Truck Month Summer Reading Amazon Fashion Learn more Discover it Goo-goo Dolls Father's Day Gift Guide 2016 Fire TV Stick Get Ready for Summer and Save 15% The Baby Store Shop now Amazon Cash Back Offer DrThorne DrThorne DrThorne  Amazon Echo  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Amazon Echo Starting at $149.99 All-New Kindle Oasis Outdoor Recreation

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-6 of 6 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Nov 6, 2010 7:54:06 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Nov 26, 2010 4:53:07 AM PST
mianfei says:
It surprises me to see a new book in the "Politically Incorrect Guide" series after a whopping eleven months, but the cover is terribly disappointing. I hope Kevin Williamson is a bit better inside and can deal with questions like whether the working masses of Europe and East Asia really supported Marxism or even unions.

However, one title I have wished for ever since meeting the series is a "Politically Incorrect Guide to Fascism".

Fascism is a subject that, to borrow form Martin Sieff, "is everywhere in the history textbooks, but most people actually know little about". Most people do know little about fascism's historical and philosophical roots, and sometimes mistake them for traditional European monarchism. A "Politically Incorrect Guide to Fascism" might well be able to say more about its topic than any PIG so far written.

Posted on Jan 21, 2011 8:34:28 AM PST
Aren't the differences between fascism and socialism and even communism only superficial or at best merely a matter of gradation?

All are examples of statism , that is, the exercise of power by authoritarian central governments over individual or corporate interests.
Real conservatives eschew statism in all of its forms while the left clamors for corporatism which has nothing to do with capitalism or liberty.

Both the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany featured corporatism [Ilyushin, Krupp, et. al] as their essential means of exercising ultimate power over the individual.

Free market corporations and corporatism are polar opposites; by free market corporations I mean corporations whose relationship with government is always at arm's length. They are capitalized by free capital markets, staffed through free labor markets, and sell their products primarily into free consumer markets. It is of course increasingly difficult to exploit free markets with the government dominating every aspect of the national economy.

The best models of fascism found in the USA today are represented by "public-private" partnerships which in reality are truly unholy marriages made in hell. The fact that so many people believe that these relationships are other than evil offers a testament to the effectiveness of our state-education partnerships in indoctrinating the youth; another requirement of all statist regimes. Real life examples of these evil partnerships are found in the GE corporation and the GM corporation where "General" has transmogrified into "Government"

What is the compelling reason to marry the strong arm of government force with the presumed prominent feature of capitalism; that is an an organization designed to operate in markets dominated by persuasion?

What do these partnerships represent other than "please[fund, buy] our product, and oh, by the way if you don't we'll club you over the head"
This is the essential feature of "public-private" partnerships and fascism, socialism, communism, or any other form of statism.

Posted on Jan 22, 2011 7:21:48 AM PST
mianfei says:
I agree very much with what you say about fascism having similarities with socialism. However, the reason for a "Politically Incorrect Guide to Fascism" is as much to deal with the origins of fascism - and why it became popular - as they are about how fascist states and economies worked.

Most especially, the idea that fascism was really a movement of a conservative elite is one that a "Politically Incorrect Guide to Fascism" could spend time on. Many conservative writers have rigidly attacked that idea - which is never studied in schools and is pressed all the time by radical socialists. Even if fascism really was a movement of big business, that does not imply that big businessmen in general were ever so conservative as the landowning elites from whom they took over after the Industrial Revolution. Many even in the US had quite socially radical views.

Posted on Jul 22, 2011 3:12:45 PM PDT
I think you are pretty much describing Goldberg's Liberal Fascism.

Posted on Nov 18, 2012 9:20:13 PM PST
The one new thing that I learned about fascism when I read Goldberg's book, "Liberal Fascism," is that fascism is a political system rather than an economic system. Goldberg's point was that fascism was not necessarily militarist or even right wing but his emphasis on the fascism of modern liberalism further obscured an important point: any system can be fascist if it demands that all members behave or believe in a specific way and it expels (or executes) individuals who fail to conform. In that context, theocracies such as Puritan Massachusetts, Catholic Medieval Spain, and Ancient Israel were fascist. The specific issue of mandatory conformity is the issue that I'd like to see addressed in book on Fascism in the PIG series.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 19, 2012 3:29:28 PM PST
mianfei says:
That's a point I had ignored, NotAPartyGirl!

At times, the Politically Incorrect Guides and their backer the catholic Church are a little contradictory in this respect. For instance, the Church still says officially it has the duty to prohibit artificial birth control without recognising that in the economic conditions prevailing today in Eurasia, the Americas and New Zealand even rigidly enforced prohibition fails. (The Church is loath to even consider whether it was the masses and not government or even the intellectual classes who brought in the so-called "culture of death". If it did, it could still say a lot about contrasting the moderately atheistic working masses of pre-1970s Europe with the militantly atheistic welfare masses of today).

What the Politically Incorrect Guides need to be more emphatic about is understanding what freedom is, and how it would work in the "private property anarchy" advocated by Austrian economics. Looking at how conformity would be avoided is a fascinating topic to me living in ultra-conformist Australia.
‹ Previous 1 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in


This discussion

Participants:  4
Total posts:  6
Initial post:  Nov 6, 2010
Latest post:  Nov 19, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 2 customers

Search Customer Discussions
This discussion is about