Fascism: The Father of American Liberalism.

[PoliticalChic]

There are times when a well known meme is, upon further inspection, clearly the reverse.

Fascism is regularly identified with Conservativism.

But try to define 'fascism,' and a straight line can be drawn between the definition and modern liberalism.

Some of the definitions are as follows:

1. Palingenetic ultranationalism is a theory concerning generic fascism formulated by British political theorist Roger Griffin. The key elements are that fascism can be defined by its core myth, namely that of "national rebirth" — palingenesis. (Palingenesis is the concept of mythic rebirth from the ashes, embodied by the Phoenix.

2. Stanley Payne's work, which offers a "typological definition" of fascism:

a. Creation of a new nationalist authoritarian state based not merely on traditional principles or models

b. Organization of some new kind of regulated, multiclass, integrated national economic structure, whether called national corporatist, national socialist, or national syndicalist

c. Specific espousal of an idealist, voluntarist creed, normally involving the attempt to realize a new form of modern, self-determined, secular culture

d. Attempted mass mobilization with militarization of political relationships and style and with the goal of a mass party militia

e. Positive evaluation and use of, or willingness to use, violence

f. Exaltation of youth above other phases of life, emphasizing the conflict of generations, at least in effecting the initial political transformation

g. Specific tendency toward an authoritarian, charismatic, personal style of command, whether or not the command is to some degree initially elective7
Stanley Payne, Fascism: Comparison and Definition (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1980), p. 7.


3. Emilio Gentile: "A mass movement, that combines different classes, but is predominantly of the middle classes, which sees itself as having a mission of national regeneration, is in a state of war with its adversaries and seeks a monopoly of power by using terror, parliamentary tactics, and compromise to create a new regime, destroying democracy." Stanley Payne, Fascism: Comparison and Definition (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1980), p. 5 n.6


And, the most precise and telling definition that I have come across:

4. "Fascism is a religion of the state. It is totalitarian in that it assumes everything is political and holds that any action by the state is justified to achieve the common good. It takes responsibility for all aspects of life, including our health and well-being, and seeks to impose uniformity of thought and action, whether by force or through regulation and social pressure. Everything, including the economy and religion, must be aligned with its objectives. Any rival identity is defined as the enemy. American liberalism embodies all of these aspects of fascism." Jonah Goldberg, Liberal Fascism, p. 23

 

[Bfgrn]

And you pick Jonah Goldberg... the idiot...stupid is as stupid does...



The 14 Characteristics of Fascism

The 14 characteristics are:

1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism

2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights

3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause

4. Supremacy of the Military

5. Rampant Sexism

6. Controlled Mass Media

7. Obsession with National Security

8. Religion and Government are Intertwined

9. Corporate Power is Protected

10. Labor Power is Suppressed

11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts

12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment

13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption

14. Fraudulent Elections

No passion so effectually robs the mind of all its powers of acting and reasoning as fear.
Edmund Burke

 

[Oddball]

Hayek called back in 1944, it when he wrote The Road to Serfdom.

John Stossel : Hurtling Down the Road to Serfdom - Townhall.com

 

[JakeStarkey]

PC, you are distorting Griffin's concern with the right as it it is the left which he examines. That is not the case. For instance, "Roger Griffin has also published numerous articles and chapters relating to fascism and ultra-nationalism both inter-war and post-war (see publications list), as well as developing a specialist interest in related issues, including neo-fascism and new forms of radical right (e.g. ‘ethnocratic liberalism’ and the ‘groupuscular right’), national identity, racism, multi- culturalism and multi-ethnicity, modernity, globalization, ecologism, and the psycho-historical dynamics of terrorism. Roger Griffin | Oxford Brookes University

You have to be fair to the source before you extend it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Hayek called back in 1944, it when he wrote The Road to Serfdom.

Fascism dismantles the free market system, which leads to tyranny. But the problem is that unfettered markets lead to the same result.

 

[Oddball]

Oh, brother.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Oh, brother.

Dude, that is the only thing you can say because I am right.

 

[PoliticalChic]

PC, you are distorting Griffin's concern with the right as it it is the left which he examines. That is not the case. For instance, "Roger Griffin has also published numerous articles and chapters relating to fascism and ultra-nationalism both inter-war and post-war (see publications list), as well as developing a specialist interest in related issues, including neo-fascism and new forms of radical right (e.g. ‘ethnocratic liberalism’ and the ‘groupuscular right’), national identity, racism, multi- culturalism and multi-ethnicity, modernity, globalization, ecologism, and the psycho-historical dynamics of terrorism. Roger Griffin | Oxford Brookes University

You have to be fair to the source before you extend it.

You are, of course, correct re: Griffin. I chose the snippet, actually, to lay the groundwork for the Goldberg quote.

I had intended a much longer post, but mine often become unwieldy.

 

[MIPS]

Hayek called back in 1944, it when he wrote The Road to Serfdom.

John Stossel : Hurtling Down the Road to Serfdom - Townhall.com

Great book Dude and right on point with respect to the topic at hand, Hayek was definitely showing some prescience when he wrote it, I'd also add "Our Enemy, The State" by Albert Jay Nock (1935) as being equally relevant to the topic.

As far as Facism being the "father" of modern liberalism (I assume the OP is referring to American Progressivism), I'd say it's more of a sibling than a parent.

 

[Ragnar]

As an economic system, fascism is socialism with a capitalist veneer. The word derives from fasces, the Roman symbol of collectivism and power: a tied bundle of rods with a protruding ax. In its day (the 1920s and 1930s), fascism was seen as the happy medium between boom-and-bust-prone liberal capitalism, with its alleged class conflict, wasteful competition, and profit-oriented egoism, and revolutionary Marxism, with its violent and socially divisive persecution of the bourgeoisie. Fascism substituted the particularity of nationalism and racialism—“blood and soil”—for the internationalism of both classical liberalism and Marxism.

Where socialism sought totalitarian control of a society’s economic processes through direct state operation of the means of production, fascism sought that control indirectly, through domination of nominally private owners. Where socialism nationalized property explicitly, fascism did so implicitly, by requiring owners to use their property in the “national interest”—that is, as the autocratic authority conceived it. (Nevertheless, a few industries were operated by the state.) Where socialism abolished all market relations outright, fascism left the appearance of market relations while planning all economic activities. Where socialism abolished money and prices, fascism controlled the monetary system and set all prices and wages politically. In doing all this, fascism denatured the marketplace. Entrepreneurship was abolished. State ministries, rather than consumers, determined what was produced and under what conditions.

Fascism: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics | Library of Economics and Liberty

PoliticalChic got it right the first time, as did Goldberg. (who is a far better source than that goofball Rense)

 

[Bfgrn]

Hayek called back in 1944, it when he wrote The Road to Serfdom.

Fascism dismantles the free market system, which leads to tyranny. But the problem is that unfettered markets lead to the same result.

Hayek says that too, in The Road to Serfdom...

 

[MIPS]

Hayek called back in 1944, it when he wrote The Road to Serfdom.

Fascism dismantles the free market system, which leads to tyranny. But the problem is that unfettered markets lead to the same result.

Hayek says that too, in The Road to Serfdom...

I don't recall Hayek making that specific arguement in The Road to Serfdom (although it's been a while since I read the book so my recollection of everything in it is imperfect), however he does make the case the "unfettered markets" (that is markets sans the existence of a regulatory framework) are essentially unworkable and then goes on to point out a set of "rules" that must be followed to construct and efficient and effective regulatory framework. In a nutshell he says (if memory serves) that such a regulatory framework must be fair (apply evenly to all participants), that regulation incurs costs and those costs must be quantified prior to implementation and that regulation requires continuous review and "updating" to remove unintended consequences.

 

[Oddball]

Hayek called back in 1944, it when he wrote The Road to Serfdom.

Fascism dismantles the free market system, which leads to tyranny. But the problem is that unfettered markets lead to the same result.

Hayek says that too, in The Road to Serfdom...

Liar.

The book is about how central planners always end up running tyrannical states, not how unplanned economies end up in authoritarian tyranny.

Regulated (i.e. made regular) markets are not centrally planned markets.

 

[Oddball]

Oh, brother.

Dude, that is the only thing you can say because I am right.

You couldn't be more wrong if you had to be on purpose.

 

[Ragnar]

Fascism dismantles the free market system, which leads to tyranny. But the problem is that unfettered markets lead to the same result.

Hayek says that too, in The Road to Serfdom...

I don't recall Hayek making that specific arguement in The Road to Serfdom (although it's been a while since I read the book so my recollection of everything in it is imperfect), however he does make the case the "unfettered markets" (that is markets sans the existence of a regulatory framework) are essentially unworkable and then goes on to point out a set of "rules" that must be followed to construct and efficient and effective regulatory framework. In a nutshell he says (if memory serves) that such a regulatory framework must be fair (apply evenly to all participants), that regulation incurs costs and those costs must be quantified prior to implementation and that regulation requires continuous review and "updating" to remove unintended consequences.

That sounds closer to my "reading" of it. (I'm only halfway through)

For fans of Hayek (or Mises and the like) I'd recommend Brian Doherty's Radicals for Capitalism (A Freewheeling History of the Modern American Libertarian Movement) though, like Ayn Rand, he's a wordy bitch. (700+ pages including a couple hunderd pages of notes) Despite that, it's a great read.

 

[Bfgrn]

Fascism dismantles the free market system, which leads to tyranny. But the problem is that unfettered markets lead to the same result.

Hayek says that too, in The Road to Serfdom...

I don't recall Hayek making that specific arguement in The Road to Serfdom (although it's been a while since I read the book so my recollection of everything in it is imperfect), however he does make the case the "unfettered markets" (that is markets sans the existence of a regulatory framework) are essentially unworkable and then goes on to point out a set of "rules" that must be followed to construct and efficient and effective regulatory framework. In a nutshell he says (if memory serves) that such a regulatory framework must be fair (apply evenly to all participants), that regulation incurs costs and those costs must be quantified prior to implementation and that regulation requires continuous review and "updating" to remove unintended consequences.

Pretty close. But, what must be understood is that America does not have a free market system. It is subsidized capitalism. The 'socialists' Hayek despises are the corporations. The current crisis we face is regulation reform. Do we put in place regulations that are fair and protect our economy and our people from the unfettered greed of a handful of Wall Street gamblers? The Republicans have their marching orders from Frank Luntz...KILL IT...no to regulation reform and use words to deceive the people...call it a bail out.

 

[rdean]

There are times when a well known meme is, upon further inspection, clearly the reverse.

Fascism is regularly identified with Conservativism.

But try to define 'fascism,' and a straight line can be drawn between the definition and modern liberalism.

Some of the definitions are as follows:

1. Palingenetic ultranationalism is a theory concerning generic fascism formulated by British political theorist Roger Griffin. The key elements are that fascism can be defined by its core myth, namely that of "national rebirth" — palingenesis. (Palingenesis is the concept of mythic rebirth from the ashes, embodied by the Phoenix.

2. Stanley Payne's work, which offers a "typological definition" of fascism:

a. Creation of a new nationalist authoritarian state based not merely on traditional principles or models

b. Organization of some new kind of regulated, multiclass, integrated national economic structure, whether called national corporatist, national socialist, or national syndicalist

c. Specific espousal of an idealist, voluntarist creed, normally involving the attempt to realize a new form of modern, self-determined, secular culture

d. Attempted mass mobilization with militarization of political relationships and style and with the goal of a mass party militia

e. Positive evaluation and use of, or willingness to use, violence

f. Exaltation of youth above other phases of life, emphasizing the conflict of generations, at least in effecting the initial political transformation

g. Specific tendency toward an authoritarian, charismatic, personal style of command, whether or not the command is to some degree initially elective7
Stanley Payne, Fascism: Comparison and Definition (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1980), p. 7.


3. Emilio Gentile: "A mass movement, that combines different classes, but is predominantly of the middle classes, which sees itself as having a mission of national regeneration, is in a state of war with its adversaries and seeks a monopoly of power by using terror, parliamentary tactics, and compromise to create a new regime, destroying democracy." Stanley Payne, Fascism: Comparison and Definition (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1980), p. 5 n.6


And, the most precise and telling definition that I have come across:

4. "Fascism is a religion of the state. It is totalitarian in that it assumes everything is political and holds that any action by the state is justified to achieve the common good. It takes responsibility for all aspects of life, including our health and well-being, and seeks to impose uniformity of thought and action, whether by force or through regulation and social pressure. Everything, including the economy and religion, must be aligned with its objectives. Any rival identity is defined as the enemy. American liberalism embodies all of these aspects of fascism." Jonah Goldberg, Liberal Fascism, p. 23

One thing we do know for a fact is that the Republicans perfect model for national government is in Iran. The only problem is the main religion is "Islam" and not "Christianity". Other than that, it would be "perfect".

 

[Oddball]

Fascism dismantles the free market system, which leads to tyranny. But the problem is that unfettered markets lead to the same result.

Hayek says that too, in The Road to Serfdom...

I don't recall Hayek making that specific arguement in The Road to Serfdom (although it's been a while since I read the book so my recollection of everything in it is imperfect), however he does make the case the "unfettered markets" (that is markets sans the existence of a regulatory framework) are essentially unworkable and then goes on to point out a set of "rules" that must be followed to construct and efficient and effective regulatory framework. In a nutshell he says (if memory serves) that such a regulatory framework must be fair (apply evenly to all participants), that regulation incurs costs and those costs must be quantified prior to implementation and that regulation requires continuous review and "updating" to remove unintended consequences.

Truth.

That said, regulated markets are not centrally planned markets....Something for which closet fascists like Jethro constantly beat the drum, in the name of "fairness".

 

[traveler52]

And you pick Jonah Goldberg... the idiot...stupid is as stupid does...



The 14 Characteristics of Fascism

The 14 characteristics are:

1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism

2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights

3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause

4. Supremacy of the Military

5. Rampant Sexism

6. Controlled Mass Media

7. Obsession with National Security

8. Religion and Government are Intertwined

9. Corporate Power is Protected

10. Labor Power is Suppressed

11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts

12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment

13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption

14. Fraudulent Elections

No passion so effectually robs the mind of all its powers of acting and reasoning as fear.
Edmund Burke

Sounds more like the Repug poltical system.

 

[MIPS]

Hayek says that too, in The Road to Serfdom...

I don't recall Hayek making that specific arguement in The Road to Serfdom (although it's been a while since I read the book so my recollection of everything in it is imperfect), however he does make the case the "unfettered markets" (that is markets sans the existence of a regulatory framework) are essentially unworkable and then goes on to point out a set of "rules" that must be followed to construct and efficient and effective regulatory framework. In a nutshell he says (if memory serves) that such a regulatory framework must be fair (apply evenly to all participants), that regulation incurs costs and those costs must be quantified prior to implementation and that regulation requires continuous review and "updating" to remove unintended consequences.

Pretty close. But, what must be understood is that America does not have a free market system. It is subsidized capitalism. The 'socialists' Hayek despises are the corporations. The current crisis we face is regulation reform. Do we put in place regulations that are fair and protect our economy and our people from the unfettered greed of a handful of Wall Street gamblers? The Republicans have their marching orders from Frank Luntz...KILL IT...no to regulation reform and use words to deceive the people...call it a bail out.

Unfortunately with today's politicians version of regulatory "reform" is just another way of saying exchanging one form of corruption for another form of corruption, the current regulatory "reforms" on the table are coming no where close to following the simple "rules" that Hayek set forth, they are simply "reform" efforts aimed at scoring political advantage and granting favors to special interests which is just as bad a regulation for regulations sake or de-regulation for de-regulations sake.

Same shit, different day.