51 thoughts on “A Look At Fascism”

  1. Right wing is not synonymous with “unregulated capitalism.” Louis XVI was right wing by definition – his supporters sat in the right wing of the Estates-General. I suspect that he and his more successful ancestor, Louis XIV, would really like Mussolini – they all treated their countries as if they were their personal property.

    One of the many failures of Goldberg’s analysis is the one of arbitrarily chopping off a huge chunk of right-wing thought, namely the idea that “the Right Men” should govern just because. (Whether these “Right Men” were selected by hereditary class, affilation in a church, or family wealth defines what flavor of right-wing we’re talking about.)

    I would also note that, if you look at the Italian Charter of Labor provided in the article, worker strikes are expressly prohibited (article XIX) and unions are government-owned (article III). The contemporary, socialist and anti-governmental IWW conducted 150 strikes and considered them a vital tool and a right of the worker.

  2. Interesting magazine and article. But I was even more taken by the piece on page 9, where Gov. Phillip Fox La Follette (WI) advocates a new political party for Progressives. He even suggests a party symbol.

    Hmmm… Looks familiar…..

    By the way, is that a salute he’s giving?

  4. One of the many failures of Goldberg’s analysis is the one of arbitrarily chopping off a huge chunk of right-wing thought, namely the idea that “the Right Men” should govern just because.

    You mean “just because” they were editor of the Harvard Law Review?

  6. One of the many failures of Goldberg’s analysis is the one of arbitrarily chopping off a huge chunk of right-wing thought, namely the idea that “the Right Men” should govern just because.

    That’s not a “right-wing” thought. Virtually every statist has some variant of this. Sure you have Bush administration packed full of the “right men”. But so is the Obama administration and they aren’t by most standards right-wing.

    And what’s the point of mentioning the IWW? They apparently are down to somewhere around 1,000 members which along with their apparent Marxist ideology makes them something of a freak show. Not sure what they have to do with the current discussion.

  7. Rand – no, I mean just because he won the election.

    Leland – you will note that one of the things that the Italian socialists did after the war was to exile their king. I don’t suppose I need to remind you what the Russian socialists did to theirs?

  8. Karl Hallowell – the IWW was one of many socialist organizations contemporaneous with Mussolini and the Fascists. I bring them up to highlight what real socialists of the time were thinking and doing.

    One of the key differences in political systems is how we choose who rules. In most right-wing systems, the choice is made by birth (monarchy) money (plutocracy) or rank in a religion (theocracy).

    In most left-wing systems, including democracy and republics, popular vote decides who rules. This is why left-wing dictatorships, AKA Communist states, bother to have popular elections. The system requires the ruler to rule with “the will of the people.”

  10. One of the key differences in political systems is how we choose who rules. In most right-wing systems, the choice is made by birth (monarchy) money (plutocracy) or rank in a religion (theocracy).

    In most left-wing systems, including democracy and republics, popular vote decides who rules. This is why left-wing dictatorships, AKA Communist states, bother to have popular elections.

    Hate to break it to you, but Hitler wasn’t born of nobility, nor was Mussolini. Hitler came to power through an election. Like most left-wing leaders, he decided that once he was in power, no more elections were necessary.

  11. Like most left-wing leaders, he decided that once he was in power, no more elections were necessary. Except actually, the left-wing leader (Stalin) did have elections after getting in power. Cuba still does, as does North Korea.

    But you are actually wrong about Fascists and elections.

    Mussolini was not elected. He seized power in a coup in 1922, was appointed Prime Minister by the Italian king, and heavily rigged the 1924 election, in which he did not win a majority. That was the last election.

    Hitler did not win an election either – he got 30% of the vote and then seized power. His supporters in seizing power included the right-wing nobleman and President, Hindenburg, and the Army Chief of Staff Kurt von Schleicher, a Junker nobleman.

    Franco was a minor noble, and never stood for election. He styled his rule as Regent of Spain, which is how Juan Carlos came to power on Franco’s death.

  12. Gee, Stalin’s elections sure were models of fairness.

    You could vote for any party that you wanted, as long as it was The Party.

  13. “Like most left-wing leaders, he decided that once he was in power, no more elections were necessary. Except actually, the left-wing leader (Stalin) did have elections after getting in power. Cuba still does, as does North Korea.”

    Chris, just quit. Nothing you say after that statement will be given any seriousness. I am copy and pasting that gem. Everytime you post something, I am gonna post that nugget of pure idiocy as a self-evident retort.

    That you fail to the the sheer, utter, mentally retarded, stupidity in that statement astounds me.

    Then again, your party only cares about elections, not fair ones. Your party is the ones who dumped voting machines from Republican districts into lake Michigan.

  14. Mike Puckett – no, actually, when classifying political systems, how they determine who is in power and by what right is actually important. (I did study political science, you know). Monarchies, for example, don’t have elections. That is part of the definition of a monarchy, where “the will of the people” is irrelevant. Nor did I say Communism had fair and/or free elections.

  15. Chris, it’s a superficial description of a political system that doesn’t pick up the important details – namely how do things really work? For example, the activity labeled as “elections” in countries like North Korea or the old USSR aren’t methods for choosing a leader, they’re a ritual with no consequence which is most certainly not an election. Do you classify the US using the facts that it has Flag Day (a holiday where you wave US flags) as a holiday or an official bird (the bald eagle). I don’t know, “raptorphilic banner followers”?

  16. Saddam had elections, Chris. Does that make him a left winger?

    Do you have any idea how much you’re embarrassing yourself here? Someone needs to take away your shovel.

  17. Looking at European politics through the spectrum of American politics is a fool’s errand. The opposite of both America’s Left *and* Right is Monarchism, or Aristocracy, which was discredited and driven off during the Revolution. America’s mainstream, dominant political spectrum is an intramural battle between two sides that would be on the same wing on a larger, global political spectrum. (Similarly, National Socialism and International Socialism are intramural combatants in the same wing, rather than opposites).

    Europe’s Right has greater roots in its Monarchist political wing, rather than in more radical, Marxist-derived ideologies like Fascism or National Socialism.

  18. Mike Puckett – actually, what you said is so stupid that I had to come back and comment.

    You have confused a dolphin with a fish, thinking that they are the same because they are both gray and live in the water. But the fact that the dolphin does not have gills is critical to their behavior. Fish can’t drown – dolphins can.

    Similarly, the idea that somebody can only remain in power due to an election is critical to classifying a political system. That is, in fact, how the Soviet Union fell – the Party gave limited openness and boom, no country. That’s why people are protesting in Iran – they think that in an “Islamic democracy” their votes matter.

    Nobody was under the illusion that their vote mattered in a Fascist state. Since fascists never could seem to actually win an election, that’s not much of a surprise.

    Karl Hallowell – I did not claim that the activities in North Korea were fair or free. They are significant, or they wouldn’t be held.

    Rand – Saddam came to power under a leftist party. You can be a leftist and a bad person, although in his case I think he was an opportunist who sided with the party he thought most likely to succeed. (I actually think Stalin and Lenin went to their graves thinking they were right, not that they were or that it mattered.)

    Alex – if the Right-Left spectrum goes from 1 to 10, with 10 being absolute monarchy, American politics ends at 7. (“Only men of property should vote.”) But Fascism on the same scale comes in at an 8.

  19. Chris-The Crack Pipe-Put it down and back away slowly…………..

    I didn’t confuse anything. You, however, stepped on your very own dick.

  20. So, Saddam’s election was meaningless, or not? Did the people who voted think that their vote mattered? If not, was his state a fascist one? But he was elected as a leftist, right? Because you said that in a previous comment.

    You’re just making it up as you go along. And you ought to ask for your tuition money back.

  22. Chris, the gap between “WASPs with property” being able to vote, and a Divinely Selected King “owning” all the land and “subjects” in his realm is far greater than a mere three ticks on a spectrum. It’s a seismic difference. A paradigm shift in how Man thinks.

    It took roughly eight thousand years (from Jericho to Athens) to get to the point where a few Greek city-states could evolve such ideas, and then another 2000 years to pair those democratic ideals with those of the Enlightenment and the Age of Reason.

  24. When La Follette wasn’t a member of the Wisconsin Progressive Party, he was a Republican, I think it would be a mis-characterization to label his party as “left”.

    Teddy Roosevelt was also a “progressive” and a Republican (until he wasn’t). I’m not sure what your point is. When modern-day “progressives” (e.g., Hillary Clinton) call themselves that, I think they’re proud of its history, albeit profoundly ignorant of it.

  25. How do labor unions fare under Communist regimes, Chris? That sort of “power to the people” stuf just kind of fades away once the “right [Communist] men” take over, don’t they?

    I doubt if Chris Gerrib has actually bothered to read Goldberg’s book but if so he seems to have an inability to get distracted by trivia and miss the essentials. For those interested, decades before Goldberg, the great scholar Erik Von Keuhnnet-Leddhin traced the socialist roots of both the Nazis and the Italian Facists in his massive study, LEFTISM. Speaking of Louis XIV, I once heard EVK-L make the point that at the height of his power, the Sun King could not have banned alcoholic beverages, levied and income tax, or impressed a single citizen into the army; but the modern democratic state does, and has done, all these things.

    Quick quiz: who said it, Mussolini or Barack Obama: “Nothing outside the State, nothing against the State, everything for the state”? Mussolini, of course–but you had to think about it, right? The fact that he used “the State” instead of “community” should have tipped you that it was said by Il Duce and not Il Dufe.

  26. Correction: I meant Chris G. has an “uncanny ability” to miss essentials and get distracted by trivia. Although of course with these State-shtupping commenters, you never know how much their confusion is real and how much feigned simply to derail the argument.

  27. Personally I prefer to use the term “authoritarian.” Various forms of organization fall along this axis in some interesting ways. Too many progressives and conservatives are too close minded. That’s one way authoritarianism shows itself.

    Since Rand’s blog draws a readership that is heavily into libertarianism, I will sometimes make comments that show how even committed libertarians can harbor authoritarian world views. They point to people like Adam Smith and say their views are completely true and dismiss critics as people who do not get it.

    Recently I read Osborne’s Civilization. I learned back in the early Industrial Age, 8 year old girls were made to work in factories from 6 AM to 7 PM — and sometimes even longer. Their health — and that of the nation — was severely impacted. That’s one reason we have child labor laws today. I can support a free labor market for adults — but what I just described does not fall into that category. Likewise, if adults are likewise stripped of freedom through cultural pressures of some sort, it’s a bit hard to talk about a free market for labor. When healthy people in their 50s are thrown out of work because “business” demands it, you also don’t have a free market.

    What kind of a libertarian does that make me? One who tries to consider all factors and all views. Yes, I tend to dismiss some views almost out of hand — consider Hitler and Stalin and their supporters, for example. The times when people like that are right are so limited that it doesn’t really pay to consider what they are saying all that much. But Teddy Roosevelt? I see problems with his positions, but he is hardly another Stalin.

  28. Gerrib, you dunce, I was referring to our President, our one Party government, and their over use of slogans rather than actual solutions.

    And as for the other nonsense you wrote, I don’t have to remind you what happened to people who voted against Stalin. It wasn’t so much a democratic election as it was an opportunity to identify the areas to purge.

  29. (Sorry to go to Pham-ish lengths on this post)

    Rand – La Follette was center-left, as was Teddy Roosevelt. TR, ironically for this blog, moved to the left as a result of the disaster that was the Gilded Age libertarian economy.

    You and Bilwik1 accuse me of worrying about about trivia – but want to discuss mythical hand salutes and party symbols instead of what the party does and why.

    No, the Sun King did not have the political apparatus of a 20th century country. Nor did he have railroads and telegraphs, which played a key factor in the limits on his government.

    The “but the elections were rigged” argument is like saying “but a dolphin has fins too.” Yes, Stalin and any authoritarian dictatorship, may decide to rig an election. But to evaluate if the political ideology is right, left or otherwise, one of the things you look at is why they even bother with an election.

    Saddam came to power by hijacking a leftist party. Iran’s current government came to power as leftists. They both implemented dictatorships, which in the end really don’t care what their people want. Like I said, neither the left nor the right has a monopoly on bad actors.

    In general, in this thread I feel like the guy trying to give a serious lecture on astronomy and some dudes in the back are cracking Beavis and Butthead jokes about Uranus. Embarrassed, but not for my actions. Rather, embarrassed that a bunch of seemingly-intelligent people have fallen for something only marginally slicker than a Nigerian 401 scam, AKA Goldberg’s book.

    Seriously, if a guy with no training or background in investing wrote a book that said you could make 20% returns regardless of the market, wouldn’t you at least insist on some rigorous proof? But here some dude writes a book that attempts to reverse 60 years of history and y’all lap it up like frat boys standing around a free beer keg.

    Lastly, I’m not arguing to convince Rand. He is supremely confident in his own correctness. Rather, I’m making a case for the people who may lack Rand’s certitude. That case is that the facts are not as Rand and Goldberg present them.

  30. Seriously, if a guy with no training or background in investing wrote a book that said you could make 20% returns regardless of the market, wouldn’t you at least insist on some rigorous proof?

    Well, we, most of us scientist and engineers, are not going to listen to a IT guy at a bank, who writes Sci Fi novels on the side, tell us that Kim Jung Il runs a democracy. So becareful throwing rocks with that house you have.

  32. “What kind of a libertarian does that make me? ” From what you say, Chuck, I’d say not actually a libertarian, as I understand the term. If you say you’re for liberty, except for when you’re not for liberty, that might make you some kind of traditional conservative, but not a libertarian. You might also want to refer to the book CAPITALISM AND THE HISTORIANS, regarding child labor.

  33. Apparently Gerrib’s history degree and IT background hasn’t taught him about the scroll bar.

    Gerrib: [I] never claimed Kim Jung Il runs a democracy.

    Gerrib: Except actually, the left-wing leader (Stalin) did have elections after getting in power. Cuba still does, as does North Korea.

    Gerrib: In most left-wing systems, including democracy and republics, popular vote decides who rules. This is why left-wing dictatorships, AKA Communist states, bother to have popular elections. The system requires the ruler to rule with “the will of the people.”

  34. “The “but the elections were rigged” argument is like saying “but a dolphin has fins too.” Yes, Stalin and any authoritarian dictatorship, may decide to rig an election. But to evaluate if the political ideology is right, left or otherwise, one of the things you look at is why they even bother with an election.”

    To maintain the appearnce of a democracy, not to maintain an actual democracy.

  35. One of the many failures of Goldberg’s analysis is the one of arbitrarily chopping off a huge chunk of right-wing thought, namely the idea that “the Right Men” should govern just because.

    Like being part of the vanguard of the proletariat? Or being “experts”?

  36. Uh, the communist states didn’t even give you a *choice* in the election. Their elections weren’t even *rigged.* And, uh, anyone who thinks that the USSR fell because of an election is nuts.

    Note also that by this standard Pinochet is a notorious leftist, since he lost power because of an election. Stinking commie.

  37. That case is that the facts are not as Rand and Goldberg present them.

    Name ’em. I haven’t seen you contest an actual fact yet, just conclusions, based on a shallow and puerile metric of whether elections are held or not. So all American political parties are left-wing, Hitler went from being left-wing when he was participating in elections and calling for party democracy, to being right-wing once he got elected, Pinochet went from being right-wing in his coup to left-wing once he decided to hold an election, and asian communists, who were far less likely to bother with sham elections, were righties, while the Sovs were lefties, because they faked up an election every now and then. Not only is that a real useful metric you got there, it pretty accurately reflects how scholars and laymen have used the terms too.

    Also, I too have a history degree, so of course everything I say is correct.

  38. Adam Greenwood – Facts I have contested:

    1) The “fact” that “unregulated capitalism” is the only flavor of right-wing. It’s not.

    2) The “fact” that Fascists won elections – they didn’t.

    3) The fact, ignored by Goldberg et. al., that Fascists allied with the most conservative elements of their societies, and in the Italian case owe their power to a grant from the king. (Mussolini, “March on Rome” 1922)

    4) The fact that labor unions and strikes, both things considered important by contemporary leftists, were banned in Fascism. Communism, a left-wing failed mode of government, didn’t have strikes because, at least in theory, workers owned the factory.

  39. Bilwick1, you have a very limited view of liberty and society. There are many things that restrict liberty. Ask a low level employee of too many corporations how much liberty they have. Quite a few will tell you “Not much.” Oh — you can quit your job and find another one. Except it isn’t that easy. Especially when too many managers have gone to business school and think they know how to run a company when they really don’t. Lots of things restrict our liberties — not just overbearing government regulations. That’s why I take issue with other libertarians so often.

  40. You and Bilwik1 accuse me of worrying about about trivia – but want to discuss mythical hand salutes and party symbols instead of what the party does and why.

    So Life Magazine was promoting “myths” in its piece about La Follette in 1938? Did it photoshop it? Was it part of the vast right-wing conspiracy to point out that fascists and “progressives” share many beliefs?

  41. 1) The “fact” that “unregulated capitalism” is the only flavor of right-wing. It’s not.

    Well certainly that’s your opinion. But then saying fascism is right wing tends to suggest just how far left your are.

    2) The “fact” that Fascists won elections – they didn’t.

    They did. Mussolini did. What you might mean to say is consolidation of power wasn’t won in a fair election. But to suggest that they never won elections is flat wrong. You can raise the bar and say they never won a majority (>50%) of the vote may be true. But if you make that claim, then President Clinton never won an election. Is that your understanding of history?

    3) The fact, ignored by Goldberg et. al., that Fascists allied with the most conservative elements of their societies, and in the Italian case owe their power to a grant from the king. (Mussolini, “March on Rome” 1922)

    That’s not a fact at all. Again, that’s your opinion, and a rather dumb ass suggestion that monarchies are right-wing concepts. If there was ever evidence that right wing/left wing tend to be limiting descriptors of ideology, then you provided the best example. Well, until you provided…

    4) The fact that labor unions and strikes, both things considered important by contemporary leftists, were banned in Fascism. Communism, a left-wing failed mode of government, didn’t have strikes because, at least in theory, workers owned the factory.

    So the existence of labor unions is now the hallmark of what is left wing? And by that thought, Communism therefore is something other than left wing and thus must be right wing?

  42. So a picture of a guy with his hand in the air, promoting a vague platform of prosperity, is proof of the Secret Alliance Of Fascists, Commies and Bad Guys? A “blue X on a white background” (La Follette’s logo in color – read the article) is proof that Hitler’s design guy was communicating to La Follette in his sleep? You’re focusing on symbols, not substance.

    The substance of La Follette’s plan (which even Life called “lacking in substance” – see page 11) had such radical ideas as “a job for all” an “efficient but not dictatorial President” and an “end to coddling the American people.” Radical stuff, that. (Not really).

    Yes, he supported the New Deal – which included such radical ideas as Social Security and public works. It did not include militarism, glorification of the leader, abolishing elections, or creating workers clubs and government-owned labor unions.

    I’m sorry you can’t see the differences between fascism and liberalism. That does not mean they don’t exist.

  43. Leland:

    As I keep saying, we get the term “right wing” from the French Revolution, where supporters of the monarch sat on the right side of the Estates-General. Arguing that monarchy is not right-wing is an attempt to re-write 200 years of history.

    Mussolini most certainly seized power via a military coup and with the King’s blessing. That is an indisputable fact. Franco ruled as Regent, and Hitler had the support of the aristocracy. These are facts.

    No, Communism is most definitely left-wing. They “replace” labor unions with “workers collectives.”

    I do not suffer under the need to argue that “left-wing is always good” or “right-wing is always bad.” There can be and has been bad, evil left-wing governments.

  44. I did not claim that the activities in North Korea were fair or free. They are significant, or they wouldn’t be held.

    Chris, being “held” is the same threshold as having a holiday (which was my point earlier about Flag Day and bald eagles). It’s insignificant in itself.

    Second, you continue to misunderstand and misinterpret the Gilded Age. There’s no evidence for your claim that the US economy of the time was a “libertarian” “disaster”. We’ve talked about this before and it’s a shame you can’t listen to the voice of sweet reason. But I can see how such a belief conveniently fits your stilted world view.

  45. Karl – do you ever wonder why both major parties in the 1900 elections were running “Progressives?” If neither major party is happy with the way things are, perhaps that’s a sign of a problem.

  46. 1) The “fact” that “unregulated capitalism” is the only flavor of right-wing. It’s not.

    2) The “fact” that Fascists won elections – they didn’t.

    3) The fact, ignored by Goldberg et. al., that Fascists allied with the most conservative elements of their societies, and in the Italian case owe their power to a grant from the king. (Mussolini, “March on Rome” 1922)

    4) The fact that labor unions and strikes, both things considered important by contemporary leftists, were banned in Fascism. Communism, a left-wing failed mode of government, didn’t have strikes because, at least in theory, workers owned the factory.

    Methinks thou hasn’t read Goldberg’s book. It’s not a polemic and, none of these so-called facts of yours are drawn from it–though you overstate your case pretty badly. As you acknowledge, your precious communists also didn’t have strikes, and the reason was not because the workers believed themselves to be, at least in theory, owners of the factories. The reason was that the government banned them. Fascist states, meanwhile, were very enthusiastic about official labor unions, just as communist states were, and the theoretical justification for their banning strikes was very similar to the communist one–the fascist state already represented their interests.

  47. do you ever wonder why both major parties in the 1900 elections were running “Progressives?” If neither major party is happy with the way things are, perhaps that’s a sign of a problem

    Or its a sign that you’ve cracked very few history books or works of political science. Neither party at the time was Progressive, though both parties had progressive elements–as anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of political science should know, the parties then were less ideological and more a coalition of interests, ethnic groups, and religious affiliations than now. Elite elements in both parties were progressive–little wonder, given the progressive idea that we needed to get past the messiness and corruption of democracy and the free market for rule by experts–but the fact that elites in both parties fancied themselves with more power and control is hardly evidence of some mass malaise, just as the fact that the elites in both contemporary parties favor amnesties and other pro-immigration measure is hardly evidence of a felt need for these measures in the American population at large.

  48. By the way, I hereby call for a vote on the proposition that your views on fascism are uninformed hackery. This obviously makes me leftwing, so any further argument on your part means you are either a reactionary monarchist, or a Nazi. Which is it?

  49. s I keep saying, we get the term “right wing” from the French Revolution, where supporters of the monarch sat on the right side of the Estates-General.

    I think you’re confusing the later French Republics with the Revolutionary government. The later Republics did have monarchist parties. But the ‘right’ in the French Revolution were revolutionists who wanted to go slow, not kill so many people, perhaps keep the King around as a constitutional monarch on the British line (though this was hardly their central concern)–they werefar from anything resembling reactionaries or advocates for autocracy.

  50. Karl – do you ever wonder why both major parties in the 1900 elections were running “Progressives?” If neither major party is happy with the way things are, perhaps that’s a sign of a problem.

    So what? That’s a non sequitur that says nothing about the Gilded Age. Just because there are problems and politicians willing to pay lip service to those problems, doesn’t mean that your assessment of the Gilded Age as a libertarian disaster works. It was neither libertarian or a disaster.

Comments are closed.