Sunday, March 25, 2007

More Proof Jonah Goldberg's A Dumbass

As if any's needed, I know. But remember, to the brilliant Scholar Goldberg, Liberalism = Fascism.

Hmm, so I wonder why it was Republicans who used the New York City police to spy on liberal activists up to a year before the GOP convention there in 2004? Can you say police state conservatism, Jonah?

From Albuquerque to Montreal, San Francisco to Miami, undercover New York police officers attended meetings of political groups, posing as sympathizers or fellow activists, the records show.

They made friends, shared meals, swapped e-mail messages and then filed daily reports with the department’s Intelligence Division. Other investigators mined Internet sites and chat rooms.

From these operations, run by the department’s “R.N.C. Intelligence Squad,” the police identified a handful of groups and individuals who expressed interest in creating havoc during the convention, as well as some who used Web sites to urge or predict violence.

But potential troublemakers were hardly the only ones to end up in the files. In hundreds of reports stamped “N.Y.P.D. Secret,” the Intelligence Division chronicled the views and plans of people who had no apparent intention of breaking the law, the records show.

These included members of street theater companies, church groups and antiwar organizations, as well as environmentalists and people opposed to the death penalty, globalization and other government policies. Three New York City elected officials were cited in the reports.
Members of theater companies? I guess you always have to be wary of those terrorists posing as members of the stage crew for Candide.

This just proves the validity of your brilliant thesis, Jonah, you intellectual Spider Monkey. So it's the Left that most closely resembles totalitarian government-a-la-Mussolini? Sure pal.

Can your mother move away from politics and maybe this time betray the confidence of someone in the sanitation business, so you can export your pathetic horse and pony act to a new vocation?

7 Comments:

At 8:54 AM, Blogger Cliff Schecter said...

comments, anyone, or insults from wingers, perhaps?

 
At 10:24 AM, Blogger Ashen Shard said...

to take it a little further ... was it not persons on the right, that after the death of Pinochet, said he wasn't that bad as compared to "left wing" dictators?

It seems to me these folks on the right have no problem with totalitarianism as long as it fits with their ideology, that being the ability for the few to make a profit at the expense of the many. Once government starts trying to equalize economic status, however, that is just pure evil.

Fascism is perfect for the profiteers since it defends private property to the extreme. Then again, people like Goldberg are simplistically limited by their tendency to break down the world into binary opposition (good vs evil). So that allows them to equate fascism and liberalism as they view both as evil.

The right should be reminded that the rise of fascism, on the most basic of levels, was a conservative backlash against democracy and progress. Conservatives could not deal with the change that was occurring, and so turned to recreating a glorious, utopian, cultist/religious past that only existed in their warped reality and ended up destroying the lives of tens of millions of people when they attempted to make it everyones reality.

 
At 10:59 AM, Blogger Cliff Schecter said...

Amen Ashen. Said like a true historian!

 
At 11:20 AM, Blogger Larry said...

Goldberg is a stooge who thinks his dribble will bring him into the big time.

As pathetic as CNN has become (except Lou Dobbs) they quit using him.

Goldberg doesn't make a flea want to light.

 
At 11:20 AM, Blogger Larry said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 5:53 PM, Blogger Boston-Metro Chapter of Billionaires For Bush said...

Darling!

One of the 'street theater companies' was us, Billionaire For Bush! I suppose one could also say Bands Against Bush, a anti-Bush marching bands, could also be considered street theater. However, darling, they do not have tuxedos as far as I know...

 
At 12:45 AM, Blogger Jake said...

This is one of my personal ticks about the right wing. Ever since Frederick von Hayek tried to argue that Hitler, and all fascism, was merely a warped form of socialism, conservatives have over and over again tried to call Hitler a liberal/socialist and thus call liberals Nazis. The problem is is that this shows a total break from reality, and understanding of both socialism and fascism.

As far as similarities, there are a few. First of all, assuming we are talking about Marxist socialism, both groups use totalitarian means to stay in office, in the sense that there is a one-party state, there are usually state police, and freedoms such as speech and press are limited. Both are ready and in fact usually argue for the use of violence to gain control and keep it. As well, they are both collectivist ideologies, emphasizing the masses over the individual, albiet for different reasons.

Of course, this is assuming we are talking about communists, which are not the only kind of socialists. Libertarian socialists (like Noam Chomsky) argue from the creation of a socialists utopia through the use voluntary action between people. Democratic Socialists argue for the transition to a class-less society through being democratically elected, and then nationalizing all industries and slowly transitioning. Finally, there are Social Democrats (essentially the European version of American liberals) who want a welfare state that uses Keynesian economics to create as balanced of a society as possible, plus limited nationalization, mostly limited to the essentials for survival (electric, water, railroads, etc.)

Finally, one can make the argument that Fascism does initially have some socialist roots. Anarcho-Syndaclism, which Mussolini attributed many of ideas to, is a sort of off-shoot of Libertarian socialism, and argues that groups such as labor unions, should form "corporations" of people that work together in classless society, and in a since rule as a form of decentralized government, almost in an anarachic state. These unions of people would have decision making powers to do anything, and even if it defiled people's rights, as long as it lead to a classless utopia it was justified.

Mussolini took this idea and changed it into what he called "Corporatism," which came to be the economic policy of Fascism. Essentially, in his version the goal would be different, and here lies the first of several major diferences between socialism and fascism. To a socialist, the ultimate goal (with the exception of social democrats), whatever the means, is to create a sort of anarchic utopia without classes in which all people work together. Even a Marxist, while advocating huge and powerful government, only does so as a means to "train" people into a mode of thinking that would allow for the lack of government, and leading to utopia. To a fascist, the goal is opposite. Fascists are intense believers in Social Darwinism, a strange philosophy put forth by classical liberal thinker Herbert Spencer, who argued that people (and races) are all competing in nature, and that we must do whatever possible, be it war or colonialism, to be the fittest, so that we would survive natural selection. So, if you didn't conquer and subjegate a people, they might eventually do the same to you. As well, it was argued that certain races were chosen by nature to be the strongest, and thus it was their right to conquer and subjegate others. Mussolini argued that this could be applied to all people, and that if we continued to have a totally free market economy, that we would waste resources competing with each other. On the other hand, if we as a people put all resources into the state, we could create a strong powerful government and nation. Thus, unlike socialists who want to use to state as means towards a utopic ends, Fascists see the state as the end itself, helping to consolidate all people together and thus creating a "fitter" nation internationally.

As well, Mussolini argued that the state was like a body, and that the individual was like a cell. These individuals had no use on their own, and because of natural selection, some were were naturally born weaker. Thus, unlike socialists who would try to help these weaker people, Mussolini, and to an even greater extent Hitler (who used racial aspects of Social Darwinism), advocated doing as the body does, and "excising" weak cells from the body so that it may be more competitive.

Going back to an earlier subject, Mussolini used a very warped form of Anarcho-Syndacalism as the basis for his economic policy. Now, here is where fascism gets a little weird. Mussolini initially seems to advocate more capitalistic measures early on, reducing taxes and opening up free markets. Then, he starts to apply what he called "Corporatism." Now, anarcho-syndcalists advocate using groups such as labor unions as bodies to enforce society. But Mussolini didn't like labor unions, since they are often socialist orientened. So, he decided to use something else: Corporations. Now, one should not mix this up with our modern business groups, though they were used in this sense as well. Basically Mussolini would set up groups of people working for the government would would each have a monopoly over and enforce a specific part of the country. There was a police force, a bread force, an airplane manufacturer, a water supplier, etc. each of which was privately owned and had a government sponsored monopoly over their respective product. Like the labor unions of anarcho-syndaclism, they could do whatever they needed, since there are no "rights in nature", to get their work done to its fullest extent. All they had to do was get report to "El Dulce" or "Der Fuerher" and everything was cool. For the people of course, this meant a lack of choice. You don't like the prices? Don't like your wages? Too fucking bad, there is no wasteful competition in Corporatism, and if you complain too much, the police corporation will have something to say to you. As long as they don't do anything harmful to the state, the management is trusted.

One can see in Corporatism many other philosophical differences between Socialism and Fascism. Socialists want to create as much rights and opportunity for the workers, while Fascists thinking that managment usually knows best, would rather delegate much of the power to it, regulated by the state. As well, while Socialists have the goal of a classless society and Marxists argue that class warfare is inevitable, Fascists say that differences in people is natural, and that fighting between them is a waste of time. Adolf Hitler especially spent a lot of time talking about this, and argued that class warfare was just a Jewish conspiracy put forth to make the different classes right amongst each other and be distracted from the Jewish problem. He argued that classes were inevitable as all people are not born equal, and that the purpose of the state was to be a mediator between the classes so that the classes could work together to create the fittest nation possible. Corporatism fit nicely into this, because it kept a government supported upper class, but at the same time was regulated by the government. Thus, while you had no choice and could get in trouble for complaining about corporatism, technically it WAS the state's job to make sure that corporations didn't get too powerful and greedy and disrupt commerce. Finally, while under a socialist state industries would be nationalized so as to preserve worker's jobs and rights, under a fascist state this was irrelavent since it was survival of the fittest for the workers, and thus almost everything was still privately owned, and while a monopoly like the nationalized industries of socialism, not owned by the government, nearly taxed and regulated by it (at least in the economic sense, labor unions were banned in Italy and Germany, and the concept of workers' rights was not a concern of these regulations).

Now, some might wonder why I have focused a lot on socialism, which most liberals/Democrats of America would not call themselves. Most of us here do not believe an anarchic utopia where everyone works together is possible. But, our ideas are essentially that of Social Democrats, which is basically the means of socialism (moderated of course) without the eventual ends. Most American liberals support social programs, healthcare, and nationalization of certain key industries in America. Now, when someone like Goldberg compares this view to Fascism, he is insulting both sides. Mussolini would never have supported ideas supported by the Democratic Party such as support of labor unions and worker's rights, nationalization of even a few industries, and social programs. As well, the Democratic Party's support of civil liberties goes against the totalitarianism required for a Fascist government, and as Mr. Schechter pointed out, used by this current administration in several ways. Our support of individual rights goes against the innate collectivism and corporatism in Fascism. Finally, the very support of all different kinds of people, and the attempt to help the weaker of society, goes against the very idea of natural selection and the right of the state to "excise" the weaker "cells" of the "body." To be absolutley honest, I am rather embarrased that Jonah Goldberg can even call himself somewhat proficient in politics and not see these basic fundamental differences between left-wing ideologies and Fascism. But, what can you expect of one of the major contributors of the National Review?

 

Post a Comment

<< Home