of Jonah Goldberg, on Liberal Fascism:ÂÂ
What I thought was interesting about your definition of fascism was that nationalism seemed to be missing … Stanley Payne, whom you quote and say is “considered by many to be the leading living scholar of fascism,” in his definition of fascism, the first thing he says is that it’s “a form of revolutionary ultra-nationalism.” How does that fit with contemporary liberalism, which is often derided as being unpatriotic, anti-American?
That’s a perfectly legitimate question. I think classical fascism, the fascism that we all think of when we hear the word “fascism” — Italy, Germany and to a certain extent Spain, they were ultra-nationalistic, I don’t dispute that, I think that is absolutely the case. I just would want to emphasize that that ultra-nationalism comes with an economic program of socialism. There’s no such thing as a society undergoing a bout of ultra-nationalism that remains a liberal free-market economy. The two things go together.
I don’t say that contemporary liberalism is the direct heir of Nazism or Italian fascism. I say it’s informed by it. It’s like its grandniece. It’s related, they’re in the same family, they share a lot of genetic traits, but they’re not the same thing.
I think that you do have nationalism percolating up in the form of left-wing economic populism, the John Edwards branch of liberalism, which is for raising trade barriers. He says time and again, the first thought of every economic decision of a president should be what protects the American middle class, which — according to some fairly doctrinaire understandings of fascism, it’s an ideology of the middle class, nationalist economics and all that kind of stuff — there’s some meat there. So I do think you do see nationalism in that regard, in terms of economics.
Today’s liberalism, there’s a strong dose of cosmopolitanism to it, which is very much like the H.G. Wells “Liberal Fascism” I was talking about … These trans-national elites, the Davos crowd who really want to get beyond issues of sovereignty so they can organize and guide the planet on issues like global warming, invest a lot more in the U.N. I think that is much more of the threat coming from establishment liberalism today, but I do think there is a lot of nationalism there too.  ÂÂ
Excellent interview. Has actually made me interested in reading the book.
I don’t think there’s anything creepier and more nationalistic and fascist than the compulsory national service plans the Democrats are so fond of. The goals of these programs dovetail with what Jonah talks about above.
Clinton:
Dodd:
Obama:
That’s so Chavez, really.
“Liberal Fascism” is #7 on Amazon today.
I’m about four chapters into it. It’s quite good.
The whole “it’s not fascism without nationalism” argument reminds me of the “it’s not racism if there’s no (national) power imbalance” arguments I used to see among various minority-based forums a few years back, which basically amounted to little more than rhetorical cover to allow them to hold virulently racist opinions about whites without being open to being called on it. While nationalism certainly coexisted with fascism in the 20’s-40’s, it was also fervent in countries without fascist tendencies. Nationalism is not a sine qua non of fascism; fascism only requires an all-powerful State, and even if we give those on the Left rooting for the supremacy of transnational isntitutions a pass.(though I see no particularly compelling reason why we should not consider those as just stand-ins for “the State”, we’ll just ignore that for argument’s sake), it strikes me as foolish to argue that the modern Democratic Left doesn’t espouse surrending the individual to the all-knowing, all-powerful care of the State.
‘The whole “it’s not fascism without nationalism†argument reminds me of the “it’s not racism if there’s no (national) power imbalance‒
Yes. Also reminds me of the “but that wasn’t real communism” line that always gets trotted out when you mention those mountain-sized piles of corpses that function as speed bumps on the Road to Worker’s Paradise.
I believe Jonah might have missed in the “ultra-nationalist” point that some Leftists are ultra-nationalists… they claim all the time that the “real” America has been lost and they must “retake it” and “remake it” into their image.
the far-Left sniffs at “national borders” only because they are “nationalistic” about their politics..they want the America of liberty to give way to a European-style socialist satrap beholding to the UN.
Darleen. Deep in the heart of every little “L” liberal is an internationalist who desperately wants to remake this country into early 1930s Russia. They don’t really like America. All those people in fly over country doing whatever they want. Can’t have that.
Jeff’s not ever coming back, is he?
“I think just like our military academies, we need to give a totally all-paid education to young men and women who will serve their country in a public service position.â€Â
I understand that George Washington once proposed a civilian version of West Point to train a civil service. But it makes me wonder: wouldn’t a college of that type help to create factions within what ought to be a neutral federal bureaucracy?
test.
What’s the deal? No links allowed anymore? I musta missed the memo.
Anyway – I was gonna say – before my comment so rudely disappeared into the inter-webs … that I had fun (on my blog, which I won’t link, since it’s not allowed) looking into some of the reviewers of “Liberal Fascists” on my blog. People posing as “Life Long Republicans” -or LLRs (TM) – only to slam the book. I guess when you 1) haven’t read the book or 2) can’t really form a coherent argument to support your ill-informed opinion, posing as a LLR (TM), to pretend your opinion is nonpartisan, is your only option.
dwa pretty much covered my thoughts. Post WWII, anything that is associated with a more or less gingoistic nationalism has been decried as a new form of fascism. And the Left is too clever by half. Unfortunately,what we see is a re-direction toward statism. While continuing to decry the Right as fascists…even though we want fewer intrusions into our lives…they are ramping up state powers to control such pernicious things as individually set thermostats in our homes. And you don’t even want to think about where resource utilization is going to go with these guys.
If you’re inside tracked with these guys you’re going to make money. State mandates “green” fuels? Get a couple of buds together, some government money, and voila! mandated use of green fuels. Do they care that I have fewer choices? Guess that’s not my right. Look at tungsten filament lamps. What an innocuous product to ban. But, there you are.
The Man Made Global Warming threat is going to radically change the way normal folks are used to going about their business. Look at the paperwork that is going into determining carbon offset factors in timber production. You don’t think those are going to turn into regulations?
The new fascisim is in terms of state power. These are state, California, Washington, Oregon banding together to create new rules for the new utopia. At some point, will the Federal government step in and reclaim its authority under the Commerce clause? Not as long as these states continue to elect looney lefty representatives and senators. It’s a new nationalism. It’s found in the states.
OregonGuy
One of CA’s problems is that almost every district has been gerrymandered into a “safe” district. CA’s Rep. party has been [in]famous for years for standing in a circle and shooting themselves, so they are just as adament to saving their districts as any of the far-left Dems that dominate the legislature.
Why has Gov. Arnold shifted left? Because the Rep. heirarchy yanked the support rug from under him over the special election a few years back.
The urban Dems (LA, Bay area) set policy for the rest of us schlubs.
:::sigh:::
Nationalism is not a necessary component of fascism, it’s a coincidental one. In other words, fascism isn’t characterized by nationalism, it is often a movement that goes long with it.
“I understand that George Washington once proposed a civilian version of West Point to train a civil service. But it makes me wonder: wouldn’t a college of that type help to create factions within what ought to be a neutral federal bureaucracy?”
As opposed to the neutral, unfactioned, wholly cooperating and intercommunicating federal bureauocracy we have now?
The interview didn’t even touch on the whole income redistribution through the tax code aspect of liberal fascism or socialism being pushed by the democrats. Krugman, I’m talking to you! The mechanism of soak the rich taxation has already eliminated debate over whether income inequality is inherently good, bad or benign by the liberal elite.
Hi, BuddyPC. I work in the fed bureaucracy, NOT STATE, and for the most part, we all completely and totally adhere to the “everyone has freedom of speech” “people can protest peacefully as much as they want(even the stupid Black Bloc which vandalizes buildings and fucks up traffic)” “whatever Congress/the President says goes” etc. thing. We really do make the effort ECECPT FOR STATE.
And we totally believe we are working for you, the citizen. We never laugh at a citizen, even if a citizen should call/write demanding to know about aliens and Roswell.
Well, I’ve never laughed, anyway.
Better not. Because I PAY YOUR SALARY!!!11!!!!
American liberals are very nationalistic. They just champion any other nation that opposes this one.
“9. Comment by ahem on 1/12 @ 1:06 pm #
Jeff’s not ever coming back, is he?”
I don’t think he is. I think he’s turned it into performance art. Waiting for Goldstein, we could call it, if he’s still looking for new blog names.
Except maybe he doesn’t even check in here much anymore.
wow…Lucineanne’s son is way wacko! This is an old conceit of the Right: that Nazi’s were really socialists because of the original name of the Nazi party as “national socialist party”. However, facism is primarily a Right wing phenom: above all “Authoritarian”,, then Corporativist as in supporting “Private power” over democratic power…. and in the 20th century context (it’s of that century afterall) Anti Communist. Now all of the three main descriptors of fascism, authoritarian, corporativist (pro Private enterprize writ large) and AntiCommunist is exactly as Right Wing as you can get. Just
As for the ‘National Socialist Party’, Hitler took over an existing small party and purged it’s original members and all the while was accepting bribes from large commercial interests in Weimer Germany. He was a Militarist…which by the way is the Fourth Ingredient of Fascism..sorry left that most important ingredient out before hand…So thus I am really pinning down the Republican Party of the USA as the most fascist of all as all the Four Characteristics appeal to the core of Republicanism: Authoritarian (religiously intolerant of atheism, and/or other religions), Corporative (all for Private Enterprise as having all the power in economic life), anti Communist (or antiSocialist), and above all Militaristic.
Now tell me how does proTorture Goldberg say that’s Left wing? anyway there are some connections in that Mussolini was once “Socialist” but it was the Hippy movement of the day to be Socialist and when he needed money he turned to the Right to get funding from “Industrialists” as did Hitler following in El Duce’s path. Goldberg was an advocate of torture in some video recently when he lamely said…. “of course, I’d choose torture over death anyday…” Ha…..I could make him wish he was dead pretty quickly. I’ll take McCain’s view over Goldberg’s any day. Everybody’s got a breaking point and torture is about the worse thing our current fascistic regime has proposed. Another characteristic of a fascist…love of torture. (and Stalin was probably more of a fascist than a communist anyway)
BEcAUSE oF TEh FOUr CHArACteRISTICS!!!111!
#
oxyMORON
huh?
so?
these terms you use, I do not think they mean what you think they mean.
So, datadave, have you read Goldberg’s book? If not, why do you feel you’re sufficiently informed to argue against his thesis?
Oh, and on the “militaristic” bent — it wasn’t Republicans that focused their last presidential campaign on their candidate’s military record.
And it’s rare to find a conservative making the “chickenhawk” argument.
You really think Jonah comes off well in this interview?
You’ve talked about Mussolini remaining on the left and remaining a socialist, and in your book you’ve got a lot of quotes from the 1920s about that, but I’m wondering — how does that fit in with what he wrote and said later, especially “The Doctrine of Fascism” in 1932?
I’d need to know specifically what he wrote in “The Doctrine of Fascism.” It’s been about three years since I’ve read it.
He says, for example, “Granted that the 19th century was the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy, this does not mean that the 20th century must also be the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy. Political doctrines pass; nations remain. We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the ‘right ‘, a Fascist century.”
Yeah, I’m perfectly willing to concede there’s a lot of stuff Mussolini says…
Jonah is unable to make any comment on the most important writing of Mussolini (renouncing socialism) beyond its’ being “a lot of stuff.” Here is some stuff…
“Outside the State there can be neither individuals nor groups (political parties, associations, syndicates, classes). Therefore Fascism is opposed to Socialism, which confines the movement of history within the class struggle and ignores the unity of classes established in one economic and moral reality in the State”
um, a global warming carbon tax regiment goes a long way toward ensconcing a unitary economic and moral reality in the state. I think so anyway, and I recycle. Sometimes. Like cans and stuff. Stuff being mostly batteries cause Radio Shack is on my way to the Starbucks in Toluca Lake.
carbon tax = fascism
That is the absurd reduction Jonah has wrought. Because it invites the absurd reflex observation that Huckabees’ ban on smoking is fascist. Both observations are meaningless. Jonah has written a book with no point, other than finger pointing.
All I said was a carbon tax goes a long way toward ensconcing a unitary economic and moral reality in the state. Al Gore, who won a prize, underscores this a lot when he talks about how global warming should be the central organizing principle for the economy and that doing this is a moral imperative. Plus, I recycle.
It creates a unitary economic and moral reality no more than does the passage of a permanent tax cut.
Of course it does, silly. A tax cut promotes economic freedom while a carbon tax is a bold, new circumscription of economic freedom.
um, except a tax cut isn’t taking anything outta my paycheck.
and so that makes a tax fascist?
Section. 8. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States
Article. XVI. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
who said it was fascist?
You’re the one that made the equation. Myself I have no idea cause I haven’t read the book, I’m just saying the Democrats are wanting the government to reorganize the economy on the central organizing moral principle of having more better weather for the children. You should talk to them about whether it’s fascist or not. I pretty much just think they’re weak-minded and opportunistic.
With all due respect, you are the one who made the equation.
A. “Outside the State there can be neither individuals nor groups (political parties, associations, syndicates, classes). Therefore Fascism is opposed to Socialism, which confines the movement of history within the class struggle and ignores the unity of classes established in one economic and moral reality in the Stateâ€Â
B. um, a global warming carbon tax regiment goes a long way toward ensconcing a unitary economic and moral reality in the state.
My original point was that Jonah comes off not so well in that interview.
That’s not the equation. The unity of classes established in one economic and moral reality in the State is just part of the fascisty things that guy you quoted talked about, so I’m not saying a carbon tax schemes are the equivalent to fascism, I’m just saying if you want to get your Hitler on then carbon taxes a a cool place to start, cause of the moral and the unitary.
The guy I quoted was Mussolini. The unity of classes established in one economic and moral reality in the State is his definition of Fascism. You made your equation to his exact language.
more from the interview…
That brings up something else I wanted to ask you — if I’m reading this right, one of the things you’re saying about the student radicals in the 1960s is that they were essentially fascist even if they might have called themselves Marxist.
Yeah.
But isn’t it easy to distinguish, since Mussolini repudiated the central doctrine of Marxism?
Well, I mean, I bet you if you gave me an hour I could find places where he once again says nice things about Marxism in 1933 or 1937.
But he repudiated historical materialism, dialectical materialism.
Yeah. But I think the problem is you get into one of these sort of overly doctrinal, “let’s go to the text” approaches where words get confused for things.
Jonah Goldberg, scholar.
“The guy I quoted was Mussolini. The unity of classes established in one economic and moral reality in the State is his definition of Fascism.”
So what part of that definition do you disagree with?
If Phoebe would rather be a Marxist than a Fascist, I have no problem with that. In fact, I tend to agree.
ahem was lamenting that Jeff might never return–so long as we are willing to countenance the kind of language creep that Jonah’s thesis represents, that might just be the case. Doens’t matter that Goldberg usually has his head screwed on tight, this time, he’s wrong.
You canbe a Nationalist without being a Fascist, but you can’t be a Fascist without being a Nationalist. Fascism is the ultimate glorification of the state–everything is subordiated to the interests of the state including personal choices.
Rightwing ideologies narrow the ultimate desision making process–Fascism, Monarchism, these are the ultimate forms that devolve all power onto an individual.
Leftwing ideologies expand decision making–Republics, and Democracies are moderate forms–Socialism, Communism, and now Globalism/Internationalism are extreme forms. Let’s nto get confused by teh vanishingly small portionofhte total political spectrum that US politics occupies. Our rightwingers are lefwingers–Consitutionalism is a leftwing ideology.
It can be confusing; A cult of personality can develop out of a leftist system–Stalinism, Maoism–they get to be isms because they break the rules. Then they look like fascism, but that’s because of similiarities in methods of Totalitarinism which is not a left-right proposition because it can come from either.
This is the same pernicious language creep that has tried to make Nazism to be left-wing because they are “national *Socialists*” That’s a historical relic of the evolution of that party and not an overt description of their ideology. It holds no more water than insisting that the People’s Democratic Republic of Korea is a Democracy.
If we let this happen than, literally, anything will come to mean nothing–as in what democrats will pay, bear and support in defense of liberty.
Phoebe is right and Goldberg is wrong, but neither gain or lose points over it.
Amen to RTO.
Jonah does get confused. He’ll say in one breath that Woodrow Wilson was a fascist for imprisoning Eugene Debs, but will then continue to say that socialism equals fascism. Makes my head hurt trying to figure that out.
The left doesn’t seem to be interested much in nationalizing industry to me, they just want to control it and take the profits. That is more fascism than socialism by my understanding of things.
Jonah is a very nice man. He just fell in with a bad crowd is all.
BMoe–Socialism and Fascism are not easily distinguishable id you only look at one aspect. Especially when one considers that Marxist Socialism cannot occur wothout some form of coersion until you get to the “withering away of the state”–which has never happened…because it doesn’t work. So Socialism and Fascism share a great deal of methodology in common.
So Phoebe–You embrace the label of Socialist? (Which is a pleasant surprise and forestalls much arguing) You agree that Democratics are no longer willing to pay, bear, or support anything to defend liberty?
Maybe there’s a basis here for negotiation and diplomacy.
RTO,
Before the 2006 midterm election, Democrats proposed to increase funding for VA medical care, in order to cover the numbers of wounded returning from Iraq. Republicans, stating that funding was adequate, voted their attempts down, until something happened in 2005 that changed the minds of Republicans. What happened was that the VA announced they were facing a 2.5 billion dollar shortfall in medical care. The VA had been figuring their budget on returning wounded based on estimates drawn up from before the war. Republicans, embarrassed and angry, drew up a spending bill and covered the shortfall.
It seems to me that everyone involved here was willing to pay, bear and support liberty. But only one group displayed foresight and competence. Like you, I respect diplomacy, so I’ll refrain from adding more…
so they went back in time….
You mistake my sarcasm and disdain. I do not respect diplomacy. Diplomacy requires compromise, which is fine in those few cases where suchis mutually beneficial, but compromise requires capitualation on something. I’m opposed to capitulation.
Wehn it comes to paying any price, in teh words of a differnt president, “There is a price we will not pay; there is a point beyond which they must not advance.”
And the tactic of using us veterans as a wedge issue, is comming to an end. We aren’t going to stand for being used in that manner much longer, so you’d be better served to start finding otehr morallity examples than teh VA, or soldier pay or benefits, to bolster a bankrupt cause. Previous generations may not have been so aware of the costs of accepting everything offered or promised. It’s slow, but we are realizing that it can’t all be true.
Is the site accepting links? Here is the story…
I did not mean to use it as a wedge issue. In light of your comment, it seemed to be the issue.
I’m perfectly aware of the parable.
The funny thing is that this is the kind of management Socialist would like to apply to the whole country’s healthcare. You want me to mistake bureaucratic bunggling for deliberate neglect.
Sorry. You’ll have to try again–or better yet, heed my warning and find a new tack. Shoals dead ahead.
VA funding is not the same as confronting our enemies and refusing to surrender, no. You were mistaken.
I’ll hide my shock.
#
Comment by phoebe on 1/13 @ 4:41 pm #
It creates a unitary economic and moral reality no more than does the passage of a permanent tax cut.
Only if your under the assumption that all taxation is good.
RTO – I can buy an argument about language creep and poor usage, but I’m not sure I accept your argument that Goldberg is wrong. In application, central control of the “corprativists” as daffy datadave put it for the benefit of the state is more a practice of the left than a conservative principle. The entire government as god, nannystate, savior, euroweenie breastmilk provider, is all left as opposed to right, whether passive or authoritarian. The intolerance of opposing speech we are seeing today IMHO is largely on the left.
Daley, I think there’s a disconnect between what constitutes Conservative in the US and what constitutes Conservative in the total political spectrum.
It certainly is a surprise to learn that this vet is no longer willing to pay, bear or support anything to defend liberty. She ran for office as a Dem., so it must be true.
Vets are so handy to have around.
Tammy Duckworth has sold out. She’s willing to invalidate nbot only her own considerable sacrifieces and my meager ones, but that of those who have sacrificed all and the sacrifies of all those families as well.
Now if you’re done trying to change the topic?…
I think I might have to nominate pheoebe as the first contestant in the silliest attempted thread hijacking of 2008.
Yes, we are feet.
All you have to do is promise us something and we all become followers, and everyone else says how great you are for being so kind and comapssionate to all of us.
And, if you can get a vet on your side, especially a wounded or decorated vet, then you become unassailable no matter how bankrupt your postion.
wait, wait… we’re supposed to trust veterans? I mean, what with being afflicted with teh crazy and all.
and what does that have to do with fascism?
I am glad to see there is ‘thinking’ going on here. I respect at least the ‘anti-statist’ message. But I dont’t think it works for Republicans in general with their insistance on “Law and Order” and the broadcast “War on Terror”.
In general, Liberals are actually more for “liberty” than “conservatives”. But that’s just my opinion.
btw, I don’t need to waste my time reading Goldberg. I read the reviews and have seen his video condoning ‘torture’ in the form of waterboarding as a policy of the Bush Administration. The fact that he’s Lucianne Goldberg’s son also seals my opinion of him too. What’s with Republican Conservatives and their obsessive nepotism? Such as ending the “Death Tax” and elimination of the capital gains tax..thus insuring only “little pay” pay any taxes…and encouraging nepotism and inherited wealth and/or position?
Anyway, I am glad some ‘conservatives’ here actually refuse to accept such a specious argument saying Fascism is “Left wing”. I’ll grant that Communism and Fascism have common attributes but also whether communism is even “left wing” as just reading a little of “Young Stalin” at Barnes and Noble (saving money not buying it..) The author of that entertaining volumn states than both Lenin and Stalin from the beginning wanted no part of democracy for the proletariat that they were supposedly fighting for but preferred an Oligarchy of control.
Not unlike Republicans currently. Maybe that’s why Republican businessmen are so comfortably dealing with Communist Chinese Oligarchs?
Whereas the American Left in general (but not in many particulars) prefers
Democratic control of governance and economics. Liberalism: like Utilitarianism:if for more good for the common good. Whereas Conservatism prefers more good for the already well off and trickle down for the majority.
and by the way (idiots) “corporatism”
noun
control of a state or organization by large interest groups; “individualism is in danger of being swamped by a kind of corporatism”
it’s prime example of Fascism: What’s good for Fiat (General Motors) is good for Italy (USA). See Mussolini standing on a Fiat Tractor leading his Fasci into battle against the Ethiopians (fasci are nonindividual sticks of soldiers denied any semblence of individualism thus the Roman leges as symbolic of fasci….in present tense conservatism wants us to stand together and deny our humanity and fight the War on Terror and by any means use as Torture as endorsed by Fox Network and Goldberg)
I don’t need to read Goldberg’s idiotic work. Fascism is in essence the extreme of Right-Wing political thought. The Question is is whether modern Conservatism is becoming more and more Fascistic and Corporative? Liberals seem more and more for individual liberty whether it is for abortion rights, unemployment benefits, and free speech…whereas conservatives are against all of those three things. Free Republic for example wouldn’t let myself post there not anyone else of a slightly critical tone whereas the Nation allows just any conservative to post there.
little people pay taxes end quote
I love it when the modern Marxists prove tehy’ve never read Marx.
“The author of that entertaining volumn states than both Lenin and Stalin from the beginning wanted no part of democracy for the proletariat that they were supposedly fighting for but preferred an Oligarchy of control.”
data dave–hasn’t read Marx, won’t read Goldburg. I can only conclude that he’s particularly well unread.
The big clue-by-four here is that American Conservatism is still a left-wing ideology.
Another one, just for you, datadave, is that “liberty” pertains to property rights. When American Liberals wnat to tax, redistribute, or regulate what is owned, the similiarities of the words is obviously little more than historical/etymological accident. It’s well represented in the statement of the man who once said “I didn’t leave the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party left me.”
I just want to be left alone. That’s all.
Don’t take away my house so that some developer can build a shiny new high-rise condo to house your favorite campaign contributors. Don’t take away half my income so that you can give it to your favorite charity cases; there are plenty of worthy charities out there that I will support by choice, not because some PoliSci major thinks it’s a good idea.
Don’t brainwash my community’s children in an education center staffed four to one with teachers and administrators who support your political ideals. Don’t saddle my business with a bunch of onerous regulations that serve little good purpose other than lining the pockets of your campaign contributors who work in the regulatory consulting business.
Don’t take away my means of self-defense, leaving me dependent on a police force that won’t show up until after I’m beaten bloody and robbed blind (and let’s not forget that the political leaning of this force is remarkably similar to that of the education centers).
Don’t take away my power to choose my own health care. I don’t want some government bean counter telling me that I can’t have laser eye surgery until eighteen months from now because it’s not a national health care priority the way that cataract surgery is. (Though I’m sure if I made the right political contributions, I could cut that wait in half.)
I will decide how I want to live. I will decide where I want to work, and negotiate my own terms and compensation. I will decide how to spend the money I make, and how to educate my children, and how much health care I need. I will decide what kind of car I want to drive, and what kind of TV I want to watch, and what books I want to read, and what websites I want to visit.
I don’t care if you call yourself a socialist, a fascist, a corporatist, a communist, a Maoist, a Stalinist, an armadilloist, or an antidisestablishmentarianist — I just want you to leave me alone. Inasmuch as Goldberg’s book shows the parallels between various ideologies that seek to take away personal responsibility, personal resources, and personal options, I think it’s valuable.
Frankly, listening to various commenters claiming that their flavor of redistribution and central control is completely different from some other flavor of redistribution and central control would be laughable, if it weren’t so depressing.
okay, I’ll leave you alone. but that car you have needs a road. You’re not building it…the govt. does it. you want police or you want to stay in your room with a gun? you takes your choice. Be alone.
sounds miserable. Liberal have a better way. It’s called Love, Peace and Happiness. but then I’ll admit police, roads, the internet, fair wages, clean air, all of which would probably would be lessened by a libertarian or conservative government or lack of government…all these and more are needed to have love, peace and happiness. With moderation of course.
on the other hand: Too much police, too many roads, etc. wouldn’t be so good either.
I read the Communist manifesto and Das Kapital. Frankly, the Manifesto was succinct and a nice pamphlet but Marx’s longwinded verbiage was just too boreing and in the end not a good solution to a real problem he did figure out…Kapital is ever concentrating to the point that the majority gets squeezed as in our present situation. but Marx’s solution was not so kind either and proofs in the pudding as they say.
“liberty†pertains to property rights.
who says? Just a bunch of greedy jackasses. Nope. Liberties more important than just property rights. If only a few have all the property then what good is Liberty?
“If only a few have all the property then what good is Liberty?”
Freedoms just another word for nothing left to lose, dave. Good luck on trying to figure out what that means.
You have read it? My mistake.
Obviously you failed to understand it then. Or you’d know how Socialist systems are supposed to come about.