Liberal Fascism

The thesis of this book is that modern liberalism has orgins in Fascism. I would to discuss this book and see what the history buffs of this site think. No, I don't agree with the author, Jonah Goldberg.

Who is Mussoli?

I didn't copy the complete title.

You couldn't have just abbreviated it to "Liberal Fascism"?

Would a mod please abbreviate it to Liberal Fascism?

Try hollering. Also, is it by chance Mussolini?

The thesis of this book is that modern liberalism has orgins in Fascism. I would to discuss this book and see what the history buffs of this site think. No, I don't agree with the author, Jonah Goldberg.

The book is pretty much nonsense. It's true that at the time, some conservatives accused FDR of "trying to introduce Hitlerism to America" (Godwin's Law before WWII even started!), but FDR clearly opposed fascism (to the point of deliberately antagonizing the Axis powers before the war and allying with the Soviet Union to fight the Axis powers).

I'm pretty sure modern liberalism owes more to the Enlightenment and Progressive movements than the fascists. Especially since it predates fascism.

The author also calls rosseau the father of fascism.

...I don't see how one could honestly argue that..

Well there’s an empirical claim hard to justify.

The author also calls rosseau the father of fascism.

Rosseau was an idiot, but that doesn't make him a fascist.

I don't know why they just name all of the books "Liberals can suck my ****, volume #" and be done with it.

Just insert whatever the situation calls for for "liberals" and you've got most political literature, really.

You know who the real father of fascism was? Plato.

In before Rottweiler vigorously disagrees with me.

You know who the real founder of Fascism was? Mussolini.

Calling Plato the father of fascism is kind of anachronistic.

I don't think Mussolini read Plato. Hitler maybe, but not Mussolini.

You know who the real founding father of Fascism was? The Spartans.

And yes, I am aware that it's a plural, not a singular.

Mussolini did read Plato, actually. He liked The Republic.

Calling Plato the founder of fascism is the dumbest thing Karl Popper ever said. The Republic is the Form of a state. By the principles of idealism Plato lays out in the book, it cannot exist on earth, any more than the ideal knife.

If Mussolini or anyone else in the 20th century was inspired by the Republic, they weren't Platonists. They were under the spell of what Eric Voegelin called "political religion", so popular in that century.

"The problem of an eidos [Form] in history, hence, arises only when a Christian transcendental fulfillment becomes immanentized. Such an immanentist hypostasis of the eschaton, however, is a theoretical fallacy."

In other words, it's impossible to change the world so it becomes Heaven.

edited 8th Feb '11 10:35:07 PM by Rottweiler

The History News Network has a series of essays by respected historians addressing Goldberg's book, including a response from Goldberg.

@Rott: If Plato didn't think his ideal state could actually be implemented, then why did he assert in a later work that an actual state of the sort he described had once existed in the same place as Athens and had fought wars against Atlantis?

But he said Atlantis was a hypothetical thought experiment...

From Wikipedia:

The Timaeus begins with an introduction, followed by an account of the creations and structure of the universe and ancient civilizations. In the introduction, Socrates muses about the perfect society, described in Plato's Republic (c. 380 BC), and wonders if he and his guests might recollect a story which exemplifies such a society. Critias mentions an allegedly historical tale that would make the perfect example, and follows by describing Atlantis as is recorded in the Critias. In his account, ancient Athens seems to represent the "perfect society" and Atlantis its opponent, representing the very antithesis of the "perfect" traits described in the Republic. Critias claims that his accounts of ancient Athens and Atlantis stem from a visit to Egypt by the legendary Athenian lawgiver Solon in the 6th century BC. In Egypt, Solon met a priest of Sais, who translated the history of ancient Athens and Atlantis, recorded on papyri in Egyptian hieroglyphs, into Greek. According to Plutarch, Solon met with "Psenophis of Heliopolis, and Sonchis of Sais, the most learned of all the priests";[4][5] Plutarch refers here to events that would have happened seven centuries before he wrote of them.

I suppose Plato might have intended Critias as an Unreliable Narrator.

Timaeus was a weird dialogue.

@Jewelleddragon: Interesting discussion. Neiwart's attacks on Goldberg and Goldberg's attacks on Neiwart are both completely accurate.