Talk:Liberal Fascism

Smiley cover

It's a little odd that the comments of a left wing anarchist (most would consider that progressive) would inspire a cover for a right wing book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.32.197.65 (talk) 04:26, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Paxton et al. reviews

This book was largely ignored in the academic community as a work of obvious propaganda, such that many of the reviews fit in within what Americans call the "culture war" (i.e. left/right polemical split). I would note, however, the reviews at the History News Network including one by Professor Paxton and another by Professor Griffin. As Robert Paxton is widely recognised as one of the foremost scholars of fascism as a political, cultural and social movement in Europe, I recommend the gist and tenor of his review (the others are useful as well) be promoted in the article; these reviews in general represent to my knowledge by far the most serious in print. (Goldberg should feel honoured to be eviscerated by so eminent a pen. I am surprised Paxton bothered.) Anyway, just a thought. Eusebeus (talk) 20:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

It is worthwhile. You should briefly summarize their points and include external links. The Four Deuces (talk) 01:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Goldberg has responded to his critics: Definitions and Double Standards.

"For reasons of length and the repetition of so much of the criticism, I think I should concentrate my fire. And since Robert Paxton—the most respectable of my attackers—is the only one who offers an argument approaching something like scholarly sobriety, let me concentrate on his broadsides. I will try to take them more or less as they come, though he doesn’t make that easy, since he repeats and contradicts himself in odd ways. At the end I will deal with his factual errors and misstatements."

—WWoods (talk) 00:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, it should also be noted in the article as well that the historians have also identified themselves as "liberal" -- the special at HNN is called "Liberals Respond to Jonah Goldberg's Liberal Fascism". It's really hard to read some of these reviews and not believe objectivity is lost with these "historians". I would argue that these url's should be references when the articles mentions the historian as disagreeing with Goldberg and let the reader then be the judge. The current articles so far are:

Michael Ledeen Responds to Liberal Fascism By Michael Ledeen

Introduction By David Neiwert

The Scholarly Flaws of Liberal Fascism By Robert Paxton

An Academic Book — Not! By Roger Griffin

Poor Scholarship, Wrong Conclusions By Matthew Feldman

The Roots of Liberal Fascism: The Book By Chip Berlet

Definitions and Double Standards By Jonah Goldberg

An Open Letter to Mr. Jonah Goldberg By Matthew Feldman

Theosis4u (talk) 03:33, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Disagree. Conservatives and socialists have the same analysis of Goldberg's pseudo-history. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your exactly disagreeing with Deuces, if you could clarify? That the historians reflected in their articles objectivity and professionalism? That the articles were mostly filled with rebuttals of facts rather than ad hominems and other logical fallacies? Theosis4u (talk) 20:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Paxton explained why Goldberg's original theory did not conform with mainstream thinking and pointed out its scholarly weaknesses. He was not arguing a liberal point of view any more than Einstein is presenting a socialist point of view when he defends relativity. In other articles about revisionist histories, e.g., holocaust denial, 911 conspiracy theories, we do not mention the political views of the authors. By the way, what do you mean by calling these people liberals? Michael Ledeen is the same type of liberal as Jonah Goldberg. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Did you see or miss that the series is called, "HNN Special: Liberals Respond to Jonah Goldberg's Liberal Fascism". [Note, this headline is specific to the first set of articles prior to Ledeens response. Initially, his article was posted under the "New" section on the HNN front page. You'll see Ledeens is absent still from Neiwerts announcement:

http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/live-free-or-die-beck-brings-goldber

Ledeen also wrote this about the HNN articles. Also, Ledeens article isn't a confirmation of what the others. I believe he stated that Goldberg was half right according to his opinion.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDNhNjYyZDY5ZTVjODFhMzRkOTU5ODJiNGVjOGMzMzM=

Theosis4u (talk) 01:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Also note, on Paxton's article - 3rd paragraph he wrote the following below. I found Paxton's article the most redeeming of the "liberal" written articles. Paxton at least seem to engage into a possiblity of a fruitful discussion -- giving and taking throughout his writing.

"That’s too bad, because there really is a subject here. Fascism – a political latecomer that adapted anti-socialism to a mass electorate, using means that often owed nothing to conservatism – drew on both right and left, and tried to transcend that bitter division in a purified, invigorated, expansionist national community. A sensitive analysis of what fascism drew from all quarters of the political spectrum would be a valuable project." [paxton - http://www.hnn.us/articles/122231.html ]

Paxton also acknowledges later the distinction of classical liberalism and liberalism/progressivism.

from same article, " To his credit, Goldberg is aware that the term “liberal” has been corrupted in contemporary American usage. It ought to mean (and still means in the rest of the world) a principled opposition to state interference in the economy, from Adam Smith to Ronald Reagan. Goldberg sometimes refers to “classical liberalism” in this sense, and with approval. "

Theosis4u (talk) 03:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Ledeen agrees with part of what Goldberg argues, but that is no surprise because Goldberg incorporated various fringe theories into his book. His main, original thesis however is that both modern American liberalism and fascism derived from American progressivism. Both of these theories are fringe, but the main part that is unbelievable is that Benito Mussolini drew his ideas from the American Republican party. What is ridiculous about this theory is that Mussolini would draw his ideas from them, rather than from European socialism or the right-wing State Socialism. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you have some page numbers for those two points? I have the book here but haven't finished it yet - I put it down after a 100 pages or so. I don't recall your two points exactly in those first 100 pages. Thanks. Theosis4u (talk) 18:35, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

"The real" liberal fascism

This article is about the book, but there must be an article about "the real" liberal fascism. (About the so-called "liberals" who support the imperialism and act like the fascists...) Böri (talk) 10:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
To the best of my knowledge, no such political party or movement exists. We cannot create articles based on the possible opinions of unknown peoples, they would be utterly bereft of informative content. 98.246.116.134 (talk) 03:00, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

HNN Authors Should Be Identified As Being Liberal Reviews

There's two sentences referencing the articles at HNN and the same authors are also used as sources on this page.

"The book has been very controversial and has been widely criticized by well-known scholars on the topic of fascism, including David Neiwart, Robert Paxton, Roger Griffin, Matthew Feldman, and Chip Berlet."

and then later:

"HNN (History News Network),a left of center blog founded by Richard Shenkman, issued a series of harshly critical essays of Liberal Fascisim by leading scholars on fascism or the political right. These included reviews by David Neiwart, Robert Paxton, Roger Griffin, Matthew Feldman, and Chip Feldman."

It appears there is some game playing going on at HNN as well. Initially when these articles came out - the initial writers were grouped under a headline called "HNN Special: Liberals Respond to Jonah Goldberg's Liberal Fascism" [This still exists at the end of the individual articles]. The main HNN page now has this header, "HNN Special: A Symposium on Jonah Goldberg's Liberal Fascism". That main page change is recent, today or yesterday. Michael Ledeen was not grouped under that header as his response was later. His and Goldberg's response might of been the reasoning behind the main page headline of dropping "Liberals Respond" to "A Symposium".

Theosis4u (talk) 05:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

First off I wrote the last statement about HNN's review,"HNN (History News Network), left of center blog...". I dont recall seeing the reference to HNN at the beginning of the article. We are not the same authors. I dont understand what Theosis4u's post above is saying or trying to say. BTW I also wrote the mention to Gordon's review. --76.31.242.174 (talk) 07:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow, how rich! Within the last hour HNN has now changed the individual articles to reflect the Symposium statement. Sure glad I saved the webpages last night before they would scrub that. I expected they would after I mentioned in here on wikpedia, the front page happened inline with my comments on wikipedia that the authors should be identified as being "liberal authors". Just curious, who's monitoring the wiki pages from HNN or one of the authors maybe not fully disclosing their identity? Theosis4u (talk) 20:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

That is really paranoid. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Coincidences happen, without a doubt. I would of expected a professional organization though to give notice of why they changed it, especially in light of the topic being such a partisan issue. Scrubbing "Liberal" from the association of the author/historians is not some trivial change. Theosis4u (talk) 21:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Something did happen after all that initiated the change at HNN. Today, we now have this new article called Definitions and Double Standards - A Rebuttal By Roger Griffin where he states:

"I wrote NOT as a "liberal"' engaged in fending off attacks on the freedom to think. I wrote as an academic concerned that the tools of the specialism to which I contribute are being abused by a neoconservative with no academic track record in fascist studies that qualifies him to denigrate, by association, a form of social democracy or liberal socialist agenda that is generically different from fascism. I did not set out to discredit Liberal Fascism in the spirit of a type of political Star Wars, but as a university lecturer professionally offended by Goldberg's impersonation of a historian whose publishing success is in inverse proportion to its merits and significance as a scholarly monograph."

I'm not sure where that specific reaction came from with the response from Goldberg or even the comments on the articles. Notice he didn't reject the label. He argued that he could maintain objectivity, basically. He very well could be, but I believe that should also be also the judgment of the reader when a possible conflict of interest is at play with an admitted acknowledgement that a variable might cause bias. Theosis4u (talk) 22:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

HNN did make a response on the comments of one of the articles concerning this issue, here it is:

Re: change (#140240)

by David Austin Walsh on February 3, 2010 at 1:24 PM

Ms. Krusten is absolutely correct - we renamed the feature when we began receiving responses from conservative intellectuals. It wouldn't have been accurate under its original title!

As for the contributors, Chip Berlet and David Neiwert have journalistic backgrounds. Robert Griffin and Matthew Feldman both teach at English universities (Griffin at Oxford Brookes, Feldman at the University of Northampton), and Michael Ledeen holds a chair at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.

Hope this helps!

Hence, the initial authors were appropriately identified as "liberal". There's a following up question to that thread that might give a firmer confirmation of that. Theosis4u (talk) 04:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

What they are saying is that the opinions expressed represented the concensus of both American liberals and American conservatives. The Four Deuces (talk) 07:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

There was two conservatives, Ledeen and Goldberg. The "special" was announced on the front page as "Liberals Respond..". And under that title, it listed only Paxton, Berlet, Neiwert, Griffin, and Feldman. The first response that came later after the announcement was Ledeen's and when they posted it on the front page it was simply listed as new. So, who was being identified as liberal was very clear from the start. There is no mention of a consensus, not sure where you infer that. Goldberg responded a couple of days later, the second of two "conservative" responses on the HNN website - the rest are liberal. Theosis4u (talk) 15:43, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

"Consensus"?! Beyond 'fascism is bad', I'm not seeing it. —WWoods (talk) 19:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The consensus is that the book represents poor scholarship and advances fringe theories. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Goldberg and Ledeen don't seem to share in this consensus. —WWoods (talk) 00:39, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

First of all Goldberg is not an academic. Secondly, Ledeen's views are far from mainstream, but he still points out weaknesses in Liberal fascism: "It's a work of political theory, not a history.... It doesn't seem that Jonah is aware of this literature [ Jacob Talmon ].... many of the people he wants to call “liberal fascists” are boring reformers, certainly not revolutionaries.... it is still a real stretch to say that fascism was fundamentally leftist." And so on. In other words, the book represents poor scholarship and advances fringe theories. The Four Deuces (talk) 01:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Nor are the following academics : those positive: David Eugene Henry Pryce-Jones, Larry Thornberr. Those negative: Austin W. Bramwell, Eric Alterman, David Neiwert, Michael Tomasky, Charlie Pierce, Chip Berlet.

The following could be called academics with an associated background on the topic: those positive: Ron Radosh, Marvin Olasky. Those negative: Philip Coupland, David Oshinsky, David Gordon, Robert Paxton.

Robert Griffin and Matthew Feldman credentials haven't been shared yet. Would you like the break down based upon their ideology as well? You also haven't actually demonstrated by proof of your statement, "poor scholarship and advances fringe theories" - especially to a strength that would justify discounting the book completely under that accusation. The five associated with the HNN special will be noted as being liberal over this weekend once I figure out how to footnote/source correctly - I also noted we can add that disclaimer to more in the above list as well. Theosis4u (talk) 04:44, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Roger Griffin is an expert of fascism[1] while Matthew Feldman is an expert on the far right.[2] Olasky btw calls the book "flawed". Anyway you should read about "peer-review". Goldberg has avoided this process and therefore his views have no credibility. The Four Deuces (talk) 08:54, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I think your being one-sided with your criticalness. Griffin and Feldman's book aren't specifically listed as being peer-reviewed, though palgrave has a description of being "scholarly" - which might or might not infer peer-review in their publication process. You'll also notice from the following url's that their own work isn't without comment as being a : new theory, radically new, controversial, arguing for, paradigm shift, original, to have a major influence, ground breaking, landmark, re-conceptualizing and re-interpreting. - Book Review at German History , Palgrave's entry for Modernism and Fascism , Pagrave's entry for Fascist Century , Palgrave's entry for Nature of Fascism . What I can't find on Griffin and Feldman is what their degrees are in and to what level? I know they're listed as professor [Griffin] and lecturer of history but that doesn't necessarily mean their degree was in history. Academics can make a topical shift after their degree by publication outside of that field. Paxton's information is detailed on this unlike theirs. Now, please don't get my position wrong from all of this. I'm inclusively inclined for all sources of information and I believe the nature of progress requires us to have an open outlook of new ways of interrupting information, I'm not a conservative after all! ;) Theosis4u (talk) 16:57, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Books are not peer-reviewed but there is a distinction between popular books and books published by university and academic publishers. Generally academics publish articles in peer-reviewed journals which are then included as chapters in their academic books. You can read his cv here: [3]. The Four Deuces (talk) 06:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Ty TFD. Here's other links if anyone is interested to the references to the "Liberal" title of that special as they scrap it from the website. [4] , [5] no time to do much more than offer that. Theosis4u (talk) 05:45, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

What does it mean to call someone who does not live in the US a liberal? The Four Deuces (talk) 16:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

HNN again

I've just rewritten the paragraph about HNN. I must confess to not having read the preceding discussion until after I made that edit, but when I saw HNN described as merely "a left of center blog" I had to step in. (HNN may use blog software, but it carries lots of good scholarship ... as well as nasty anonymous commenters and so on.)

My version is still quite poor, but better than what we had before (IMO). I forgot about Ledeen. I describe the other writers as "leading left-wing writers on fascism or the political right", which IMO is a fair description only of Chip Berlet. (I didn't know he had stopped editing Wikipedia. That's a real shame.) Goldberg himself calls Robert Paxton and Roger Griffin "eminent scholars". Feldman (who is not this guy!) is a "Senior Lecturer" (an associate professor in U.S. terms). Neiwert is, IMO, a nasty polemicist.

I think we should give more details of the scholarly back-and-forth from the HNN series, while ignoring the ad-homs. (It probably should get it's own heading too.) Does anyone agree? In any case, please improve my version. Cheers, CWC 04:00, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

They are not left-wing. I would avoid the term "liberal", because it is unclear what it means in this context. It could just mean neither Marxist nor fascist. See for example David Renton's book for a left-wing alternative to the liberal theory of fascism.[6] The Four Deuces (talk) 22:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Good point. I think we should go into more detail about the HNN writers, as well as what they wrote. (I'm starting from the belief that the HNN stuff deserves more attention than many of the quotes from reviews.) For instance, we now list Chip Berlet as one of the "writers on fascism" but he is an (IMO, the) leading expert on the US far right rather than fascism in general. I'll try to do another rewrite in the next week or two, unless someone beats me to it. Cheers, CWC 05:35, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Chris, for catching the misspelling of the first instance of Neiwert. I'd read all the material (including the comment threads) at HNN and the discussion above in the early a.m. I wasn't giving sufficient attention to the article (and was overdosed on non-NPOV). Yours and TFD's edits are good--I just glossed right over that "left of center blog"... The problem with the version I'm seeing is that Ledeen is not listed among the HNN essayists. By not labeling the essayists "left", Ledeen can be included, but is his essay "strongly criticizing" Liberal Fascism? Ledeen's inclusion at HNN may be tokenism, but I'm not sure what readers here may infer by this omission. 74.195.134.67 (talk) 19:17, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think "strongly criticizing" is true for Ledeen; I do think we should briefly summarize his criticism and JG's response. I wrote earlier that I'd do it around now, but it turns out I'll be too busy for significant editing for a few weeks. If no-one else tackles it before I get back, I'll start something then. Cheers, CWC 07:46, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Ledeen was somewhat critical, but I'll edit the section to say only that LF was commented on (weak, I know) by Ledeen et al. For accuracy, completeness, objectivity, and all that. Feel free to expand. I'm inclined to leave the reader to explore the external link (HNN) and make up her or his own mind, but I've no objection. As I said, I found the material interesting enough to spend a night on it even though I read the subject book months ago.74.195.134.67 (talk) 22:53, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I've added back criticizing. I agree that strogly would be the wrong for Ledeen, bu the fact is there all critical so commenting is not the right word. annoynmous 12:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)