Review of Jonah Goldberg's Liberal Fascism
Jonah Goldberg has set himself a difficult task. He wishes to show that fascism, far from being a right-wing phenomenon, is a quintessentially left-wing endeavor, deriving from the same progressive movement that gave rise to socialism and modern liberalism. This is difficult not because it's hard to do--there is no shortage of approving quotes about Mussolini from early-twentieth century American progressives, nor is it hard to trace fascism's poltical roots from socialism and pragmatism--but because conventional wisdom has defined fascism as right-wing, and most liberals will try to shout you down if you say otherwise. It shouldn't be hard: fascism has always been a revolutionary ideology, which by definition is un-conservative. The fact that American Conservatism is based on Classical Liberalism, the belief in individual liberties and property rights, both of which are antithetical to fascism (or any form of statism), should make his case a no-brainer. Nevertheless, he makes a thorough argument concerning the origins of fascism, presenting as its basis a national form of socialism, similar but opposed to the Marxist international socialism.
One part I particularly enjoyed was his chapter on religion and fascism. His definition of fascism as a civil religion fits its origins neatly. Communism, after all, is an atheistic religion, and coming from a similar origin, it is no surprise that fascism is a civil religion with nationalism as its central component. Speaking of nationalism, Jonah also makes the case that nationalism and patriotism are not the same thing. Patriotism is a reverence for the institutions and ideals of a nation (although not without regard for its faults), whereas nationalism believes in the nation, or often, the race, even while trying to tear down the institutions and ideals. It does not have to do away with the original religion--although it often does--if it can subvert it. Jonah cites plenty of evidence of this, and has sufficient quotes to show that the argument that "Hitler was a Christian," which I've heard before, simply does not hold water. Consider, for example, these words of Hitler: "Christianity will disappear from Germany just as it has done in Russia... The German race has existed without Christianity for thousands of years... and will continue after Christianity has disappeared... We must get used to the teachings of blood and race."
Or this campsong used by the Hitler Youth:
We are the happy Hitler Youth;
We have no need for Christian virtue;
For Adolf Hitler is our intercessor
And our redeemer.
No priest, no evil one
Can keep us
From feeling like Hitler's children.
No Christ do we follow, but Horst Wessel!
Away with incense and holy water pots.
How then did fascism come to be thought of as right-wing? It essentially came from the Communist playbook. Communism and Fascism are largely opposed to each other (although not always: the German Communists originally saw Nazism as a stepping stone to true Communism), but it is the opposition of cousins with irreconcilible differences, not the opposition of antitheticals. So when the Communists were trying to paint Fascism in a negative light, despite the fact that it was doing many of the things the Communists said they were for, the Communists painted fascism as right wing, as the last gasp of the ruling class in an attempt to lure the people from the true way. As fascism fell from favor at the end of the Second World War, Communists took to calling everyone they disagreed with fascist. And since Communism remained largely in favor on the American Left, they followed the Communists' lead.
While this "civil religion" definition of fascism is useful, it does lead Jonah to some weaker arguments at the end of his book. Pointing out how modern liberalism is a statist civil religion for many people, he then goes on to point out fascism at work in the modern liberal. I think his arguments could have been stronger here if he'd only used the term fascist less. Yes, a lot of today's politics, mostly on the Left but also on the Right, draw from the same wellspring that gave us fascism, even draw from fascist ideas, but I don't think that's the same as being fascist. And even if it is, calling it such only sounds like name-calling.
Even so, I think Liberal Fascism is worth reading. It's a useful corrective for all the misinformation about fascism that has reduced it to a nasty name to call someone and stripped it of its actual meaning.
One part I particularly enjoyed was his chapter on religion and fascism. His definition of fascism as a civil religion fits its origins neatly. Communism, after all, is an atheistic religion, and coming from a similar origin, it is no surprise that fascism is a civil religion with nationalism as its central component. Speaking of nationalism, Jonah also makes the case that nationalism and patriotism are not the same thing. Patriotism is a reverence for the institutions and ideals of a nation (although not without regard for its faults), whereas nationalism believes in the nation, or often, the race, even while trying to tear down the institutions and ideals. It does not have to do away with the original religion--although it often does--if it can subvert it. Jonah cites plenty of evidence of this, and has sufficient quotes to show that the argument that "Hitler was a Christian," which I've heard before, simply does not hold water. Consider, for example, these words of Hitler: "Christianity will disappear from Germany just as it has done in Russia... The German race has existed without Christianity for thousands of years... and will continue after Christianity has disappeared... We must get used to the teachings of blood and race."
Or this campsong used by the Hitler Youth:
We are the happy Hitler Youth;
We have no need for Christian virtue;
For Adolf Hitler is our intercessor
And our redeemer.
No priest, no evil one
Can keep us
From feeling like Hitler's children.
No Christ do we follow, but Horst Wessel!
Away with incense and holy water pots.
How then did fascism come to be thought of as right-wing? It essentially came from the Communist playbook. Communism and Fascism are largely opposed to each other (although not always: the German Communists originally saw Nazism as a stepping stone to true Communism), but it is the opposition of cousins with irreconcilible differences, not the opposition of antitheticals. So when the Communists were trying to paint Fascism in a negative light, despite the fact that it was doing many of the things the Communists said they were for, the Communists painted fascism as right wing, as the last gasp of the ruling class in an attempt to lure the people from the true way. As fascism fell from favor at the end of the Second World War, Communists took to calling everyone they disagreed with fascist. And since Communism remained largely in favor on the American Left, they followed the Communists' lead.
While this "civil religion" definition of fascism is useful, it does lead Jonah to some weaker arguments at the end of his book. Pointing out how modern liberalism is a statist civil religion for many people, he then goes on to point out fascism at work in the modern liberal. I think his arguments could have been stronger here if he'd only used the term fascist less. Yes, a lot of today's politics, mostly on the Left but also on the Right, draw from the same wellspring that gave us fascism, even draw from fascist ideas, but I don't think that's the same as being fascist. And even if it is, calling it such only sounds like name-calling.
Even so, I think Liberal Fascism is worth reading. It's a useful corrective for all the misinformation about fascism that has reduced it to a nasty name to call someone and stripped it of its actual meaning.
