Talk:Liberal Fascism/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Daily Show appearance

>The book was promoted on the Daily Show on January 16th, 2008, John Stewart took great care in picking apart the concepts and ideas of the book, calling them, "medial" and overbearing."

John Stewart? How about Jon Stewart? And isn't he mostly a comedian and not a historical scholar? Why post this on Wikipedia as a serious criticism? Do these talk show hosts even have the time or desire to read through a book like this? Barry (talk) 05:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I just watched that episode, and Stewart did not use either of those two words. But more to the point, as Barry says above, Stewart is a comedian not a historian. — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 08:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I just watched the interview segment again, and Jon Stewart doesn't use either of those two words. In fact Stewart doesn't really say much about the book at all. — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 08:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

There's no reason to say anything about the book. It's an inherantly stupid concept on it's face. Next question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.171.174.233 (talk) 17:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

It is "inherantly" Fascistic undemocratic to stifle discussion by hurling insults and demanding that the conversation be over based on a misspelled and unqualified statement Mr. "Unsigned." Why don't you at least make an attempt at an evidence based rational argument? PatrickRF (talk) 14:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. And I'm genuinely horrified by the suggestion that "there's no reason to say anything about the book." In fact, there is no reason why we can't participate in the process of changing this article with reasoned arguments and open ears. I catch myself occasionally assuming that all the idiots are in the right wing (being a typical liberal elitist myself, and also being rather disgusted by this book), but obviously there are adult children of all persuasions. Here's hoping that we can get a good, multifaceted article about this book by means of healthy grown-up discussion. Dunkelweizen (talk) 15:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Dunkenweizen, if you are horrified by the above attempt to shut down discussion by hurling insults, avoiding debate, and reverting to nonsequitur adhominems, then I would advise you to never see a conservative speaking on a college campus. The left will engage in every sordid activity, including violence, mob oppression, and crimes against property, to prevent conservatives from exercising their free speech. The most liberal speaker can speak unmolested on any conservative-oriented campus, but Hell has no fury like a liberal upon learning a conservative will speak on just about any college campus in the nation. 72.11.124.226 (talk) 00:22, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Jon Stewart's Daily Show, Jonah Goldberg addresses it in his latest column (What 'The Daily Show' Cut Out). I have added the hyperlink to the external links section, not because the interview was that important in itself, of course ("we spent nearly 20 minutes swearing and sparring, and only six minutes aired"), but because it gives a good summary of what the author claims the book is (and is not) about, notably presenting a good description of double standards. ("Christopher Hedges … penned a book called, subtly enough, "American Fascists." Guess who he was talking about? Jesse Jackson, Paul Krugman and Bill Clinton, among other prominent liberals, have insinuated or declared that conservatives are the spiritual or intellectual heirs of Nazism … The left in particular has institutionalized argumentum ad hitlerum as a means of delegitimizing viewpoints they find objectionable … liberals routinely and cavalierly call conservatives Nazis and fascists — with the Holocaust fully in mind — without inviting an ounce of opprobrium from the same folks screeching about me.") Asteriks (talk) 09:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

This should also bring more clarity: Hugh Hewitt's Interview with Jonah Goldberg. Asteriks (talk) 09:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

"The best definition of a fascist today is a conservative winning an argument" says Jonah Goldberg in his interview with Investor's Business Daily. Asteriks (talk) 22:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

Removed the bit that described David Neiwert as a "well known Internet troll and propounder of bogus accusations." POV issues. Obviously. 216.145.192.6 (talk) 16:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Not necessarily. But it would need to be extremely well cited, which probably isn't possible. McJeff (talk) 09:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Citations needed, etc.

The first paragraph needs citations. In addition, I think statements making such assertions as Goldberg "echoing Orwell" constitute original research. If this is actually the way these things are presented in the book, the statements should be reworded to show that, and citations given. --EECEE (talk) 23:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

In Orwell's famous 1946 essay Politics and the English Language he wrote: "The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies 'something not desirable.'" So when Goldberg argues that over time the term "Fascism" has lost its actual meaning and instead has descended to the level of merely being a synonym for "evil" he is indeed echoing the sentiment Orwell made more than sixty years ago. — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 23:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

One could just as easily say he's "echoing" the sentiments of half a dozen other authors. Unless Goldberg actually said he was echoing Orwell, your interpretation is just that - an interpretation. This is a Wikipedia article, not a book review, and as such, the inclusion of original research is not appropriate. [[1]] I'm going to put the template back up in the article. You notice I am not deleting your material but merely querying it. Please discuss here and don't turn this into an edit war. --EECEE (talk) 08:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

More so it is not "Original research" to summarize what books says. Citations are not needed, since the cite would be the book that is the subject of the article. Every thing is stated Goldberg argues or Goldberg says rather than stated as fact. If you want to see Goldberg's footnotes, pick up a copy of the book. — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 23:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Citations are needed for Wiki articles. [[2]] If one is summarizing a point made in a book, one cites to the book, ie (Liberal Facscism, p. __ ). Again, it's an encyclopedia article, not a book review. I'm going to return the "citation needed" templates to the article. Feel free to add citations from the book. --EECEE (talk) 08:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to actually read what I wrote above. I have, again, removed the templates. Don't be sore because you haven't read Orwell. — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 18:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Wait a minute... Goldberg himself doesn't mention Orwell? The main reason that this constitutes original research is the ambiguity of suggesting that Goldberg "echoes" him. In scholarship, writers often do this in order to suggest an intellectual lineage and--sometimes--to make an argument for someone's authority. Is this why you're bringing up Orwell? Unless you can establish a good reason for doing so, I will contend that you are using original research to bolster Goldberg's position (this will merit removing the reference, of course). I'll also interpret your "haven't read" remark to EECEE as good-natured joshing, since surely in a sense we are all on the same side here. Dunkelweizen (talk) 18:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Which side is that? Goldberg has mentioned himself, that he is not the first make that distinction. It is not "original research." Even if he had not mentioned it, it still would not be "original research" to point out that two people have said the same thing. — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 18:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

If Goldberg claims his position "echoes" Orwell, say so in the article and provide the cite. The way it is now is original research, and I am putting that and the "citation needed" templates back. There is now a "request for comment" section at the end of this page. Please don't remove the templates again until others have weighed in.

Please take the time to acquaint yourself with proper Wiki procedures. --EECEE (talk) 04:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Which side? The I-want-Wikipedia-to-have-good-articles side. Now, to put this another way, my problem with this Orwell mention is that it just doesn't seem to merit inclusion. I suspect that Goldberg, like many authors, is pointing out that his ideas have aspects in common with someone reputable (if ironically left-wing), in order to bolster his position. That's fine, but again, why bring this up in a Wikipedia article? With Goldberg's use, it seems POV. Outside of Goldberg's use, it seems trivial. Does my position make sense? Dunkelweizen (talk) 19:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, well then we are indeed on the same side. On topic: George Orwell is one of the best known commentators on the subjects of totalitarianism, fascism, and the political use of language. All three of those things are the subject of this book. I fail to see any way this inclusion could be considered POV. I am not assuming bad faith, but knowing how controversial this book is, I am curious as to why an editor would would object to this reference. — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 19:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

You know, I had given you some leeway because I assumed you were new and just unfamiliar with Wikipedia rules, policy, and style. I see from your User Talk page history that you have a four-year history of warnings for ignoring those rules and policies, including several 24 hour blocks for engaging in edit wars. Your bewildered head scratching over basic rules of style and etiquette only makes you look worse. --EECEE (talk) 07:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

PS to Steven Andrew Miller re your history note: Goldberg was not nominated for a Pulitzer at all. [[3]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by EECEE (talk • contribs) 04:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I really don't care, as it doesn't have anything to do with this book, but that link doesn't demonstrate any thing. He was in fact nominated. That the Pulitzers have open nomination process does not change this fact. — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 04:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it's not an "open nomination process" at all. Names are submitted; a Pulitzer committee does the nominating. Repeat, an entry is not a nomination, any more than someone sending your name into AMPAS makes you an Oscar nominee. You could look it up, y'know:

Work that has been submitted for Prize consideration but not chosen as either a nominated finalist or a winner is termed an entry or submission.[[4]] The three finalists in each category are the only entries in the competition that are recognized by the Pulitzer office as nominees. [[5]] --EECEE (talk) 07:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

You sure seem to have a lot invested in this. Has Goldberg personally wronged you? — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 14:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that good information thing is such a hassle. --EECEE (talk) 19:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

It is just rather interesting, since the nomination is for his syndicated column, and not for this book, that you seem so intent on this. — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 14:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for making my point. --EECEE (talk) 23:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

And that point was? That you don't understand that someone who is nominated is a nominee? — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 01:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Just wow. Well, good luck to ya, little buddy. --EECEE (talk) 02:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, "little buddy" — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 13:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Good work, EECEE. You've humiliated him with the facts. It's a pretty common occurrence around here. --Eleemosynary (talk) 07:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Request for Comments: Original Research and Need for Citations

As seen from the preceding section, there is strong disagreement as to whether parts of the article include original research, and also as to whether citations are needed in the introductory paragraph.

Specifically, the inclusion of a statement about Goldberg "echoing" George Orwell's views, absent any indication that Goldberg himself claims to be echoing that view, has raised the "original research" question.

Secondly, the absence of citations in the introductory paragraph, which appears to summarize Goldberg's thesis, has been queried.

Any helpful comments would be appreciated. 05:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Goldberg does in fact mention Orwell in the book. Here is a paragraph from page 4: "In short, 'fascist' is a modern word for 'heretic,' branding an individual worthy of excommunication from the body politic. The left uses other words - 'racist,' 'sexist,' homophobe,' 'christianist'- for similar puposes, but these words have less elastic meanings. Fascism, however, is the gift that keeps on giving. George Orwell noted this tendency as early as 1946 in his famous essay 'Politics and the English Language': 'The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies "something not desirable."'"

I have added quotes to backup the Orwell and "bigotry and genocide are more Nazi than Fascist" portions and have cited both quotations. Are there any more portions you believe need citation or constitute original research?--Rbernard80 (talk) 18:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to do this. It looks fine. However, would you mind including a citation for the earlier part where it discusses Goldberg's notions about the origins of fascism? I think something is needed there, but I realize my placement of the "citation needed" template was confusing.

I've removed the template in the article, as well as the "request for comments" templates here.

I expanded the part about Orwell to make it clear that Goldberg actually mentioned him, and in what context. If you would like to rewrite for style, no problem. --EECEE (talk) 19:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I've added a quote and citation for the portion you mentioned. "Goldberg argues that both Modern Liberalism (not to be confused with Classical Liberalism) and Fascism descended from Progressivism, and in fact that prior to World War II "fascism was widely viewed as a progressive social movement with many liberal and left-wing adherents in Europe and the United States"[1]"

Also slightly reconfigured the Orwell sentence mostly just to get Goldberg's argument to appear before Orwell's.Rbernard80 (talk) 22:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. Thanks very much. --EECEE (talk) 00:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Reviews

I think a different quote is needed for the American Spectator review. The current entry is just the opinion of the reviewer about the use of the term "fascism" and not a review of the contents of the book. --EECEE (talk) 06:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I feel the same way about the Alterman quote from the Nation. There are more relevant statements than the "google search" one. Dunkelweizen (talk) 17:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you wish to add something from the review? Okay by me if so. --EECEE (talk) 03:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, but it might be next week. And I wonder why there is even any question whether it is a review!? I hope that editor explains his point, because that was strange. Dunkelweizen (talk) 01:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I added a different quote from the Tomasky review, a little more relevant I think. If anyone can come up with a more succinct wrap-up, feel free to use it. --EECEE (talk) 04:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Ad hominem "reviews"

A significant fraction of the reviews of this book reviews can be summarized as "OMG! WTF?": they consist of the reviewer expressing outrage at the book's title, cover and/or thesis¹ but making no attempt to engage with Goldberg's argument. Such reviews have no place in an encyclopedia article. If we're going to mention such reviews, we need to

1. In fact, quite of few of these non-reviews never get beyond the title or cover.

BTW, it would be wrong to mention Tomasky's bizarre diatribe without citing this. Here's an extract:

He concedes essential parts of the book’s argument while insisting that they are trivial, offers trivial objections as if they were essential, and throws in a few non-sequiturs, insults, and rank distortions to pad the piece. His one innovation is to extend his insults from me to my readers (who are said to have too much time on their hands), and then to conservatives generally. His review, though long, is a time-saver: Anyone who wants to know what the book’s liberal detractors are saying can consider it one-stop shopping.

Cheers, CWC 14:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. While some of the excerpts included in the article may consist of "OMG/WTF" type comments, the reviews themselves are for the most part just as complete as the more glowing reviews. I agree with the other editor that some elaboration of the Alterman review would be helpful, for instance.

BTW, some folks might consider it "wrong" not to include Goldberg's response to every review, but that's not the purpose of this article. --EECEE (talk) 17:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Having only found this page by a complicated line of link hopping, I'm not entirely sure if my opinion is valid here, but it seems to me that if you're going to insert a section on reviews, it might be helpful to pick quotes that are more relevant to the work itself rather than the title. The work is what I'm interested in hearing opinions on, the title is over and done with once you open the book. Old Man and the Sea could have been called Pretty Pretty Fairy Unicorn Princesses and still would have been a good work. Likewise the little red book of Mao could've been called Peace, Love, and Happiness: The secret to finding it and would still be, well, Mao's little red book. 68.51.100.13 (talk) 01:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)Dutch1033

Well, Eric Alterman had a different take on the matter: "It's a rare book, indeed, that can be fairly judged by its cover, but I really do think that a smiley face with a Hitler mustache tells you all you will ever need to know about Liberal Fascism." On that note, I'm going to edit the discussion of his review in The Nation. Dunkelweizen (talk) 15:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Language

The article as written sites "leftist" after the names of reviewers who disagreed with the premise. "Rightist" is not placed after the names of conservatives who reviewed the book. This sounds like a pejorative and it make the article come across as rather biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.179.227.58 (talk) 00:05, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

..........

BOTH should be cited as it seems the reviews are clearly devided by politics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.229.104.145 (talk) 03:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Young Liberals

(It was actually the Liberal Summer School at Oxford.) The following sentence should be deleted: 'Wells had stated that he wanted to "assist in a kind of phoenix rebirth" of liberalism as an "enlightened Nazism."', unless it can be sourced to Goldberg's book or TV appearances. As it is, its not even sourced to Well's speech. The Four Deuces (talk) 08:53, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Adding context to reviews.

One of biggest problem of the net is comments are quoted without context. While in this case, the authors and their original source is stated, a casual reader may not know who the author is or the political leaning of the author and publication house. When comments like "tedious and inane" are made then there has to be some sort of political context of the author and media. While an argument can be made that there are clear links to the sources, how many casual readers bother to follow up the link? How many readers take what is written at face value?

Here is an example....

If famous Mr. Xyz said in TableDoubleSpeak News that "all Muslim are evil", there should be context that Mr Xyz is writing the article in a NeoNazi newspaper (TableDoubleSpeak News). (I hope there is no such newspaper!)

Do you let such a vitriolic statement stand wihout context on the author and media OR do you hope the reader is smart enough to check out the links?

Further.....

Article 2 of the Wiki five pillars requires one to provide context. As stated in the Five Pillars page, presenting each point of view accurately, providing context for any given point of view, and presenting no one point of view as "the truth" or "the best view." As such, that is what I did and yet it seems that anyone could just come in and change (undo) at a whim.

I am new to Wiki but from this brief experience, it appears more of a sandbox then I thought it should be.

• sigh*

................................... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.229.104.145 (talk) 03:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

• The section that you added comments to is clearly listed as reviews, so nobody should be surprised that the reviews are opinionated. The reviews speak for themselves; you don't need to add your own opinions under the guise of "context". If anyone is curious about the political views of a particular reviewer or publication, they can click on the link to read the associated article. Besides, even if a particular publication has an overall political leaning, it does not mean that everyone who writes for them holds that point of view.Spylab (talk) 08:53, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

..............

It was NOT my opinion. Repeat, it was NOT my opinion. It was context on those opinions FROM Wiki sites. If you care to read before reflexively undoing, you would see that. I also added the context on BOTH sides of the spectrum to give the reader some context of whom the person and publications are. As for your contention that the publications do not follow political did you bother to read the "reviews'?

And of course, you are arbitrarily TOTALLY ignoring one of the pillars of Wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.229.104.145 (talk) 17:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The review section is just a random list of reviews, omitting major publications like the Wall Street Journal and Washington Post, but including minor ones like the Washington Times and New York Sun. Would it not be better to introduce the section with something like "The book was universally panned by reviews in major newspapers, liberal publications and most conservative publications but was praised in Goldberg's own National Review as well as several conservative publications"? The reader should know whether the book represents a major contribution to the understanding of political theory, or merely a minority opinion. The Four Deuces (talk) 00:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

No, that sentence wouldn't make the section better. It would, however, be better if it included those missing reviews you mention. Maybe you can find them? Korny O'Near (talk) 00:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

LibFascism thesis outside of prevailing consensus of Fascism as being a far right movement

I added a paragraph pointing out that Goldbergs thesis is well outside the usual mainstream view of Fascism as being a far-right movement. The new language is analogous to similar statements on f.e. the Fascism page, and I lifted the sourcing directly from that particular page. The book was previously briefly stated to be "contrary to conventional wisdom", but that choice of words was unsourced and furthermore it does not properly fulfill our duty to clearly label fringe theories as outside the mainstream - as required by WP:FRINGE.

Preemptive note to followers of Goldbergs thesis: Please check out the talk pages of Fascism and Nazi Party before arguing why Goldberg is right and / or starting edit wars. The statement that Fascism is conventionally regarded as right wing is properly sourced and properly argued for. Whether one chooses to believe Goldberg or not, the issue here is whether it can be shown that Golberg has scholarly company by multiple WP:RS and is not to be considered fringe.

RandySpears —Preceding undated comment added 02:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC).

While the article should point out that the book advances a WP:Fringe view, this should be sourced to reviews or even to the book itself. See synthesis. The Four Deuces (talk) 08:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think synthesis is really relevant to the original language I put in there. I.e. that language explained that the view that Fascism is a leftish fenomenon (the view pushed by Goldbergs book)is outside of the scholarly mainstream, because Fascism is usually considered a far-right fenomenon and then sourcing it with multiple cites that states that Fascism is considered far-right. I don't see how that is taking one argument from one source and another argument from another source and using them to make i.e. original research? The sources were never used to claim anything about the book itself, only to point out that Fascism is usually considered right-wing, not left-wing.

Incidentally, the language Chris/CWC replaced my language with, i.e. stating that Goldberg's book makes a "Goldberg presents considerable evidence" against the conventional view, is both unsourced and original research. Therefore I hope we could agree to revert to my original language, or else I'm open for other suggestions - as long as they clearly communicate that the view of Fascist movements as left-wing is WP:FRINGE.

RandySpears 19:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC) after following comment

Bzzt! Error! RandySpears, please do not insert your POV into Wikipedia articles. (And providing 5 mostly-irrelevant cites does not make POV any less unwelcome.)

The book is basically a strongly-sourced argument that "fascism" (to the extent that word has a meaning) is a phenomenon of the left, not of the right. If you can find a notable person arguing against Goldberg's thesis, then you can put that in the article ... along with Goldberg's counterargument. (So far, IMO, Goldberg's counterarguments have been much stronger than his critic's arguments. YMMV.) The fact that a lot of left-wingers want to believe that fascism is found only on the far right is predictable, does not affect the book's these and does deserve more than a passing mention in this article.

Aside: what does "fascism" mean?

1. "Any authority figure(s) that I don't like."
2. "A government whose supporters bash up non-supporters."
3. "A system of government in which political, business, labor, religious and other leaders work together to produce a strong, united nation" (see corporatism)

In my experience, "fascism" is mostly used as a vague negative buzzword (sense #1). The next most common meaning is sense #2, meaning Mussolini's regime and (to a lesser extent) the Nazis. But the important meaning is sense #3, and the strength-through-unity idea has appeal across the political spectrum, as the 2008 US Presidential election demonstrated beyond any doubt. (Strength-through-unity is in fact a really bad idea, so I hope that its appeal is purely superficial.) This book is mostly about "fascism" in sense #3, but also deals with sense #2.

Best wishes, CWC 06:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry man, it's you who are mistaken. Firstly, you're misundertanding the concept of POV/NPOV. NPOV is giving due weight to arguments and facts in proportion to the currently prevailing concensus as verified by reliable sources, not about whether you consider something to be true.

In other words - It's completely irrelevant if you believe Golbergs claims to be true, or "strongly sourced". Even if you think you could prove Goldbergs claims to be true it would still be completely irrelevant to this Wiki page. Wikipedias policy is to not give undue weight to what are - in effect - fringe views. For perfect clarity: This holds even if the fringe view would happen to be true. Because an encyclopedia is not the place for determining whether they are true or not.

So, your new language is not really appropriate. The claim that "Goldberg presents considerable evidence" is unsupported by the cites, therefore your original research. Even if you were to source it, it would be most appropriately put in the sections about reviews and receptions of the book. The lead is not the place to make, quote, or reference arguments about the books merits. We should properly describe the books contents, and do so under the imperative to properly inform what is mainstream and what is fringe. For more info, consult fringe theories and the talk page for wp Fascism page. The identical arguments are made by adherents of Goldbergs book, and they are refuted exactly in the same manner as I just did.

My suggestion then, is that we agree to restore my original NPOV language. If you do not agree I would like to hear you suggest some new language that:

1) Does not contain original research.

2) Is properly sourced.

3) Complies with WP:FRINGE in not giving undue weight to fringe theories, and here on the page dealing specifically with the book pushing the fringe theory, clearly state what the mainstream position is and do so in a NPOV way.

I will wait for 24h and then revert to my original language if I do not hear from you.

Cheers, RandySpears

RandySpears, the references you cite seem to be quite weak. Of the two that are available online, this one is the work of a non-notable "progressive" writer who hardly represents a consensus view, while in this one, the author states that, though he believes fascism is right-wing, there are a good number of historians who believe it's "neither left nor right". The reference undercuts your point, rather than supporting it. I would hope that your offline references are much stronger, though I have no specific reason to believe that. Korny O'Near (talk) 21:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I see now that there's one more of your references online - this one, which states that the author doesn't think fascism should be studied in "the conventional 'left-right' model". I'm seeing a pattern here. Korny O'Near (talk) 21:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

As to the broader question if all my references live up to RS standard, I'll grant you I cannot personally vouch for every single one. As stated, I pulled them from the WP Fascism page, assuming them to have been properly vented there. I have no problem with us trimming out those we deem not appropriate.

But your other, more specific objections seem less persuasive to me.

It may very well be the case that Mathew N. Lyons is a "progressive" and not the most prestigious historian (while he obviously is a professional historian). But then we have to be honest and say that Jonah Goldberg is a well known "conservative" and that he hardly has more historian bona fides than Lyons. (Him being a well known journalist, editor of NR and writer is somewhat different, you agree?) So between Lyons and Goldberg we would have to admit that the score is 1-1 on where the consensus lie then.

Reading Stackelberg then, I'd say the reference does support designating Goldbergs position (Fascism is a leftist movement) as being outside the mainstream. Here's the full quote: "While very few historians place Nazism unambigously on the left, the progressive end of the spectrum, a good number regard fascism as a mixture of left and right or a movement that is "neither left nor right".

But I'll grant you half a point that he does not unambiguously say that most historians consider Fascism "right wing" - actually he doesn't say anything about what most historians think. He says a "good number" considers it a little bit of both, or that "right wing" or "left wing" are inappropriate designations. What does "a good number" mean - a sizeable minority, the majority - we don't know obviously. So I agree that this reference does not support exactly where the majority is at, while definitively showing that Goldberg is not in the same place. Saying it "undercuts" my argument is disingenuous in the extreme. It does not.

Moving on to the third reference, you failed to read the relevant part, i.e. the pages that were actually referenced. Had you done that you would have found the following text:

"Most attempts to produce a generic definition of fascist ideology have been linked to a particular conception of where fascism stands on the left-right spectrum. It is normally seen as 'extreme right' [...] and is sometimes also conceived as 'radical right', 'far right' and 'ultra right'." (p79, Conclusion)

Which most certainly supports the notion of most historians seeing Fascism as a right wing phenomenon. Sure, it may well be the case that this particular historian belongs to the "good numbers" of historians who think that the conventional left-right scale is inappropriate. But that's kind of irrelevant in this context, is it not? The referenced section clearly supports what it was referenced to support.

So, considering the sources I'd say you're quite off the mark. They unambiguously support putting Goldberg outside the mainstream, and the last one supports the more narrow point that Fascism is usually considered "right-wing".

Another point I'd like to make is this: the original page before my edit acknowledged Goldberg arguing an unconventional view, the latest language acknowledges the same thing. So where's the argument here? It would seem that no one is really contesting that Goldbergs position is not very common, but that some editors can only accept this if they get to dress that in language that makes Goldberg look good. Like designating the mainstream position "conventional knowledge" f.e. That kind of suggests POV to me.

So, to conclude: I have no problem with removing sources that does not live up to the standard of RS, or does not properly support the statements they're meant to support. So my suggestion then is that we restore my original language, sourced by those references that we find sufficient and up to standard. My plan then is to restore the text tomorrow, drop Lyons from references (I agree that he may not be sufficiently notable, even while being at least as notable as Goldberg himself) but keep the other ones. If you have alternative suggested language and references - let's hear them!

RandySpears —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.178.95.169 (talk) 23:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• I agree that the book is mostly BS, but it's not our place to say so in this article. In Wikipedia we can only present published opinions about the book, which is what appears the Reviews section.Spylab (talk) 02:06, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Fine, your opinion is that the book is mostly BS. My opinion is that if Goldberg had restrained himself arguing that it is unfair to throw Fascism and other ideologies usually labeled right-wing into the same boat, I think he would have been able to make a compelling case - given his obvious intelligence and talent for entertaining, high quality writing. Unfortunately Goldberg is also IMHO an unabashed partisan hack (or unabashed conservative advocate, in more friendly language) which means that he rather chooses to preach to the conservative base where a book like LibFascism goes down well, while dropping any pretense of nuance or balance. Incidentally that also means that what would otherwise have been a pretty unexciting historical / political science niche book suddenly gets blockbuster appeal on the lucrative conservative media market. So props to Goldberg for his business sense.

But my opinion - and yours - is irrelevant for this page. This is not the issue we're discussing.

The issue is that the thesis of this book happens to be that fascism should be properly understood as a left-wing phenomenon. Since this is what the book is about and as it were what the title of the book alludes to, it is warranted to mention that in the description of the book. And it has been mentioned before my edit, and after it. Otherwise we would have a wikipedia page about a book that does not inform what the book is about, and that's not very good, is it?

But this particular thesis is WP:FRINGE - or at most a very limited minority position - and if you take the time to read WP:FRINGE or WP:NPOV you will find that we are in fact specifically required to point that out and outline the mainstream view in a NPOV way. So, do you have anything to add to this, the specific issue up for discussion?

RandySpears —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.178.87.18 (talk) 02:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

1. The cite for my claim that the book presents lots of evidence that fascism is a left-wing phenomenon is ... can you guess ... the book itself! Actually, any of the sensible reviews could also be cited.
2. Anyone who says that fascism is purely of the far-right is living on a different planet: the second-nastiest regime in the world is a left-wing fascist dictatorship and the nastiest regime is arguably more a fascist mind-control state than a communist state. (Can an inherited autocracy really be communist? I don't think so.) Furthermore, the best example of a nation moving towards fascism is another left-wing government.
3. I wrote about the various meanings of the word "fascism" in my earlier comment for a reason. If you define fascism as (say) "a right-wing form of government stressing strength through unity in which all the leaders work together", then naturally you'll discover that all fascist governments are right-wing. But what happens if you take the words "right-wing" out of that definition? It turns out that some left-wing governments have more in common with right-wing fascist governments than with non-fascist left-wing governments — eg., IMO, Juan Perón's government. So I say that any useful definition of "fascism" includes left-wing movements. Obviously, lots of political scientists would disagree, especially the leftists; OTOH, lots of experts would agree. Do we have a RS saying which view is "the consensus"? I'm not aware of any, and ISTM from the preceding comments that there is no consensus. (In fact, on a topic with as many fuzzy boundaries as this one, it's probably unwise to try to establish a consensus, for the same reason that strength-through-unity turns out to be a really bad idea in the long run.) See also p2 of the book.
4. Goldberg's thesis is deeper than "fascism is a left-wing phenomenon". A better summary might be (from p2 of the book) "Progressivism was a sister movement of fascism, and today's liberalism is the daughter of Progressivism." (BTW, you can now search and skim the book via Amazon.)
5. User:Spylab has removed the sentence about the conventional view of fascism as far-right. In the next edit, I added 7 words mentioning that view to an existing sentence, in a fairly feeble attempt to retain user:RandySpears' point that Goldberg is challenging a widely-held belief. If anyone thinks those 7 words shouldn't be there, feel free to revert me. Cheers, CWC 10:44, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

1) Well, so you basically concede my point then. Making the judgement that that the book presents "considerable" evidence and sourcing it to the book is trivially WP:OR. Are we clear on that? It's Wikipedia policy to not do original research. And sourcing that statement to reviews - conceived by you to be "sensible", or not - is not appropriate for the lead or a general description of the books contents. If you want to keep that, I suggest you source it to reviews and add it to the positive reviews section.

2) We have already established that it is completely irrelevant in the context of this wikipedia article where you or me think Fascism belongs on a left-right scale. It's completely irrelevant even if it could be proven beyond a doubt where Fascism belongs on a left-right scale, because wikipedias role is not to investigate such claims, only to determine what is currently mainstream, and what is minority view and report it. This is explicit wikipedia policy.

Having said that, here is my own 2 cents on the left wing / right wing controversy - strictly for your entertainment and for consumption on this talk page. My view is that looking at the policies in the Fascist agenda I would designate their economic policy as "centrist" - in being business friendly, having in contrast to communists or socialists no goal of nationalizing the means of production, while generally positive to government intervention and a strong state (the latter being a stark contrast to modern economically libertarian "right wing" policies, but not necessarily to the political "right wing" of the day).

Most of the social policies I would trivially identify as mostly "right wing", or "conservative": anti-abortion (for ethnic Germans / "aryans"), anti gay (to the point of incinerating them), pro-marriage & traditional gender roles, anti immigration and trivially for ethnic / cultural purity. Not all of those issues are exclusively right wing but I think it's pretty reasonable to say they are more common in general to the right wing. You need only spend a little time reading The Corner over at NRO to be aware that Jonah and his colleagues are not averse to defend the wrongs of abortion & the importance and sanctity of marriage (Ponnuru, et al), the dangers of immigration and dilution of homogenous american culture & that traditional gender roles are reasonable (Derbyshire et al), etc, etc.

Moving on then to the foreign policy area, the signature fascist traits are extreme nationalism, and an expansionist, aggressive military. Now, you could certainly find left-wing parties that have traded in nationalism. Nationalism is - in many occassions - just as much populism as it is right or left wing. But to find movements where nationalism is central to policy you'll usually have to look at the right wing side of the spectrum. This is just as true in current US politics as it is in modern European politics. The same holds for an expansive, aggressive military and foreign policy, and embracing colonialism and colonial policies as unproblematic, natural etc. I do acknowledge the (major) exception of the communist states - Russia under the Soviets, in particular - as being obviously left-wing and still militaristic and expansionist. In the ideological justifications for their expansionist policies there is a closer affinity between the fascists and expansionist right wing governments than with the communists mission (to spread communism, liberate the trodden down worker, whatever), I would venture.

In parts of it's pitch / messaging / propaganda / proselyting to the masses and in it's embrace of modernity as an enabler of new forms for the state and political control as well as in some of it's origins I think Fascism is most similar to communism or maybe religious movements of the past.

So, again those were my 2 cents. They're not important in this context. Neither are yours.

3)Look, what the best definition of "Fascism" (or how best "to produce a generic definition of fascist ideology", see above) is an intriguing question, that I'm sure you share with Goldberg and all professional historians and political scientists active in fascism studies. And it's an issue for the Fascism page to outline the different major strands. But you're wrong to suggest that we need to agree on one definition in order to be able to establish what is mainstream and what is not (in the sense we have used so far, and which is at issue).

But granted, "concensus" was a poor choice of words on my part - not quite appropriate in this context - and for that I apologize. What is paramount is majority view, notable minority view, and fringe minority view. Wikipedia policy is clear, and it's to do a simple headcount of sorts, by using reliable sources. It does not matter whether the "heads" in the count are objectively right or not and it does not matter how each one of them defines "Fascism". By analogy, if most geologists considered the world flat, wikipedia policy would require us to report that as the majority view and give it due weight, disregarding how they defined "world" and "flat" and even if all of they're argumentation was obviously fallacious.

So in other words, if you want to keep on arguing your position, you will have to start supporting it by pointing to specific, established wikipedia policy that actually supports your position.

I have provided (at least) one RS that establishes the majority view that Fascism is usually regarded as politically "right wing". If Goldbergs position is not a small minority view, you should have no problem with finding a source (i.e. notable historian or political scientist) that says it is held by many (historians or political scientists). Or you should have no problem referencing a number of notable scholars that holds the same position as Goldberg. In that case: get to work!

4) According to the present summary of the books contents in this Wikipedia article Goldberg both argues that Fascism and Progressivism is related in origin and that fascism should (partly because of this, and partly because of common policies and similarities in ideology) be best understood as a left-wing phenomenon. I think that's a fair summary, but I did not write it. You may think it's a poor summary, but then why have you not made it better before this point? Why do you not focus your energy on making it better now? As it were, the claim of some level of relationship in origin is not necessarily controversial or minority (depending on the claimed level of relationship of course) but the second position is both controversial, and a small minority position. And we are, as stated, required by wikipedia policy to point that out and describe the majority view in a NPOV way.

5) Finally then - acknowledging that there were in fact two separate edits by you and User:Spylab - my position stands that the edit to remove words by User:Spylab (i.e. majority position is that Fascism is viewed as a right wing phenomenon) and the language you added ("considerable evidence") are inappropriate by established wikipedia policy - and since you at least no longer object, I will revert to my old language.

Thanks for an interesting discussion, RandySpears —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.178.70.61 (talk) 15:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• Keep in mind that this talk page is meant for discussing improvements to this article, which is about one specific book. It is not for discussing fascism in general.Spylab (talk) 13:59, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Duly noted, RandySpears

Split the lead section?

The lead section seems to be too long, but I'm not sure how best to split it into different sections. Any suggestions?Spylab (talk) 16:02, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

How about having a short lead about the book and author and the general subject (the origins and nature of fascist movements), and then creating three separate sections - a longer summary of the content (including the right-left thing etc), the background of the title, and the background of the smiley cover? The stuff about the daily show could possibly be put in a section about the book causing controversy.

RandySpears

I'll wait a while to hear back from the rest of you guys and then I might try something like the suggestion above! RandySpears (talk) 17:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• I think the origins of the title and the cover should be in the same section, because they aren't very long, and the topics are related. I'm really not sure where the short paragraph about the Daily Show appearance should go. Perhaps it should just be deleted, because it doesn't really say anything significant, and it's not a review of the book. It's probably good enough to just have the links about that interview in the External Links section.Spylab (talk) 19:19, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

We're generally on the same page; one section should be sufficient for the title & cover. If we keep the Daily Show we could put it, together with the reviews as subsections in a general reception section. But I have no opinion really as to whether it should be kept or discarded. RandySpears (talk) 02:52, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I've done it — split the lede up, I mean. But I hope one of you guys will fix my work, which is pretty shoddy. For example, the new first section's heading is just the first word I thought of. (We're sweltering through a heat wave here, and I don't have the energy for any tricky editing. Bit different from Europe, hey?)

Re the Daily Show appearance: yes, we should mention it only as an external link.

I'll continue the previous discussion in a day or two, but I'll highlight something RandySpears mentioned: Goldberg is saying that fascism and liberalism/progressivism are connected, but not that one is part of the other. Cheers, CWC 07:21, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok I've done some small, incremental work following up on CWC changes:

1. Slimmed down the lead and moved all of the summary of the contents/Goldbergs thesis into the first subsection which I renamed "Summary of contents". Are you guys ok with that?
2. In addition, I created one unified section for the title and cover per our previous discussion.

Appart from that I've kept the previous language unmodified. Comments?

RandySpears (talk) 19:52, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I also made a small suggestion on the H.G. Wells language under that talk section (above). Check it out! RandySpears (talk) 20:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

H.G. Wells

I have added a section on the meaning of Wells's terminology, largely based on the Coupland aricle (for which a reference is given)

As I am currently having problems signing in, I am....

Dr. Barry Worthingon, Abertay University, Dundee —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.60.165.41 (talk) 17:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The section on Wells should be moved to the top. I'm pretty sure "Liberal Fascism" is a Wellsian coinage as I remember coming across the term (and being surprised by it) while reading newspapers dating from the early thirties in the Bodleian. I'm astonished Goldberg's little tract is given such prominence in the article. It's not as if he invented it. Lachrie (talk) 18:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

• This article is specifically about the book Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning by Jonah Goldberg, not a general article about the phrase liberal fascism. Therefore I have deleted the off-topic section about H.G. Wells and Coupland.Spylab (talk) 21:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The section on Wells looks relevant to the book too, though this page should be moved to "Liberal Fascism (book)", to make way for a general article on the historical concept of Liberal Fascism under the existing title, using the information on Wells as its starting point. The section on Wells could then be reduced to just a summary in the article about the Goldberg book. Lachrie (talk) 00:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

This article is about the book. If you want to start another article and rename this one, go ahead, but in the meantime, please do not add off-topic content to this article.Spylab (talk) 01:39, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Goldberg discusses H.G. Wells as an influence on his book, so it's not off topic. Please don't remove pertinent material from the article without discussing it. Lachrie (talk) 02:57, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

An explanation of the origin and original meaning of the phrase seems perfectly appropriate. Goldberg didn't simply pull two random words out of the dictionary. But is there enough to say about "historical concept of Liberal Fascism" for a separate article? Nowadays at least, when people refer to "Liberal Fascism", they probably do mean the book.

—WWoods (talk) 06:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

H. G. Wells is much more notable. I've heard of Liberal Fascism in Wellsian thought. I haven't heard of this book by Goldberg. The main article should be about Liberal Fascism, and there should be a separate article for Liberal Fascism (book). Lachrie (talk) 05:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

This article is about Goldberg's book, period. It is original research to try to link H.G. Wells to this book, unless you are discussing actual content from Goldberg's book that mentions Wells.Spylab (talk) 12:54, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Goldberg mentions Wells in an interview quoted in the article itself. It's not original research. The only thing it might be is synthesis. Lachrie (talk) 05:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Unless you can come up with a better objection, it seems better to include it. Lachrie (talk) 05:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Can someone please revert to this original section (as I don't know how to do it). Since Wells is mentioned in the article as Goldberg's 'inspiration', it is only fair that the matter be clarified. --Train guard (talk) 10:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Once more, I have clarified Well's position, but in text, and in relation to the Coupland reference. Please do not remove this.(Personally, I think that Goldberg is a third-rate hack, but the text remains Non POV) --Train guard (talk) 10:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I removed the quote. The only analysis of Goldberg's ideas should come from published reviews. Coupland was writing about H. G. Wells not Goldberg's book. Goldberg of course distorted what Wells said, but the whole book full of distortion and errors. However, Coupland has since written about Goldberg's book, as a note to his 2000 article.[6] Perhaps you could use this as it is a direct commentary on the book. The Four Deuces (talk) 11:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

While I think that Jonah identifying the H. G. Wells quote as the direct origin of the title of the book is of obvious interest, I'd suggest adding a (very compact) background on Wells to give a bit more context to the language. As it stands now the reader is left to wonder why a quote by Wells was notable enough for Goldberg to use in the title.

How about removing the verbatim quote and changing it to something like "inspired by a quote from celebrated early 20th century science fiction writer (and outspoken socialist) H. G. Wells"? What do you think?

RandySpears (talk) 20:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

It might better to move the information to the "Origins" section. If you do this could you please follow the external links to ensure that Coupland's writing is accurately reflected. Was Wells a socialist when he addressed the Liberals in 1932? See: H G Wells#Politics. It seems that Goldberg did not read Wells speech, but got it second hand through Copeland. Also, he seems to be incorrect about calling them "Young Liberals" so we should keep his mention of them in quotes. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:04, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Good! I've been doing some preliminary searching for good sources on Wells. I get the strong impression that Wells was in fact a socialist at the time of the speach, from this from Goldberg (in an interview) for example: "[Wells] lecture was intended not only to point toward the "Phoenix rebirth of liberalism" and a far more radical form of socialism than his fellow Fabians advocated [...]". Quoted by Coupland, here http://www.philipcoupland.com/article---hg-wells-liberal-fascism.php. Also from reading about his political views in general I get the impression that Wells became a socialist early on and then basically stayed one.

But I'd like to source that to Coupland original essay since I suspect that's where Goldberg got his info. Referencing Coupland who's quoting Goldberg who's paraphrasing Coupland seem a bit perverse. Unfortunately Couplands original essay seem to be pay and not available for free on the internet. I'll keep looking for more info, and maybe pony up the 20 bucks... The same goes for accuracy re Goldberg summarizing Coupland in general.

Also in the Coupland link, he makes the interesting catch that Goldberg actually says in the book itself that he did not get the title from Wells, while he's said that he did in several interviews. So if we're keeping the origin of the title section, then we should refer to both of Goldbergs statements (getting it from Wells; not getting it from Wells).

RandySpears (talk) 18:57, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I've done some more looking around and unfortunately there doesn't seem to be very much high standard material on the progression of Wells political views available for free on the internet. The H. G. Wells page is also pretty poorly sourced and the statement that he was a socialist is not sourced at all (although it's quite obvious from the aggregated info from various sources). I'm going to source his socialism to http://www.jstor.org/pss/2707743, where it is stated on the first (free preview) page - although no explicit mention of his views in the 1930s.

I'll also go ahead and mention the statements on the origins of the title from Liberal Fascism and source it to the book. Please let me know that you're all ok with the edits... Checking the accuracy of Goldberg re Coupland will have to wait as I'm feeling kind of cheap skate for the moment :)

(Btw did you know that Wells in 1932, besides coining the term "Liberal Fascism" and expressing some support for eugenics also advocated creating a "world brain" in the form of a global encyclopedia? Crazy dude.)

RandySpears (talk) 01:30, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

While Wells was a Fabian and stood as a Labour candidate in the early 1920s, it is not clear what his politics were in 1932. The fact that he was speaking in favor of liberalism before a Liberal audience indicates that he may not have been socialist at the time. He certainly was not speaking on behalf of the Labour Party. Eugenics was a popular idea in the early twentieth century. The Four Deuces (talk) 11:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, technically we do not explicitly say anything about what his politics were at that time, only in general :) But like I wrote (above) Goldberg actually states that Wells was a socialist at the time, i.e.

"[Wells] lecture [the Oxford speach] was intended not only to point toward the "Phoenix rebirth of liberalism" and a far more radical form of socialism than his fellow Fabians advocated", http://www.philipcoupland.com/article---hg-wells-liberal-fascism.php.

So I guess we could source Wells being socialist to Goldbergs statement (by way of Coupland) instead... Do you think that is preferable?

RandySpears (talk) 13:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Wells actually left the Fabians around 1908 partly because he supported Winston Churchill in a by-election. It seems he continued to be a socialist, but thought that the Liberal reforms would lead to socialism. Here is a reference to his continued socialism (available on Questia): "H. G. Wells: A Political Life", Journal article by John S. Partington; Utopian Studies, Vol. 19, 2008.

Good info - If everyone agrees, please (preceding unsigned commenter) add it to / replace my reference for Wells socialism. I am not a Questia subscriber unfortunately so I couldn't do it right myself. RandySpears (talk) 17:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I made the change, but there appears to something wrong with the footnote following the one i put in. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean #11: Glenn & Helen Show? I get to a page with a webcast when I click it so it seems to work ok for me. RandySpears (talk) 18:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

After footnote ten the text reads "H.G. Wells at Oxford". Why is this text here? The Four Deuces (talk) 19:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, well I meant the footnote (the one you replaced) to specifically support the designation of Welles as "socialist" so i inserted it after that word. So that's just the rest of the sentence?

I ponied up for the Coupland article and on the issue of "Young Liberals" Coupland does indeed write that the address was to the "Young Liberals at their Summer School in Oxford in July 1932". It's a bit unclear if "Young Liberals" refer to National League of Young Liberals, but I guess that seems not completely unlikely as the wiki page states that their often called the Young Liberals. Coupland sources info on the speech to a August 20 piece in The New Statesman from the same year and to what i presume is the text of the speech in Wells "After Democracy", which seems to be a collection of writings and speeches.

Re: Goldbergs characterization of the contents of the speech it seems to me that the conflation of the "phoenix rebirth" quote with the "enlightened Nazism" quote is not done in Couplands text, that's added value from Goldberg. Coupland:

Wells stressed, was to ‘assist in a kind of “Phoenix Rebirth” of Liberalism’. ‘Central’ to this reborn ‘Liberalism’ would be what Wells called a ‘competent receiver’, by which he meant ‘a responsible organisation, able to guide and rule the new scale human community’. The ‘competent receiver’ was also, Wells carefully explained, ‘flatly opposed’ to the norms of ‘parliamentary democracy’, being a ‘special class of people’ of the type anticipated in ‘the Guardian of Plato’s Republic’. ‘Concrete expressions of this same idea’ included ‘the Fascisti in Italy’, Wells believed.

If I'm reading the rest of Couplands piece right, he's characterizing Wells conception of this process that would lead to his preferred society as somewhat of an analogy to the Marxs dictatorship of the proletariat insofar as it was supposed to be a passing stage of increased authoritarian rule that would eventual end up in increased liberty (but not in parliamentary democracy). Furthermore Coupland seem to argue that during much of the 1930s Wells did see to an extent a role model kinds in the methods of the (Italian) fascists for that transitory government, while being opposed to the fascists nationalism etc.

I think Goldberg is probably quoting the "enlightened nazi" language from this passage (Coupland):

in [Wells] approach to the Liberals and the Labour movement the previous year he had called for ‘a sort of Liberal Communist Party or a sort of Liberal Fascism’; ‘a Liberal Fascisti, for enlightened Nazis . . . a greater Communist Party’

If he's quoting via Coupland, it's not perfectly clear I must say that that language is actually from the same speech. The language above is sourced to "Ibid., 321, 106–7; Wells, ‘Project of a World Society’, op. cit., my emphasis; Wells, After Democracy, op. cit., 24–5; Wells, ‘Introduction’, op. cit., 18.", so once again it's pulled from several sources and multiple occasions as it seems.

So that conflation does not seem perfectly fair to Wells but without reading the speech it's hard to tell. One could either leave it in as quoting Goldberg, or one could drop the enlightened nazi part or one could drop the quotes altogether and simply summarize Goldbergs assertions about what Wells said he wanted to do. Personally I think I'd prefer the latter. The language as it is implies that two quotes from Wells together constitute a coherent argument, which is doubtful. But it's not in doubt that Goldberg believes that Wells made that argument.

What do you think?

RandySpears (talk) 19:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

(out) It was the Liberal Summer School, now called the Keynes Forum.[7] See Liberalism divided[8] (p. 337):

THE LIBERAL SUMMER SCHOOL: DOWNHILL YEARS

The last display of fireworks from the LSS was, significantly, occasioned by the ideas of an outsider to liberalism, H. G. Wells. Wells had tailored his views on an élitist, revolutionary party of leadership and initiative to the shape of his audience and had called, in highly charged terms, for Liberal Fascisti and enlightened Nazis to provide a 'competent receiver for the present disorders of a bankrupt world'. He now proposed to abandon Parliamentarianism in favour of a vague liberal progressive world state which nevertheless emulated the style of the dictatorships in organization, discipline and propaganda, and prompted the News Chronicle to describe it as 'calling in Satan to cast out Beelzebub'. Sadly, but with justification, the 1932 LSS was overshadowed by Wells's address.

(Wells comments are sourced to the Manchester Guardian.)

I think it is best not to figure out what Wells was saying, but just ensure that the comments by Goldberg and Coupland are directly attributed to them.

The Four Deuces (talk) 20:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Hm, maybe we should just drop that sentence altogether (phoenix rebirth etc) - it is presently unsourced and the implication seems to be doubtful? In addition, it does not seem all that crucial as background to Goldbergs choice of title. Agree? RandySpears (talk) 21:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

On second thought, reading the section again there probably should be some form of summary of what was in Wells speech and how it related to his coinage of "Liberal Fascism". I'm just thinking that it would be more straightforward to source that summary to Coupland instead of Goldberg? F.e. "According to historian Philip Coupland, Wells usage of the term referred to his vision of using tactics from contemporary fascist movements to achieve his vision of an enlightened world government". Or something like that... RandySpears (talk) 00:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The only part of Coupland's writing that is relevant is his commentary on Goldberg's book. Logically we should present Goldberg's view first. What Wells actually said and what Coupland wrote in 2000 are irrelevant - it would be original research to include them. We should not put ourselves in the position of commenting on Goldberg's views.  !The Four Deuces (talk) 01:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I'm actually perfectly fine with that. That's a valid point. But I think the present sentence is unacceptable insofar as it through the use of quotes is firstly understood to represent not Goldbergs views, but in fact Wells views, and furthermore seems to be doing a pretty bad job of it. See what I mean? In addition, it is presently unsourced. We need to polish that somewhat IMHO. Any suggestions? RandySpears (talk) 02:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I looked around for a sufficiently good source for the present language but couldn't find one. Maybe my google-fu is off. Looking in the book itself, Goldberg writes on the subject of Wells, his views and his coinage of "Liberal Fascism":

Wells was a leading voice in what I have called the fascist moment, when many Western elites were eager to replace Church and Crown with slide rules and industrial armies. Throughout his work he championed the idea that special men - variously identified as scientists, priests, warriors, or "samurai" - must impose progress on the masses in order to create a "New Republic" or a "world theocracy". Only through militant Progressivism - by whatever name - could mankind achieve the fulfillment of the kingdom of God. Wells simply put, was enthralled by the totalitarian temptation. (p21)

I'm thinking that could be summarized (as opposed to quoted) as f.e. Goldberg writes that Wells was a leading voice who advocated a militant Progressivism where progress was imposed on the masses by the elite - "enthralled by the totalitarian temptation". and sourced to the book. Do you agree with that general suggestion, and if so what about the proposed language?

RandySpears (talk) 04:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

That's fine. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Previous suggested subtitles

I noticed it was mentioned on the Jonah Goldberg page that the project has gone through a couple of different subtitles before publishing - i.e. "The Totalitarian Temptation From Mussolini to Hillary Clinton" and "The Totalitarian Temptation From Hegel to Whole Foods". I thought that info is probably more relevant in this article, so I added it and sourced it to Timothy Noah in Slate (though I'm pretty sure it could probably be sourced to Goldbergs writing at NRO).

Thoughts, comments?

RandySpears (talk) 18:27, 13 January 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)

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)

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.[9] 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)

"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)