Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

NRO-The Corner ^ | 9/16/03 | Jonah Goldberg

Posted on 09/16/2003 9:01:45 PM PDT by swilhelm73

Andrew - I really can't afford to unload my whole book in the Corner, but I also would really love to have this discussion. On the economics front, allow me to have Hitler respond.

Here’s how he explained his thinking on the question of nationalizing industry, the way the Communists did, versus the Fascist approach in a letter to Herman Rauschning:

“Of what importance is all that, if I range men firmly within a discipline they cannot escape? Let them own land or factories as much as they please. The decisive factor is that the State, through the Party, is supreme over them regardless of whether they are owners or workers. All that is unessential; our socialism goes far deeper. It establishes a relationship of the individual to the State, the national community. Why need we trouble to socialize banks and factories? We socialize human beings.”

As for the Communitarian thing, I'd love to see any articles on that point because it dovetails nicely with some of my arguments.

TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Extended News; Foreign Affairs; Germany; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: fascism; socialism
He is discussing how fascism was, and is, a leftist political philosophy, and provided a rather important quote I thought I'd pass along...
1 posted on 09/16/2003 9:01:45 PM PDT by swilhelm73
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: swilhelm73
We socialize human beings.”

The National Education Association and PC Associates

2 posted on 09/16/2003 9:06:24 PM PDT by concerned about politics (Lucifers lefties are still stuck at the bottom of Maslow's Hierarchy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: swilhelm73
Also, Goldberg from earlier in the same discussion;

As I've been researching a book on precisely this point for the last few months, I found the Times story particularly interesting. The fact is that this effort to use fascism as a cudgel against your enemies is nothing new on the Left. Indeed, you could argue that the effort to redefine fascism to fit George Bush is a sign of increasing intellectually honesty. In the past academics wouldn't even care that they were using the word wrong. I don't want to spoil the book, but let's just say that this is all nonsense on stilts on the cone of a rocket to the moon.

Fascism is socialism in one state. Nazism is socialism for one race. It is the rejection of intenational socialism in the face of the obvious fact that individuals seek more meaning in their lives than the sanitary principles of international socialism could provide in the 1920s and 1930s. The Soviets -- along with their fellow travellers -- invented the idea that Fasicism is right-wing in order to discredit the threat Fascism posed to their own popularity. This is why, for example, Leon Trostky was labelled a "fascist" the second he fell out of favor with Stalin. It's not like Trostky became a free-market right-winger in terms of his philosophy. He was merely a Marxist heretic and Soviet apostate and therefor dubbed a fascist.

If you go back and look at the political agenda of real, self-described fascists there is almost nothing recognizably "conservative" in the American sense save for its nods to patriotism. Its economic agenda, its educational approach, its social policies are all thoroughly socialist according to any definition we have today.

Consider this nonsense from the Times article:

"Whenever people start locking up enemies because of national security without much legal care, you are coming close," said Robert Paxton, an emeritus professor of history at Columbia University and the author of a forthcoming book called "Fascism in Action," a comparative study that tries to distill the essence of fascism.

So: according to this definition, every Marxist, Soviet and Maoist nation in the history of the 20th century was Fascist. I could go on and on and on. But that's what the book is for.

3 posted on 09/16/2003 9:08:13 PM PDT by swilhelm73
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: swilhelm73
Copyright (C) 1997 by K-House Interactive Inc., P.O. Box D, Coeur d'Alene, ID 83816

None Dare Call It Fascism:

Reflections on Our Republic

As we take stock of our Republic on this 4th of July, I'm indebted to some recent discussions I enjoyed with Jack Wheeler, the well-known adventurer, columnist, and insightful commentator on the "District of Corruption" headquartered on the Potomac.

A Rose by Any Other Name

As Ludwig von Mises observed,1 Fascism, Nazism, and Socialism are varying versions of the same core conviction: that it is the sacred duty of popular government to prevent the emergence of profits by public control of production and distribution.

What distinguishes Fascism and Nazism from Socialism in economic theory is how they translate "public control" into reality.

For the socialist, it means outright nationalization-government ownership-of private business. In a socialist state, the government owns and operates the airlines, railroads, banks, phone companies, and any other business you can think of. Everyone is an employee of the State.

For the fascist, public or government control is just that-control, rather than nationalized ownership, via complete bureaucratic regulation of ostensibly private business.

As an ardent admirer of Marx, Mussolini coined the term "Fascism"2 for his brand of authoritarian, patriotic Marxism. Fascism operates under the principle of "might makes right," through the exercise of raw, naked governmental police power.

In America today, the increasingly rough-shod violation of constitutional rights by government agents in the name of "protecting the environment" or the "war on drugs" is an indication of how far we are proceeding in this direction.

Intellectually, fascism is far more dishonest than socialism, which at least has the courage to assert legal ownership of the economy and thus assume the legal responsibility for its functioning.

Fascism places the responsibility for the economy on business, which is rendered seemingly private, with the facade of private ownership. The result of both socialism and fascism is the same: the destruction of economic freedom, replacing the individual's choice of how to make a peaceful, honest living with state edicts. Fascism accomplishes this, however, more insidiously.

Instead of being a straightforward employee of the government, you and I are told that our lives and businesses are still private, while any attempt to act as such is proscribed by a myriad of regulations-until we are trapped and immobilized in Washington's web.

We become enmeshed in this web because it has been spun around us so slowly-strand by strand over many years-so slowly that we have barely noticed. We could call this slow spinning of the fascist web "Fabian Fascism."

(Advocacy of what became known as Fabian Socialism was in vogue in the early part of the 20th century, particularly among British socialists such as Sydney and Beatrice Webb and George Bernard Shaw. They argued that socialism could best be achieved by "not frightening the horses"; that is, not through immediate revolutionary action, but in small, incremental steps.)3 Since the gargantuan growth of governmental power in the United States has not been sudden, but slowly accumulative, we can accurately and aptly call the process "Fabian Fascism."

Manufactured Crises

Dictators have traditionally created external crises to consolidate internal power. People are then freely willing to trade freedom for security. The great discovery in recent times is that social crises can be just as effective as military ones. "Curing poverty," or a "war on drugs" has become the banner under which the government can increase budgets, create new bureaucracies, and obtain new powers over the people.

But there is a big difference between an excuse and a purpose. These excuses are simply convenient subterfuges to trick the American people into letting the Washington Oligarchy expand its power.

After Johnson's War on Poverty, Nixon's War on Drugs, and Carter's Energy Crisis, then came the premier liberal crisis of modern times, the Environmental Crisis. It was only thanks to Hillary Clinton's hubris that the latest fashion in crisis-mongering failed-the Clinton Health Care Crisis.

All of these crises offered one, and only one, type of solution to the alleged crisis: vast government programs at taxpayers' expense. None ever offered free market solutions, nor were they used to expand individual freedom rather than restrict it.

The media predictably plays an enthusiastic accomplice in these schemes, not just because its members are mostly liberal, but more importantly, crises generate more readers, viewers, and listeners. This is why the principal product American media sells to its customers is crisis, not information.

Certainly there are problems in our society, often severe, regarding poverty, drugs, the environment, et al. But the last thing these situations need is massive government intervention, which just makes them worse.

If these problems were actually solved, all these government programs and bureaucrats wouldn't be needed. Thus, the crises must be perpetual, never solved, always requiring another program, another intervention, more taxpayers' money, more authorities granted, etc.

The game is not to solve the problems but to use them to control people through regulations and subsidies, increasing their dependency upon the people writing and enforcing the regulations and providing the handouts. People who are dependent upon you are people who vote for you.

Democratic Fascism

The result is a form of fascist rule imposed upon a citizenry, not by a dictator who seized power by force, but by freely elected leaders. We could call it Democratic Fascism, whereby a people's freedom is not taken away from them by dictatorial force, but is voluntarily surrendered.

Americans have imposed the tyranny of Washington upon ourselves. By a patient Fabian strategy taking many years, the American people have been persuaded, unwittingly and almost unconsciously, to voluntarily chain themselves to their masters in Washington.

No longer innocently oppressed, America has become a nation of belligerent beggars, demanding with insufferable arrogance an endless cornucopia of government handouts, subsidies, and "entitlements," deferring the multi-trillion dollar tab upon our children and grandchildren.

This is, indeed, America's real drug crisis: the most addictive and destructive drug ever invented-welfare and special interest subsidies. Thus we have voluntarily taken upon ourselves the tyranny of our increasingly fascist state.

Who's accountable? We are, in our failure to hold our elected representatives accountable to us!

And much of the blame also needs to be laid on our silent pulpits. The same abrogation of responsibility that contributed to the Holocaust in Germany is evident in America.

God has blessed us with a unique heritage-and it is rarely declared or acknowledged from our pulpits. There is a deplorable lack of that God-given fiduciary responsibility-a sanctified form of patriotism-exhorted from our Christian pulpits.

I believe that our stewardship of our unique God-given heritage is one for which we will uniquely be held accountable.

Our Future

One of the most critical strategic assessments we each must make is regarding the feasibility of rolling back to a constitutional government.

If we have a government that doesn't obey the Constitution, we have an outlaw government-literally acting outside the law.

The Bright Spots

There are some bright spots, however. Exploiting treaties is one of the most serious threats to the erosion of our national sovereignty.

Larry Becraft, a bright constitutional lawyer, is compiling, among other things, a challenge to all implementing legislation that would be unconstitutional if it weren't for some treaty.

Larry is also compiling a history of Supreme Court rulings which clearly state that treaties cannot be used to supersede or amend the Constitution.4

John Shadegg of Arizona has cleverly inserted into the House Rules that any proposed bill has to specify just where in the Constitution such legislation is authorized.

Phyllis Schlafly is currently embarked on an effort to get Congress to use its Constitutional authority to restrict the jurisdiction of federal judges, and of federal courts in general.

There are also some surprising powers intended to reign in our over-reaching judiciary.5

Clinton's Next Job

Have you ever considered what Bill Clinton's next job will be? When he finishes his second term, he'll only be 54 years old.

Have you noticed the extent to which the Clintonistas have been enthusiastically transferring our sovereignty to the United Nations whenever they can get away with it-such as the "World Heritage" sites, over which the UN has jurisdiction?

There are speculations that Clinton's next goal is to be President of the World: Secretary General of the United Nations-but permanently.

Wouldn't that be exciting? He is just getting started with his life... and running yours.

Your Personal Response

Are we going to bequeath to our children an outlaw government or a constitutional government?

Are we going to relinquish our "government of the people, by the people, and for the people" through the neglect of duties of citizenship?

Are we going to let this all continue? The answer is inside ourselves.

* * *

See also our featured video, A Nation Adrift, for the true story of how God's sovereign hand guided the founders of America, and what we can do to take our country back.


1. Ludwig von Mises, Socialism, Jonathan Cape, London, 1969, pp.578-9.

2. From fasces, or bundle of rods, which were the emblem of power and authority in ancient Rome.

3. The Fabian Society was founded in 1884, taking its name from the Roman General Fabius Maximus, who fought Hannibal's army in small debilitating skirmishes, rather than attempting one decisive battle.

4. He is among a group of investors who have just purchased Media By-Pass magazine. (800) 477-8670, if you want to follow their efforts.

5. David Barton, Impeachment: Restraining an Overactive Judiciary, Wallbuilders, Inc., Aledo TX, 1996. Available through Koinonia House

This article was first published in the July 1997 edition of K-House Interactive Personal Update.

Copyright (C) 1997 by K-House Interactive Inc., P.O. Box D, Coeur d'Alene, ID 83816
4 posted on 09/16/2003 9:11:59 PM PDT by jimkress (Go away Pat Go away!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #5 Removed by Moderator

Comment #6 Removed by Moderator

To: swilhelm73
Fascism has been dubbed "right-wing" because it, along with every other modern political movement, abides by a distinction created by the Enlightenment. That distinction was created by the assembly King Louis called, the famous Estates General. Those who sat on the left were revolutionaries in favor of radical political equality; those on the right were more conservative. They did not support the establishment of political systems based upon radical, socialist equality.

Fascists did not believe in radical equality. In fact, they denied the principle of equality altogether. Based upon their Darwinist/biologist outlook, they denied that some races were even human. How that squares with this assertion that fascists were "leftists" is beyond me.

7 posted on 09/16/2003 9:44:26 PM PDT by Reactionary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: swilhelm73
There is a difference in Marxist economic theory between the "means of production" and the "relations of production." What Hitler was talking about was this difference, and he was quite accurate.

In a totalitarian communist state, the state owns the means of production, that is, it literally has formal possession of such things as factories, natural resources, etc. Not so in a socialist state run under fascism. There the nominal ownership of the means of production is in private hands, Fokker, Krupp, Degesh - but the state controls their employment, their priorities, and the distribution of resources committed toward them - this is what Marx termed the "relations of production," and Hitler, like Marx, realized that control of the relations of production is control of the means of production.

Here "left" and "right" have very little meaning. What is significant is the commonality of totalitarianism in the attempts to control an economy centrally between these two state systems. But perhaps it is not so very ironic that Marx would have applauded both as different manifestations of his own approach to economics. In the end, both failed.

8 posted on 09/16/2003 9:58:57 PM PDT by Billthedrill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Reactionary
The terms "Left" and "Right" were better defined by a higher authority then any tin plated "king" and far more accurately applied to castes and groups etc with this writing that far preceded any human "kings" that grabbed power through arms and arrogance. Read for yourself:

King James Translation:
Ecclesiastes 10:2
"A wise man's heart is at his right hand; but a fools heart at his left."

I don't think God Almighty will mind me quoting from The Holy Bible.

9 posted on 09/16/2003 10:02:42 PM PDT by EUPHORIC (Picture steaming parrot droppings: "this is your mind on liberalism...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: jimkress
There are speculations that Clinton's next goal is to be President of the World: Secretary General of the United Nations-but permanently.

A self appointed king rising to world power from somewhere in the EU. He believes only he can rule the world. A narcicist. Sees himself as God.

A gifted liar. A man who can decieve many with his lieing tounge. Will gather an amourous following who will swoon for him.

Born of a whore. Possably of incest.

Has his own religion based on the acceptance of all sin, yet call it godliness, in the name of peace.
Will work against Christians and Jews, making them the enemy.

Will get Israel to sign a peace contract, where they give up some of their land in the name of peace, but will be in grave danger because of it.

A man of deciet. A man causing desolation. A serpant.

He'll be responsible through his lies for a culture where neighbor rises up against neighbor, kingdom against kingdom.
He comes in as the Messiah, as the only one who can save the world from what he himself has created. Even the Jewish will accept him. He will claim Jewish blood on his mothers side.

He will recieve a mortal blow. He will die three days, but be revived. He will be paralized on his right.
He will then seek vengence on the Holy. He will become Satan in the flesh.

He will demand all recieve a mark to share the wealth in the name of peace. No man will then be able to then hide from him and his minions of faithful followers.
He will become the worlds most horrorifying dictator it's ever known.

He will have great rage, knowing he has but little time before his prophasized destruction.

Could it be? The man, or the forerunner? The evil prophet that sets the stage? Or the man of sin himself?

10 posted on 09/16/2003 10:03:56 PM PDT by concerned about politics (Lucifers lefties are still stuck at the bottom of Maslow's Hierarchy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: G_D was a Jew
a global oligarchy controlled by demonic forces

I agree.

11 posted on 09/16/2003 10:08:06 PM PDT by concerned about politics (Lucifers lefties are still stuck at the bottom of Maslow's Hierarchy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

Comment #12 Removed by Moderator

To: Reactionary
Fascism was dubbed right wing because it was in the left's interest after Barbarossa. Before that point fascism was considered progressive (aka leftwing) or something completely new and different depending on what sources you read.

Mussolini famously formed his fascist party, and thereby birthed the philosophy, after splitting with the Italian socialists solely over the issue of, not surprisingly here, whether a socialist could also be a nationalist.

Stalin's Russia believed for a time that NAZI Germany was what communism would look like in an industrialized state, and had no problem allying with the supposed far right wing Germans to split Eastern Europe.

Up until Hitler's treachery, some of the best engineers supposed far rightwing Italy had to offer were busy building the Communist's navy in the Soviet Union.

Hitler famously observed that he found much to learn in Marx's writings, though he detested that ethnic Jews perverting his teachings in the Soviet leadership.

During the period of the Pact, communists the world over were peace activists - demanding Great Britain stop its capitalist, imperialist war against the supposed far right Germans. They used much the same terminology against Churchill they use now against Bush.

After Hitler sneak attacked his former allies in the Soviet Union, the communists became, almost overnight, anti-fascists.

While citizens in the western democracies could not be rallied to help communists, generally, they could be rallied against the fascist menace.

Interestingly enough, during the war, faced with the choice between defeat and compromise of communist ideology, the Soviet Union's socialism took a profoundly nationalist turn of its own...

And so fascism as the far right bogieman came to be. After the war, when communists were trying to spread their power by subterfuge, it became a convient doge to claim they were not advancing communism, but fighting fascism, now their supposed opposite.

As the blood toll of the far left in the USSR, China, etc, has become public knowledge, it has become a necessity for the left to find some equivalent horror on the far right. Libertarians, religious rightists, and "leave me the hell alone" conservatives, who in fact make up the real far right, just don't provide such a mark.

So the fiction created by Stalin needs to be perpetuated even now, lest the average person note the very real dangers of the political far left and the lack of any such danger on the far right. And, of course, one can not underestimate the appeal of throwing politics's worst insult at conservatives provides for the angry Left.

The domestic policies of NAZI Germany, Mussolini's Italy, or most other fascist states are clearly leftist to anyone who bothers to actually do a little research - featuring soft socialism (corporatism), social welfare nets, placing the nominal good of the whole over the rights of the individual, and censorship of ideas deemed bad for the body politic.

Further, the idea that the far right, left, and hard left all expose strong centralized government power while the right and center advocate just the opposite is profoundly silly.

Any real analysis of were fascism lies on the political spectrum finds it on the far left, between democratic socialism and communism, and closer to the latter then the former.
13 posted on 09/16/2003 10:26:47 PM PDT by swilhelm73
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson