Talk:Liberal Fascism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Conservatism (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Books (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 

This entire article requires a rewrite[edit]

There is very little content based discussion on this book. If it is non-fiction than there ought to be a better synopsis of the ideas contained within it. Instead we a dustcover go-over of reviews (both good and bad). If this is a serious set of ideas within this tome than it requires proper political analysis, if it is just a fluff piece then by all means this should be adequate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.174.110.147 (talk) 22:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

- May I suggest that the wording of the page as it stands would not meet any of Wikipedia's standards on neutrality; whether you agree with the author's conclusions or sources, it seems disproportionate to use phrases such as 'propagandizes' in an encyclopedic entry. Certainly there are other, well respected writers such as Roger Eatwell who point to the embryonoic elements of fascism (as distinct from Nazism) coming from the french syndicalist and other left wing movements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.83.166 (talk) 15:46, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

i agree with unsigned that the whole thing needs a rewrite, but not on her/his grounds. It needs a rewrite because it is merely a battle of he-said, he-said. No serious historians take Goldberg's thesis as anything but idiotic, since he evidences no scholarship or factual claims to support his points but merely some fuzzy logic. On further thought what this article truly calls for is to be deleted, in that were it not for ideologues, no such article would exist for this inconsequential bit of written fluff.Actio (talk) 18:32, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I guess you have never read or even seen the book. It is heavily footnoted and references more scholars than most Ph.D. theses. CWC 08:02, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Which means absolutely nothing. I can heavily footnode and reference a text that would talk about how it is possible to walk to the moon and back, but sadly, adding footnotes or references does not make things come true. I for one don´t see anything wrong with this article. It clearly shows that the book is a non-academic book written by somebody with an agenda. Nothing wrong with that, but nothing special with that either. If you lack the talent or training the book you write will reflect this, and subsequently the wiki-article about the book. 209.160.33.99 (talk) 15:00, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to wikipedia. The loudest moderator/supporter gets their views pushed to the front. There is no real credibility to anything here since those who practically live here dig & dig & dig to discredit anyone who disagrees with them & will further dig & blog & dig & write papers & dig & post to supporting site & dig to support their own theories & beliefs. Wikipedia has many many subjects that are seriously slanted because of those who constantly check pages they have a personal stock in (the four deuces is one of the ones on this page) So yes, this is a fluff piece just like everything else on here. 207.987.22.113 (talk) 23:58, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Concur. It's why Wikipedia will not and cannot be taken seriously. 155.213.224.59 (talk) 19:20, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Arthur Herman's new book[edit]

The Cave and the Light criticizes the notion that Woodrow Wilson's progressivism as "liberal fascism." This has some significance since Herman occasionally writes for National Review. There are several complications in putting this in the book. The first is that Herman doesn't specifically mention Jonah Goldberg or his book, though the intent is clear. The second is that Goldberg's examples of fascist type policies are mostly the World War I home front, not Wilson's version of progressivism. Please let me know if you think this information, with appropriate qualifiers, belongs in the article. Thanks in advance. LesLein (talk) 19:38, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Since this article is about a book titled "Liberal Fascism", and not about a political phenomenon dubbed "liberal fascism", I think any addition would have to be related to the book itself in order to be included. Maybe we need a separate article for the discussions of the phenomenon. We would need to be careful about original research, of course. When I checked to see if there was such an article already, I noticed there is a Left-wing fascism, which might be more appropriate. AmateurEditor (talk) 00:01, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

In my extensive study of Fascism, from reading different sources, the inescapable conclusion I've reached is this: fascism is a RIGHT-WING political ideology...period. There is no such thing as "Liberal Fascism" or "Left-Wing Fascism". What I've noticed from the political Conservatives (who are Fascists themselves, as it turns out) is that they'll do anything to try and get people to think that Fascism is anything other than a Right-Wing political ideology. They attempt to do this via propaganda and logical fallacies. The examples the author uses in this screed are, to put it as simply as possible, ridiculous. But, that's a recurring theme among fascist philosophies: the use of propaganda and logical fallacies to try and convince people that the truth are lies and that lies are the truth. I've spent a lot of time correctly calling the US Republican Party Fascists for the past three years. At first, I based that on Laurence Britt's excellent article in Free Inquiry magazine, Spring 2003 edition, called, "Fascism anyone? The fourteen identifying characteristics of fascism" (in the subtitle, they're called "defining" characteristics). As I studied even further, what Britt did was to simplify the words and conclusions made in several books about fascism, especially those that detailed Mussolini and Nazi Germany. Britt was attacked mercilessly for four years after the article's release by the Right-Wing/Fascist Conservative media.

Conservative (again, Fascist/Right-Wing) media these days are making a Herculean effort with propaganda and logical fallacies to throw or remove the "stink" of fascism from them. It will not work. The anecdotal and empirical evidence is in and has been evaluated and debated: Fascism is a Right-Wing political ideology. One last point: since 1990, something called "Godwin's Law" has existed. which has been coined "reductio ad Hitlerum", or "playing the Nazi card". The proposition is simple: if you compare anything done now to Hitler or the Nazis, you "lose" the argument. This is something the Conservatives started to, again, throw people off their trail. Logically speaking, if something is done now that can be CORRECTLY compared to something the Nazis or Hitler did, Godwin's Law is nullified. An incorrect comparison is a violation of the law. Conservatives violate Godwin's Law by claiming "Liberal Fascism" or "Left-Wing Fascism". Earlier this year (2014), a few "One-Percenters" (who, surprise, surprise, adhere to Fascist principles) actually did commit Godwin's Law violations by comparing Progressivism to Fascism; saying that Progressives are waiting to carry out their own "Kristallnacht" and comparing themselves to the oppressed Jews of Nazi Germany. Remember the foundational point here: oppressive regimes, such as fascist regimes, need to have millions of followers believe their Fascist propaganda in order to survive. Without propaganda and millions to swallow it as truth, the oppressive regimes do not survive. 2601:7:1C80:28:E06D:AA54:131C:445F (talk)

This is not the place for arguing about the book's premise. There is a note at the top of this page to that effect: "This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject." It provides a link to the relevant Wikipedia policy. AmateurEditor (talk) 02:50, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Goldberg and Rousseau[edit]

This quotation is a bit misleading: "He faults Goldberg's claim that Rousseau is a precursor to fascism and his interpretation of various philosopher's statements." It implies that there's no merit to the argument that Rousseau presages fascist idea: yet the book review itself respectfully cites Talmon's work for a legitimate argument in support of this very point, i.e., that Rousseau was a beginning for later totalitarian thinking. The real beef with Goldberg centers on his claim that Rousseau replaces the divine with the state as the collective people (no doubt, la volonte generale). chris — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.255.211.95 (talk) 12:20, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Liberal Fascism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:20, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Liberal Fascism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:45, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Liberal Fascism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:28, 22 December 2017 (UTC)