Talk:Liberal Fascism/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

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.

Actually Eric Alterman is a Distinguished Professor of English and Journalism at Brooklyn College and CUNY Graduate School of Journalism.Larry Koenigsberg (talk) 21:46, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

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)

This entire article requires a rewrite

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)

Arthur Herman's new book

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

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

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071210141334/http://www.publishersweekly.com:80/article/CA6504692.html to http://www.publishersweekly.com/article/CA6504692.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:20, 22 January 2016 (UTC)