Available at Amazon. Reviewed by David Gordon here. Listen to an interview with Dr. Gottfried here.
What does it mean to label someone a fascist? Today, it is equated with denouncing him or her as a Nazi. But as intellectual historian Paul E. Gottfried writes in this provocative yet even-handed study, the term’s meaning has evolved over the years. Gottfried examines the semantic twists and turns the term has endured since the 1930s and traces the word’s polemical function within the context of present ideological struggles. Like “conservatism,” “liberalism,” and other words whose meanings have changed with time, “fascism” has been used arbitrarily over the years and now stands for a host of iniquities that progressives, multiculturalists, and libertarians oppose, even if they offer no single, coherent account of the historic evil they condemn.
Certain factors have contributed to the term’s imprecise usage, Gottfried writes, including the equation of all fascisms with Nazism and Hitler, as well as the rise of a post-Marxist left that expresses predominantly cultural opposition to bourgeois society and its Christian and/or national components. Those who stand in the way of social change are dismissed as “fascist,” he contends, an epithet that is no longer associated with state corporatism and other features of fascism that were once essential but are now widely ignored. Gottfried outlines the specific historical meaning of the term and argues that it should not be used indiscriminately to describe those who hold unpopular opinions. His important study will appeal to political scientists, intellectual historians, and general readers interested in politics and history.
An Antifa apologist makes his case.
Part 1 – Meet the Antifascists – 0:53 Part 2 – Fascism – 8:18 Part 3 – Violence – 20:47 Part 4 – Free Speech – 39:58 Part 5 – There Is No Peaceful White Nationalism – 53:30
Anti-Trumpians need to get over the “Trump is a fascist” hysteria. Trump is a neo-Nixonian (which is bad enough) not a neo-Nazi.
By Daniel McCarthy
The Richard Nixon renaissance is upon us. And it’s a comeback every bit as remarkable as Nixon’s return from the political wilderness to win the White House in 1968.
Late last month, Bob Dole wrote an essay arguing that “Washington could use a man like Nixon again.” This week, Pat Buchanan publishes a second memoir of his time with the 37th president, Nixon’s White House Wars. But the real Nixon revival isn’t in print. It’s in the Oval Office.
President Trump is easily the most Nixonian figure to inhabit the White House since Nixon himself. And under Trump, the Republicans are again becoming Nixon’s party. Look around you: The long idealized party of Reagan, this is not.
To understand the Republican Party of the last half-century, it’s helpful to draw a distinction between what’s “conservative” and what’s “right-wing.” Nixon, like Trump, was right-wing but not conservative — that is, neither of them cared a whit for ideological purity as a matter of principle. Trump, like Nixon, is no believer in small-government dogma. Nixon’s opening to China scandalized the conservatives of his time much as Trump’s “America First” language shocked the keepers of conservatism’s foreign-policy orthodoxy last year.
Todd Lewis and Keith Preston discuss the most controversial ideology.
National Revolutionary Voice of the Netherlands
On the 23rd of May, 1919 the former revolutionary Marxist Benito Mussolini established the “Fascio di Combattimento” (combat union) with a small group of sympathizers in Italy. Until 1920 it remained a marginal group in the extreme leftwing of the political spectrum. The opportunistic swing to the right, along with the sudden sharp frontal stance against communism and socialism, ensured that the fascist movement got an unexpected strong impulse in the period 1920-1921. After the “red tidal wave” (september 1920), when striking workers in northern Italy started with factory occupations and the establishment of worker soviets, the fascists could count on the warm sympathy and benevolent support from the Italian bourgeoisie.
Within a short period of time, thanks to the support of the liberal bourgeoisie, the state bureaucrats, parts of the army and the Catholic Church fascism got a further influx and became a mass movement in Italy.
“Nothing outside the State, nothing against the State, everything for the State” was the notorious and one hundred times repeated formula of the totalitarian fascist State. The concept of the State is the ideal that fascism persues. It is their highest value, and therefore other important values such as selfcontrol, people and culture were considered by fascism to be secundary, if they recognized it at all. From the perspective of the Italian masses the fascists always stayed the murderers of workers and agents of the hated landlords and factory lords, on which fascism indeed was depended throughout it’s lifetime.
Fascism can not be possible without a strong State, which opresses the people and considers workers to be the slaves of the State. Fascism puts the interests of the State before the welbeing of the people. Examples include the Franco-fascism in Spain (1939-1975). Also the Hitlerite variant of National Socialism was similarly constructed in a Statecapitalist way, just as the fascist ideology; it also suppressed its own people, advocated a bourgeois State nationalism and persued imperialist utopias.