|
It pays to remember that "liberal fascism" was his term for those who are so convinced that they are right and the hoi polloi are wrong that they see it not only proper, but meritorious, to impose their opinion and views on the many. He thought it necessary to argue, and if the argument failed to win converts, to argue some more.
Some try to draw an all-embracing yet excruciatingly narrow definition of the term "fascism" from one or two examples to come up with an obligatory 5, 10 or 50 traits, all of which must be present to merit the use of the word, thus stipulating that usage of the term is meaningless. All that matters to them is the first use of the term and specific characteristics that the first referents had (the terms were actually fairly fuzzy at the time). In this case, we should all stop being "liberals" because of the first usage of that term, which is anything but akin to "progressive"--then again, the first usage of "progressive" doesn't match the definition used by modern progressives. And Orwell's use of "socialism" when Saint-Simon had used it in rather different senses a century before must also be suspect. But those terms are fine because there's no ass-covering needed, no need to protect us from an accusation that might prove embarrassing. This lays bare the motivation: Such don't want to be tarred with anything that would spoil their perfect ideological self-righteousness and self-ascribed purity. Even Stalin, using many of the same practices as Hitler (but going much further) insisted on a definition fascism that allowed him to decry fascism and praise socialism in one country.
I rather like Orwell's term, even if it was Goldberg who came along and resurrected it. Don't knmow what I think of most of his arguments, but he was a democrat because he thought it necessary to make the argument.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
