Food for thought: About liberal fascism - from Mussolini to Obama. John Goldberg. Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left from Mussolini to Obama - dzeso

The author of the book is the famous American publicist Jonah Goldberg. He does not hide his conservative views, and his dislike for liberals and democrats became the main theme of this book. Goldberg's book was published in the United States in January 2008, before the presidential election, which Obama won. The book retained its provocative relevance even before the 2012 presidential elections.

The author prefaces his interesting study with a large introductory article designed to clarify, first of all, the terminology, and it is called “Everything you know about fascism is wrong.” Although the label “fascism” certainly requires clarification and a more precise definition. After all, the word “fascism” sounds dirty to Russian, European, and American ears. Since the Second World War, fascism has been synonymous with universal evil, violence and anti-Semitism.

Goldberg argues that "classical fascism" was not a right-wing movement at all, but an offshoot of and overcoming socialism. Goldberg's entire extensive book is devoted to an attempt to prove the idea that "modern liberalism remains close to fascist ideas," and the first fascist dictator of the twentieth century, according to Goldberg, was the 28th President of the United States (1913-1921), Woodrow Wilson. Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal was fascist, then Kennedy and Johnson continued the fascist cause. Al Gore introduced “green fascism” to the United States, turning environmental ideas into a political tool. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are developing left-wing fascist ideas, and as a result, all Americans now live under fascism. The author urges his compatriots not to lose their vigilance, although America is not threatened by brutal fascism, like the one we saw in the first half of the twentieth century. Another danger threatens: “soft fascism,” the fascism from Aldous Huxley’s dystopia “Brave New World.”

It seems to me that, despite all the controversy, Goldberg’s book is remarkable in that it shows, using the example of the freest country in the world today, how close the ideas of the common good for the majority are to totalitarian ideologies. And how far they are from the idea of ​​individual freedoms of a person endowed with the right to life, freedom, and the pursuit of happiness.

Unfortunately, in the Russian edition of the book one does not feel the ironic intonation that signals its presence in the American edition already on the cover. And the dialogue between two American comedians George Carlin and Bill Mara, with whom the book begins, contains almost no humorous intonation, since few people in Russia know them. “Essentially, fascism is when corporations start running the country.” We should listen carefully to this serious phrase from the mouths of American comedians.

Jonah Goldberg. Liberal fascism. The history of the left from Mussolini to the Obama (Liberal Fascism. The Secret History of the American Left from Mussolini to the Politics of Change). / Translation: I. Cloud. - M.: Reed Group, 2012. - 512 p. — (Series: Political Animal. “Political Animal”). — Circulation 3000 copies.

A strange book, almost “yellow”, opportunistic, written for the 2008 elections in the United States. Internally contradictory and frankly weak intellectually, although it was listed at the top of the New York Times bestseller list. And yet, I read it in a couple of evenings. I read with interest, discovering a lot of interesting things.
How is that? Well, first of all, except for specialists, we usually have very little idea of ​​the history of the United States. Secondly, we are talking not just about history, but about political history, and history that smoothly flows into the present. Thirdly, the author, having set himself the ambitious task of proving that everyone except conservatives are fascists, but even conservatives are a little fascist, was simply forced to spice up his frankly weak intellectual constructions, big amount facts. I fully admit that not all facts are facts in the full sense. This is normal for politics. But, for all the criticism and irritation in the liberal camp, nothing significant was factually challenged.
So the most valuable thing in the book is: a huge number of links, names, documents... Well, and a description of the everyday life of the American political establishment. I learned a lot of new things, if not shocking ones. For example, where does this quote come from: country, period and, in fact, what is happening?
“Here is your diet for the next four weeks, which must be strictly followed:
Monday. Every meal without wheat.
Tuesday. Every meal without meat.
Wednesday. Every meal without wheat.
Thursday. Breakfast without meat; wheat free dinner.
Friday. Breakfast without meat; wheat free dinner.
Saturday. Every meal without pork, breakfast without meat.
Sunday. Breakfast without meat; wheat free dinner.
Sugar consumption should be limited. Do not put sugar in coffee unless it is a long-standing habit, and if you do, do not add more than one spoon.”

Perhaps it's just my poor knowledge of history, but why not "Hello, Brave New World"? It’s not interesting to analyze the author’s intellectual constructions, as well as the old contradictions: Democrats - Republicans... Why isn’t it interesting? Well, firstly, the constructions, to put it mildly, are not indisputable, and secondly, now, in order to understand how a Republican differs from a Democrat, you need to be almost an expert. But, in my opinion, the third thing is more important: this is all becoming history, and the world is changing, and it is much more important to understand the changes taking place than to try to explain them through historical analogies. Goldberg is trying to explain what is happening using definitions and metrics from the past. It turns out with difficulty, but even the author, by the end of the book, notices with surprise that the established system has crawled somewhere. Something is happening, the framework of the usual consensus is spreading... But since, first of all, Goldberg set himself a propaganda task, he either really does not notice this collision, or he pretends to. It’s difficult to judge, but I don’t see much point in discussing something that, by and large, no longer exists. And if we’re going to discuss something, then it’s precisely the “new”, “incomprehensible” that appears behind the usual contours of the “old” world. This is what, in fact, made me read the book to the end, regardless of what the author wanted to say..
So, I don’t know about an intellectual bestseller, but as a reference book on American politics of the 20th century, it’s very good. Yes, incomplete, yes, biased, and somewhat one-sided, but the facts remain facts, where they cannot be placed. And the life stories are interesting. For example, the origins and methods of war against “traditional” culture and the Christian religion. Who, why, for what, how... And not within the framework of conspiracy theories, but factually, through incidental everyday life.
Or, for example, Clinton and children. Why? I’ve been wondering for a long time how and why her fixation on children, on all these “equalizations” of rights, and the state’s displacement of the family from education, arose? Naturally, some kind of Satanism... But no, it turned out to be quite pragmatic and an effective political instrument at its core. No, of course there are ideological roots, but in the case of Clinton, it turned out that it was simply a thirst for power:

“In many respects, Edelman was a typical welfare state liberal, believing that the more compensation and subsidies the better. Her main innovation was to defend the welfare system against empirical criticism - the subject of which was the lack of desired results due to using the image of poor children. “When you talk about poor people or black people, your audience diminishes,” she said. “I thought children could be a very effective vehicle for broadening the base of change.” In addition, Edelman more than anyone or something else, can be blamed for the infuriating ubiquity of the word “children” in American political rhetoric.
In a global sense, this tactic was excellent, but the crux of the problem is that it led to the failure of responsible reforms. Ultimately, the reason for the "declining" number of "listeners" willing to listen to speeches about the need to expand the welfare state was the evidence that the welfare state promotes dependency among black women and alienation among black men. As a result, defenders of the status quo have become even more forceful in their criticism of their opponents. This has led to the use and abuse of the word "children."

Well, the teachers were interesting, both Clinton’s and Obama’s: Saul Alinsky. Well, again, what an interesting meeting: Clinton and Obama. And there is so much more of this in the book. Or, for example, from the news from Kyiv:

"Hillary (Clinton) helped edit the Wall Review of Law and Social Action, which at the time was a predominantly radical publication that supported the Black Panthers and published articles that implicitly endorsed the killing of police officers. One of the articles entitled The Jamestown Seventy proposed that radicals adopt a program that would involve the resettlement of all “political migrants in one state for the purpose of seizing power and creating a laboratory for experimentation in real conditions.” And it was further stated: “It is now necessary to find new beiges that will facilitate the continuation of experiments, an environment relatively free from traditional models of social and political organization. Experiments with drugs, sex, individually life or radical rhetoric and actions within society as a whole are insufficient alternatives. Total experimentation is required. New ideas and values ​​must be transferred from consciousness to reality.” On the cover of one of the issues of this magazine, police were depicted as pigs, and one of them had a severed head. The Panthers became the talk of the campus because Panther "chairman" Bobby Seale was put on trial in New Haven along with several other thugs for the murder of one of their own. Hillary volunteered to help the Black Panther lawyers and even attended court hearings, taking notes to help the defense."

In general, the book is rich in food for an inquisitive mind. It’s a pity that now it’s a little beyond my interests, but I remembered it. So much that Dan Brown is relaxing with his tediousness.

John Goldberg
Jonah Goldberg
Birthday: 03/21/1969
Citizenship: USA
(http://www.peoples.ru/tv/jonah_goldberg/)

Biography

Famous person, department editor general issues National Review Online, and the creator and author of the popular book Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning. He is also a member of USA Today's "Freelance" panel.
John Goldberg was born on March 21, 1969. In 1991 he graduated from Goucher College. While still a student, John was active in student politics and was editor of the student newspaper, The Quindecim, for two years.
Goldberg's excellent work experience included working for the Scripps Howard News Service, United Press International and other media outlets including Delilah Communications.
After graduating from college, John began teaching English language in Prague, and then found a job in Washington, at the American Enterprise Institute.
In addition, around the same period, Jonah Goldberg worked on several documentaries and also served (for three years) on the Board of Trustees of Goucher College.
In 1994, John began to work more actively in the television field. He was invited by one of the independent television companies - New River Media - to work on various projects.
Then he began writing scripts and became closely involved in editorial activities.
Soon - in 1998 - Jonah Goldberg became editor of National Review, and also responsible for the National Review Online project. By the way, he is currently still at the head of this project.
Currently, John is at the peak of his popularity. His famous book “Liberal Fascism...” was published in January 2008 and created a real sensation among the thinking and reading audience.
Of particular interest are John's political and other views - his attitude towards censorship, freedom of speech, federalism, interpretation of the Constitution, issues of ethics and morality, etc. - and are the subject of controversy. For example, Jonah Goldberg to this day advocates the US war in Iraq and American military intervention in other countries.
John Goldberg is married and has a daughter.

PS
The answer to the riddle. This is from newspaper advertisements from Wilson's time (early 20th century) in which F. C. Findlay, the county food commissioner, instructs US citizens on what and how they should eat. But there was totalitarianism in the USSR.

You yourselves are fascists!

J. Goldberg. Liberal fascism. Translation from English: J. Goldberg. - M.: Reed Group (Series “Political Animal”), 2012.

Jonah Goldberg's book “Liberal Fascism” appeared in 2008, at the height of the US presidential election campaign. Now this book has been translated in our country, and we can evaluate it, at least to a small extent abstracting from the context of the political struggle in which it was published.

When leftists and liberals accuse the right and their other opponents of secretly adhering to fascism, this is not at all surprising and even common. Also, the left can blame liberals for hidden fascism, finding numerous hints of fascism in modern globalism, neoliberalism, etc. But when a conservative begins to accuse leftists and liberals of the same secret fascism, this is something relatively new and unusual. This is exactly what American conservative Jonah Goldberg does in his book.

Goldberg's argument largely boils down to the fact that fascism is as much, if not more, a leftist movement than a rightist one. It grew primarily out of left-wing and liberal political philosophy. Goldberg finds ample evidence of similarities between fascists and contemporary progressives and liberals. The American conservative compares the ideas and practices of fascists and progressives using the “find ten differences” principle and finds them only in shades and degrees of completeness practical actions undertaken by both. Thus, the progressives who ruled America during the time of Woodrow Wilson “were real “social Darwinists” in the modern sense of the term, although they themselves called their enemies that way. They believed in eugenics. They were imperialists. They were convinced that through birth planning and pressure on the population, the state could create a pure race, a society of new people. They did not hide their hostility to individualism and were proud of it. Religion was a political instrument, and politics was the real religion. Progressives viewed the traditional system of constitutional checks and balances as outdated and an obstacle to progress because such ancient institutions limited their own ambitions. Dogmatic attachment to the constitution, democratic practice and outdated laws inhibited progress in the understanding of both fascists and pogressivists. Moreover, fascists and progressives extolled the same heroes and quoted the same philosophers.”

Goldberg also cites numerous examples of liberal and leftist sympathies for fascism. So, for example, we learn that B. Shaw in different time idolized Stalin, Mussolini and Hitler, that H. Wells wrote almost openly fascist books and generally wanted to “see liberal fascists, enlightened Nazis,” who alone were capable of establishing a new world order and solving numerous problems plaguing European societies, which in the time of Roosevelt was similar his course with the fascists caused not only censure, but rather approval among his comrades, etc. and so on.

We said “intellectual history,” but the history of what? The so-called “fascist moment” is a key concept in Goldberg's thinking. Goldberg writes his intellectual and practical history in Europe and the USA. Among these moments, not counting the usual ones of fascist Italy and Germany, there are also French revolution, and Wilsonian progressivism, and Roosevelt's New Deal, and the cultural revolution of the 1960s, etc., up to the soft fascism of Kennedy, Johnson, Bill and Hillary Clinton and, of course, Obama.

So what is the “fascist moment”? It can be defined as a conglomerate of ideas and practices, among which the following are the most characteristic. First of all, there is an emphasis on the useful myth in the Sorelian spirit. An idea may be unscientific and generally far from the truth, but if it is useful, it has creative power and changes history. The fascist moment is characterized by pragmatism, in the light of which what works is true. Further, it should be noted the tendency not to theorize, build a clear program and ideology, but to dynamics, action for the sake of action and evaluation of politicians based on their intentions and good wishes. Particularly important is statism, faith in the state, in its ability to solve all problems and in the fact that the state loves you. Leaderism and the cult of personality occupy not the least place. War is of great importance as a means of mobilizing society to solve any problems. If there is no war, then its “moral equivalent” is necessary, provoking crises that can be solved by exerting all forces (for example, the war on drugs, for cleanliness environment etc.) It is clear that Goldberg easily finds a number of these signs not only in the right, but also in the left, especially in the “new left”.

It should be noted that in this kind of analysis it is not difficult to discover an extensive intellectual history, some elements of which are not obvious, but are of exceptional importance. For example, for a long time, radical supporters of capitalism and the free market like Friedrich Hayek and Ayn Rand put leftists and fascists on the same level for their statism and similar sins. In this regard, of course, Hannah Arendt’s concept of totalitarianism comes to mind. But it is difficult to escape the impression that the thinkers whose views formed the basis of the views of both the “new left” and modern leftists and liberals did the most in this direction. Even T. Adorno and others examined American society in order to search for potentially fascist individuals in it who do not declare themselves fascists and do not belong to known fascist organizations, but would willingly accept fascism if it managed to turn into a sufficiently strong and respected movement. The Frankfurt School philosophers and all those they influenced described Western society as riddled with repressive practices that stifled human will and capacity for self-realization. Since the 1960s, they have convinced many Western intellectuals that Western society is riddled with latent fascism.

It seems that Goldberg himself takes all this as an axiom. He just went a little further - where the left usually does not go. As the classic said, it is impossible to live in society and be free from society. Why, if society is permeated by fascism, should an exception be made for leftists and liberals? If a “fascist moment” appears from time to time in the history of the West, then it concerns everyone, not only conservatives (Goldberg also admits this!), but also the left. In a word, Goldberg, so to speak, followed his left-liberal opponents in “smearing” fascism throughout society, but his strokes were even broader.

Of course, Goldberg often distorts, and therefore it is easy to accuse him of opportunism, that the book was written on the topic of the day in order to dump Hillary Clinton, as Konstantin Arshin and Alexander Pavlov do: “This is how Goldberg’s entire 400-page Talmud turns out to be true.” turned out to be nothing more than the propaganda of a “conservative fascist” designed to prevent Hillary Clinton from winning the election.” (“WITCH HUNT” FROM JONAH GOLDBERG Konstantin Arshin, Alexander Pavlov - http://www.intelros.ru/pdf/Rus_journal_12_2008/22.pdf) However, the meaning of Goldberg’s book is different. We often hear about the liberal roots of fascism, that fascism is a product of European culture, like many other things. Goldberg’s book precisely shows that fascism as a phenomenon of European and American political culture was not something transitory and accidental, that it arose in the same ideological and cultural broth as a number of ideologies and utopias, as well as slogans and practices, to which we regard with much greater approval, or at least not with such censure. The last chapters of the book are not without interest, in which Goldberg asserts and illustrates this with examples that a number of these slogans and practices, which we now habitually attribute to the left and liberal spectrum, were also characteristic of fascism: modern liberals and leftists are waging “culture wars”, promoting the decline of traditional Christian churches and preach pagan cults, reduce all evil to the vices of a certain race (“the white man is the Jew of liberal fascism”), justify the burning of books, and destroy the traditional family. Modern left-wing liberals exhibit racism, only turned in the other direction. The multiculturalist paradigm shared by leftists and liberals, which attaches primary importance not to universal, but to cultural and racial criteria in assessing a person, is also, from Goldberg’s point of view, typically fascist. Leftists, liberals and Nazis have something in common general idea that for some time now civilization has taken some wrong path. In particular, therefore, the adoption of environmental slogans by leftists and liberals is also a Nazi legacy: “The environmental movement preceded Nazism and was used to expand its base of support. The Nazis were among the first to make the fight against air pollution, the creation of nature reserves and sustainable forestry central to their political platform.” Moreover, vegetarianism, public health, and animal rights, in Goldberg's view, were “simply different facets of the obsession with organic order that dominated the German fascist consciousness of that time and characterizes today's liberal fascist consciousness.” While today's Americans are obsessed with everything “natural,” at one time Himmler “hoped to transfer the SS completely to natural products nutrition and intended to carry out such a transition for all of Germany after the war.”

In a word, the broth of ideas and practices in which fascism once arose is still boiling, and the “fascist moment” has not disappeared anywhere and, it seems, cannot disappear. Therefore, says Goldberg, “it doesn’t take much courage or intelligence to point out what you don’t like or consider popular and shout “Fascism!” It takes real courage to look inside yourself, look at your beliefs and ask yourself whether some of the things you like might lead to fascism or some other kind of totalitarianism under a different name.”

Of course, since the book was written in the heat of political struggle, it is easy to perceive it as an answer thrown to the liberals and leftists who “asked for it”: “You yourselves are fascists!” But the spirit of the book is more accurately reflected in the title of the last chapter: “New Era: We are all fascists now.”

It is now generally accepted that in Europe fascism came to power in a special way and that, due to the numerous national and cultural differences between America and Europe, its emergence here (in America) was impossible. However, this statement is completely meaningless. Progressivism and then fascism were international movements (with great hopes attached to them) that accepted various shapes in different countries, but had a common beginning. Many thinkers admired by the Fascists and Nazis were as influential here as in Italy and Germany, and vice versa. For example, Henry George, the radical populist guru of American reformism, was more revered in Europe than in America. His ideas gave shape to the nationalist economic theories on which the Nazi Party was originally based. Among British socialists, his book Progress and Poverty created a sensation. When Marx's son-in-law came to America to spread the ideas of scientific socialism, he was so captivated by George that he returned to Europe preaching the doctrine of American populism.
From the 1890s until World War I, it was simply believed that progressives in America and representatives of the various socialist and "new liberal" movements in Europe were fighting for the same ideas. William Alley White, the famous progressive from Kansas, declared in 1911: “We were part of one whole in the United States and Europe. Something united us into one social and economic whole, despite local political differences. Stubbs in Kansas, Jaurès in Paris, Social Democrats [i.e. e. socialists] in Germany, socialists in Belgium, and, perhaps, I can say, the entire population of Holland - all fought for a common cause" [...] But no country influenced the thinking of Americans to a greater extent than Germany, E. B. Du Bois, Charles Beard, Walter Weill, Richard Eli, Nicholas Murray Butler, and countless other founders of modern American liberalism were among the nine thousand Americans who studied at German universities in the 19th century. When the American Economic Association was founded, five of its six original members studied in Germany. At least twenty of its first 26 presidents also studied in this country. In 1906, a Yale University professor surveyed 116 of America's leading economists and sociologists; more than half of them studied in Germany for at least a year. By their own admission, they felt "liberated" by studying in an intellectual environment where it was believed that knowledgeable people capable of giving shape to society like clay.

No European statesman had such influence on the minds and hearts of American progressives as Otto von Bismarck. "As inconvenient as it may be for those trained to believe in continuity between Bismarck and Hitler," writes Eric Goldman, "Bismarck's Germany was 'the catalyst for American progressive thought.'" Bismarck's "top-down socialism," which brought the 8-hour workday, health care, social security, etc., was the "Tiffany standard" (sterling silver) for enlightened social policy. “Give the working man the right to work when he is healthy; provide him with care when he is sick; guarantee him financial support when he grows old,” he said in his famous address to the Reichstag in 1862. Bismarck with his original model The "Third Way" managed to find a balance between both ideological fields themselves. “Having chosen its path, the government should not hesitate. It should not look left or right, but go forward,” he declared. Teddy Roosevelt's 1912 Progressive Party platform borrowed heavily from the Prussian model. Twenty-five years earlier, political scientist Woodrow Wilson wrote that Bismarck's welfare state was "a remarkable system... the best studied and most complete" known. in this world. […] Wilson revered Bismarck as much as Teddy Roosevelt or any other member of the Progressive Party. In college, he wrote a glowing essay lavishing praise on this “brilliant leader” who combined “the moral strength of Cromwell and the political acumen of Richelieu; Burke's encyclopedic mind... and Talleyrand's diplomatic abilities without his coldness." Further, Wilson continued in the same spirit, speaking of the iron chancellor’s “sharpness of understanding, clarity of judgment and ability to make quick decisions.” He concluded with regret; "Prussia will not soon find another Bismarck." […] The most influential thinker of this trend and an even greater admirer of Bismarck was the man who acted as liaison between Roosevelt and Wilson - Herbert Crowley, author of The Promise of American Life, founder and editor of the New Republic magazine, and the political guru who pioneered Roosevelt's “new nationalism.” […] Many at the time believed that Crowley's book convinced Roosevelt to run for president again; it is more likely that this book served as a successful rationale for his return to politics. […] Crowley was a quiet man who grew up in a noisy family. His mother was one of the first American journalists to write her own syndicated column and was also a committed feminist. His father was a successful journalist and editor, nicknamed the Great Speculator by his friends. According to one historian, their home was a kind of "European island in New York." The elder Crowley's most interesting feature (if "interesting feature" can be used to describe his eccentricity) was his fascination with Auguste Comte, the French semi-mystic philosopher who, among other things, is considered the creator of the word "sociology." Comte argued that humanity goes through three stages in its development and that at the last stage it will reject Christianity and replace it with a new “religion of humanity” that will combine the religious component with science and reason. The result will be the recognition as “saints” of such figures as Shakespeare, Dante and Frederick the Great. Comte believed that the era of mass industrialization and technocracy would forever lead the human mind away from the realm of metaphysics and usher in a time when pragmatic rulers would be able to improve the lot of all people, based on universal principles of morality. He styled himself the high priest of this atheistic, secular faith, which he called "positivism." The elder Crowley turned his home in Greenwich Village into a positivist temple, where he held religious ceremonies for selected guests, whom he also tried to convert. In 1869, young Herbert Crowley became the first and probably the last American to embrace Comte's religion. […]

When reading about Herbert Crowley, you often come across phrases such as “Crowley was not a fascist, but...”. At the same time, few people try to explain why he was not a fascist. It seems clear to most that the founder of the New Republic could not have been a student of Mussolini. When in fact, almost every item on the typical list can be found in The Promise of American Life characteristic features fascism. The need to mobilize society like an army? - Yes! A call for spiritual rebirth? -Yes! The need for "great" revolutionary leaders? - Yes! Dependence on artificial unifying national “myths”? - Yes! Contempt for parliamentary democracy? - Yes! Non-Marxist socialism? - Yes! Nationalism? - Yes! Spiritual calling to military expansion? - Yes! The need to turn politics into religion? Hostility to individualism? - Yes! Yes! Yes! […]
Crowley's ideas attracted the attention of Willard Strite, a JP Morgan investment banker and diplomat, and his wife, Dorothy, who came from the Whitney family. The Strites were prominent philanthropists and reformers, and they saw Crowley's ideas as a means to transform America into a "progressive democracy" (the title of another of Crowley's books). They agreed to support Crowley in his quest to create the New Republic, a magazine whose mission was to "study, develop and apply the ideas promoted by Theodore Roosevelt while he was the leader of the Progressive Party." Joining Crowley as editors were Walter Weill, who called himself a socialist nationalist, and Walter Lippmann, who would later become an outstanding scientist.
Like Roosevelt, Crowley and his colleagues looked forward to new wars because they saw war as the "midwife" of progress. Moreover, according to Crowley, the main significance of the Spanish-American War was that it gave rise to progressivism. In Europe, wars were supposed to promote national unification, while in Asia they were necessary to realize imperial ambitions and provide an opportunity for powerful states to let off some steam. Crowley's concept was based on those components that he considered vital. Industrialization, economic upheaval, social “disintegration,” materialistic decline, and the cult of money were tearing America apart. At least that’s what it seemed to him and the vast majority of progressivists. The remedy for the “chaotic manifestation of individualism in the political and economic organization” of society could be a process of “renewal” led by a “saint,” a hero, who was called upon to overthrow the outmoded doctrine of liberal democracy for the benefit of a revived and heroic nation. In this case, the similarities with traditional fascist theory seem obvious.
In Crowley's justification, it can be said that such ideas were simply “in the air” at the end of the 19th century and were a typical reaction to the social, economic and political changes taking place in the world. Moreover, this is one of the important components of my point of view. Without a doubt, fascism and progressivism were significantly different from each other, but this is mainly due to cultural differences between Europe and America and between national cultures generally. (When Mussolini invited the leader of the Spanish phalanx, the Spanish fascists, to the first fascist congress, he categorically refused. “The phalanx,” he insisted, “is not fascist, it is Spanish!”)
Fascism in the 1920s began to be called one of the forms of socio-political “experimentation.” The experiments were part of the global utopian program of the “world movement” that Jane Addams spoke about at the Progressive Party convention. A spiritual awakening was brewing in the West, with progressives of all stripes eager to see man snatching the reins of history from the hands of God. Science (or what they considered science) became the new Scripture for them, and “experimentation” was the only way to implement scientific ideas. No less important for the progressives were the personalities of scientists, since, in their opinion, only scientists knew how to conduct experiments correctly. “Who will take on the role of prophets and leaders in a just society?” asked Herbert Crowley in 1925. For a generation, he observed, liberals had been convinced that “a better future would result from the beneficial work of social engineers, called upon to bring to the service of social ideals all the technical resources that could be made available through scientific research or created." Five years earlier, Crowley had noted in the New Republic that proponents of the "scientific method" should unite with the "ideologues" of Christ to "plan and implement a salvific transformation" of society that would help people "eliminate the choice between unsaved capitalism and revolutionary salvation." . […]

But what most captured Beard's imagination was the economic system inherent in fascism, namely corporatism. According to Beard, Mussolini succeeded in creating “through the forces of the state the most compact and united organization of capitalists and workers that has ever existed in the form of two camps.” […] Progressives believed that they were engaged in a process of ascent to a more modern, more “evolved” way of organizing society with an abundance of modern machines, modern medicine, modern politics. Wilson was the same pioneer of this movement as Mussolini, only in an American way. A devotee of Hegel (he even referenced him in a love letter to his wife), Wilson believed that history was a scientific, evolving process. Darwinism was a perfect complement to this thinking because it affirmed that the “laws” of history are reflected in our natural environment. “Today,” Wilson wrote when he was still a political scientist, “whenever we discuss the structure or development of anything ... we are consciously or unconsciously following Mr. Darwin.”
Wilson won the 1912 election with a majority of the Electoral College votes but only 42 percent of the popular vote. He immediately began to transform the Democratic Party into the Progressive Party, in order to then make it driving force to transform America. In January 1913, he promised to "select progressives and only progressives" into his government. “No one,” he declared in his inaugural address, “can be deceived as to the ends for which the nation now seeks to employ the Democratic Party... I invite all honest men, all patriots, all progressive men to join me. I won’t let them down if they help and support me!” Elsewhere, however, he warned: “If you are not a progressive, beware.”[…] The outbreak of war in Europe in 1914 distracted Wilson and the country from domestic problems. It also turned out to be good for the American economy; the influx of immigrants into the labor market as cheap labor stopped and the demand for exported goods increased. […] Despite Wilson's promise to take no action, America entered the war in 1917. In retrospect, this may well be seen as a misguided, albeit inevitable, military intervention. However, the claim that this war is supposedly contrary to American interests is essentially false. Wilson repeatedly expressed this with pride. “In my opinion, there is not an ounce of selfishness in the cause for which we are fighting,” he said. Wilson was a humble servant of the Lord, and therefore selfishness was excluded in principle.
Even for self-consciously secular progressives, the war served as a divine call to arms. They were eager to get their hands on the levers of power and use the war to transform society. During the war, the capital was so crowded with potential social engineers that, as one writer noted, the Cosmos Club was little better than a meeting of the teaching staff of all universities. Progressive entrepreneurs demonstrated the same zeal, agreeing to work for the president for next to nothing—hence the expression “people [willing to work] for a dollar a year.” Although, of course, their work was compensated in other ways, as we will see later. […]
Some progressives did believe that World War I was not inherently benign. Moreover, among them were such staunch opponents of war as Robert LaFollette (although LaFollette was not a pacifist and supported the previous military adventures of the Progressive Party). However, most representatives of the progressive movement were enthusiastic and even fanatical for the war (as were many American socialists). But even those who were ambivalent about the war in Europe were attracted by the “social possibilities of war,” so called by John Dewey. Dewey was the New Republic's staff philosopher during the run-up to the war and ridiculed those who called themselves pacifists for failing to recognize "the powerful stimulus for reorganization which this war does not provide." Social groups recognizing the social benefits of war included early feminists, who, in the words of American writer and suffragette Harriet Stanton Blatch, looked forward to new economic benefits for women “as the usual and beneficial consequences of war.” Richard Eli, a staunch supporter of "industrial armies", was also a passionate advocate of conscription: "If you take the boys who hang out in the streets and bars and give them drill training, we will get a great moral effect, and it will have a positive effect on the economy." . Wilson held the same point of view. “I am a peacemaker,” began one of his typical statements, “but there are still some wonderful things that a nation gains from military discipline.” Hitler fully shared this belief. As he told Joseph Goebbels, “the war... has made it possible for us to solve a whole series of problems that we could never have solved in peacetime.” […]
The New Republic magazine, under Crowley's leadership, became a source of active war propaganda. In the magazine's very first editorial, written by Crowley, the editors expressed the hope that the war "should give rise to a political and economic system which can better discharge its obligations at home." Two years later, Crowley again expressed hope that America's entry into the war would provide "the state of exaltation characteristic of serious adventure." A week before America entered the war, Walter Lippmann (who would later write much of Wilson's Fourteen Points) promised that the war would lead to "the most radical revaluation of values ​​in all intellectual history." This was a clear allusion to Nietzsche's call for the overthrow of all traditional morality. It is no coincidence that Lippmann was a protégé of William James, and his call for the use of war to destroy the old order testifies to how close the followers of Nietzsche and the American pragmatists were in their conclusions, and often in their principles. Lippmann was clearly pragmatic when he argued that ideas such as democracy, freedom, and equality must be completely revised “as fearlessly as religious dogmas were in the 19th century.”

Meanwhile, socialist editors and journalists, including those from the boldest radical magazine, The Masses, which Wilson tried to suppress, quickly expressed a desire to receive salaries from the Ministry of Propaganda. Artists such as Charles Dana Gibson, James Montgomery Flagg and Joseph Penell, and writers such as Booth Tarkington, Samuel Hopkins Adams and Ernest Poole became active supporters of the war-hungry regime. Musicians, comedians, sculptors, priests and, of course, filmmakers happily got down to business, readily donning the “invisible military uniform.” Isadora Duncan, one of the founders of the sexual liberation movement, participated in patriotic productions on the stage of the Metropolitan Opera. The most enduring and symbolic image of that time was Flagg’s “I want you” poster, in which Uncle Sam, as the embodiment of the state, points a condemning finger at citizens who have not accepted their obligations.

Food for thought:

About liberal fascism - from Mussolini to Obama

This is the title of the book by American journalist Jonah Gold, who compares and analyzes the similarities and differences in the ideology and politics of the left - European and American - throughout the 20th and early 21st centuries. The work is fundamental, a real “brick”. As they say, if you hit it on the head, you can kill. And in fact it is possible. And without any physical application - just read it. Not that the author reveals any special secrets. The fact of the matter is that there are no secrets there and are not expected. Gold uses open sources and tells what is generally known. At least at the time when the events he describes occurred, these facts were known. And then they were completely forgotten. Why does it feel sensational when you read it? And all you had to do was remember yourself and remind others...

The author is not so worried that much of what he still did not like and seemed suspicious in the Euro-Atlantic democratic space has direct and immediate roots in fascism - that same classical one. Moreover, what from the era Benito Mussolini and Adolf Schicklgruber to Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, not to mention Angel Merkel, Francois Hollande, David Cameron, Silvio Berlusconi and others, lesser ones, seven decades have passed, things have not changed. But imagine that juvenile justice and the state, meddling in the relationship between parents and children, including phantasmagoria such as the introduction into the preschool and school education systems of ideas that are excessive even for many adults, that gender relations certainly include same-sex love, date back to the times of the Third Reich , he could not. It turns out that it was in vain. Moreover, the top leadership of the SA had everything in order with homosexuality (which is what his competitors caught him doing).

The same applies to a comprehensive and all-encompassing fight against tobacco smoking - in full accordance with the opinion widespread in the time of the Fuhrer that a person has no right to control his own body, much less his health. And his body and his health belong not to him, but to the nation. According to which, she has every right to blow his brains out, ruin his life, ruin his career, break into his house and ban everything that local or federal authorities want to ban, to the extent of their inherent idiocy. So that only he remains healthy - as this nation (or rather, its elected or self-appointed representatives) understands health in accordance with the spirit of the era. Or he doesn’t understand – in accordance with the same spirit. But who and when was concerned about the opinion or suspicion of some individual person that the bosses are foolish and that’s why they’re turning everything around for him (not without benefit for themselves and their friends - whoever these “friends” may be)?!

This brought and continues to bring funny results. For example, at the time when this book is being written, the ban on smoking tobacco was used with considerable profit by American lawyers, pitting smokers against tobacco corporations, and manufacturers of recreational drugs, such as marijuana. As well as drugs that were never easy: heroin, cocaine, crack and any other poison. Because if people don’t want to understand that two and two equal four and the legalization of drugs, starting with light drugs, goes in parallel with the smoking ban, why should the drug trafficking mafia explain this to them, chopping own business? Didn't she work to lobby legislators for appropriate decisions? Didn’t it create a fashion for “dope” among young people and the intellectual elite, while at the same time spreading the opinion that tobacco sucks, the smoking of which is not even close to marijuana? And so on and so forth…

Moreover, curiously, the ban on smoking tobacco has spread far beyond the borders of the “civilized world.” Like this: to Turkey, Russia and other countries, whose top management decided to play around, not understanding that smoking outside in European countries heated by the Gulf Stream, or in the United States, where, in addition to Alaska, it is warm or even hot all year round, is one thing. But in a country where it’s not Murmansk, it’s Arkhangelsk, Magadan or Norilsk, not to mention Anadyr and Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky, it’s different. We will keep silent about Irkutsk, Chita, Novosibirsk, Tomsk, Surgut and Khanty-Mansiysk or Krasnoyarsk. As well as about Oymyakon, Abakan, Nizhnevartovsk, Tyumen and Labytnangi. It's cold in Russia in winter. Very. And if the mention of a person actually makes him hiccup, as he says folk tradition, then all those characters whose crazy idea is described above will hiccup for life. And their children, as well as grandchildren, will have a supply of this fascinating process for years and decades.

By the way, it was introduced in Russia by President Medvedev, who for some reason was perceived by the domestic press as a liberal. He certainly did not suspect that with his good intentions, with which, as always happens, the road to hell was paved, he was copying the German Fuhrer. And if I had known, it is possible that I would not have mocked the people to such an extent. Although... An incongruous change of time zones, in which not only the population got confused, but, it seems, he himself, too, Medvedev. The reform of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, which was limited to the fact that the police, for some unknown reason, were renamed the police - aka. And “zero ppm”, which does not and cannot exist in nature, was his invention. So one can only hope for the sobriety and objectivity of his decisions in theory.

However, is it only a matter of forcibly replacing harmful tobacco with deadly drugs? And in replacement of traditional family values(not in the church sense - where do church hierarchs get their families and what do they understand about them, but in a normal, human sense) the hell with it. Including the brilliant French ideas about “parents number one and two” instead of mom and dad. And other equally senseless, harmful and stupid things. Not as a reproach to Western Europe, which cannot understand what a reserve of unafraid idiocy it looks from the outside, and to American ultra-liberals, whose views are so close to Hillary Clinton that if she becomes president of the United States (and she most likely will become one), American conservatism is at risk I can't survive this presidency. What tobacco! What about healthy food? Including the medical mafia with all its nutritional supplements and complex vitamins that they stuff the average American with, siphoning good money out of his pockets - theoretically, solely for the sake of his health ...

The press, which can tear anyone apart and promote any topic into public consciousness, also comes from the first half of the twentieth century. Fortunately, Benito Mussolini himself was a journalist and speaker for G-d. Although Hitler, who was gifted with no less brilliant oratorical talent and possessed genuine charisma, was poor with the written word, and he had specially trained people for these matters. So, about the “fourth estate” - this is exactly from there, from totalitarian societies. “Equating a feather to a bayonet” was just right for them. There were too many people killed by these feathers at one time. Including Jews, gypsies and other victims of Nazi propaganda, about whom this book is written. However, remind today's journalist or editor about the true roots of his profession - he will eat you alive. An attack on freedom of the press, this, that... And you will become a tyrant and dictator for the whole world. Given that, for example, the idea that well-known persons in society have nothing that the press does not have the right to delve into, destroys the idea of ​​private life as such. Which does far more harm than good.

In fact, under the premise that the life of a public figure must be transparent to the population, a lot of vile and impartial things are produced. Because spying and eavesdropping are not done for noble purposes. And this serves as a base for the paparazzi with their surveillance of a huge number of people who are not at all obliged to serve as a source of their income. And also the rationale for espionage and the organization of smear campaigns designed to destroy those who were ordered as their targets. That is, the driver of this kind of activity is, as a rule, political and business competition, personal enmity, xenophobia, revenge - but not everything that is implied when it comes to freedom of the press. That this very freedom of the press is compromised in a way that its most fierce enemies could not do. As, indeed, is the fact that the press is happy to organize for dictators the entire range of services they need, from ensuring their rise to power to maintaining total control in the society they govern.

People who lived their lives in the USSR remember all this well from various domestic campaigns in the press. From the fight against draft dodgers of various kinds and “enemies of the people” to the persecution of cosmopolitans, Zionists and people who kowtow to the West. The parallels of which in the States and all other states of the “free world” lie on the surface. Moreover, in the long list of manifestations of anti-American activities, the fight against which “in the name of democracy” destroyed thousands of lives in the most democratic country in the Western world, the fight against Nazism, especially after the end of the war, occupied far from the main place. Quite the contrary. What do Evgeny Schwartz and Grigory Gorin have to say about “Kill the Dragon”? The same case. Without any Stalinism and fascism. Within the framework of universal suffrage and democratic freedoms, which by no means excluded the persecution of dissidents, the intensity of which the German Nazis and Italian fascists could envy.

We have somehow become accustomed since Soviet times to the fact that fascism is a movement of ultra-right and reactionary circles. The stamps are so ingrained that you can’t get them out. However, in fact, it is no less, if not more, widespread in leftist circles - as evidenced, generally speaking, by its name: nationalist socialism. Why did the Nazis draw reserves for their parties from the communist movement? Radicals, they are radicals. And what color their radicalism is is not so important. This is proven by the history of our own country, including its post-Soviet period. You look at another current domestic communist with his cave nationalism and you understand: a typical fascist. To which, as a rule, he will categorically object, while using fascist rhetoric and professing a typically fascist ideology. What the author encountered too often to be considered a coincidence. Although the domestic situation has not yet been described by anyone, Gold, as an expert on America and an American citizen, wrote about it.

At the same time he wrote well. He unearthed the deep origins of American fascism - its predecessors from the 19th century. He described the struggle of the “native” Americans - white Protestants - with the Catholics and national minorities of the United States who arrived after them, which at one time was most severe, but unknown to the world. And almost unknown to America itself: who needs to stir up dirty laundry and pull skeletons out of the closet. Finally, he worked from and to the history of the United States during the First World War and the post-war period, sparing neither Roosevelt, who became an icon of his time, nor his predecessors and heirs as President of the United States. Everyone got it. Moreover, the Roosevelt “New Deal” described by Gold is so reminiscent of the corresponding economic and political systems that dominated the same 30s on the opposite side of the Atlantic that one cannot help but feel uneasy. And this is far from the only parallel.

There is no need to talk about McCarthyism. It turns out that this was not a struggle between conservative Republican patriots alone and the influence of Democrats who were leaning towards the USSR. On the contrary, party affiliation played virtually no role in how a particular American politician behaved during the witch hunt. Just as it does not play a role in our time, when in the fight against Russia, Republicans and Democrats are literally competing on what sanctions can be applied to it. What no Russian politician could have imagined over the past quarter century. And this, it is possible, explains why the temporary alliance against Nazi Germany fell apart so quickly after the victory over it and, most importantly, over Japan - after the USA and Great Britain ceased to need the Soviet Union. It’s a shame, especially for those who seriously believed that Moscow could find a serious partner in Washington. However - as it is.

And by the way, no longer relying on Gold, it becomes clear where the American left gets such hostility towards Israel. Which they not only do not like, but act against him in the same ranks with his sworn enemies, including the states of the Islamic world - primarily the Arabian monarchies. President Obama and his struggle with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, open pressure on Jerusalem under the pretext of resuming Palestinian-Israeli “peace” negotiations and dialogue with Iran, opening the way for the latter to successfully complete its nuclear program and obtain the A-bomb, created thanks to support from Washington and the leftist establishment, the anti-Israel Jewish lobby - “J-street” and much more are in the asset of this course. Despite the fact that until recently, despite a lot of evidence that this is the case, the Israelis refused to believe their own eyes, believing the United States to be an ally for all time. Moreover, America’s rhetoric on this issue is unchanged.

The advanced reader apparently has an idea of ​​how much the African-American community, also known as American Negroes, has advanced in defending their civil liberties since the days of Martin Luther King. And this is true in reality. Which, from the point of view of his orientation on the issue described, means nothing. It is clear that Jesse Jackson and Louis Farrakhan, the most famous leaders of “black America”, from an ideological point of view - including in relation to Jews and Israel - are real fascists and, by the way, racists. Racism is by no means a privilege of whites - among blacks it is no less and can be even more cruel. This is evidenced by the situation not only in the USA, but also in South Africa, and in sub-Saharan Africa in general. So Gold’s mention of President Obama in the title of the book is not accidental and quite reasonable. America's first black president absorbed and implemented all the prejudices characteristic of liberal fascism, which developed in the United States for decades after the last fascist country in Europe ceased to be one.

Hence, most likely, Obama's sympathy for the Islamic world in its most radical forms. Connections with Qatar explain his open lobbying of the Muslim Brotherhood both in Egypt, where he tried to prevent the overthrow of President Morsi, who represented this religious and political movement, and in Tunisia, Libya and the Gaza Strip (Hamas is nothing more than a Palestinian branch of the Brothers). The Saudi Salafis and their al-Qaeda are not the best partner for the US President. A historical chain can be traced: the European “Muslim Brotherhood” are the direct heirs of the post-war “Fuhrer Muftis” from the Munich Mosque. These Wehrmacht and SS imams were taken under the patronage of President Eisenhower during the Cold War and for decades maintained their sympathies for Nazism and the memory of the Third Reich. In the post-war period in the Arab world, they were pushed out of power by military dictators. However, the Arab Spring became their finest hour - after they, with the support of Qatar, seized power in Egypt and the Eastern Maghreb, President Obama took an active and quite sincere part in them.

However, anti-Americanism in the Middle East is so strong that it did not bring dividends to him and his country. It is enough to remember how the Arab press reacted to his Cairo speech - even before the revolutions and coups that cost the leaders of Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and Yemen their posts and almost destroyed Syria. At its most polite, a review of President Obama's speech in the Egyptian capital can be boiled down to this quote: " White dog, a black dog is still a dog.” Which sharply contrasts with the expectations of the American leader, who has not understood that in this region he can be used and tolerated - nothing more. Be it groups professing ideas widespread in his own country, going back to the corresponding sources (we repeat - America in the first third of the twentieth century admired the Nazis of Europe and copied their achievements or what they believed to be their achievements). Or we are talking about Islamofascism, which is a Middle Eastern synthesis of Islam and Nazism. Which would certainly have pleased Hitler with his commitment to racial theory...