NeoConservatism vs Fascism

[manifold]

What's the difference?

 

[AllieBaba]

Neocons are closer to being fascist than plain old cons. That's because they're closer to the liberal end of things, and liberals are generally fascists.

 

[Steerpike]

Manifold:

Have you read Jonah Goldberg's book Liberal Fascism? It makes some interesting points on the historical origins and meanings of the term as it relates to American conservatism and liberalism. I don't know about neoconservatism, however. Just throwing it out there.

 

[BrianH]

What are we defining as NeoConservatism?
NeoConservatism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism

Fascism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

There's a good difference between the two.

 

[manifold]

Al,

Are aware that on the axis of leftwing/rightwing ideology fascism is extreme rightwing?

 

[manifold]

What are we defining as NeoConservatism?
NeoConservatism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism

Fascism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

There's a good difference between the two.

Can I infer then that the biggest differences you see rest in the theory behind the ideologies and not the real life implementation?

 

[manifold]

Manifold:

Have you read Jonah Goldberg's book Liberal Fascism? It makes some interesting points on the historical origins and meanings of the term as it relates to American conservatism and liberalism. I don't know about neoconservatism, however. Just throwing it out there.

Liberal Fascism is an oxymoron. The two are mutually exclusive.

 

[Steerpike]

Liberal Fascism is an oxymoron. The two are mutually exclusive.

That's not true in the least, Manifold. If you haven't read the book I suppose its hard to comment on it. You can check here for a bit of a blurb:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MzNjM2E2YzgzOWVmZjg0ZDNkZjYyMTMwNTVlNjg4ODc=

Goldberg makes some interesting historical points in the books, though I can't say I'm in agreement with him across the board by any means.

 

[BrianH]

Can I infer then that the biggest differences you see rest in the theory behind the ideologies and not the real life implementation?

true true....my own personal opinion (differenciating between the two), is that NeoConservatism is concerned with keeping the world in order, while Fascism is concerned with Dominating the world by getting rid of lesser races and uniting under a single ideology (for instance, an arryan race). Fascism has a more aggressive and militarized way of doing things without regard to the people that they are trying to control. Hitler didn't try to "keep the world in order," he tried to conquer it and create a superior race of people by eliminating those he thought to be inferior.

 

[AllieBaba]

Al,

Are aware that on the axis of leftwing/rightwing ideology fascism is extreme rightwing?

That's a liberal twist. Fascism is tyranny, and tyranny springs directly from socialistic concepts.

 

[Steerpike]

Al,

Are aware that on the axis of leftwing/rightwing ideology fascism is extreme rightwing?

Not necessarily. It's placed there by academics who dislike the right, but in fact fascist ideologies historically have a number of policies that would be considered "left" in the U.S. Goldberg points out some of the differences historically between European v. American definitions of left and right as they've evolved over time.

And apart from that, I think if we dissociated ourselves from the label and what it might have meant or not meant in historical context, you can certainly see characteristics of what many would consider fascism on all sides of the political spectrum, particularly at the fringes.

 

[Diuretic]

That's not true in the least, Manifold. If you haven't read the book I suppose its hard to comment on it. You can check here for a bit of a blurb:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MzNjM2E2YzgzOWVmZjg0ZDNkZjYyMTMwNTVlNjg4ODc=

Goldberg makes some interesting historical points in the books, though I can't say I'm in agreement with him across the board by any means.

I haven't read the book either. But it's been torn apart. I did read some interviews with Goldberg and I was stunned at how thick he appeared to be.

 

[manifold]

That's not true in the least, Manifold.

It's 100% true if you confine yourself to the simple dictionary definitions of the words and not those offered via twisted political rhetoric.

Fascism: a political philosophy that exalts nation above the individual

Liberalism: a political philosophy based on belief in the autonomy of the individual


That's about as opposite (and mutually exclusive) as it gets.

 

[Diuretic]

That's a liberal twist. Fascism is tyranny, and tyranny springs directly from socialistic concepts.

Rubbish. Tyranny comes in many flavours, fascism is just one of them but a particular form. Socialism is a 19th century economic theory. Facism favours a merging of the government, business and the military in a unified form designed to hand power and resources to a small elite. Socialism advocates the social ownership of the means of production in an economy.

 

[Steerpike]

I haven't read the book either. But it's been torn apart. I did read some interviews with Goldberg and I was stunned at how thick he appeared to be.

It's been torn apart by people who have a philosophical disagreement, but I have yet to see a researched/cited work tear it apart. That's the interesting thing.

On at least the historical part of things, Goldberg's book is heavily researched and full of direct references to academic and other literature. So far, no one I have seen has gone after the work in that kind of scholarly manner. It's been roundly derived in superficial terms by liberals, as one might expect, but that's about it.

That, and ad hominem attacks, which I don't find particularly persuasive.

 

[Diuretic]

Not necessarily. It's placed there by academics who dislike the right, but in fact fascist ideologies historically have a number of policies that would be considered "left" in the U.S. Goldberg points out some of the differences historically between European v. American definitions of left and right as they've evolved over time.

And apart from that, I think if we dissociated ourselves from the label and what it might have meant or not meant in historical context, you can certainly see characteristics of what many would consider fascism on all sides of the political spectrum, particularly at the fringes.

As I've just pointed out, fascism has a particular meaning and it's constant. Goldberg's Newspeak attempts at twisting the meaning are revealing. Btw is he a Straussian?

 

[Steerpike]

Liberalism: a political philosophy based on belief in the autonomy of the individual

I suppose it depends on whose dictionary you are using. Or are the 'liberals' of today not liberals in the true sense? I suppose they aren't in the true, historic European sense, which did place the autonomy of the individual over all else. But in the American sense, in which "liberal" is used in conjunction with large government, wealth redistribution, social engineering, etc. your definition of liberal certainly doesn't apply.

 

[manifold]

I think if we dissociated ourselves from the label and what it might have meant or not meant in historical context, you can certainly see characteristics of what many would consider fascism on all sides of the political spectrum, particularly at the fringes.

No argument here.

 

[Steerpike]

As I've just pointed out, fascism has a particular meaning and it's constant. Goldberg's Newspeak attempts at twisting the meaning are revealing. Btw is he a Straussian?

I don't think his thesis is that the definition of fascism has changed; I think his thesis is that American liberalism (as opposed to historical European liberalism) has roots in early 20th century fascism.

 

[Shogun]

Liberal Fascism is an oxymoron. The two are mutually exclusive.

I beg to differ.. lefty pink lunger bastards who think they know better than you do regarding restricting choice is firmly planted in liberal politics. Tipper Gore and the PMRC. Berkeley reactions to marine recruiting. Peta. ALL lefty Fascists.