[HN Gopher] Umberto Eco: Ur-Fascism (1995) [pdf]
___________________________________________________________________
Umberto Eco: Ur-Fascism (1995) [pdf]
Author : asterialite
Score : 169 points
Date : 2021-02-16 18:12 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (theanarchistlibrary.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (theanarchistlibrary.org)
| dang wrote:
| If curious see also
|
| 2018 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17413908
|
| 2016 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12173823
| airstrike wrote:
| Thank you. Do you just recall these off the top of your head or
| do you generally check each post that makes it to the front
| page, either manually or with a script?
| kencausey wrote:
| Perhaps you haven't noticed the search field at the bottom of
| the page?
|
| https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que.
| ..
| macintux wrote:
| The "past" link at the top is more convenient for this
| specific use case.
| dang wrote:
| I use HN Search manually but support that with a browser
| extension that I use for HN moderation. For example, I have
| keyboard shortcuts to open an HN search tab for the URL or
| title of a selected post, another one to restrict the search
| to threads that got comments, another to convert search
| results into a list on HN itself, another to copy the
| title/URL of a selected post to the clipboard, and so on.
| (One of these years I will find a way to share this software
| with HN users, since it's kind of an HN power-reader, besides
| the mod functions.)
|
| All that lets me find and scan past threads relatively
| quickly to find the interesting ones. It's still too manual,
| though; I need to make some further steps towards automation.
| I'm not sure it can be fully automated because a lot of the
| you have to do human interventions to either track down
| relevant past threads or exclude boring ones. The endgame is
| probably not to fully automate these lists but to have
| software generate a starter version and then give the
| community ways to edit it.
|
| The only place that recalling things off the top of my head
| (or somewhere in the poorly-lit middle of it) plays a role is
| that often I vaguely remember that there existed a discussion
| about $X sometime in past years and then tweak the searches
| till I find it.
| adolph wrote:
| I remember reading this in the Utne Reader in the 90's.
|
| _4. No syncretistic faith can withstand analytical criticism.
| The critical spirit makes distinctions, and to distinguish is a
| sign of modernism. In modern culture the scientific community
| praises disagreement as a way to improve knowledge. For Ur-
| Fascism, disagreement is treason._
| calvinmorrison wrote:
| Well met
|
| > Franklin Roosevelt's words of November 4,1938, are worth
| recalling:I venture the challenging statement that if American
| democracy ceases to move for-ward as a living force, seeking day
| and night by peaceful means to better the lot ofour citizens,
| fascism will grow in strength in our land.
|
| A very interesting quote that should be taken seriously today.
| Many Americans view our federal government poorly, on both sides
| of the aisle, and in the last 20 years 'working' across the aisle
| has become a meme rather than a reality. We just impeached the
| same president twice, and congress has a what, single digit
| approval rating?
|
| Earlier in this essay the author states that a disaffected middle
| class can lead to fascism but I don't think he nailed why. I
| think it is this:
|
| When people stop believing democracy can function, they readily
| look for alternatives.
| thenewwazoo wrote:
| > Many Americans view our federal government poorly, on both
| sides of the aisle
|
| One side believes that government can be, and should be,
| improved by collective effort.
|
| The other side believes government _cannot be_ improved because
| government _itself_ is _per se_ bad.
|
| There is zero equivalence between the two.
| minikites wrote:
| Exactly. So many people want to seem enlightened and "above
| the fray" and blaming "both sides" is an easy way to sound
| smart and perceptive.
|
| Only one side attacks democracy and government as concepts.
| calvinmorrison wrote:
| > The other side believes government cannot be improved
| because government itself is per se bad.
|
| I agree - it's clear that the social democrats and other
| leftists would clearly like to remove government entirely and
| achieve a stateless society.
|
| Or did you mean the right-wing libertarian types who want to
| have no government so they can own nukes?
|
| These analogies are just silly and not really the point - the
| goals don't really matter to the point. The point is that
| when there is less perceived legitimacy of government, people
| are more willing to look for other options.
| herval wrote:
| I know this is usually how americans explain democrats vs
| republicans, but is it really how the parties function? As an
| outsider (not american) looking in, and judging by the
| policies of the last couple decades, it seems republicans
| always increase government spending (therefore they don't
| actually believe in "small government"), and democrats pretty
| much rule for the oligarchs (therefore they don't really
| believe in the better of the "collective")?
| Zigurd wrote:
| It is possible to be too cynical. One party has this in
| their 2020 platform:
|
| ______ believe that the interests and the voices of the
| American people should determine our elections. Money is
| not speech, and corporations are not people. _____ will
| fight to pass a Constitutional amendment that will go
| beyond merely overturning Citizens United and related
| decisions like Buckley v. Valeo by eliminating all private
| financing from federal elections._
|
| _In the meantime, _____ will work with Congress on
| legislation to strengthen the public funding system by
| matching small-dollar donations for all federal candidates,
| crack down on foreign nationals who try to influence
| elections, and ensure that super PACs are wholly
| independent of campaigns and political parties. We will
| bring an end to "dark money" by requiring full disclosure
| of contributors to any group that advocates for or against
| candidates, and bar 501(c)(4) organizations from spending
| money on elections. _____ will ban corporate PACs from
| donating to candidates and bar lobbyists from donating,
| fundraising, or bundling for anyone they lobby._
|
| Guess which party. You may say they don't mean it. But
| there is no symmetry in the parties in this issue.
| mhh__ wrote:
| Which oligarchs do you have in mind?
| [deleted]
| Miner49er wrote:
| As an American, I can say that what OP is saying is not at
| all how the parties function, but it is maybe what most
| Americans think.
|
| I think, the real answer is that both parties rule for the
| oligarchs, just different ones, and they also take on
| opposing sides in certain culture wars that Americans care
| about to win votes.
| heavyset_go wrote:
| You're making the mistake of believing that the parties
| represent the sides that exist in America. Most people on
| the right would disagree that the Republican party
| represents them, and most of the left would disagree that
| the Democratic party represents them.
| danans wrote:
| > Most people on the right would disagree that the
| Republican party represents them, and most of the left
| would disagree that the Democratic party represents them.
|
| Most of those people would say that the party they vote
| for represents them "enough", which is at the end of the
| day what matters electorally.
| herval wrote:
| That's basically what the original poster said - "Many
| Americans view our federal government poorly, on both
| sides of the aisle".
|
| I can imagine Americans of both sides don't see the
| parties as representing them. This seems to be a theme
| these days, no matter if the party in power is
| left/right/center, and it's not only contained to
| democracies either (it's pretty clear by now that turkish
| and russian folks aren't happy w/ their dictatorships
| either, for instance). It somewhat feels _distrusting
| centralized forms of government_ is the (new?) trend?
| heavyset_go wrote:
| > _It somewhat feels _distrusting centralized forms of
| government_ is the (new?) trend?_
|
| I think it is more that people recognize that many
| parties and politicians exist to serve those with power,
| and act to enforce plutocracy over those without power.
| ceilingcorner wrote:
| This sort of onesidedness is exactly the cause of the issue.
| Virtually all of the great crimes of the last century were
| conducted by governments. While I wouldn't consider myself an
| anarchist/libertarian/anti-government, it seems eminently
| reasonable to me to be deeply skeptical of centralized
| governmental authority. Whether that's actually desirable or
| practical is a different matter.
| kergonath wrote:
| Virtually all the great crimes were conducted by people.
| Let's just kill them all...
|
| Seriously though, large-scale crimes are committed by
| people with power, so it's not surprising to see
| governments in there. But that would be ignoring all gangs,
| guerrillas, sects, etc.
|
| You cannot really put in the same bag dictatorships and
| democracies. Not to say the latter are perfect. There are
| many examples of atrocities committed under democratic
| regimes, which are indeed cautionary tales of government
| gone wrong. But under a dictatorship, the state serves one
| person or clan, it's a completely different beast. The
| lesson from these is more like "don't ever put a strongman
| in power".
|
| Also, limiting yourself to the last century is very
| reductive, because it _was_ a period with strong
| governments and powerful nations, which limited excesses
| from private entities. But if you take government control
| away, those will back filling up the power vacuum. I am not
| certain we would be enthusiastic bout a 21st century
| version of the East India Company, and several corporations
| would have the resources to do something like that.
| trhway wrote:
| both sides are very ok with using power of government to
| further their agenda, and both sides are making the
| government as big as possible when and where it serves their
| interests. What worst is both sides are using power of
| majority to attack, instead of protecting, the rights of the
| minority. That usage of democracy as an attack weapon
| destroys public trust for democracy and transforms the
| democracy into ochlocracy, and thus moves the society one
| step closer to totalitarism.
| api wrote:
| The right is absolutely not anti-government. They're just
| against the use of government to disrupt existing hierarchies
| or interfere with tradition.
|
| For concrete proof look at Federal deficits and spending
| under right and left wing administrations, or the
| corresponding growth in the size and scope of government.
| There is at best no difference, and in a few cases government
| actually shrank in nominal terms under more left-leaning
| administrations.
|
| The left believes we need government for pragmatic reasons,
| but most of them could be sold on the idea of giving up state
| power if alternative mechanisms to achieve their goals could
| be found and demonstrated to work in real life. The right on
| the other hand worships hierarchy and authority as a _good in
| and of itself_ and almost deifies the state and its hierarchy
| as a manifestation of a divine order. The right would never
| let go of the state even if it were no longer needed, for
| doing so would mean there would be no mechanism for
| enforcement of divinely ordained hierarchy.
|
| (This is why libertarians are neither left nor right.)
| heavyset_go wrote:
| > _(This is why libertarians are neither left nor right.)_
|
| I'd have to say that the Americans that adopted the
| libertarian label are on the right, but the original
| anarchists for whom the term 'libertarian' was coined were
| on the left. That dichotomy is where the labels right-
| libertarian[1] and left-libertarian[2] were derived.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-libertarianism
|
| [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-libertarianism
| api wrote:
| I mostly agree. A lot of American libertarianism also
| comes via Ayn Rand, whom I consider to be more of a
| liberal heretic than a conservative.
|
| "Racism is the lowest form of collectivism." - Ayn Rand
|
| I've read Randian / Marxist where there is broad
| agreement as to many humanistic goals. There's just a
| deep disagreement about how best to get there.
|
| (I'm not a Randian, though I do think she's worth reading
| and had some valid points about a number of things.)
|
| In the past few years alt-right types have started trying
| to bogart the term libertarian as part of their broad
| recruitment efforts. I no longer use the term much for
| that reason. I did back when words meant things.
| heavyset_go wrote:
| > _In the past few years alt-right types have started
| trying to bogart the term libertarian as part of their
| broad recruitment efforts._
|
| I was part of the effort to rid r/Libertarian of the
| literal fascists that took over the sub a couple of years
| ago. It is apparently really easy to turn an Ayn Rand
| libertarian into a full blown fascist.
|
| At the heart of it, and to touch back on your previous
| points, is that right-libertarians worship hierarchy as
| much as their right-wing peers do. Yes, they seem to have
| disdain for political hierarchies, but they love market-
| created hierarchies. They also have no problem using
| state violence to enforce those hierarchies, either, so
| long as the state is shooting at people to protect
| private property.
|
| It doesn't take much to push right-libertarians into
| supporting the use of state violence in a very Hoppean[1]
| manner, either. Most right-libertarians view anyone to
| the left of them as an existential threat, so it isn't
| hard to get them to support Pinochet's helicopter
| rides[2] for "communists" and other perceived threats
| from the left.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans-
| Hermann_Hoppe#Expulsion_o...
|
| [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_flights
| jonathankoren wrote:
| > I was part of the effort to rid r/Libertarian of the
| literal fascists that took over the sub a couple of years
| ago. It is apparently really easy to turn an Ayn Rand
| libertarian into a full blown fascist.
|
| That's because Ayn Rand's ideas are juvenile. They boil
| down to "You're special, and They are jealous of your
| specialness, and so keep you down." (See Fountain Head.
| See Atlas Shrugged.) This same idea that everything bad
| that happens to you because a bunch of plebes that can't
| stand you because you're better than them. This folds
| _directly_ into to fascism 's doctrine of the weak, but
| all oppressive scapegoat. The specifics of the scapegoat
| change according to time and place, but the formula
| remains the same.
| scythe wrote:
| >That dichotomy is where the labels right-libertarian[1]
| and left-libertarian[2] were derived.
|
| This is not _quite_ accurate.
|
| The descendants of anti-authoritarian radical labor-
| pricing (communist, etc) theorists are generally now
| called _libertarian socialist_ or simply _anarchist_.
|
| The term _left-libertarian_ is more often used for
| derivatives of Georgism (Steiner-Vallentyne, etc) and
| frameworks promoting employee ownership and union
| bargaining power within an essentially capitalist economy
| (mutualism, etc). It might be more appropriately called
| "center-libertarian", although the bevy of unconventional
| ideas therein is difficult to reconcile as "center-"
| anything.
|
| Some libertarian socialists do call themselves "left-
| libertarian" but more often they seem to reject being
| lumped in with people who like capitalism (at least a
| little).
| rexpop wrote:
| > to better the lot of our citizens
|
| It's crucial, however, to realize that we live in an
| interconnected global society and that to better OUR lot is
| called "Nationalism" and to do so at the expense of others is
| called "Imperialism", and as far as I am concerned they're
| synonymous with the worst ideological components of Fascism.
| Florin_Andrei wrote:
| > _Many Americans view our federal government poorly, on both
| sides of the aisle_
|
| Maybe the current instance of the government.
|
| But as for the idea of government in general, the opinions are
| sharply different across the aisle.
| calvinmorrison wrote:
| The less effective the status quo is, the more willing people
| are to try radical approaches, be it technology, politics,
| dieting, etc.
|
| In my own small world of political banter, the number of
| people who have floated, or not disagreed with the concept of
| balkanizing the U.S.A is astounding. When I grew up, America
| was the greatest country in the world, and now my friends say
| - well we tried. Maybe balkanization would be easier since
| nobody can seem to agree on a damn thing, not even the
| budget!
|
| The farther apart the two sides of the political sphere, the
| less the work together to actually produce tangible results
| for the average American, the less happy and healthy the
| average American - the more likely we as Americans are to
| support a scrapping of it all and supporting Communism,
| Anarchism, Direct Democracy, Fascism, Theocracy, or other
| ideologies, and not Republicanism (that is, being a
| republic).
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| No, I think both sides have an idea of the perfect
| government. It's just that the ideas differ radically (in
| fact, they are mutually incompatible). So we get the current
| situation, where neither side is satisfied with what they
| have. And I fear the degree to which both sides think they
| have to destroy the other side in order to get what they
| want...
| sul_tasto wrote:
| i think there is a significant segment of the polity in the
| center that is unrepresented.
| ashtonkem wrote:
| They single out a disaffected middle class as a key fascist
| constituency because that's historically accurate. The Nazis in
| particular were build on the lower rungs of the middle class
| who had some status to lose, but not enough to fully insulate
| themselves from economic swings. Think small shop owners more
| than factory owners.
|
| Poorer laborers during that time were more likely to be swayed
| by the communists, who had more to offer poor workers. Fear of
| these same communists helped also drive upper class tolerance
| for nazis and fascists too.
| throwaway894345 wrote:
| This is perhaps a tangent, but I always struggle in
| conversations about fascism. Wikipedia describes fascism as a
| specific collection of qualities:
|
| * Rejection of liberal democracy
|
| * Support for a totalitarian, single-party state
|
| * Led by a single strong dictator
|
| * Rejection that violence is automatically negative in nature
|
| * Imperialism, violence, and war can rejuvenate the state
|
| * Desirability for an economically self-sufficient state
|
| * Frequently incorporates some notion of a "master race"
|
| I want to be delicate with this next part because it's
| controversial and touches on people's deeply held convictions,
| so I want to be sensitive and disclaim that I'm trying to
| understand better and not offend:
|
| So I understand that the collection of ills seems to denote
| fascism, but it often seems that the people who are the most
| vocally anti-fascist _seem_ to be fine with many of those ills
| individually (or put differently, they seem not to be "ills"
| when they're unbundled from fascism). It seems like they're
| only against the whole package arranged in a particular way.
| For example, a lot of people who have vocally criticized
| America in the last 5 years as being a fascist country seem to
| be pretty opposed to liberal values like freedom of speech and
| nonviolence with many such people either rationalizing left-
| wing violence (BLM riots as well as general antifa violence) if
| not outright arguing that political violence and even
| (capital-R) Revolution is necessary. Many support communism and
| talk about how great life was in the USSR or how amazing China
| is, which suggests that they're not just referring to some
| abstract communism that "hasn't been tried yet", but rather
| specific instances of communist regimes that tick many (all?)
| of the 'fascism qualities' boxes. I don't know if they can be
| described as having some "master race" ideology, but the USSR
| and China are hardly paradigms of tolerance, and many left-wing
| Americans seem to have pretty segregationist views on race even
| if they don't have a "master race" per se (perhaps one could
| argue that "people of color" is their "master race" in the way
| that various European identities coalesced into "white" in
| prior centuries?).
|
| So I guess I'm trying to understand what it is about fascism in
| particular that preoccupies us--why are we on such high alert
| for fascism specifically, but we don't seem to be concerned at
| all about other ideologies which incorporate many of the
| elements of fascism? To me at least it seems very horse-shoe
| like: the far right and the far left seem very similar in
| nearly all important respects, and I want to understand why it
| frequently feels like I'm the only one who sees things this
| way.
|
| Again, I hope I was minimally offensive.
| matthewmacleod wrote:
| _Again, I hope I was minimally offensive._
|
| You were not, but your primary offence was of gross
| ignorance. This likely explains why you feel isolated in your
| view.
|
| You have conflated complex and nuanced concepts--like, say,
| the recognition of a revolutionary imperative with a general
| rejection of violence, or the "liberal democracy" with
| "unrestricted free speech"--and as a result you aren't able
| to come to any logical conclusions.
|
| I would definitely recommend taking a step back and
| considering the validity of the ideas and preconceptions you
| hold.
| throwaway894345 wrote:
| > your primary offence was of gross ignorance
|
| Well, I'm here now, trying to correct that.
|
| > You have conflated complex and nuanced concepts--like,
| say, the recognition of a revolutionary imperative with a
| general rejection of violence, or the "liberal democracy"
| with "unrestricted free speech"--and as a result you aren't
| able to come to any logical conclusions.
|
| Isn't "liberal democracy" pretty incompatible with
| political violence (I don't think anyone--fascists or
| leftists--is talking about a general tolerance[^1] for
| violence)? And when I said "free speech", I wasn't talking
| about "unrestricted free speech", but rather the idea that
| we should minimize restrictions on speech (you can't yell
| "fire" in a crowded theater, but you can say things that
| offend). Note that there are people who assert that the
| government should enforce stricter speech codes, but the
| more common and more disturbing practice is cancellation
| (or defending the same) of livelihood and healthcare
| ("Social Consequences") for ideological transgressions
| while arguing in the next breath that these are basic human
| rights. I'm not a philosopher, but allowing citizens to
| deny each other their basic human rights seems (on the
| basis of speech) _seems_ incompatible with free speech.
|
| > I would definitely recommend taking a step back and
| considering the validity of the ideas and preconceptions
| you hold.
|
| I agree, hence this thread. :)
|
| [^1]: I assume you meant "tolerance of violence" rather
| than "rejection of violence"
| matthewmacleod wrote:
| _Isn 't "liberal democracy" pretty incompatible with
| political violence?_
|
| No, there is no simple conclusion to be drawn along those
| lines.
|
| We can clearly observe circumstances in which the goal of
| political violence is to achieve liberal democracy in a
| situation where it is perceived to be failing. A
| functioning democracy is one in which political violence
| is rendered unnecessary by providing peaceful and
| effective channels for resolving political conflict. The
| existence of political violence effectively demonstrates
| the lack of a more effective channel for resolving
| conflict, and its existence does not say anything useful
| about the support (or otherwise) of those ideals by those
| involved.
|
| _And when I said "free speech", I wasn't talking about
| "unrestricted free speech", but rather the idea that we
| should minimize restrictions on speech (you can't yell
| "fire" in a crowded theater, but you can say things that
| offend)._
|
| There is no qualitative difference between these ideas -
| but there is a complex series of ongoing discussions and
| nuances. Most people in developed democracies would
| consider the general principle of "free speech" to be
| essential to a functioning society; further, most would
| assert that this freedom includes some level of right to
| cause offence. Beyond this there is likely to be little
| agreement on the extent and restrictions of such rights -
| this is why nuance is so important.
|
| You may be entirely entitled to say what you wish; this
| right comes with the imperative that others are free to
| refuse to participate, and are free to object to those
| who support and promote speech you disagree with.
|
| This is why complex issues cannot be boiled down to pithy
| one-liners. It would very obviously be contradictory to
| demand the right to free speech, while claiming it was
| incompatible for others to exercise that same right to
| object to you.
| nebolo wrote:
| I returned to this essay when I saw the photo of the Jake Angeli
| in the Capitol - a Q-supporter wearing an Indian buffalo mask and
| a tattoo of Odin, storming the capitol alongside evangelical
| Christians. Relevant quote:
|
| _This new culture had to be syncretistic. Syncretism is not
| only, as the dictionary says, "the combination of different forms
| of belief or practice"; such a combination must tolerate
| contradictions. Each of the original messages contains a sliver
| of wisdom, and whenever they seem to say different or
| incompatible things it is only because all are alluding,
| allegorically, to the same primeval truth._
|
| _As a consequence, there can be no advancement of learning.
| Truth has been already spelled out once and for all, and we can
| only keep interpreting its obscure message._
|
| [...]
|
| _If you browse in the shelves that, in American bookstores, are
| labeled as New Age, you can find there even Saint Augustine who,
| as far as I know, was not a fascist. But combining Saint
| Augustine and Stonehenge--that is a symptom of Ur-Fascism._
| judgemcjudgy wrote:
| So that now is your proof that he is a fascist? What a joke -
| literally.
| TazeTSchnitzel wrote:
| QAnon is a sort of syncretism for conspiracy theories. It's
| managed to bring every conspiracy theory into its fold. (And
| conspiracy theories themselves were already very syncretic!)
| Sharlin wrote:
| Basically the premise of the original _Deus Ex_.
| ceilingcorner wrote:
| Every religion is syncretic at some level. And being inspired
| by various incarnations of human religion is hardly a symptom
| of fascism.
|
| What an inane comment from an apparently well-educated writer.
| nebolo wrote:
| I am not sure I understand your use of the word "symptom".
| Being syncretistic, _by itself_ , is clearly not indicative
| of fascism (as you point out all religion is syncretistic to
| some extent, so is art, etc.), but if you see many of the
| symptoms that Eco describes - not just syncretism, but also
| traditionalism, irrationalism, uniformity of thought, fear of
| difference, populism, nationalism, etc. - then syncretism
| becomes part of your "fascism" diagnosis. By themselves these
| things can be part of various strands of political thought,
| only together are they Ur-Fascism.
|
| Just like a headache, by itself is not indicative of a
| disease, but can be a clue in combination with other
| symptoms.
| ceilingcorner wrote:
| I was just replying to the last line of the comment:
|
| _But combining Saint Augustine and Stonehenge--that is a
| symptom of Ur-Fascism._
|
| That, to me, is just an unacceptable statement that is
| clearly wrong. Plenty of modern pagans, for example, draw
| some ideas from Christian writers like Augustine and
| combine them with symbols like Stonehenge. That certainly
| doesn't make them fascists.
| kergonath wrote:
| It is a symptom, as in "fascism makes this type of
| combination of ideas more likely", not as "all syncretism
| is fascism".
|
| A=>B, not A<=>B, if you will. B can result form many
| other things.
| ceilingcorner wrote:
| By that measure, virtually everything is a symptom of
| something else. Sorry, I fail to see how that is a useful
| statement.
|
| And again, I have a deep problem with the idea that only
| "pure" religious beliefs are somehow less likely to lead
| to fascism.
| kergonath wrote:
| The medical analogy is useful. Tons of disease cause
| headache, or joint pain, or fever, or rashes, or stomach
| pain, or runny nose, or cough.
|
| Some combinations of symptoms help diagnosing a specific
| disease. It's not the parts taken in isolation, it's the
| sum of it, and how it evolves over time. Some symptoms
| that worsen suddenly should be taken seriously.
|
| > And again, I have a deep problem with the idea that
| only "pure" religious beliefs are somehow less likely to
| lead to fascism.
|
| And you should be deeply suspicious of anything linking
| religious purity with anything. But he does not say that
| it _leads to_ fascism, just that fascism feeds on it.
| Also, I think in this specific instance he lets his own
| religion cloud his argument, and that he should have said
| "ideologies" instead of religious beliefs. People do not
| need religion to be terrible to other people.
| nebolo wrote:
| No it doesn't make them fascist, and that's not what Eco
| is saying. Combining Saint Augustine and Stonehenge is
| syncretism, which is a symptom of Ur Fascism (as
| discussed) above. Symptom does not equal implication.
| jknoepfler wrote:
| The fascist bit (in Ur-Fascism) is the resistance to
| reconciliation. Bits are taken on piecemeal due to historical
| accident or on a whim. There is no notion of consistency or
| inconsistency - no notion of tolerating inconsistency for a
| reason, even. There's just "our way" with no room for reason.
|
| (The essay is taking the concept of syncresis to an extreme
| to make a polemical point)
| kergonath wrote:
| Syncretism _is_ part of what makes these movements
| appealing, though. Same as for conspiracy theories: it
| gives a broad appeal because everyone can come with their
| pet theory which will find a neat niche within the arch-
| conspiracy framework. There needs to be some flexibility
| otherwise everything crumbles under the weight of the
| contradictions and cognitive dissonance.
| nytgop77 wrote:
| There is a trend, where persons religion is treated as
| evidence of stupidity and root of evil. If it would have a
| name it would be called ultra-atheist.
| ceilingcorner wrote:
| HN is clearly not the place for open mindedness about
| religion, that's for sure.
| nickelcitymario wrote:
| I humbly disagree! Although most folks on HN seem to
| swing atheistic, I have found them to be comparably
| respectful, considerate, and open-minded.
|
| Just because someone disagrees doesn't make them close
| minded. Perhaps your experience has been different than
| mine. But whenever I've brought up my (ever evolving)
| beliefs, I've found people to more respectful here than
| in the world at large, and certainly more respectful than
| the web at large.
| [deleted]
| chaganated wrote:
| This Eco fellow is a little sloppy. The same underlying
| phenomenon often looks very different from perspective to
| perspective. The history of science has born this out
| repeatedly. The works of Newton being a superb counterexample
| to:
|
| " _whenever they seem to say different or incompatible things
| it is only because all are alluding, allegorically, to the same
| primeval truth. As a consequence, there can be no advancement
| of learning_ "
| selimthegrim wrote:
| This pisses me off for the same reason as "In the Beginning was
| the Command Line"
| hindsightbias wrote:
| New Age has been a broad band of beliefs for decades and
| without central tenets or leadership it just hasn't gotten that
| dangerous.
|
| The thing about this era is more contrarian cultism. Lots of
| disparate groups that are syncretic seem to be able to mold
| Trump as a central figurehead. They really haven't had anyone
| else to attach to (Jimmy Carter, H. Ross Perot, Pat Buchanan,
| Palin maybe).
| api wrote:
| Something that for many years I've seen as "Ur-Fascist" in our
| culture is the popularity and continuous production of relatively
| vapid superhero movies. The majority of these are power fantasy
| porn, and like porn the only focus is really on the fetish and
| the orgasm. There's little characterization and little plot, and
| the villains are always cast as either pure evil or as a straw
| man representation of some other point of view.
|
| The rough cop and action movies of the 1980s and 1990s are far
| more subtile and intelligent than most superhero flicks. Watch
| Die Hard for example. It has actual characterization. You get at
| least a bit of a sense for who the characters are, their motives,
| and their flaws. I'm not saying it's high art but compared to the
| average comic book flick it's quite deep. The hero is a divorced
| cop who has obviously thrown himself into his work to numb his
| emotional pain. The villain comes off like a narcissist whose
| crimes are motivated by a burning desire to become the moneyed
| aristocrat he believes himself entitled to be. Throughout the
| film you can see the hero at least indirectly confront some of
| his personal demons while the villain's narcissism drives him
| further into depravity and in the end is his ruin.
|
| I wonder if the rise of fascist thinking of the 4chan /pol
| variety among younger people can in part be explained by their
| entire generation having been raised on a steady diet of comic
| book flicks and of course similar "fanservice" Anime.
| dashwav wrote:
| There was a really interesting paper [1] being circulated a bit
| last week in the circles I frequent on a few sites that dug a
| bit deeper into this. The villains are often very superficial
| and the consequences of the ensuing fight is very rarely shown
| in the movie itself, and if it is mentioned only in passing.
| There is this 'cleansliness' to the fight scenes that give you
| all of the enjoyment while removing any of the dirty human
| tragedies from the context.
|
| Really interesting read, and something that I have thought
| about quite a few times while seeing how popular these movies
| are nowadays
|
| [1]
| https://academicworks.cuny.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4...
| hansjorg wrote:
| I think this is spot on.
|
| It certainly seems like a lot of super hero franchises were
| started as outright far right propaganda, even if now, the
| profit motives of the licensee corporations have dulled the
| messaging somewhat.
|
| I think 'The Incredibles' is an interesting movie in this
| regard. It's probably the most family friendly pro fascist romp
| ever made.
|
| The protagonists are literally Ubermensch held back by an
| ignorant and fearful society. The evil goal of the bad guy is
| to give everyone super powers. It wouldn't be possible to spell
| this out any clearer.
| trynumber9 wrote:
| It's interesting you say that because 4chan is _in general_
| very critical of "capeshit" as they call it.
|
| https://boards.4chan.org/search#/capeshit
| [deleted]
| adnzzzzZ wrote:
| >I wonder if the rise of fascist thinking of the 4chan /pol
| variety among younger people can in part be explained by their
| entire generation having been raised on a steady diet of comic
| book flicks and of course similar "fanservice" Anime.
|
| 4chan is a contrarian website. The "rise of fascist thinking"
| is directly related to younger people being brought up on a
| steady diet of social justice nonsense being forced on them
| from every direction, for which the obvious opposite and most
| contrarian stance is the one held by the one and only, the late
| Adolf Hitler.
| heavyset_go wrote:
| Literal Nazis and fascists were on 4chan far before the
| social justice movement was popularized in the US.
| rexpop wrote:
| I agree with this deeply. The Marvel Cinematic Universe, and
| its ilk, are propaganda projects designed to push manipulative
| falsehoods into the public's understanding of reality. I am not
| talking about Dr. Strange's magic, or Superman's laser vision;
| those fantastical elements are such pure fiction that they
| stand in contrast to the allegedly "realistic" elements on
| which the world rests. This contrast has always been a
| mechanism of science fiction[0], but in these super hero
| movies, what's left to be assumed as "reality" against which
| fantasy contrasts? Fascist tropes, such as:
|
| - the patronizing Ubermensch (literally "Superman") on whom
| "the weak" must rely - moral nihilism of the "good" guys
| winning by force - patriarchal masculinity left and right - the
| untarnished benevolence of the Pentagon
|
| Their entire purpose is to help American audiences perform the
| mental gymnastics (pun intended) of differentiating "good"
| Populist Nationalism from "bad" Populist Nationalism.
|
| 0. (e.g. the replicator is entirely fantastical, but allows
| Starfleet to make allegedly realistic points about the politics
| of abundance and deprivation)
| wisty wrote:
| It seems overly broad, but written in a really snarly way. I
| think the main popularity of this is how easy it is to apply to
| anyone who disagree with - just match the overly broad
| descriptors with your opponents (it will fit on almost any
| populist movement - i.e. any group that has protests) and you
| just need to snarl and line up why they fit the prerogative
| descriptions of populist movements.
|
| Let's just look at the first bit:
|
| > The first feature of Ur-Fascism is the cult of tradition.
|
| Notice how snarly "cult" is. If you think people who eat
| pineapple on pizza are wrong (and a bit crazy) it's a "cult".
|
| > Traditionalism is of course much older than fascism. Not only
| was it typical of counter-revolutionary Catholic thought after
| the French revolution, but it was born in the late Hellenistic
| era, as a reaction to classical Greek rationalism. In the
| Mediterranean basin, people of different religions (most of them
| indulgently accepted by the Roman Pantheon) started dreaming of a
| revelation received at the dawn of human history. This
| revelation, according to the traditionalist mystique, had
| remained for a long time concealed under the veil of forgotten
| languages -- in Egyptian hieroglyphs, in the Celtic runes, in the
| scrolls of the little known religions of Asia.
|
| So we've already admitted that "cult of tradition" is pretty
| meaningless, every group will have someone who traces elements of
| their "traditions" back to a previous group.
|
| > This new culture had to be syncretistic. Syncretism is not
| only, as the dictionary says, "the combination of different forms
| of belief or practice"; such a combination must tolerate
| contradictions. Each of the original messages contains a silver
| of wisdom, and whenever they seem to say different or
| incompatible things it is only because all are alluding,
| allegorically, to the same primeval truth.
|
| But surely EVERY group has syncretic traditions. This is almost
| like saying "Fascists drink milk, not just milk but milk from
| mammals". I suppose you could argue that fascists drink milk (and
| combine elements from a variety of traditions) in an obnoxious,
| stupid and irrational way, so why not just say the three big
| warning signs of fascism are that they're obnoxious, stupid, and
| irrational?
|
| > As a consequence, there can be no advancement of learning.
| Truth has been already spelled out once and for all, and we can
| only keep interpreting its obscure message.
|
| You'd be hard pressed to find a bigger syncretistic
| traditionalist than Isaac Newton. You'd also be hard pressed to
| find someone who create a more important advancement in learning.
|
| > One has only to look at the syllabus of every fascist movement
| to find the major traditionalist thinkers. The Nazi gnosis was
| nourished by traditionalist, syncretistic, occult elements. The
| most influential theoretical source of the theories of the new
| Italian right, Julius Evola, merged the Holy Grail with The
| Protocols of the Elders of Zion, alchemy with the Holy Roman and
| Germanic Empire. The very fact that the Italian right, in order
| to show its open-mindedness, recently broadened its syllabus to
| include works by De Maistre, Guenon, and Gramsci, is a blatant
| proof of syncretism. If you browse in the shelves that, in
| American bookstores, are labeled as New Age, you can find there
| even Saint Augustine who, as far as I know, was not a fascist.
| But combining Saint Augustine and Stonehenge -- that is a symptom
| of Ur-Fascism.
|
| We've now gone from "talks about traditional" to outright
| occultism.
|
| I think it's probably better to chalk this up to the totalising
| nature of fascism (as well as other totalising political
| movements like Marxism, and maybe even religious-political
| movements).
|
| It's not the tradition (and certainly not the syncretism) that
| really matters here, what I think is a warning sign would be the
| totalising nature of fascism (and other dangerous movements) as
| it seeks to establish control over all aspects of life.
| eznzt wrote:
| >Jews are rich and help each other through a secretweb of mutual
| assistance.
|
| They don't? Have you guys seen Hollywood or finance or mass media
| or...? Or is the mistake in that line that the web is not really
| that secret?
| pmoriarty wrote:
| Also see Eco's _" Eternal Fascism: Fourteen Ways of Looking at a
| Blackshirt"_.[1]
|
| I'd also recommend reading David Neiwert's essays on his blog
| _Orcinus_ [2], who (more than 15 years ago, long before the rise
| of Trump, Proud Boys, the alt-right, QAnon, etc) was already
| extensively discussing Eco's essays and related analysis of
| fascism and proto-fascism as it manifested in "patriot", militia,
| and "white nationalist" movements in the US, who Neiwert did
| extensive investigative reporting on (and published books on this
| as well).
|
| His _" The Rise of Pseudo Fascism"_[3] and _" Rush, Newspeak, and
| Fascism"_[4] are good summaries of his work.
|
| Also related are Sinclair Lewis' 1935 _" It Can't Happen
| Here"_[5] and Jack London's 1908 _" The Iron Heel"_[6].
|
| [1] - https://interglacial.com/pub/text/Umberto_Eco_-
| _Eternal_Fasc...
|
| [2] - http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/
|
| [3] -
| https://dneiwert.blogspot.com/The%20Rise%20Of%20Pseudo%20Fas...
|
| [4] -
| http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/Rush%20Newspeak%20%20Fascism.pd...
|
| [5] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It_Can%27t_Happen_Here
|
| [6] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Iron_Heel
| danans wrote:
| For an entertaining take inspired by the Eco essay, I recommend
| this recent video:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1M6CXhUS-x8&t=1s
| tptacek wrote:
| This is "Checkmate, atheists"-grade rhetoric.
| danans wrote:
| Hence why I called it "entertaining".
| Florin_Andrei wrote:
| I got the gist of that whole thing after two seconds of looking
| at the image.
| danbolt wrote:
| I haven't watched the video, but just in case you weren't
| aware, Beau of the Fifth Column's whole deal is that he
| subverts the themes associated with his image.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| Brendinooo wrote:
| This has been making the rounds lately, and the use of it hasn't
| sat well with me. I've struggled to articulate why; gonna try to
| do so here.
|
| The analysis is good, and finally getting to see the original
| source is better, because what tends to get circulated is way
| more reductive than this. But it seems like the list gets wielded
| in a way to stick the 'fascist' label on someone, and not much
| else.
|
| If someone hits 12 of the 14 markers, does that make him a
| fascist? What about six, or three, or one? Am I 1/14 fascist
| because I critique various aspects of modernism?
|
| To the extent they someone does match the list, all that really
| does is note that he'd match the characteristics of a few
| governments in the early 20th century. But that's only one kind
| of totalitarianism, and obsessive focus on it allows other kinds
| to slip through the cracks.
|
| > This new culture had to be syncretistic. Syncretism is not
| only, as the dictionary says, "the combination of different forms
| of belief or practice"; such a combination must tolerate contra-
| dictions. Each of the original messages contains a silver of
| wisdom, and whenever they seem to say different or incompatible
| things it is only because all are alluding, allegorically, to the
| same primeval truth.
|
| > As a consequence, there can be no advancement of learning.
| Truth has been already spelled out once and for all, and we can
| only keep interpreting its obscure message.
|
| This is a bit ironic, no? He's amalgamating aspects of different
| cultures into a generalized descriptor of a culture that's still
| being referenced decades later.
| ceilingcorner wrote:
| 99.9% of the people throwing around the word _fascist_ today
| have little to no understanding of what that political ideology
| means.
|
| The exact same situation happens with the word _communist_ ,
| excerpt with the roles reversed. Both are symptoms of falling
| educational levels, lack of historical knowledge, and an
| increasing drive to dehumanize and polarize the opposition.
| ahepp wrote:
| Collected from your various comments in this subthread:
|
| >99.9% of the people throwing around the word fascist today
| have little to no understanding of what that political
| ideology means.
|
| The author explains in the first line of the article, that he
| was a member of the fascist youth wing. Do you really think
| he doesn't know what it is? If you think he doesn't, I'd
| certainly be interested in hearing why.
|
| >I'm relying on the definition from dictionaries and
| historians
|
| The author is a historian.
|
| >Considering that the label of fascism is usually being used
| with reference the the Nazis (ironically almost never to the
| actual Italian fascists themselves - a symptom of the
| historical ignorance I mentioned), I'm gonna say yes, the
| word has a specific meaning.
|
| The author is Italian, so again it seems strange to accuse
| him of conflating Nazism with Italian fascism. Especially
| because the article compares the two in detail.
| ceilingcorner wrote:
| This essay is from 25 years ago. I was referring to people
| today.
| RIMR wrote:
| It sounds to me like you're complaining that people
| correctly call the Nazi party "fascist", and that you
| seem suspiciously personally invested in this
| narrative...
| ceilingcorner wrote:
| Sigh. One can't even point out historical facts without
| being accused of being a Nazi. The level of discourse
| really has fallen here.
|
| I merely said it was ironic that people calling others
| fascists don't usually refer to the group who invented
| the concept.
| scythe wrote:
| >you seem suspiciously personally invested in this
| narrative...
|
| He didn't call you a Nazi. What he said was: you're
| alleging the misuse of a term, but you're doing so while
| being very vague and giving brief, angry replies to
| comments all over the place, and this... pattern... is
| characteristic of bad-faith and/or extremist commenters
| on threads about anything posted almost anywhere.
|
| If you have some information you want to talk about in
| detail, I suggest you do so; it is much nicer to carry
| out discussions when we don't have to guess what the
| point is.
| ceilingcorner wrote:
| I think words have meanings, and labeling everyone you
| disagree with as the most negative adjective possible is
| dangerous for democracy and society. It is dehumanizing,
| which only leads to further polarization.
|
| Why that is controversial, I have absolutely no idea.
| RIMR wrote:
| Just like how Facebook isn't a social media website,
| since MySpace Tom already "invented the concept". Do I
| have your logic down right?
|
| What kind of argument is this, exactly? Nazis were
| Fascists in an objective, demonstrable way. That's not
| something that's up for debate, and it is extremely
| suspicious for anyone to attempt to correct the record on
| this.
|
| It's like people who are "skeptical" of the holocaust.
| That's not skepticism, it's antisemitism, because the
| Holocaust isn't up for debate. There are millions of
| pieces of evidence that it occurred to the degree we
| understand it to have occurred, just as there are
| millions of pieces of evidence that the Nazi party was
| fascist.
|
| Italians may have "invented" fascism (mostly just coined
| the term), but they were not historically unique, and
| they certainly aren't the only fascist movement ever to
| have occurred.
|
| The arguments you make sound like the kind of
| cryptofascist politics that come out of white nationalist
| groups that aim to normalize modern day right-wing
| extremism. If you don't want to get grouped together with
| those people, consider not talking exactly like they do
| about far-right nationalism and authoritarianism
| ceilingcorner wrote:
| You're reading a ton of stuff into my comment that isn't
| there. The origin of the term fascist comes from the
| Italian Fascist party. That's what it was called. That's
| where the word comes from. This is a historical fact.
| That is literally all I wrote. Absolutely no where did I
| say the Nazis weren't fascists or defend them in any way
| whatsoever.
|
| Thank you for reminding me to never, ever discuss
| politics on this website. No one even reads what you
| wrote and instead projects their own inane political
| universe onto you. No thanks.
| kergonath wrote:
| Then, luckily there is an essay from an Italian who saw
| fascism up close to explain to you how it works.
| potta_coffee wrote:
| I don't understand what's controversial about your statement
| or why it's being downvoted.
| ahepp wrote:
| Well, in the case of this particular piece, the very first
| lines are the author explaining that he was a member of the
| youth wing of the Italian fascist party. So it seems to me
| a strange context to complain about people who talk about
| fascism without knowing what it is.
| theptip wrote:
| Perhaps the parent was referring to the GP commenter's
|
| > the list gets wielded in a way to stick the 'fascist'
| label on someone, and not much else.
|
| rather than throwing shade on Eco's specific usage.
|
| For what it's worth I agree with the sentiment that most
| people using the word "fascist" couldn't give you an
| accurate definition of the original meaning of the term.
| You could argue that there's a new word "fascist*" that
| means "authoritarian and mean", but when making specific
| historical reference to the original term "fascist" it's
| sometimes important to strictly use the original
| definition (inasmuch as there was a strict original
| definition; part of Eco's thesis I think is that Fascism
| has always been somewhat amorphous).
|
| For example if you're comparing and contrasting the rise
| of the Nazi party in Germany to modern Trumpism, or
| making a claim about historical communist systems of
| governments leading to tyranny, then you need readers to
| interpret you as using "fascist" or "communist" (no *).
| If you're trying to get your tribe riled up on cable news
| then you are probably using "fascist*" or "communist*".
|
| I think it's OK to rail against people mis-using
| "fascist*", but I think it's about as futile as
| complaining about people mis-using the words "literally"
| or "comprised of".
| avereveard wrote:
| with the 99.9% of people opinions are wrong but mine it's
| the perfect instance of "everyone else is wrong but me"
| frenchy wrote:
| If 99.9% of people missunderstand what a word means, then
| maybe it doesn't really mean what you think it does, or has
| no clear meaning at all.
|
| Webster didn't get his dictionary from a discrete meeting
| with some cave spirit.
| ahepp wrote:
| I suspect you may have meant "discreet" rather than
| "discrete" (although I suppose the latter could make
| sense). I mix them up quite often myself.
| ceilingcorner wrote:
| Considering that the label of fascism is usually being used
| with reference the the Nazis (ironically almost never to
| the actual Italian fascists themselves - a symptom of the
| historical ignorance I mentioned), I'm gonna say yes, the
| word has a specific meaning.
| RIMR wrote:
| You say "actual Italian fascists" as if the Nazi party
| wasn't "actually fascist".
|
| I would say it's pretty clear that you're the one with
| the poor understanding of fascism.
| ceilingcorner wrote:
| I said actual Italian fascists because... that's where
| the word came from. They invented it. The Nazis copied
| many ideas from Mussolini, who was in power for a decade
| or so before the Nazis.
|
| Apparently historical facts are downvoted now?
| dumb_troll wrote:
| I'd suggest reading the article before going 2012 era
| TCOT
| nytgop77 wrote:
| Good point. Words are means of communication.
|
| Though there is a problem of ambiguity if word is reused
| (adjusted) for different meaning, while books (and people)
| from 1940 still continue using the old meaning.
|
| (just pointing out that meaning of words of dead people
| also matter)
| ceilingcorner wrote:
| Then what's the new definition? Anyone with right wing
| opinions I don't like? And I can redefine _communist_ as
| anyone with left wing opinions that I dislike?
|
| Do you see why this is a dangerous path to go down?
| Bakary wrote:
| New words appear constantly or old words are re-
| appropriated to fill the semantic necessities as they
| appear
|
| Seeing it as a dangerous path implies some voluntarily
| action and that is not exactly the mechanism at hand.
| ceilingcorner wrote:
| I think it's a dangerous path because it leads to
| dehumanizing the other. As I said, the exact same thing
| happens when people on the right call anyone left wing a
| communist. Exactly same phenomenon, just as dangerous.
| Bakary wrote:
| What I'm saying is that it's going to happen regardless
| of the consequences, because of how languages evolve.
| Coming from a culture that likes to regulate language, I
| find that any effort in that vein tends to fail pretty
| spectacularly. At best, you can mandate spelling reforms.
|
| If dehumanization occurs, and people then counter that
| phenomenon, new words and new meanings will appear
| naturally just like they always have. Old words will stop
| being employed. There will still be confusion for a while
| but it's never really a significant problem. Semantic
| differences are a symptom of fundamental disagreements
| rather than a cause.
|
| Look at the word "alt-right" for instance: it filled a
| need, appeared quickly, was initially criticized as a
| euphemism but rapidly took on more specific and non-
| euphemistic meaning. For the younger generations, calling
| anyone left-wing a communist in the way you describe is
| already hilariously passe and associated with boomers.
| red-montaigne wrote:
| Orwell was commenting on this decades ago. Any government you
| like is a "democracy," any government you don't like is
| fascist or communist. "Politics and the English Language" is
| a masterpiece.
|
| On the other hand, I do think an unsettling number of
| Americans would be totally fine ruling by authority and
| force, as long as the person in charge was from their own
| political party. So as far as that goes the label is
| appropriate.
| RIMR wrote:
| If only 0.1% of people agree with your definition of fascism,
| maybe you're the one with the incorrect definition.
| ceilingcorner wrote:
| I'm relying on the definition from dictionaries and
| historians, not the collective ignorance of the mob. Truth
| isn't a matter of upvotes.
| Cederfjard wrote:
| fascism noun
|
| fas* cism | \ 'fa-,shi-z@m also 'fa-,si- \
|
| Definition of fascism
|
| 1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement,
| or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts
| nation and often race above the individual and that
| stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by
| a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social
| regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
|
| 2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong
| autocratic or dictatorial control
|
| https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascism
|
| Does the definition of the 99.9% not fit in with that?
|
| As a glib riposte to your last statement: Truth may not
| be a matter of upvotes, but language definitely is.
| ceilingcorner wrote:
| Absolutely. From my reading, it's being used to describe
| everyone from anti-government libertarians to
| rationalists, to nationalists to people who think
| religion is an important part of civic society. I'd like
| to point out the complete absurdity of describing those
| wanting smaller government as fascists, but alas, here we
| are.
|
| As I said in another comment, it's become a byword for
| "person with right wing opinions that I disagree with."
| 13415 wrote:
| You primarily come across as someone who hasn't read
| Eco's influential essay or doesn't want to talk about it
| and instead makes up various straw man arguments. Eco
| describes fascism very well, based on personal experience
| with it and a deep knowledge of its origins and
| appearances.
| tryonenow wrote:
| The first definition sounds an awful lot like the Soviet
| Union.
| RIMR wrote:
| Language is not defined by dictionaries and historians.
| It's defined by how people use it.
|
| If 99.9% of people disagree with you on the meaning of a
| word, you are wrong. You are the one incapable of
| communicating your ideas in a way that others can
| understand.
|
| The opponents of Hitler in Germany during the rise of the
| Nazi party called Hitler and his party "Fascist". The
| namesake of Antifa, "Antifaschistische Aktion", was
| founded in Germany in 1932. To insist that Nazis were not
| fascists isn't commitment to linguistic accuracy, it's
| Nazi Apologetics and historical revisionism.
| jancsika wrote:
| > Am I 1/14 fascist because I critique various aspects of
| modernism?
|
| No.
|
| Nevertheless-- isn't it your responsibility to _know_ the
| intersection between your own personal beliefs and what 's
| being used by, say, a neofascist movement in order to gain more
| followers? (Say, if that were the case.)
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. Is it the
| responsibility of a running clock to know the time that the
| stopped clock displays?
|
| That is, I am not so worried that I'm a fascist that I'm
| going through the list, making _sure_ that I share no points
| of intersection. I could have a point in common (syncretistic
| beliefs, say, or criticism of modernism) as part of a
| completely benign worldview. The fact that there is one point
| in common does not render my worldview fascistic or otherwise
| malignant. (In this, I am disagreeing with Eco, who said
| "But it is enough that one of them be present to allow
| fascism to coagulate around it.")
|
| Now, the closer I get to all the points in common, the more
| concerning it is (and also the less likely I am to honestly
| do the comparison). But no, I'm not worried about "1/14
| fascist"... at least not in myself, because I'm pretty sure
| my worldview is benign. (On the other hand, everybody thinks
| that...)
| arduanika wrote:
| > But it seems like the list gets wielded in a way to stick the
| 'fascist' label on someone, and not much else.
|
| Hmm, maybe that's the way some people use it, but it doesn't
| seem to be Eco's intent, and I assume most people who share
| this article these days are mainly trying to broaden out our
| understanding of history, in all its complexity.
|
| At least, that's my intent in chiming in here to recommend this
| slightly more in-depth perspective:
|
| http://w3.salemstate.edu/~cmauriello/pdfEuropean/Paxton_Five...
| kergonath wrote:
| I think you misinterpreted it. The intent is not to put labels
| on someone's forehead.
|
| Some of these symptoms are not related to fascism, and are not
| problematic in themselves. But when you see more of these
| showing up, you need to be a bit critical and see how fascism
| has worked in other countries, because you might be in a
| position to stop its rise. It's more a warning about the need
| to be careful.
|
| If someone ticks 12 of the 14 boxes, it means that person
| should be approached cautiously. Same way as someone believing
| in flat earth and fake moon landings makes them more likely to
| fall for QAnon.
|
| > To the extent they someone does match the list, all that
| really does is note that he'd match the characteristics of a
| few governments in the early 20th century
|
| There were a bunch of far-right and/or nationalists governments
| in the early 20th Century. It did not really end well and that
| is not something we should emulate.
|
| Also, this definition does not only apply narrowly to self-
| professed fascists. It fits Stalinism and Maoism (and Xi-ism,
| Putinism, and Orbanism, if that is a thing) quite well, too.
| These regimes are fascist in all but name. I think if you want
| to swap mentally "fascism" with "totalitarianism", the essay is
| still instructive.
|
| > This is a bit ironic, no?
|
| No, I think he is right on point. This is how QAnon followers
| get over cognitive dissonance and how populists harness
| conflicting conspiracy theories and ideologies to their
| advantage. Not all syncretism is bad, but syncretism is a very
| powerful tool in the hands of an oppressor. This is how the
| Romans bought peace, and how the Church extended its power.
|
| Look at how Trump (a notorious rich liar, divorced philanderer
| who ostensibly made fortunes in casinos and who never showed an
| ounce of religious belief) managed to unite Republicans, poor
| Whites, and Christians fundamentalists. He (said he) offered to
| everyone something they wanted, regardless of the consistency
| of it all.
| BEEdwards wrote:
| >This is a bit ironic, no? He's amalgamating aspects of
| different cultures into a generalized descriptor of a culture
| that's still being referenced decades later.
|
| It's not the amalgamations, it's that that is the end of it.
|
| To create an illustrator straw man
|
| They say: All knowledge is already written and we just need to
| recombine it in new ways.
|
| You say: Ah but here is a criticism of that, using new or
| different sources
|
| They say: Those don't count we know all we need to know,
| everything know is already written.
| [deleted]
| FlownScepter wrote:
| > If someone hits 12 of the 14 markers, does that make him a
| fascist? What about six, or three, or one? Am I 1/14 fascist
| because I critique various aspects of modernism?
|
| > To the extent they someone does match the list, all that
| really does is note that he'd match the characteristics of a
| few governments in the early 20th century. But that's only one
| kind of totalitarianism, and obsessive focus on it allows other
| kinds to slip through the cracks.
|
| I think this comes down to Fascism just being a bit of an odd
| duck in the political discussion. Fascism seems to be an ever-
| present undercurrent of basically all Democratic and Republic-
| style societies, always there but not always apparent. There is
| always a subset of the population that believes their
| Government doesn't work, for any number of reasons, and to any
| given extent: Fascism plays well with a certain subset of those
| people. And the appeal is very easy to understand: if you
| perceive the systems that rule over you are fatally flawed,
| wouldn't it be so much better and easier to circumvent those
| systems and put in place people who would break the rules, but
| improve the nation?
|
| But that of course alone does not constitute Fascism. I was
| listening to one of Robert Evan's podcasts where he and his
| guest (I'm sorry I forget the episode and show) were remarking
| that Fascism is less an ideology or even a movement, and more
| of just, an aesthetic that could be adopted by basically any
| ideology or movement, if the appropriate leader comes along,
| which is one of the reasons it gets thrown around so much,
| besides just the historical connotations to the Nazis, of
| course. They theorized that the values of most Fascist
| movements (appeals to tradition/a mythic past, hatred of
| weakness, hatred of the other) make them more compatible with
| those of a conservative bent, but leftists are not immune from
| it either.
|
| People tend to forget that most of the Axis powers, save
| perhaps for Imperial Japan, were also extremely Fascist. Italy
| especially. And, prior to the United States' involvement in
| WWII, Hitler and Mussolini were renowned for their invigorating
| of their respective countries and their abilities as orators.
|
| > This is a bit ironic, no? He's amalgamating aspects of
| different cultures into a generalized descriptor of a culture
| that's still being referenced decades later.
|
| I mean, it keeps showing up. There are authoritarians seemingly
| all over the place at our particular moment of world history,
| many of which tick off numerous boxes on Eco's list. Does this
| mean they are all Fascists? I would say, yes, to a degree. I
| don't think one must wait for all the boxes to be checked
| before asking some questions. Does that mean they all merit
| interventions ala World War II? No. I just think it's something
| worth keeping in mind. And besides, America, the world police,
| are currently ticking far too many of those boxes ourselves to
| be throwing any stones out of our glass Fascist house anyway.
| glsdfgkjsklfj wrote:
| > If someone hits 12 of the 14 markers, does that make him a
| fascist?
|
| as with everything, depends on point of view.
|
| If you are in a region/demographic being crushed by foreign
| powers, i'd say someone hitting even 1 of the 14 markers could
| legitimacy be considered one
|
| Likewise, from your very comfortable point of view, even
| someone hitting 14 of the markers may not be considered one. I
| mean, you can have that one friend with the racist jokes that
| even have a couple black friends, right?
| dharmab wrote:
| From the PDF:
|
| > But in spite of this fuzziness, I think it is possible to
| outline a list of features that are typical of what I would
| like to call Ur-Fascism, or Eternal Fascism. These features
| cannot be organized into a system; many of them contradict each
| other, and are also typical of other kinds of despotism or
| fanaticism. But it is enough that one of them be present to
| allow fascism to coagulate around it.
|
| Think of these not as "prerequisites for Facism", but rather,
| "common features of many Fascist societies, systems and
| beliefs".
|
| Of course, this is just one view in an actively studied
| subject. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_fascism
| has a survey of various perspectives.
|
| Somewhat related: This video essay on the relation of modernist
| and fascist art was where I first encountered this essay. While
| I don't agree with all of the author's conclusions, I found it
| an enjoyable and thought-provoking watch:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5DqmTtCPiQ
| hansjorg wrote:
| The Behind The Bastards podcast has just finished a special run
| called Behind The Insurrections where they examine how various
| fascist movements came to power.
|
| They briefly discuss Eco's essay before delving into quite
| detailed accounts of various insurrections.
|
| The series has episodes on The Beer Hall Putsch, The March on
| Rome, The Spanish Civil War (with the usual caveats about Franco
| being a fascist or not) and the assault on the French national
| assembly in 1934.
|
| The historical parallels, while perhaps a tad exaggerated by the
| hosts, are quite interesting.
|
| https://youtu.be/erbyCO6QcX8
| DenisM wrote:
| And that is what I came here for! Thank you.
|
| In case you are not aware of it, the podcast Revolutions by
| Mike Dunkan is a great way to learn about, well, revolutions.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-02-16 23:00 UTC)