan discussion. I am no Leninist, to put it mildly…

Jan 18, 2008 - 1:24 am 39. Anarcho:

“while various radical anarcho-syndicalists supported Mussolini from the very beginning”

This is not actually true. Certain Marxist revolutionary syndicalists supported Mussolini, but no anarcho-syndicalist ones.

To quote the standard work on this matter, the syndicalists in question “explicitly denounced anarchism” and “insisted on a variety of Marxist orthodoxy.” The “syndicalists genuinely desired — and tried — to work within the Marxist tradition.” (David D. Roberts, The Syndicalist Tradition and Italian Fascism, p. 72, p. 57 and p. 79)

The syndicalists in question were expelled from the Italian Syndicalist Union in 1915 for their support of the war. They became national-syndicalists and later fascists. The USI became increasingly influenced by anarchism and fought fascism after the war along with other anarchists and other sections of the left.

While revolutionary syndicalism and anarcho-syndicalism are often confused, they are different. You can be a syndicalist and not an anarchist. The pro-war Italian syndicalists being a classic example as they were, like Mussolini, self-proclaimed Marxists before the war and were dismissive of anarchism.

So a common error, but an error nevertheless.

ML:

Fine. Let’s call them interventionist syndicalists. And Mussolini, at one point, was an interventionist socialist. Now can we get back to the central issue? I take it you agree that, just because somebody started off with a point of view, it doesn’t define him for the rest of his life. I’m saying that some themes came from the left, but that fascism itself, especially by the time it became a regime–and it took a while–was certainly not a left-wing phenomenon. We’re totally together on this one, right?

And, for those who really love the little details, I wrote a book about D’Annunzio at Fiume in which you will see that I was fascinated by De Ambris, and indeed by the entire adventure. I wrote it because at the time it was conventional wisdom to say that D’Annunzio and the Fiume adventure were a kind of dry run for fascism. I concluded that was not true. Have a look if you are interested, it’s still in print from Transaction Press.

Jan 18, 2008 - 5:20 am 40. WR Jonas:

Extremely interesting review and discussion.
Rather than dissecting minute variances I prefer a broader umbrella that groups these movements under a common label.
All Communists, Socialists and Liberals share the view that a perfect society is obtainable if they are allowed to make all of the laws and spend all of the money.
They are correctly identified as Utopians.Their first and strongest allegiance is to make the people obey the government.
Gaining and exercising that power is their aim and tracing their lineage or origins bears little significance in the struggle to defeat them.

ML:

Roger that. Once upon a time we called them all “totalitarian.” Ask Hannah Arendt, et. al.

And Amen to the main issue: how to defeat them. Thanks for that!

Jan 18, 2008 - 9:31 am 41. R. Stanton Scott:

I am curious about your claim that fascism was (is?) a “revolutionary movement.” In what way is this so?

As Tim Irwin pointed out, Mr. Ledeen has forgotten more about fascism than I know. But it seems to me that the political leaders who developed fascism did so in reaction to expanding emphasis on the importance of individuals and their rights. This limited the power of the state (as an agent of these leaders) to categorize some groups as less than full citizens, and thereby manage the state in ways that priveleged the groups they preferred. To protect this power, these leaders reacted with an argument against allowing the masses a voice in government.

Indeed, today’s version of fascism looks to me like a reaction to those who would expand the political role of “out” groups (e.g. gays, women, ethnic minorities, non-Christians). This reaction manifests itself in an emphasis on the value of the state and the subordination of individual rights to its survival.

Or not?

ML:

Revolutionary because the fascists demanded a change in both the system of government and the people entitled to govern. Just like the Communists and the Nazis.

The fascists weren’t so much reacting to the liberal doctrines of individual liberties as to–I keep coming back to it, because so many forget it–THE WAR. Fascism was, is, a war ideology, it defines good leaders in terms of their ability to wage war and win war. That’s why I wrote that Khomeini was a “clerical fascist” before he ever came to power. YOu could see it, he said it…

Woodrow Wilson was not a fascist. He was a racist, yes, an arrogant, dangerous man, yes. But not a fascist. There was no fascism until it emerged from the trenches of the Great European War.

Jan 18, 2008 - 10:04 am 42. Peter Borregard:

For me the central point of Liberal Fascism is the assertion that all modern totalitarian systems have socialist, or at any rate, proto-socialist roots. Even if it’s true, it’s not the whole truth. Yes, Marx brought us a class based analysis of… well, everything. But to paint with broad strokes, the favored class for the socialists was the Worker, and for the Nazis the Volk (and for today’s jihadis, the Ummah.) Of course there were peasant virtues attributed to the volk, and racist persecution of the kulaks which keep the lines blurred a bit.

But while antisemitism may have been central for Hitler (may his name be blotted out) and Jonah may scant this, isn’t it a mistake to say that antisemitism and mystical racism was the only thing that appealed to all Germans?

The Nazi ideology may have helped the average German’s self-esteem, but the Nazis also had a lot more goodies to distribute to their favored class than the Soviets did: Germany was a modern economy, Russia was not. (IIRC, early in Gulag Archipelago Solzhenitsyn makes much of the point that there had been technological and infrastructure development towards the end of the reign of the tsars which was set back for many years by the revolution.)

The pre-revolutionary middle class in Russia was quite small, and plundering it and the aristocracy didn’t yield a huge amount of stuff to improve the lives of the average worker. Austerity was a necessary virtue for the Communists.

On the other hand, when the Nazis began plundering the German Jewish middle and upper classes, there was a lot of loot. Once the Nazis overran and occupied Western Europe there was even more.

Götz Aly makes this point, and also describes the way in which the Nazis used their banking system to export the inflation brought on by the war to the occupied territories, thereby both physically and financially despoiling them.

The upshot of this, according to Aly, was that even at the height of WWII, the material life of the average working class German– quality and quantity of food and clothing, in some cases upgraded housing– was much better than it had been before the Nazis.

So, according to Aly, if you happened to be Aryan, the Third Reich was a pretty good approximation of a successful socialist state. It’s just that it wasn’t based on industrial progress and economic growth in quite the way the Socialist Internationale thinks of it.

With those distinctions drawn, maybe Jonah Goldberg isn’t so wrong to play up the socialist aspects of the Nazis.

Or maybe the real distinction to make is different way in which the American Revolution and the French Revolution construed Liberty. Maybe the distinction Michael Ledeen draws between American style patriotism and European nationalism is critical.

That style of nationalism is in the classical sense vicious, and was one of the things International Socialism intended to eliminate.

ML:

Thanks, lots of thoughtful stuff here, for which we are all grateful. A couple of suggestions: first, don’t conflate “class” and “race.” They are not “somehow, the same thing.” They have different consequences, serious consequences, determining who lives and who dies.

I insist that America is not part of the story of fascism, I didn’t like it when the left said that the American right was fascist, and I don’t like it when the right says that the American left is fascist.

Not all evil is fascist. Fascism is a specific phenomenon, it deserves serious attention, but it doesn’t get it when people argue that it such a broad phenomenon that it loses all real meaning.

Jan 18, 2008 - 10:04 am 43. R. Stanton Scott:

WR Jonas:

I don’t know of any Communists, Socialists, or Liberals–outside of freshman dorms–who believe that they can create a “perfect society” if they could only “make all the laws and spend all the money.”

Many Communists and Socialists might argue that changing the rules governing the ownership of property, especially capital, might reduce the differences between classes and generally make communities more cohesive. And liberalism is about protecting the power of individuals with respect to the state and majority groups.

Both might argue for adjustments to the capitalist legal regime and reallocation of money and capital to limit accumulation of wealth and power in the hands of a few. But I doubt that those who make these arguments believe that a “perfect society” is any more “obtainable” than those who believe that we should organize society around markets and the aggregated choices of individuals.

Jan 18, 2008 - 10:59 am 44. Michael Zampella:

Mr. Leeden, could you expand on the difference between American and European politics and the difference between patriotism and nationalism?

ML:

Nationalism, especially 19th century European nationalism, ascribes unique importance to a people who have lived together for a long time and shared a common history and a common environment. In some cases–Germany above all–the environment takes on almost mystical significance in defining “the nation.”

In that framework, your ancestors had to have lived on that land, and shared experiences with generations of your fellows. Nobody can just move there and become, say, a German or a Frenchman.

American patriotism is quite different. Tocqueville marvelled that anyone could become an American in a matter of months, because they bought in to the Constitution, to the concept and practices of freedom, and, let’s call it, the frontier spirit.

Sebastian de Grazia wrote a great book about “America,” pointing out that, for a long time, nobody even knew what to call it, because it was defined by a document, not by a common history or a common ethnic basis.

Jan 18, 2008 - 11:15 am 45. Thomas Ash:

Thank you for a very interesting review… I must say, it dispelled some of my prejudices about Pajamas Media (prejudices based on only a very minimal acquaintance with it, perhaps). Do you mind if I ask what you think of http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-hitler.htm - a webpage which I see linked to fairly frequently on left Blogistan? It’s obviously not a very scholarly work, and it’s list of right-wing tendencies is perhaps a bit offensive, but I found the material it quoted interesting… (although I’d always heard Hitler self-identified as a Catholic rather than an atheist, both in public and in private).

Re: the book - it’s a shame all the discussion elsewhere on the web seems to focus around the cover and title. Perhaps they’re the publisher’s fault, but if Goldberg had wanted serious reactions from the left he should really have toned them down a little. If conservatives saw a book called ‘Bushitler’ or somesuch, I bet they’d judge it by its cover too. It’s a shame, because some of what he says is interesting even to liberals like me.

ML:

I’m grateful for your kind words, but please permit me to pass on commenting on other web sites. I’m trying hard to keep up with this one, heh.

Jan 18, 2008 - 11:17 am 46. Herschel Smith:

Well, just as in my personal communications with you, you never fail to exercise the mind. Yes, categories are useless sometimes, and edifying conversations defy quick sound bites. There are always qualifiers and caveats, and you did a good job with this analysis.

Let’s be frank here, shall we? Hitler didn’t give a crap about socialism and care for the masses. At the root it was tyrannical and dictatorial. And the complexities of the discussion don’t stop there. If we go back to the real root, it is Hegelian. But while Marx criticized Hegel, he implemented his ideas into his own, something much closer to socialism than what Hitler did. Hegel’s views (dialectical advancement of history) was taken by Hitler, combined with hatred for Jews and a belief that the German man would rule the earth, and taken all together combined into a toxic mixure of evil that took WWII to deal with.

So from Hegel’s philosophy sprung multiple children, not all of them getting along with each other. And why not? This was Hegel, wasn’t it? It isn’t by chance that Hitler made a point of going to concerts of music composed by Wagner.

But my main point is that is that history defies easy categorization and definitions. History and political theory are best done by long, winded conversations than by categorization. Thanks for the conversation. I always learn from reading your prose, and as always, my best.

/HPS

ML:

Thanks Herschel. Yes, history is the study of particular things, it’s the sociologists and political “scientists” who think you can explain it all if only you get the categories and causes right.

Hitler wanted to rule the world in the name of the Aryan Race. Most everything else is commentary, I quite agree. That’s why I get so exercised when somebody tell me that Hitler was really about socialism, or some such. And it drives me off the wall when I am told that the Holocaust is just a form of identity politics.

Jan 18, 2008 - 11:40 am 47. Joseph Hutchison:

The scariest aspect of your post is that the intellectually dishonest media-hound, Jonah Goldberg, is your boss!

ML:

I do not believe for a second that Jonah is intellectually dishonest. Quite the contrary. We disagree on some things, that’s all. So what? He’s wonderfully open to criticism, and he’s a terrificly tolerant boss. Can’t ask for more than that. We all get things wrong, sometimes.

Jan 18, 2008 - 12:37 pm 48. Mr. Beamish:

ML writes:

Some fascists started out on the left, then became fascists. Hell, Reagan started out as a pro-union Democrat, then became Reagan.

And Truman threatened to nationalize America’s railroads and draft its striking workers into the military.

Still not getting Fascism over the hurdle that ultimately seperates left from right.

What was done with Jewish property in Germany again?

ML:

Touche’

Jan 18, 2008 - 1:40 pm 49. David Thomson:

“Whoa! If you’re talking about a dictatorship, let’s just call it that. “socialism” means something else, at least to me…”

Socialism at the minimum is a soft form of dictatorship. The frog is unaware that it is being boiled alive. All socialist economies are premised upon (as Jonah Goldberg as often noted) the peculiar belief that the state can love you. The state’s bureaucrats are now one’s mother and have the right to discipline those who are hesitant to embrace it warmth and affection. There is not even one socialist state anywhere in the world where political correctness of some sort does not reign. They are only a few step away from totalitarianism.

Jan 18, 2008 - 1:55 pm 50. tim quick:

“They’re nationalists, we’re patriots. . .”

Oh, my, now that’s funny. I’d love, love, love to hear your defense of this distinction. In the meantime, I don’t know whether to use it in a stand-up routine or to explain to my students the dangerous doctrine of American “exceptionalism”.

Jan 18, 2008 - 3:03 pm 51. R. Stanton Scott:

Mr. Ledeen:

Thank you for responding. But your response suggests that you believe fascism to be both a reactionary and a revolutionary movement, at least in the sense that its reaction to the war was to make revolutionary changes in the system of government and where to place entitlement to power.

But was the new system of government really so revolutionary? State sovereignty had certainly been placed in the hands of single individuals prior to the Great War.

And changing sovereign entitlement from a hereditary (or democratic) one to a meritocratic one based on military experience and success just looks like a change in the measurement criteria for merit–not a fundamental shift in who might strive to achieve such positions.

So I must respectfully disagree with your claim that reaction to war induced fascism. Rather I would suggest that fascism resulted from the reaction by some national groups to defeat in war–and blame for that defeat on liberalism and popular sovereingty.

I would also challenge your claim that the changes in system of government and the placement of sovereignty sought by fascists was in any real way revolutionary. They used tried and true methods of rulers–policy, persuasion, fear, and raw exertion of power against political enemies. And they sought to limit legitimacy in the exercise of this power to their own group.

In what way was either of these methods revolutionary?

ML:

I’m sure King George can explain it to you. The old political class was overthrown, new people took over, the legal system was transformed, other political parties were banned, opponents of the regime were assassinated or exiled, and an entirely new political doctrine was imposed on the entire society.

I don’t know what picture of revolution you have in your head, so it’s hard to respond to a lot of this, but I urge you to think it through again.

Jan 18, 2008 - 4:21 pm 52. cw:

“Socialism at the minimum is a soft form of dictatorship…”

Can you give us an example of a socialist state? For sure Cuba, but are you talking about, say, Sweden as well? European welfare states? Becasue what is a “soft dictatorship.” A dictator is a dictator. That’s a pretty precise word as far as I can tell. It means one person with absoloute authority.

Socialism is a huge vauge term. There’s all kinds of varieties. I don’t think you can correctly make such blanket statements.

Jan 18, 2008 - 4:34 pm 53. R. Stanton Scott:

Sorry, but I have one more question. If you think that Americans are not nationalists, how do you explain the reluctance of many Americans to let an immigrant who comes here outside the regulatory regime “become an American in a matter of months” by accepting the Constitution and the “concept and practices of freedom.?” Is there some evidence that such immigrants do not meet this standard?

Or does this transformation from immigrant to American in reality just take more than “a matter of months?”

ML:

This is not a serious question, sorry. If you don’t see the difference, I really can’t help you.

Jan 18, 2008 - 4:42 pm 54. Jay McKee:

Hello Michael,

Because of your review I will now read “Liberal Facism” which I may or may not have read without your review.
Hope all is going well with you and yours, especially your brave children.

ML:

Thanks Jay, so far so good with the kids.

Jan 18, 2008 - 5:13 pm 55. Dominique R. Poirier:

Sir,
With all due respect for your authoritative knowledge of the matter at hand, one of the key points of your article somehow challenges my assumption about some facts I might have perhaps misunderstood.

Actually, while you say that fascism is a war ideology whose tenets say “the only people worthy of political power were those who had been tested and proven in combat,” I am rather inclined to believe this way to select the members of the ruling elite is, and has been, universal, and is not an exclusive feature of fascism born during the early XXth century.

When studying on making and circulation of the elites in every societies and in all times, you may find that most members, if not all, of any given ruling elite reached their position through such, or similar, ordeals which are usually perceived as rites of passage. This peculiarity strongly reminds the natural selection process and the survival of the fittest as formalized by the proponents Darwinism, of course.

The European noblesse finds its early origin in such practices that gave birth to knighthood. The origins of knighthood belong to the early centuries of medieval Europe and have been to some extent obscured by the fact that the word “knight”, from the Old English “cniht,” came after the Norman conquest to be established as equivalent to the Romance words derived from the Late Latin caballarius, “horseman” (cf. Classical Latin eques), such as the French chevalier and the Spanish caballero, and likewise to the German Ritter.

Though cnith, meaning “boy” or “servant” (cf. Ger Knecht), seems in Anglo-Saxon England to have been used occasionally for one who undertook riding services — the “radcniht” mentioned in Domesday Book was almost the same as the geneat, whose duties, according to the Rectitudines Singularum Personarum of c. 960-1060, included riding upon errands – I acknowledge that there is no indication that the term implied any specific function in warfare, as cabalarius already did in Charlemagne’s time (8th-9th centuries); and that it is noteworthy that the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, for the year 1085, describes William the Conqueror’s dubbing his son Henry “to ridere,” where “knight” would rather have been the word used.

Before leaving the question of terminology it can be pointed out that as the notion of knighthood and chivalry became more specific, the term chevalier, caballero and Ritter in the simple sense of “horseman” or “rider” had to be superseded in French, Spanish and German respectively by cavalier, jinete and Reiter.

Knighthood was a product of the interaction of Germanic military custom and Christian influences in an age when cavalry was becoming more and more important to the armies of Western Europe. The ceremonial initiation of the young Germans into manhood as warriors is noted by Tacitus, writing at the end of the 1st century A.D., in his Germania. The Franks must have brought some such custom into Gaul in the 6th century, and its survival in Carolingian times is indicated by records of Charlemagne’s girding his son Louis the Pious with the sword in 791 and of the latter’s girding his son Charles the Bald in 838.

By the middle of the 8th century, however, Charles Martel had already appreciated the Frankish kingdom’s need for a strong cavalry force. The measures that he took to provide this force had a major effect both on the growth of feudalism and on the sometimes parallel, sometimes interwoven growth of knighthood. The cost of keeping a horse and of providing the arms, armor and attendants for its rider was much heavier than that of of maintaining an unmounted warrior, so that the fiefs granted to vassals or subtenants undertaking this service had to be correspondingly greater. The increasing importance of the horseman in the medieval army is reflected in the supersession of the word caballarius in formal documents by miles, which from its general sense of warrior or soldier came to mean specifically a knight and later, with the crystallization of the idea of nobility, to be used as the generic designation of the nobleman who had to access political power or significant influence.

The horsemen of the Frankish armies had very little more pretension to humane conduct than those of their barbarian or pagan enemies; and indeed they may well have had much to learn in the way of manners from their encounters with the Byzantines in Italy and with the Muslims from Spain. The introduction of an ethical element into their behavior seems to have been achieved by the Catholic Church.

The history of the church’s attitude to war in general and to private war in particular cannot be analyzed in a comment to a blog; but at least from the middle of the 10th century, when Frankish Christendom had long been split between France and Germany, the church’s intervention in military matters become evident in special liturgies composed to govern the ritual creation of knights; ex. in the pontifical drafted in St. Alban’s abbey, Mainz (950-960). These liturgies, however, are no more uniform than the secular rites of creation.

The first knights, then, were professional cavalry warriors. Some of them were vassals holding land as fiefs from the lords in whose armies they served; others were not enfiefed with land. And though all knights were freemen it was not invariably from the ranks of men born free that knights were recruited. This last point would certainly deserve further discussion.

The matter of enfiefment is not essential to the phenomenon of knighthood as a social factor in the period of its apogee, namely in the 10th-12th centuries. What is peculiar is the gradual evolution of a standard of practice (flexible enough in detail) for initiation into knighthood, together with a standard of decent behavior acknowledged even by those who violated it most readily.

The son of a free man destined for the profession of arms might from the age of seven or so serve his father as a page before joining the household of his father’s suzerain, perhaps at the age of twelve, for more advanced instruction not only in military subjects but also in the ways of the world. During this period of his apprenticeship he would be known as a “damoiseau” (literally “lording”) or valet (in German. Knappe) until he followed his patron on a campaign as his shielbearer, écuyer or esquire or as the bearer of his weapons (armiger). When he was adjudged proficient and the money was forthcoming for his knightly equipment, he would be dubbed knight.

Dubbing (in French adoubement) was the ceremony whereby the candidate initiation into knighthood was completed. The knight sponsoring him would gird him with a sword, fix spurs to his heels and give him a blow or slap on the neck or shoulder, uttering a few words of exhortation or welcome. It is uncertain whether the blow symbolized an embrace (as a friendly pat on the back might), a transmission of power (as in an ecclesiastical laying on of hands) or a test of endurance. It was originally administered by hand, but was eventually superseded by the use of the flat of a sword blade for a touch on the shoulder as it is popularly known nowadays; i.e., the accolade of knighthood as it survives in modern times.

Theoretically any knight could dub a candidate to knighthood, but the right to do so was gradually monopolized by the suzerains of the greater fiefs and finally by kings or other sovereign princes, who would however usually concede it to the commanders in chief of their armies in the field. Connection between war and political power is already obvious at this point.

Between the end of the 11th century and the middle of the 13th a change took place in the relationship of knighthood to feudalism. The feudal host, whose knights were mainly enfiefed landholders obliged to give 40 day’ service per year normally, had been adequate for defense and for service within a kingdom; but it was scarcely appropriate for the now more frequent long-distance expeditions, whether crusades or sustained invasions such as those launched in the Anglo-French wars. The proportion of knights with money-fiefs instead of land increased, but still the total of knights fell short of military requirements, as the steeply rising cost of stronger horses and heavier armor made men more and more reluctant to assume the obligations of knighthood. The result was twofold: on the one hand the kings – in particular Henry III and Edward I of England – often resorted to distraint of knighthood that is to compelling holders of land above a certain value to come and be dubbed knights — It was at these mass dubbings that the ceremonial was most elaborate.
On the other hand, the armies came to be composed more and more largely of mercenary soldiers, with the knights, who had once formed the main body of the combatants, reduced to a minority – as it were to a class of officers. In such an army the knight, conspicuous for his personal insignia (heraldry), would have a rank according to his retinue or to his prowess.

By the 13th century, however, the kings wanted to be knights for other purposes besides cavalry fighting. In England the so-called knights of the shires were important links between the king’s court and the local administration of the country, which they were often summoned to represent in parliaments; and the feudal dues obtainable from knights were another motive for distraint. More frequent recourse to the long-standing institution of scutage, whereby the obligation of military service could be remitted on the payment of a sum of money, shows further the transformation that knighthood was undergoing. That’s when and how the myth of the courageous soldier deserving honor and higher social position began to falter.

Chivalry lost its martial simplicity and became a fashion of modish elegance for the sophisticated nobles of a prince’s entourage – the forerunner of a modern upper class made up heirs who rule the society through automatic inheritance of power. The change was already foreshadowed in literature by the transition from the Chanson de Geste, which reflect the old knighthood and indeed constitute the source for much of our information on its Ethos to the Romans Courtois, with their emphasis on love and on chivalrous pursuit and service of ladies.
Courtly love usurped the place of Christian fervor; jousting in tournaments was preferred to battle; and the old sense of personal honor gave way to that petty sensitivity to signs of disrespect from others which was to culminate in the 16th century, in the vogue of duels of honor. The efforts of Philippe de Mézières, in the later half of the 14th century, to promote a new knightly order true to the old ideals bear witness against the contemporary state of chivalry.

An altered type of knighthood emerged with the secular orders founded by kings and princes, who explored the attraction of the chivalrous idea both to satisfy the nobility’s thirst for special lustre without increasing its real power and to form an elite of great nobles bound by an express devotion to the sovereign’s person. These secular orders were multiplied throughout Europe and eventually throughout the world from the end of the middle ages onward; and the latter ones had nothing in common with the old chivalry but the name of knights, the accolade and insignia.

This demonstrates the strong ties that unite the making of the ruling class to military affairs when talking about their historical origins. But we may find abroad some exceptions to what seems to be a rule, as testifies this account written in 1999 by David Canadine in The Rise and Fall of Class in Britain. He says that “In Canada, under the British reign of George III, the younger Pitt’s Ministry sought to promote a ranged and religiously sanctioned social structure that would make impossible any revolution on the American model. Under the Canada Act of 1791, the Anglican Church was endowed and bishops were introduced, and a landed aristocracy was promoted and given a part in government via what intended to be a hereditary upper house.”

As explained in details bellow, from the XVIII century onward, military affairs have had still stronger influence upon classes, society, and the economy of the country.
The period from 1740 to 1815, opening with the accession of Frederick the Great as King of Prussia, and closing with the dethronement of Napoleon as emperor of the French, saw both the perfection of the older style of warfare and the launching of a newer style which in many ways we still follow.
Much of the old, however, was continued in the new. The government of Louis XIV, while enlarging armies beyond precedent, had advanced the principles of orderly administration and control. It had put a new emphasis on discipline, created a more complex hierarchy of tactical units, clarified the chain of command, turned army leaders into public officials, and made armed forces into a servant of government.

One last example exemplifying, in my own opinion, the connection between warfare and social status is this of Saint Martin. As wrote From Robert Chambers, in The Book of Days, 1869: “St. Martin, the son of a Roman military tribune, was born at Sabaria, in Hungary, about 316. From his earliest infancy, he was remarkable for mildness of disposition; yet he was obliged to become a soldier, a profession most uncongenial to his natural character. After several years’ service, he retired into solitude, from whence he was withdrawn, by being elected bishop of Tours, in the year 374.”

We may notice the early existence of similar rites of passage in early universities that took place for want of the ordeal of war — universities where future rulers studied. I’m talking about hazing.

William Ian Miller, an expert on everyday life in medieval cultures, has written that “a culture of honor is often perceived as by both insiders and outsiders to be a culture of threat and violence.” Members in culture of honor feel compelled to “reciprocate” things done to them, to perform acts of kindness in exchange for good deeds.

The custom then was to endure indignities in silence (for want of the constraints of the battlefield?) — just as it is the custom among doctoral students not to confront committee members who decide to recommend or not to recommend conferring a Ph. D. Harassed students took comfort in the knowledge that if they successfully passed all the tests of endurance, they too would someday subject would-be-licensees to similar hardship. Such hazing was certainly ritualistic.

Early centers of education in Paris, Salerno, and Oxford called “studium generale.” Students came from farflung outposts to study at centers of learning. The growth of these learning centers coincides with the growth of political power of towns located on trade routes.

Following the rise of universities, medieval centers of learning were revered by the Pope, royalty, and rich merchants. Knowledge, or at least the perception that a scholar had knowledge, was power; just as information is power today. In part to prevent charlatans from passing themselves off as scholars and in part to raise standards, the universities imitated some guild practices, demanding evidence of scholarship from a prospective teacher before deeming him qualified to teach.
To receive a teaching license from a chancellor, scholars needed to demonstrate proficiency in Latin and ability to memorize long passages from books, and an ability to pass examinations. Thus would be scholars endured a training period that lasted years and was characterized by poverty and many trials. Hazing came to symbolize their ordeals. A newcomer would have to undergo indignities before he was judged worthy by those who imagined themselves his betters by virtue of their one’s year seniority.

The hooligan-scholars of the Middle Ages acted superior to others mortals in town and superior to newcomers. Their arrogance was bolstered by the support the nobility and the church gave them.

For example, a riot that started in 1354 after Oxford students threw a vessel of wine at a vintner resulted in the deaths and maimings of numerous students. It may seem appropriate to try to come up with an intellectual explanation for why students haze and harass in violation of custom of law. Numerous scholars have concluded that hazing and harassment in the Middle Ages allowed newcomers to demonstrate that they possessed the stamina and courage necessary to survive symbolic ordeals.

There has been a progression from unlawful practice happening sporadically here and there to a less or more official consensus that seemingly generalized in nearly all European countries during the Renaissance era. Far from eradicating hazing, modern times following this period gave it the statute of socially useful custom preparing men to spontaneously obey to modern power in the frame of the emerging concepts of “State,” “Nation,”, and “citizenry.”

This comment is a too long at this point already, and I bemoan not to elaborate further so as to properly argument my point, but I guess I provided my share of contribution to this interesting subject.

I perfectly understand your claim that fascism find its origin in the trench of WWI, as the reading of Fallen Soldiers, by George L. Mosse, strongly suggest it; but, given the aforesaid facts, I am not sure that the connection between the ordeal of war and the making of the ruling elite was a product of fascist ideology.

Best regards,

Jan 19, 2008 - 6:44 am 56. R. Stanton Scott:

Sir,

I am not sure why the “picture of revolution” I have in my head makes any difference, since I am asking you to explain yours in the context of your claim that fascism was a revolutionary movement, not a reactionary one. I am challenging that claim, and arguing that fascism was a reactionary movement that rose in response to the revolutionary growth of popular sovereignty and liberalism. It seems to me that the changes you cite reflect nothing more than a reversion to illiberal methods of rule but with a new set of actors claiming legitimacy. These changes were not based on new concepts about how humans relate to one another (my “picture of revolution”), and were therefore not “revolutionary.”

Are you saying that any change in government or legal system constitutes a “revolution?” If not, what exactly makes the shift to fascism new?

My question about nationalism has nothing to do with the difference between nationalism (rejection of international collective action) and patriotism (love of country), which I understand very well. I am challenging your assertion that Americans are not nationalist with what I believe is an example of American nationalism: a tendency to respond unilaterally to the movement of humans in search of economic stability.

I believe we are a nationalist state, and becoming more so. We base our nationalism on religion and a vernacular literature about democracy rather than ethnicity, but we nonetheless defend the character of our national tradition through creation and extension of a nation-state. We see no interests in common with others except those we choose, and we classify others as somehow in need of our political and spiritual civilizing influence.

This is why we frame our response to terrorism by classifying the enemy as quasi-states that threaten our national character (they “hate liberty”) instead of as the common (if particularly ruthless) criminals they are. This framing permits us to preserve our national character by acting on our own, preemptively, and with military force instead of collectively with other states.

This matters. Given its effects on foreign policy, the question of American nationalism is a serious one.

Jan 19, 2008 - 8:19 am 57. Richard Jansen:

In Mein Kampf Hitler wrote this before he even joined the German Workers Party: “On such principles the attitude of the State toward capital would be comparatively simple and clear. Its only object would be to make sure that captital remained subservient to the State and did not allocate to itself the right to dominate national interests.” That view fits in with fascism, communism or Naziism, take your pick because they all took birth in the collectivist left as Haayek so elequently showed in the chapter “The Socialist Roots of Naziism” in “The Road to Serfdom.”

Jan 19, 2008 - 10:33 am 58. David Thomson:

“Can you give us an example of a socialist state? For sure Cuba, but are you talking about, say, Sweden as well? European welfare states?”

You are right to take me to task. I should be more precise with my rhetoric. The beginnings of any socialist government, however, inevitably lead to a full-blown dictatorship. Government bureaucrats have already grabbed enormous power in the economic sector and will quickly try to go much further than that. Canada, Great Britain, Sweden and a number of other European states have already evolved into politically correct entities that will often throw you in jail for daring to criticize Islamic nihilism. The United States under Franklin D. Roosevelt was rapidly deteriorating into a fascist state. Few Americans are aware of the awfulness of that period in American history because of the shabby historical writings of Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. The late Harvard professor was something of a propagandist on behalf of the Democratic Party. Jonah Goldberg, Amity Shlaes, and James Piereson have one thing definitely in common: their recent books in key areas indirectly rebuke Schlesinger. The New Deal was, for all practical purposes, a liberal fascist movement! Thankfully, the kosher Jewish Schechter brothers defied Roosevelt’s ideological thugs and the resulting nine to zero 1935 U.S. Supreme Court “sick chicken” decision saved our nation.

Jan 19, 2008 - 11:01 am 59. A. T. Cameron:

I’m in the middle of Goldberg’s book now, and decided to check your blog because I had read your “Universal Fascism” many years ago. Admiring that work, I thought you would provide some perspective on “Liberal Fascism”
(also perhaps being one of the eleven who have studied the history of fascist thought).

Goldberg, in order to make his point, neglects the collaboration of German conservatives and Italian conservatives in the fascist seizure of power. In his rush to identify many 1930s progressives with fascist thinking he also seems to miss that some conservatives in the U.S. and Europe were at first quite sympathetic to fascism.

I think he errs in spreading the fascist brush a little too liberally: Bismarck, Lincoln, Wilson, FDR, and the American Legion all are linked as fascistic.

He concludes that if one adheres to a belief in the “organic community” that is the State, that indicates one’s fascist sympathies. If so, Burke was a protofascist.

I do think he is correct, however, in identifying the “fascist moment”, which much like Pocock’s “Machiavellian moment”, discovers a transAtlantic spirit of the age which was mutually influential on both sides of the ocean, and on both sides of the political aisle.

ML:

Thanks. I’ll drink to all that.

Jan 20, 2008 - 12:57 pm 60. joe blough:

A lot of good and interesting stuff here.

Don’t really have time for a long post, but want to add something to the mix.

Philosophically speaking politics derives from ethics.

To identify the exact relations between modern leftist liberalism, nazism, communism, socialism and fascism is in part a historical pursuit, but also in part a matter of identifying the political principles that these groups profess(ed) and the principles they enacted, and the ethical principles those are in turn based on.

I am convinced that a careful and realistic essentialization will lead one to the conclusion that they are all based on the same premises, and must, in their application lead to the same results, differing perhaps only in degree and detail, but not in the general.

One sees this in fact, in places like the heritage foundation statistics on freedom and wealth.

One sees clearly in those the proportional relation between different forms of freedom and wealth. Admittedly, the collectivisms are different from monarchy and theocracy, also associated with poverty, but I maintain that there are deeper principles yet that connect them.

It would be interesting to group the practices and beliefs of the fascists, the nazis and the liberals under the head of the principles they are based on, and look at the results the lead (or led) to in that context.

I think the result would stand up to hostile scrutiny quite well.

Peikoff made an enormous contribution in this direction in:

The Ominous Parallels - by Leonard Peikoff

Jan 20, 2008 - 3:34 pm 61. Brian H:

IMO, the crucial commonality is the conviction that following an ideology with certified implementers in charge is the way to go. Whether the certification comes from God (Divine Right or the Ummah) or from self-appointed core cadres of theorizers, the crucial qualification is adherence to the Vision and rejection of all disagreement and substantive discussion and compromise.

IOW, “We have the Truth, and are going to apply it to you, like it or lump it.”

The logical consequence of central control, concentration of power, and takeover by those ubiquitous innate power-players, the Sociopaths, is inevitable.

ML:

Absolutely, heh.

Jan 20, 2008 - 4:56 pm 62. David Rogers:

Mr. Ledeen:

Thank you for your thoughtful comments on Mr. Goldberg’s book, and for your courteous and learned responses to your readers.

I should probably stop there, but I am moved to defend Mr. Goldberg’s reading of Nazi-fascist parallels with liberalism.

As I understand it, he is essentially claiming that liberalism is a fascism that hasn’t taken its vitamins–a “kinder, gentler” fascism. You object that the Nazi project is an essentially racist one, or “nationalist,” “Ein Volk” as understood in the post-Hapsburg European sense.

It seems not inconsistent with your view and Mr. Goldberg’s to note that racial essentialism and a racial spoils system is at the heart of both Naziism and racial quota “liberalism.” The beneficiaries are different, to be sure, but the nature of the project seems quite similar. Moreover, the compulsory and redistributionist nature of both fascist and “liberal” projects seems consistent with Mr. Goldberg’s thesis and your description of the fascist enterprise. And then, of course, the notion of universal control of private activity in the name of “promoting health” is a common element. Is it unfair to say that liberalism is fascism on a slower timetable?

I know that apologists for communists often called them “liberals in a hurry,” but is the argument Mr. Goldberg is making for a similar appellation for fascists unreasonable?

The primary distinction I understand Mr. Goldberg to be making between American liberalism and fascism is the absence of dictatorship, militarism and genocide in the American side. These are no small differences, and doubtless account for much of his desire to be “careful.” But the dissimilarity of means to achieve similar ends does not dissipate the congruence of goals.

Your criticism of Mr. Goldberg’s page 80 definition of fascism appears to be that he is defining fascism as a variant of absolutism or totalitarianism. You object that absolute monarchy is more appropriate to that description. But isn’t it possible that both absolute monarchy and fascism are totalitarian? And isn’t it also true that modern “liberalism” holds essentially the same “view that every nook and cranny of society should work together in spiritual union toward the same goals overseen by the state.”

That sure sounds like Hillary “self-proclaimed Progressive” Clinton to me.

Also, you say Hitler’s “vision was global, not just national.” But wasn’t his vision global only in the sense that he envisioned global domination by a German Nazi state? HIs international view appears at least nominally different from the international view of the Communists (though, in the end, international socialism seems hopelessly intertwined with Russian nationalism).

Again, thank you for your first-rate contribution to this debate. Undoubtedly, Mr. Goldberg should have consulted you for additions to his bibliography before he finished. Let us hope he makes appropriate additions for the subsequent editions.

ML:

He didn’t need to consult me at all, but he would have written a better book if he had read some of the basic works on fascism.

On liberalism/fascism, i think it’s crazy to try to compare someone who wants racial quotas with someone who wants to exterminate a race, don’t you?

Keep thinking “war.” Fascism is all about war, it comes from war it wages war and it is destroyed in war. Not so liberalism, which attempts to resolve basic conflicts politically…

Jan 21, 2008 - 12:53 am 63. harmonicminer » Liberal Fascism::

[...] thoughtful review from a critical friend of the author, historian Michael Ledeen, can be found here. Ledeen, while sympathetic with Goldberg, has many more or less scholarly reservations about this [...]

Jun 16, 2008 - 9:14 pm