Letters to the Editor
-
Either Goldberg is ignorant or he is lying
Goldberg says: "But [Mussolini] never gave up on the program of socialism, he never gave up on this idea that the state was the ultimate arbiter and director of economic arrangements."
The fact that some socialists (e.g. Marx, Lasalle) saw state intervention as a means to build socialism does not make state intervention socialism. Other socialists (e.g. Proudhon, Bakunin) saw state intervention as completely antithetical to socialism.
Mussolini fought against egalitarianism, which is socialism, and for state intervention, which is not socialism. So he fought against socialism.
-
I'm more like Gandhi?
Thanks for the direction to www.politicalcompass.org.
I tested as left-libertarian, just a few tics below Gandhi and Nelson Mandella. Not too bad company, I must say.
Pretty accurate as I do believe is gov't involvment where needed in the economony only IF the gov't is responsive to the people. Also, I am live and let live type of guy.
An interesting quote from the site:
"despite popular perceptions, the opposite of fascism is not communism but anarchism (ie liberal socialism), and that the opposite of communism ( i.e. an entirely state-planned economy) is neo-liberalism (i.e. extreme deregulated economy)"
Goldberg is delusional. That is the nicest thing I can say about him.
-
Re: Perfect?
Several commentators have said that Mr. Goldberg was "shredded" by Alex Koppelman's interview. How so? Alex pulls one quote after another from a single Mussolini text that Jonah acknowledges is nothing more than a pragmatic work written by a loudmouth who was intellectually dishonest whenever it suited him. How does any of that undercut Jonah's thesis? Furthermore, Alex's questions weren't meant to box Jonah into a corner. He was attempting to tease Jonah into explaining honestly how the fascist ideal of the 1920s/1930s has changed and how it applies to the liberal thinkers and doers of today. From my vantage point, Jonah acquitted himself brilliantly and answered every question put to him, acknowledging that some of Alex's points were fair critiques. Isn't that what intellectual discourse is all about? How exactly do 3 or 4 tough questions about a 500 page tome amount to a drubbing?
Some Salon readers show themselves to be the same kind of intellectually vacant, slack-jawed yokels who frequent liberal blogs and comment without boning up on their reading comprehension skills.
-
Cool!
It was brave for Salon to question Goldberg about Zionism and fascism and the way they can be said to look alike.
Oh wait, Salon didn't.
Never mind.
-
Where to begin?
I'll admit up front, I'm not going to read this book. Based on the "answers" Goldberg provided to some excellent questions, he just seems to be following in Coulter's footsteps and essentially "slandering" liberals by calling them names (Nazis, Fascists) but claiming, "No, no, no, that's not what I mean by that term." I refuse to provide money for this crap and hope this publication is a failure so as to discourage more like it.
Based solely on the points in the interview, some reactions:
--Whenever Koppelman challenges Goldberg's assertions with quotes from the person that seems to be at the center of his treatise, Goldberg brushes it off with, "Oh, that crazy Mussolini, he'll say anything, but look at what he *did*." Well, the same applies to Goldberg. He tries to brush off his Nazi/Fascist = Liberal comments as just words, but it is clear from his "elaborations" he's really doing nothing much more than calling Liberals, "Nazis."
--Goldberg consistently uses examples that really don't make sense. Talking about the 60s and somehow "killing cops" is fascism? I am ABSOLUTELY NOT ADVOCATING attacking the police nor do I approve that it happened, but aren't the police generally considered an instrument of "the state" rather than of "the people"??? I guess he expected the hippies to create a new hippie police force had they succeeded in their allegedly fasicist dreams.
--Unity is not the same thing as uniformity. Anyone calling for unity does not generally intend for everyone to think or do the exact same thing, but rather to hopefully apsire to some similar lofty goals. A totalitarian state would force everyone to do what it says they should do and not think beyond what the authorities told them.
--Finally, certainly history should be reexamined and assumptions challenged, but since when did "revisionist history" become a good thing?
-
Beyond revisionsist -- just simple propaganda
Let's just redefine fascism so we can call "liberals" fascists. What a crock. The common meaning of fascism, for the last forty years, has always been a totalitarian state-enforced collectivism in opposition to socialism, classical liberalism, and even modern liberalism. Modern liberals generally accept some sphere of personal autonomy that would be anathema to a fascist. That is not to say that modern "politically correct" liberals do not share some ideas with fascists, but to conflate the two is nonsensical. At least he acknowledges that the current GOP administration has fascistic tendencies, but that just proves that his definition of the term is so broad that it can include anyone. The only possible purpose of stretching the term "fascist" to that point is propaganda.
-
"Either Goldberg is ignorant or he is lying"
Il Doughy Pantload has been known to do both.
That still doesn't excuse Salon for giving Jonah lead story on Salon.
I guess Joan loves them click throughs, which is why she still gives Paglia money for nothing.
-
Milhouses of the world unite!
This tired old crap again. It's as if he never read a history book but only cruised 'em to get a handle on some of the terminology so he could write up a book report that proves his dad was the most decorated war hero ever...pathetic. He hold hands with that other Milhouse look-alike at the National Review...oops, I meant both of 'em and they both do look like that character from the Simpsons, Milhouse.
It never occurs to him, and I guess I could apply the same criticism of the left, that they really believe that it's all about them versus us, all on a one single linear spectrum. Projecting a 3 dimensional form as a shadow on a wall means you can imagine anything you want, but if you won't really look at and try to understand that which creates the shadow it leaves no option for discussion, which of course, is exactly what this crying baby really wants.
Anyhow, for all Goldberg's faults he is an example of the same kind of nitwit historical reappraisal the left does as well.
It sure would be nice if we could just package him and the other uni-dimensional lame-brains into a museum of intelligence so stupid it makes you laugh, but unfortunately, we're too busy watching sports and celebrity scandal while trying to do the same thing this joker does to such topics as religion, psychology, environment or economic theory.
We're doodly doodly doomed!