Jonah Goldberg's "Liberal Fascism"

1
Here's my irrefutable :rolleyes: take on Goldberg's shitty book on Amazon. According to the negative votes it's getting, the right-wingers apparently hate my review.

:clap:

http://www.amazon.com/Liberal-Fascism-A ... E7BFRSSGRE

One thing I've noticed about right-wingers like Goldberg is the near absence of any discussion of the various fascist military dictatorships that existed in Central and South America during the post-WWII period. How would these regimes be categorized in Goldberg's analysis?

Rather than get into a urinating match over defining terms like "right-wing" and "left-wing", I will, for the sake of argument, assume that Goldberg is correct when he refers to Nazism as a left-wing movement. If we make this assumption, how can we explain the following historical facts.

It's estimated that up to 9,000 Nazi war criminals fled to South America to escape prosecution after WWII. These criminals were sheltered by far-right military dictatorships that were in place in Argentina, Chile, Uruguay, Paraguay and Brazil. Additionally, hundreds of former SS officers escaped to Franco's Spain after the war. Franco's regime was openly fascist and had the direct military support of Hitler during the Spanish Civil War. Spain also traded food and metals with the Nazi regime during the war. After the Spanish Civil War, Franco set up a network of concentration camps in Spain and starved and executed thousands of people who supported the democratically elected Republican government overthrown by the fascists. However, Franco barely gets a mention in Goldberg's book.

Would the generals who ran these South American countries actually provide shelter for leftists? If the Nazis were indeed left-wing as Goldberg claims, does anyone seriously think that these South American military regimes of the post-war period would have given aid and comfort to persons who would directly challenge their economic and political interests? (Not to mention the fact that these regimes, often with the help of the CIA, routinely tortured, imprisoned and executed leftists, trade unionists, democrats, and anyone else with real or perceived links to leftist organizations).

With these facts in mind, the assertion that the Nazis were "leftists" doesn't make any sense--unless, of course, one is willing to entertain the bizarre idea that regimes like Stroessner's in Paraguay and Videla's in Argentina were somehow "leftist." (Also, readers might like to look up Operation Condor to find out how friendly these regimes were to leftists.)

Goldberg makes an issue of the fact that Hitler's regime was very active in manipulating the German economy prior to the war, thus giving it certain characteristics of a leftist government. Well, Franco's regime was also very active in the economy through things like price fixing, production targets, and import substitution. The various military juntas that ruled Argentina and Bolivia between 1945 and 1983 were also very active in the economy through currency manipulation, production targets, and expanding domestic infrastructure through deficit financing. Stroessner's regime in Paraguay tried to strike a balance between government intervention and free enterprise.

It could be argued that these regimes gradually liberalized their economies over time once economic stagnation set in due to excessive government regulation. Very true. However, keep in mind that Hitler's government was active in the economy for the purpose of imperial conquest. Hitler made this goal very clear in Mein Kampf. Had Hitler decided to remain inside Germany's boarders and kill only leftists instead of Jews, it is safe to assume that Hitler would eventually have pursued similar strategies of deregulation. Hitler would then have achieved a place of honor alongside the likes of Franco, Pinochet, Stroessner, Banzer, and other right-wing heroes.

Goldberg is silent about all of this. I suspect the real problem Goldberg has with the Nazi regime is the fact that it was expansionistic. Invasion of other countries is never an easy thing to justify, not even for people like Goldberg. Mass murder is also never easy to justify--UNLESS it occurs domestically and not after the conquering of foreign soil. (See Paraguay under Stroessner.) Had the Nazi regime remained within its post-WWI boundaries and decided to exterminate leftists instead of Jews, as Franco did, Goldberg's book would never have been written.

Goldberg cherry picks his facts to make a very dubious argument about fascism as being "left-wing." To read an honest assessment of the true nature of fascism, check out Fascism and Big Business to see what fascism truly is--capitalism with its back against the wall.
The Detroit Red Wings. It's not just a game; it's a religion!

Re: Jonah Goldberg's "Liberal Fascism"

2
Nice job. Milton Friedman had connections to Chile (Pinochet) and all over South America. Conservatives love the Friedman economics model, but they can't admit that Friedman was cozy with fascists. They don't like your response one little bit.

I gave you a "helpful" vote of confidence, but most of course are finding your post unhelpful. I would add a comment, but it would provide my real name the wingnuts on Amazon.
Capitalism was reasonably content under Hitler, happy under Mussolini, very happy under Franco and delirious under General Pinochet. -- John Ralston Saul

Re: Jonah Goldberg's "Liberal Fascism"

7
I have read this book. Some years back a right winger said it was all truthy and such things. Obviously, the author makes up definitions to support his thesis. So when I said so, the guy left the forum. They can't stand it when you state the facts, that words have meanings that every thinking person agrees on.

CDFingers
Crazy cat peekin' through a lace bandana
like a one-eyed Cheshire, like a diamond-eyed Jack

Re: Jonah Goldberg's "Liberal Fascism"

9
comedian wrote:Another positive.
Just had to inject historical fact into the conversation, didn't you Captain Bringdown... ;)
I have since added this to the review:

The bottom line is this: the political construction of a government has, at best, a marginal effect on the economic policies it advocates. Capitalism can be advanced by either liberal governments (e.g. the United States, Great Britain, Germany) or illiberal governments (e.g. Chile under Pinochet, Paraguay under Stroessner, Saudi Arabia, Kenya under Daniel arap Moi, or China, which is capitalist in all but name). Socialism can also be advanced liberally (e.g. Sweden, Norway, Denmark) or illiberally (e.g. Cuba, the USSR, North Korea). Hitler's regime was politically very illiberal even though it pursued some economic policies that American liberals advocate such as the minimum wage, universal health insurance, and food safety regulations. However, Hitler's regime also advocated certain policies that American conservatives support or at least sympathize with such as banning unions, lockouts and the right to strike, hatred of all things "modern" in art and music, confining women to "church, children and kitchen", and a government built upon a form of military Keynesianism that would have warmed Ronald Reagan's heart and is the type of economy Eisenhower warned about re: military industrial complex.

Goldberg has NOTHING to say about fascism of the Pinochet/South American variety. Pinochet did away with the minimum wage, privatized most businesses that were nationalized under Allende, and pursued neoliberal economic policies. He also overthrew a democratically elected government, set up concentration camps, banned free speech and a free press, and was instrumental in the creation of Operation Condor that executed and tortured thousands of people. This is ALSO fascism. The fact that Goldberg ignores it speaks volumes. Goldberg is not opposed to fascism per se. Rather, Goldberg is opposed to a specific TYPE of fascism.
The Detroit Red Wings. It's not just a game; it's a religion!

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests