re: #746 ShanghaiEd

Funny you should mention that. It’s my understanding that the second edition of Goldberg’s book will have a new subtitle…Liberal Fascism: Red Meat for the Idiots.

Hey, all anyone needs to do is look at the history of the changing subtitles of the book to know that that’s been the real subtitle all along!

First it was Liberal Fascism: The Totalitarian Temptation From Mussolini to Hillary Clinton

Then it became: The Totalitarian Temptation From Hegel to Whole Foods

Before finally: The Secret History of the American Left From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning.

More seriously, I can recommend David Neiwert’s many excellent articles on it— a good short debunking of a central problem with the book is here:

dneiwert.blogspot.com

Goldberg’s definition does not fit fascism specifically. One could use nearly the same terms and ideas to define Leninist Marxism, or a totalitarian state of any kind. That’s because what his definition describes is not fascism specifically, but totalitarianism (or authoritarianism, if you will) generally.

Fascism is a specific species of totalitarianism, and it’s best understood not by the things it has in common with other forms of this phenomenon, but what distinguishes it from those other forms. This is why the academic debate has raged for some years over the “fascist minimum”, for which Roger Griffin, at least has provided a worthy start by defining fascism as “palingenetic ultranationalist populism.” You’ll note that all three of these traits are in fact unique to fascism.

But there are other traits common and in many cases unique to fascism as well, and Goldberg overlooks these as well — while such scholars as Robert Paxton, Stanley Payne, and Umberto Eco, all of whom Goldberg cites in his book, in fact emphasize them.

(snip)
Note that none of these aspects of fascism appear in Goldberg’s “definition.” In fact, he seems to studiously avoid discussing them as essential to fascism because they are so plainly antiliberal.

Goldberg’s “definition” can’t be taken seriously because it’s so clearly meant to enhance his thesis, while omitting the facets of the term he seeks to define that undermine or in fact destroy his thesis.

It would have been fine, really, if Goldberg had chosen to write about “Liberal Totalitarianism” or “Liberal Authoritarianism.” I have no doubt that there is such a thing, and examining it might even make an interesting book and subsequent discussion.

Much more detail at this review, prospect.org

And here is a fairly comprehensive listing of all of Neiwert’s articles on it, with links to many other sources:
dneiwert.blogspot.com

There are many other places to find substantive criticisms of Goldberg’s book, but I can recommend Neiwert more generally as well for all the work he’s been doing for the past 15 years or so in monitoring right wing extremism.