Not What You Think It's Going To Be

books:


	• Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning Jonah Goldberg Doubleday, 2008 - 496 pages average customer review:based on 339 reviews view larger image
	for more information click here

highly recommended

Progressive Totalitarians

Goldberg's book is excellent: well document, soundly reasoned, and sometimes painfully obvious for anyone who has studied the roots of progressivism, eugenics, the politically correct movement, the nanny state trends or the environmental movement.

Goldberg leaves no stone unturned. Wait until you see his sobering take on the origins of the minimum wage. It will surprise you. Much of the material in the book I had read or heard before. Goldberg, however, has done us a great service by pooling the ideas together in one comprehensive volume. So, what you might have gotten an inkling about by reading Robert Proctor's The Nazi War on Cancer, you get a fuller picture of in Goldberg's book. After all, who knew the Nazis were animal rights believers before Proctor? Not too many of us. Goldberg follows the line of thought from the progressives to modern day Democrats and leftists. The linking pin between those liberals a century ago and those today is fascism. This will come as a surprise to many people, but it is undeniable.

Goldberg's book is excellent. You won't be disappointed - unless you're a liberal and won't to desperately avoid the truth as liberals so often do.

for more information click here

Not What You Think It's Going To Be

So many people, to include certain friends of mine, are all too willing to write this book off as just one more salvo from the Republican noise machine without ever bothering to read it. Goldberg's title is perhaps unfortunate in this regard, as it leaves one with the impression that it is another rightist screed targeting the usual suspects--"feminazis," militant environmentalists, and the like. One friend saw the book on my desk and dismissed the title with a sneer: "Oh, liberals are fascists, right? Now that's a stretch."

Ah, but little did he know that Goldberg did not invent the phrase. It was coined by H.G. Wells, the famous turn-of-the-century science fiction novelist and visionary writer of utopian fiction. Wells, incidentally, was a thoroughgoing progressive and a socialist. He thought "liberal fascism" would be a good thing for society.

But wait! I thought fascism was racism, white supremacy, and all that.

Oh, but get this: W.E.B. Du Bois admired Hitler (specifically for his emphasis on the need for eugenics programs), and Marcus Garvey proudly said, in 1937, "We were the first fascists." Apparently he was miffed that Mussolini and Hitler were getting all the credit for their innovative approaches to government. (For those of you who don't know, Du Bois and Garvey were important early twentieth-century Black leaders).

The word "fascism" (in contemporary discourse), Goldberg points out, has become pretty much emptied of all real meaning. It has become a sort of floating signifier onto which people project various meanings as they see fit. In the last forty years, "fascism" has been served as a sort of stand-in for "extreme conservative" or "Christian fundamentalist" or "white-power racist." But pure fascism has little to do with conservatism, or religion, or the white power movement.

Goldberg begins with an anecdote--Bill Maher and George Carlin confidently asserting their definition of the word "fascism" one night on Maher's show. "Fascism is when corporations own the government," Maher said.

Uh, wrong, you ignoramus. What you've just described is monopoly capitalism, not fascism.

Goldberg does not set out to skewer the Mahers of the world exclusively, though. The neocon types who throw the term "Islamofascism" around in such a cavalier manner are just as ignorant in their own way. If you want to know what real fascism is, look to its purest example in history: Mussolini's Italy. Hitler's Germany is a close second.

Sorry Maher, but fascism is when the government owns and runs the corporations. Do you really think for one minute that the Fuhrer or Il Duce would allow any single corporation to supersede their authority? Ridiculous. And sorry neocons, but in fascism the object of worship is, ultimately, the state. There is no higher authority than the state; not even God. Ask any pious Muslim what he or she thinks of such a government, and you will be quickly disabused of any notions that "fascism" can exist hand in hand with Islam.

One strain of this goes back to the protests of the sixties and continues in protest discourse today (a la Chris Hedges' book, for example). Yet, as Goldberg shows in his detailed historical analysis, "fascism" has never really been synonymous with conservatism in any significant way. Fascism is in fact a form of radicalism, as is Christian fundamentalism, whereas conservatism is a movement that is focused essentially on the preservation of tradition and the moderation of the impulse to institute reforms.

One of the great ironies of sixties-era radicals bandying about the word "fascist" to describe Richard Nixon and his ilk is that many of those radical groups who trafficked in such talk (Weathermen, the Black Panthers) employed many of the classic brownshirt tactics of fascist agitators.

This is a great book for anyone who has been perplexed by all the shifting alliances and labels of our times, and anyone who realizes how slippery and meaningless terms like "liberal" or "conservative" or "progressive" are when you try to pin them down. What it really leads the reader to do is rethink the way we think of the political spectrum, in terms of Right, Center, and Left. The radical Right and the radical Left, for example, have much more in common with each other than the radical Left does with traditional liberalism or the radical Right has with conservatism.

Goldberg's working definition of "fascism" is pretty much this: Total worship of the state, state control of all activities and expression, and state ownership of everything. Fascism is always more and more government. The classic example of Fascism, Mussolini's Italy, is exactly this when you examine the historical record. True conservatism, on the other hand, always seeks to lessen the influence of government.

Certainly, the Franco regime in Spain was heavily Catholic and at the same time in political sympathy with Germany and Italy (but ultimately neutral during WWII), but it is important not to confuse "theocracy" with true Fascism. It had Fascist allies (Italy and Nazi Germany) during the 1930s, but was not a true fascist state itself--it was a theocratic dictatorship. Likewise, the Shah's regime in Iran and certain dictatorial regimes in Latin America (allied with the U.S. for strategic reasons) were very authoritarian, but that doesn't mean they were fascist in the true sense of the word. Authoritarian regimes can of course be very brutal and oppressive, but that does not necessarily make them fascist because they are often not premised on the notion that government should control every single aspect of a citizen's life. The Shah, for example, was fairly hands-off unless you happened to be openly critical of him or invovled in subversive activities (of course, it must be said, if either of those applied you ended up in the hands of the feared SAVAK).

Goldberg's readings of Rousseau, Robespierre, Sorel, Mussolini, Hitler, Woodrow Wilson, Teddy Roosevelt, William Jennings Bryan, and many other figures are lively and very perceptive. Many of his revelations are shocking and surprising. Woodrow Wilson, for example, has gone down DRASTICALLY in my estimation after reading Goldberg's interpretation of some of his major writings.

If Hillary Clinton-style liberalism and fascism have anything at all in common, Goldberg says, it's the notion that the state is the supreme arbiter and caretaker for all and of all. This is not a book which seeks to make a point that "liberals are fascists." It is a book, rather, which seeks to enlighten those individuals who casually throw a word (one that has a very precise meaning) around with little regard for its properly historical definition.

for more information click here

DON'T ORGANIZE ME

Of all the books I've read since I've been writing reviews and reading others on Amazon, this book has had the most profound effect upon my thinking and my political affiliations.

THIS BOOK SHOULD BE REQUIRED READING FOR EVERY SINGLE HIGH SCHOOL'S (PUBLIC AND PRIVATE) AMERICAN HISTORY CLASS IN THE USA.

I mean every single word I say here.

I love writers who make me think, love when I can tell they've done much soul searching and thinking themselves. Doesn't surprise me at all that he's a jew. I wouldn't have touched this book ten years ago knowing that he writes articles regularly for the National Review, a decidedly rightist publication. Very early on in this book, he made me think of two words very carefully: N A T I O N A L S O C I A L I S M.

"N A T I O N A L S O C I A L I S M"-What does it mean? Does it conjure anything resembling the republican ideals espoused by people like Alexander Hamilton??? Absolutely, absolutely not.

The symbol most associated with fascism is that of the bundle of sticks tied so closely that there is no space between them. An axe head is attached to the bundle, conjuring up utility, work, but also a threat. I have so many pages bookmarked in this book. I've been trying to find one I remember reading, but can't, where he talks of democratic ideals and if you wouldn't go along with the program, well-get out of the way. (You will never be fooled again after reading this book). Goldberg provides evidence that this last century began upon nationalistic, populist, fascist foundations most evident within democratic ranks as early as WOODROW WILSON! Yes, it is really shocking what you'll find here within. I have a more realistic appraisal of FDR now. You can tell when you've read a book that is well researched and carefully reasoned. It very definitely is thought provoking.

My book is a library book, overdue, and would love to have it on hand at all times. Would love a subscription to National Review. Needless to say, a deep and long lasting impression, this book has made upon me. It's time the American Heritage dictionary rewrote their definition of fascism. Goldberg effectively argues that the public's perception of fascism being a right wing phenomenon stems more from the extreme far left's, i.e. communism's, categorization of it. Fascism's association with the military and business and therefore the American Republican party is misguided. That the American left, most evident today in the far left Democratic party, has far more in common with Mussolini's not so racist brand of fascism will become abundantly clear upon reading this book.

I HIGHLY RECOMMEND THIS BOOK BE READ. GET A COPY SOMEHOW.

for more information click here

Most Helpful

I have really enjoyed this book. Goldberg has shined a light on what it truly means to be Liberal today. While I had heard some of this in college a lot of the information, especially about Wilson was all news to me. At times it does seem that Goldberg reaches a little to make his point, but he does make it. I would, and have, recommend this book to Liberals I know so that they can lean a little about their history and where their beliefs come from

reviews: 1, 2, 3, 4, page 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14

hot

not?

What's your opinion?

Write a review and share your thoughts!

recommendations

Truly Diverse (or How you can Survive any Diversity College Course)
So You Want to Shock, Awe and Refute Liberals?
Books Likely to Be Banned by President Obama
Father's Day Gifts for Political Junkies
Best Political Books of 2008 (So Far)

search for books
the secret, american, fascism, history, liberal, meaning, mussolini, politics

Impressum / about us