/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.15527576]

What's /lit/'s opinion on this? Just started reading it today

[Anonymous No.15527614]

>>15527576
this cover screams gas station literature

[Anonymous No.15527720]

>>15527576
>Secret history of the left
>Mussolini
Help, please, my eyes are stuck in the back of my head.

[Anonymous No.15527757]

>>15527720
>fascism
>not leftwing
Anon...

[Anonymous No.15527763]

>>15527576
ayo my nigga
better delete this thread before we get you cancelled

[Anonymous No.15527765]

Poor Jonah Goldberg! He's a Jew, but he makes his living flattering and defending wealthy Gentiles, many of whom inherited huge fortunes they did nothing to earn. These people don't want to hear anything bad about the selfishness of the rich. They can't abide any criticism of Catholicism, or Christianity. And they certainly don't want to explore any connection between Hitler's anti-Semitism and the traditional teachings of the Catholic church. So here's Jonah, trying to come up with something clever, to prove liberals are un-American.

Why not . . . compare them to Hitler!

This whole book is full of silly comparisons that sound clever but really mean nothing at all. "Woodrow Wilson had a whole committee devoted to investigating the best way to make wartime industry more efficient . . . and Adolph Hitler had the same kind of committee in Nazi Germany!" Or else it's something like, "Franklin Roosevelt tried to control the amount of waste factories were dumping into American rivers . . . just the way Hitler wanted to control the amount of waste Germans factories were pumping into German rivers. But give the state enough power to keep rivers and lakes clean and pretty soon they'll be murdering millions!"

The comparisons Jonah doesn't make are a lot more interesting than the stuff that's in his books. For example, why couldn't he have done some research on the history of Nazi rhetoric? Something like, "when Julius Strasser said 'all Jews are dirty rats' in 1934, he was actually quoting the 15th century Bishop of Cologne, who said, 'let us drive these filthy Jew rats from our city!'" But Jonah's not looking to go into the real history of anti-Semitism in Christian Europe. He's no crusading truth teller. He doesn't want to bite the hand that feeds him. He just wants to make nice with the boys from the country club. So maybe someday he can be just like them.

Good luck with that.

[Anonymous No.15527782]

>>15527757
>Authoritarian capitalist single party government
>Left wing
anon...

[Anonymous No.15527804]

>>15527782
>Authoritarian
>capitalist
Anonani the fuck?

[Anonymous No.15527835]

>>15527804
>He's never heard of state-capitalism
>Private property can't exist under authoritarian regimes
It's not Monarchy, anon. Please.

[Anonymous No.15527842]

It, like all attempts of liberals to pin fascism on other liberals, is garbage.
I'm also obligated as an internet racist to mention that Goldberg is a filthy kike.

>>15527782
>capitalist
"No!"
>>15527804
Anon have you heard of fucking Augusto Pinochet?

[Anonymous No.15527874]

>>15527842
Italy and Nazi Germany were definitely state capitalist.
But yes, Pinochet is also a good example as is China, Singapore, ironically, and Russia and Hungary and Venezuela

[Anonymous No.15527880]

>>15527842
i can smell a macaquito. Are you brazillian?

[Anonymous No.15527898]

>>15527874
Italy was the second most nationalized state in the world after the USSR. I respect the leftist desire to differentiate from fascism (after all, most fascists don't meet the Marxist definition of socialist) but to lump Pinochet's Chile, NS Germany, and modern China together is disingenuous at best. Even latter-day Soviets categorized fascism as "developmental," not as an oppressive form of liberal capitalism as the initial cope was.

>>15527880
Nope. Brazil of the North.

[Anonymous No.15527899]

>>15527835
>>Private property can't exist under authoritarian regimes
Well, yeah, it can't.

[Anonymous No.15527912]

>>15527899
God shut the fuck up libertarian, go cry about Hong Kong

[Anonymous No.15527915]

>>15527898
recommend third positionist economics readings please

[Anonymous No.15527924]

>>15527899
>Well yeah, it can't
Then explain companies, retard.

[Anonymous No.15527927]

>>15527898
Being overly nationalized doesn't destroy the existence of corporations and private property and means of production. They still existed.

[Anonymous No.15527931]

>>15527576
The book, which I read over ten years ago as a budding anti-liberal, is standard right-wing kikery. He points out useful historical tidbits about the fascism of Democratic or leftist administrations in the past - a very useful bit of history - but he intentionally downplays equivalently fascistic policies of right-wing administrations. Remember, this fucking Jew published this book before GW Bush was even out of office. It was ostensibly written as a pushback to the cries that Bush43 was instituting fascistic policies and rhetoric. Well... he WAS. So don't forget that.

>>15527765
You've ignored the major points of the book. He isn't stressing Woodrow Wilson's committees on wartime industry; he's stressing Woodrow Wilson's hostility and persecution towards journalists who questioned US entry into WWI. And he isn't stressing FDR's waste factory proposals, he's stressing his internment of Asians and widespread propaganda campaign (done with a complicit and compliant press) to push the war effort and the nationalization of formerly private industries.

[Anonymous No.15527934]

>>15527576
Read like 3 chapters of this years ago, it's the most "based boomer" book imaginable

[Anonymous No.15527943]

>>15527915
Have a chart. Also includes the basic bitch economics books like Capital and Wealth of Nations because too many fascists take the "anti-intellectual" smear to heart. Not on the chart but worth looking at is "Economic Foundations of Fascism" by Paul Einzig
>>15527927
Then the USSR was also a capitalist state, and I have an icepick for you.

[Anonymous No.15527947]

>>15527912
>Hong Kong
We should be nuking Beijing to protect them.

[Anonymous No.15527951]

>>15527947
You in the back

[Anonymous No.15527973]

>>15527943
They had a planned socialist economy. Don't be dense. Modern Russia is an authoritarian capitalist state though.

[Anonymous No.15527985]

>>15527934
"Boomer" is the best adjective for the book in question, even though I think the author is flirting with gen-x. Regardless, it's the same braindead, glossing-over mentality of boomers that characterizes the tone of the book, even if he does bring to light critical moments in US history.

[Anonymous No.15528048]

>>15527973
>They had a planned socialist economy.
Are you going to tell me with a straight face that the Italian and German economies were unplanned, or administered with an eye to bilking the laborer for all he was worth? Not a true worker's state, I will grant, because the rhetoric of twentieth century fascism was often collaborationist. Not planned, or not oriented toward the well-being of the proletariat and the lessening of social distinctions? Hardly.
>the independent Marxist Rudolf Hilferding [saw] no difference between Russian totalitarian state ownership and German National Socialist state regulation and control. "The controversy as to whether the economic system of the Soviet Union is 'capitalist' or'socialist' seems to me rather pointless. It is neither. It represents a totalitarian state economy, i.e., a system to which the economies of Germany and Italy are drawing closer and closer."

>Modern Russia is an authoritarian capitalist state though.
And yet, definitely not fascist, any more than Chile.

[Anonymous No.15528074]

>>15527576
It's dishonest. It takes the similarities between fascism and liberalism and puts them front and centre while ignoring the fact that fascism and liberalism are as similar as fascism and any other modern ideology are. It's basically taken a half-truth and expanded it out into a Ben Shapiro-tier book.

This article is a good explanation of what is wrong with it: http://www.hnn.us/articles/122667.html

[Anonymous No.15528078]

>>15528074
woops wrong link, this is the right one http://www.hnn.us/articles/122473.html

[Anonymous No.15528677]

>>15527576
Oh wow another book trying to argue around the fact that right wingers destroy any civilazation if given free reign for about 15 years

[Anonymous No.15528874]

>>15528677
Fascism isn't right-wing please read books

[Anonymous No.15528881]

>>15527757
>fascism
>any wing

[Anonymous No.15528925]

>>15527757
Fascism is inherently right-authoritarian. Stop reading r/libertarian.

[Anonymous No.15528956]

>>15528925
center-authoritarian, if you have to plot it on the political compass (which you shouldn't do because it's almost as reductive as a spectrum)

[Anonymous No.15529262]

>>15527842
Augusto Pinochet was not a fascist

[Anonymous No.15529269]

>>15527576
The librarian gave me a nasty look when I returned it

[Anonymous No.15529276]

>>15527757
Just like how ANTIFA is still fascism

[Anonymous No.15529284]

>>15527951
He's not wrong

[Anonymous No.15529310]

>>15528048
What was “planned” about the German economy

[Anonymous No.15529351]

>>15527576
Gave up on it. The modern trend of authoritarian liberalism is an interesting subject but this isn't a good way to approach it.

[Anonymous No.15529359]

>>15527943
Far too much pop-econ on this list desu.

[Anonymous No.15529363]

>>15527951
The US will likely be in a hot war with the Chinese in 50 years. This has nothing to do with trump

[Anonymous No.15529366]

>>15528956
It's only reductive if you want to be pretend left-authoritarianism is called fascism. Which it isn't.

[Anonymous No.15530112]

>>15527576
Goldberg is a ConInc corporate shill, with nothing very substantive to say. This book is a joke, even on the right. It's intellectually dishonest and presents a warped, shallow view of fascism. If you want an introduction to fascism from a present-day conservative, read Paul Gottfried's Fascism: Career of a Concept. It essentially summarizes the study of fascism throughout the 20th century and presents the various schools of thought on how we should define fascism. Also, check out Gottfried's The Strange Death of Marxism. Also great for an introduction to the modern left, post-Marxist left.

[Anonymous No.15530207]

>>15527576
I read that in highschool during my cringe libertarian phase and even then I thought it was a joke.

>Is there any doubt that a young Hitler would have given Dead Poets Society a standing ovation? ... These beautiful young overmen, united in their will, look to their "captain" and away from traditional authority. ALl that was missing were the Nazi Salutes
page 373-374

>In The Matrix, a thoroughly fascistic allegory (with some Marxist notes as well), Keanu Reeves plays a trapped, bourgeois cubicle dweller... Neo, not only represents his truer party name, as it were, but also encapsulates his status as a New Man, an Ubermensch
page 374

>In Forrest Gump a retarded white man is the only reliably moral force during the choas of the 1960s and 1970s
page 372

>[Pat] Buchannan calls himself a "paleoconservative," but in truth he's a neo-progressive
page 398

Its a silly book where anyone who is slightly more authoritarian than Goldberg, or anyone who even acknowledges race is a fascist.

[Anonymous No.15531463]

>>15527782
Large swaths of American "progressives" liked Mussolini because they saw him as saving Europe from Bolshevism. Authoritarian conservatism is anti-laissez faire therefor it's left wing
>>15527931
>You've ignored the major points of the book. He isn't stressing Woodrow Wilson's committees on wartime industry; he's stressing Woodrow Wilson's hostility and persecution towards journalists who questioned US entry into WWI. And he isn't stressing FDR's waste factory proposals, he's stressing his internment of Asians and widespread propaganda campaign (done with a complicit and compliant press) to push the war effort and the nationalization of formerly private industries.
Any official opposition wasn't particularly concerned about that aspect of Wilsons war time policy, in fact they were even more gung ho for cracking down on dissent. Also look where the imperial Japanese invaded and you'll see that the grand majority of domestic Japanese always became collaborators. Perhaps that's a politically inconvenient fact for libertarians but there was reasons to believe that any ethnic Japanese might not have been so loyal under the right conditions.
There was a broader public consensus on stuff like ethnic minorities being probably disloyal and "treason" was taken more seriously. That had noting to do with "liberalism". Besides Wilson being a neo-confederate FDR was radically against what would be called "multiculturalism" today e.g. just read statements like these planning to eliminating Québécois:
https://www.republiquelibre.org/cousture/ROO2.HTM
>...All of this leads me to wonder whether, by some sort of planning, Canada and the United States, working toward the same end, cannot do some planning - perhaps unwritten planning which would not even be a public policy - by which we can hasten the objective of assimilating the New England French Canadians and Canada's French Canadians into the whole of our respective bodies politic. There are of course, many methods of doing this, which depend on local circumstances. Wider opportunities can perhaps be given to them in other parts of Canada and the U.S.; and at the same time, certain opportunities can probably be given to non French Canadian stock to mingle more greatly with them in their own centers.
>In other words, after nearly two hundred years with you and after seventy-five years with us, there would seem to be no good reason for great differentials between the French population elements and the rest of the racial stocks.
>It is on the same basis that I am trying to work out post-war plans for the encouragement of the distribution of certain other nationalities in our large congested centers. There ought not to be such a concentration of Italians and of Jews, and even of Germans as we have today in New York City. I have started my National Resources Planning Commission to work on a survey of this kind.

[Anonymous No.15531820]

>>15531463
"Progressives" in quotes because why would Leftists want Mussolini to destroy the major movement of the Left in Europe?
Also, finding someone geopolitically convenient doesn't really matter in regards to where you are politically.
It's like saying the US is a theocratic dictatorship because they support blah blah blah in the Middle East.

[Anonymous No.15531861]

>>15527576
left hand path is the path of selfishness and lies. most cannot achieve enlightenment through the left hand path, but are instead used and abused by lefthand masters who siphon off their own bad karma onto the acolytes (make them do evil) in order to proceed along the path. basically, leftists are idiots and their leaders are fucking bad news.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kmJE0tqFBTw

[Anonymous No.15531864]

>>15527576
>Liberals are the real racists!
Such insight

[Anonymous No.15531884]

>>15527927
Read about the social republic, wherein Mussolini was able to completely instate a corporatist economy, where workers were given stock in their companies and corporatism truly took off. Mussolini was always working towards this but struggled to due to opposition in the government from virtually everyone, even royalists.

[Anonymous No.15532183]

>>15529310
Associations of business leaders were made compulsory and made to answer to the political leadership, entire industries were seized by the government in the interest of the war rearmament, and the centralization/politicization of the labor unions under the DAF.

[Anonymous No.15532770]

>>15531884
corporatism and having stock isn't the same as workers owning the means of production though.

[Anonymous No.15533031]

>>15532770
>corporatism and having stock isn't the same as workers owning the means of production though.
so? what's the problem with them not owning means of production?

[Anonymous No.15533043]

>>15527576
>jew
disregarded

[Anonymous No.15533101]

>>15532183
Not sure how that qualifies as planning if this all takes place in the context of a market.

[Anonymous No.15533235]

>>15533031
The point, if you go back up the thread, is that Fascism is not a left wing ideology.

[Anonymous No.15533350]

>>15529366
I'm a Nazi anon, just because I think tankies are less cringe than helicopterfags doesn't mean I want to be lumped in with either.

[Anonymous No.15533413]

>>15529262
That's my point. He was a capitalist authoritarian, not a fascist, which despite the cries of leftoids is not the same thing.
>>15529284
He's absolutely wrong, death to America
>>15533235
Nobody has or will ever claim fascism is left-wing except for retarded right-liberal Jews like Goldberg. I admitted in like my second post that almost no fascist ideology and certainly no fascist state has ever qualified as socialist (though neither has any socialist state, if you're prepared to purity spiral). Fascism does not belong to the right or the left, despite taking elements from both.

[Anonymous No.15533456]

>>15533413
see
>>15527757

[Anonymous No.15533492]

>>15533456
God shut the fuck up right wing retard, I'd say I'd fucking gas you and all your spiritually Jewish ilk but the niggers will do my job for me.

[Anonymous No.15533541]

>>15533492
Yeah, I'm thinking he's based

[Anonymous No.15534612]

>(((Goldberg)))

[Anonymous No.15534971]

>>15534612
Based

[Anonymous No.15535065]

>>15527576
>goldberg
>kid tier drawing
haha imagine buying this

[Anonymous No.15535245]

the society? I honestly think that we are all screwed, it is stupid to think of being part of a "society" in which we live in the wrong way all the time adjusted to stupid stereotypes that make us all live the same empty way in search of money to survive or To have social status, I feel that this is not life, the world has become a boring and superfical place. Young people are only interested in superfluous things, but nobody questions the educational, economic or political system, if you do it then you are bad and the Society takes care of fucking you.