Liberalism, a bourgeois and therefore rightwing ideology, is the most effective attack on class consciousness and the cause of equality (the result of real equity), workers empowerment and universal human dignity, communism, yet. And the bourgeoisie understand this well. They understand fascism is not possible to achieve or sustain without it’s own “left wing”, its own “moderates”. And so it is, that liberalism is the leftwing of fascism. Fascism has no roots in or existence in socialism or communism. Fascism is not merely authoritative government, it is by definition a tool of capital for the preservation of capital and class.
The phrase “scratch a liberal and a fascist bleeds”, and its variants, originated within leftist and anti-imperialist political discourse, long before Jonah Goldberg’s 2008 book, an obvious effort to rehabilitate Nazism, fascism and capitalism with misdirection and lies, especially by omission.
It’s well documented that during the 1920s–1930s, the Communist International (Comintern) adopted the position that social democrats and moderate liberals were “social fascists” — not merely allies of capitalism, but active enforcers of bourgeois rule who would inevitably side with reactionary forces against revolutionary movements. Today people are more naturally inclined to say “liberal fascist” or even “rainbow fascist”, as the “social” has been de-emphasized (after all, “There’s no such thing as society” for fascists). This was especially prominent during the “Third Period” (1928–1933), when communists viewed reformist leftists as the main obstacle to revolution, even more dangerous than open fascists. These communist have been proven right by history, as today the fake electoral left is as bad or worse than the ostensibly rightwing and pro-fascist. Trump and global Western fascism today, genocide and all, would not be possible without liberals siding with their natural allies, fascists. Capitalists, over the genuine, anti-capitalist, left. Because in truth caitalism and fascism are one, liberals apply endless hypocritical exceptionalism to avoid facing this reality.
The Black Panther Party later popularized a proverbial form in the U.S., using it to critique “liberal” politicians and institutions that rhetorically supported civil rights but upheld systemic oppression through capitalism, policing, poverty and war. Similar phrases appear in 1982 writings referencing British leftism and was used by activists like Larry Carter in the poverty movement to highlight how neoliberal elites claim and parade moral progressivism while enabling repressive policies and the massive global immiseration of capitalist empire.
While Jonah Goldberg claimed the term “liberal fascism” came from H.G. Wells in 1932, he did not invent the concept, nor was he the first to use it critically. The left’s use of the idea predates him by decades, not as a rhetorical weapon against the fake-left and liberalism, but as a revolutionary critique of liberalism’s role in preserving capitalist/fascist domination, through bribe, fraud or force, through authoritarian means.
Goldberg’s book repurposed and distorted this critique, flipping it to accuse the American left, not merely liberals, of fascist roots, a claim widely rejected by historians of various stripes. Scholars like Robert Paxton and Roger Griffin emphasize that fascism is inherently anti-left, anti-socialist, and anti-liberal, emerging from ultra-nationalist, authoritarian right-wing movements, not progressive ones. Other works exposing, from the left, the rightwing and pro-fascist, if not fascist, nature; Leon Trotsky, Georg Lukács, Bertolt Brecht, Domenico Losurdo, Gabriel Rockhill, Herman Wallace & George Jackson, Allan E. S. Lumba, Georgi Dimitrov, Palmiro Togliatti, Vladimir Lenin (The State and Revolution), Prabhat Patnaik and many, many more. All excluded for the most part from Western education and consciousness under liberalism, capitalism, fascism.
The original critical use of the term, “liberal fascism”, is leftwing, anti-fascist and anti-capitalist, a warning that liberalism is innately fascist and pro-fascist because it is innately pro-capitalist and pro-capitalism, facilitating or enabling covert and overtly fascist outcomes by defending capitalist hierarchy. As opposed to Goldberg’s polemic, which is misdirection and the rehabilitation of rebranded fascism and Nazism, eg Zionism and US humanitarian Interventionism (ie imperialism).
The importance of defeating and supplanting liberalism for the genuine, anti-capitalist, left, cannot be overstated. It is a ideology the bourgeoisie has deliberately propagated to divide and us, cripple us intellectually, and twist us into supporting fascism/capitalism. And yes, fascism is capitalism. if there’s a difference, it’s that we save the word “fascist” for when capitalist imperialism and domination is done to white people in Europe, or our honorary whites.
Please discuss. Save any Ad Hominems, they are low brow and lazy.
Haven’t read the whole thing yet, but:
badposting is a comm where you post badly
You sure you’re in the right comm?
3·2 days agoI thought it was a joke because of the comm.
ⓘ This user is suspected of being a cat. Please report any suspicious behavior.
Phil Ochs’ Love me, I’m a liberal sums it up quite nicely for me. It’s still as relevant today as it was back in the 60s. Agree with the other comment though, this is a good post.
Edit: Maybe consider posting to !libjerk@anarchist.nexus?
I read through this twice previously in one headspace and came back to read it a third time now that I’m in a different one. I think the biggest thing that stands out to me is that it sounds like both you and possibly Goldberg are talking about an “American left” that is, unfortunately, relatively fringe.
Goldberg’s book repurposed and distorted this critique, flipping it to accuse the American left, not merely liberals, of fascist roots, a claim widely rejected by historians of various stripes
Having not read the book in question, I can’t speak to whether I’d also read Goldberg’s claims that way or as being more targeted at the fascistic liberals. In my initial read throughs, I missed or skimmed over the “American left, not merely liberals” part of that quote and instead interpreted “American left” as a reference to the right-wing liberal opposition to the Republican Party.
American conservatives like to conflate their controlled opposition with “scary” caricatures of far-more-left ideas than they actually hold, so even if Goldberg talks about Communists and Socialists in the book, I would want to parse whether he’s actually just talking about liberals while giving them more cred than they deserve, or whether he’s genuinely trying to tie fascism to actually-left movements.
I’d still recommend posting this somewhere else like !effort@hexbear.net - hopefully you’ll get more traction there. People who aren’t interested in low-effort jokes are more likely to have this comm blocked than that one.
Ok, I’m pretty sure the comm rules require me to say:
GOOD post
That said, I haven’t read Jonah Goldberg’s “Liberalism Fascism” and based on the synopsis I’ve skimmed plus a bit about the author, I probably won’t. Given that light bit of context, I think the assertion in your title - that the book appropriates and inverts a genuine argument for the American “left” being fascist - is something I’d be likely to agree with if I were willing to spend the time reading it instead of something else.
It seems likely that the rest of your post is presenting not Jonah’s take, but yours on why the American left is rooted in fascism, and while I haven’t tried to dissect it in detail, I haven’t had anything jump out at me that I’d disagree with. I searched for some snippets of the text and either they aren’t indexed, or you wrote this, so it at least hits the part of the comm rules where it’s supposed to be your content.
While it’s a slower/less trafficked comm, c/effort might be a better place to post this content.
