37 ms·

Ur-Fascism by Umberto Eco (1995)

235 points by azuajef 10y ago

vog 10y ago
I wish the article had some more historical treatment of fascism. It starts with nazi germany and WWII, but fascism started earlier in Germany, going back at least as far as the "Pan-German League" (1891-1939), who essentially laid the ideological foundation on which almost all modern rightists build their theories. EDIT: Make my point clearer.
- jljljl 10y ago
  I think the author was less interested in describing the ideology from a historical perspective, and more interested in pointing out warning signs that could signal an ideological movement is trending towards fascism. His point is that a future rise of fascism might not look like the path from the Pan-German League to the Nazis, but it will have some ideological hallmarks that we can detect.
  - dhconnelly 10y ago
    Right. This is comparative rather than historical - looking at a few fascist movements in recent times and distilling a common core.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
mturmon 10y ago
What an insightful piece. It is interwoven with Eco's experience as a kid in Fascist Italy, but written 50 years later. At the end is a little listicle of typical characteristics of a Fascist movement, with a careful indication that not all will be present. Being written in 1995, the training set is independent of the test set, and one is thus free to find parallels in the current moment: "Irrationalism also depends on the cult of action for action’s sake. Action being beautiful in itself, it must be taken before, or without, any previous reflection. Thinking is a form of emasculation." "Ur-Fascism grows up and seeks for consensus by exploiting and exacerbating the natural fear of difference. The first appeal of a fascist or prematurely fascist movement is an appeal against the intruders." "To people who feel deprived of a clear social identity, Ur-Fascism says that their only privilege is the most common one, to be born in the same country. This is the origin of nationalism."
- ep103 10y ago
  I highly recommend reading: http://w3.salemstate.edu/~cmauriello/pdfEuropean/Paxton_Five%20Stages%20of%20Fascism.pdf http://w3.salemstate.edu/~cmauriello/pdfEuropean/Paxton_Five... Its not particularly long, but is one of the more eye opening things I ever read on the subject
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- trhway 10y ago
  >"Ur-Fascism grows up and seeks for consensus by exploiting and exacerbating the natural fear of difference. The first appeal of a fascist or prematurely fascist movement is an appeal against the intruders." >"To people who feel deprived of a clear social identity, Ur-Fascism says that their only privilege is the most common one, to be born in the same country. This is the origin of nationalism." Yep, the birth of fascism, ie. Italian fascism, was a final act of the Italian national independence process which started in the first half of 19th century. The independence from Austrian empire and from Catholic Church - Mussolini in particular finalized the relationships with papal states/Vatican. Interesting that Mussolini started as Socialist and split with them on very similar grounds as the "bolsheviks"/Lenin split from Socialists in Russia around the same time - push for more forceful action, for unchecked power (dictatorship) - the difference being that in Russia Lenin was pushing for dictatorship of the working class while Mussolini was for dictatorship of the national state. While one may say that whose ideologies are of different colors, structurally they are the same and thus produced similar results - totalitarian states. As an example, just replace national dimension with the "aristocracy - capitalists - worker class/peasants" dimension in the 2 quotes above and you'll get the socialist/communist principle of the "class war" and that idea that just by being of "working class" makes people intrinsically good and thus gives them moral power and entitles them to [dictatorially] rule and decide the fate of others.
  - frabbit 10y ago
    > push for more forceful action, for unchecked power Is this something like Barack Obama carrying out drone strikes? Or Madeleine Albright approving the starving of 500,000 Iraqi children? Or Hilary Clinton getting a knife stuck up Gaddafi's rectum? Or the invasion of Iran on a pretext? Or does it have to be something in dim and distant past which we can tut about as it was done by "those other ones"?
VLM 10y ago
I clicked "flag" because its basically a comparison of modern progressive SJW viewpoints and 30s 40s fascism. Which is interesting and accurate but rather off topic for HN and the political discussion will be tired sloganeering. Its not a problem with the (late) author, he's an excellent writer, but this is a selection of his work that does little than trigger traditional SJW perspectives.
- saboot 10y ago
  Disagreeing with an article is no reason to flag it. Although you aren't disagreeing even, just saying "it sounds like SJW (??) so I don't like it and no one else should".
  - brbrodude 10y ago
    That's the level of stupidity we're at.
- mturmon 10y ago
  It's not easy to see how the article could "compare modern progressive SJW viewpoints" because it was written in 1995, before that derisive term was invented. But yes, it is quite possible that discussion here will be tired sloganeering. To keep that from happening, we have to engage with the piece itself.
- empath75 10y ago
  If you use the word 'trigger' or 'sjw' unironically, you spend way too much time in the alt-right cesspool of reddit.
- pizza 10y ago
  I wonder if Americans fighting in the Spanish War in the 1930s would fall under the class Social Justice Warrior.. edit: and if there are social justice warriors, are the people who beleaguer them social anarchists?
  - pizzaTime2 10y ago
sbierwagen 10y ago
(1995)
syntheticnature 10y ago
Mods, can we get a (1995) on here?
- Florin_Andrei 10y ago
  Sure, but the ideas described are largely timeless.
  - ChuckMcM 10y ago
    I think it is important to understand that this was in 1995 looking forward, as opposed to trying to create things that describe the current situation and cherry picking details to fit the narrative. I have often expressed the opinion that Donald Trump's campaign, and his vision for the country, is reflective of a fascist ideology. That is hard for someone to hear who doesn't consider themselves a fascist but supports Trump because it challenges them to see that both statements that they hold to be true, can not be true. To sway their feeling of cognitive dissonance they attack the facts and assert bias and cherry picking. Umberto Eco knows nothing of Trump's campaign as he writes, so he cannot be cherry picking his facts out of the current affairs. That is why I consider it important to know this was written in 1995.
    - cpr 10y ago
      Actually, what we have now in the US is full blown fascism, which technically means the government and corporations together in a "fasces," a bundle of sticks. Calls for caution in the face of the madness of our current immigration and essentially open borders, and for taking radical Islamism seriously, don't amount to anything like fascism.
      - tdb7893 10y ago
        Wikipedia has different definitions (example below). I don’t know where you get your definition from. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism “a genus of political ideology whose mythic core in its various permutations is a palingenetic form of populist ultranationalism”
clock_tower 10y ago
At least for me, the most novel item in here, the one thing that makes the whole article invaluable, was the 14th point on Eco's list: the use of Newspeak and simplified language. I had never heard of this, but it's not surprising; it's internally consistent with the rest of what I know about Naziism and Fascism in general. It also reminds me of "Kids Against Trump", founded by a 9-year-old who could understand every word in Trump's speeches and was, accordingly, thoroughly creeped out. (http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2016/07/why-are-third-graders-afraid-of-donald-trump/491567/ http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2016/07/why-are...) Of course, Trump isn't likely to murder dissidents, and he has no desire for us-against-the-world unwinnable wars of conquest; likewise, I don't see a timeline in which Marine Le Pen revives Napoleon's ambitions, so the current alt-right moment has its advantages over historical fascism. (Alt-right-ness in general seems to be about staying home and hating/expelling foreigners, rather than looking for glory outside one's borders.) But these are unsettled times, all the same, and if you'd told me in the 1990s what I'd be seeing in the 2010s, I would never have believed you...
- eternalban 10y ago
  Newspeak is so old news. Try Cognitive Infiltration for size: http://www.salon.com/2010/01/15/sunstein_2/ http://www.salon.com/2010/01/15/sunstein_2/
- Jtsummers 10y ago
  Keep in mind, wrt Trump and conquest, he thinks we (the US) should break international law and claim oil (and other resources) from the countries that we've already invaded. And he still wants to take the war to ISIS. Even if it's not a war of conquest, it's still a war outside our borders and a major talking point of his campaign and his disparagement of Clinton and the Democratic Party (their apparent refusal to reference ISIS in particular and Islamic terrorism in general).
- jonathankoren 10y ago
  The hating foreigners and feeling constantly maligned can easily transition into "Are we going take being disrespected like that? Hell no! Let's go punch them in the face!" and the tanks start rolling. If there's one bright side to Western Europe's 30+ years of low military spending, they don't have many tanks to send. Of course that's easily fixed as well.
atemerev 10y ago
I remember this essay being widely cited a few years ago in Russia, as being more and more relevant to the recent changes in our politics. Now it is becoming more and more relevant to the rest of the world. Russia: pioneering the world's social change since 1917.
- etangent 10y ago
  That's a really interesting and overlooked point. If correct (that is, if populist/proto-fascistic tendencies in modern Russia exist and have something in common with their equivalents in the West), it almost seems to overturn the commonly accepted theory that the rise of dangerous populism in everywhere is mostly due to economic stagnation -- since by comparison, Russia have done quite well in the past decade up until the drop of oil prices.
edgarvaldes 10y ago
It's interesting to see Trump being mentioned here (I'm not american, so I read the article from a very distinct perspective and background). Eco lists 14 features of Ur-Fascism. Do you find more than one in the Trump Campaign?
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- bbctol 10y ago
  All of the features are pretty vague and certainly up for debate, but here's my shot at the potential links to the Trump campaign: 1. Cult of tradition. This, I think, has the weakest link to Trump; obviously the "Make America Great Again" slogan speaks to nostalgia, but I do think Eco here is talking about a particular kind of primordial, ancient tradition that is present in European fascism. America doesn't really have the sense of a people dating back thousands of years, so we avoid it. 2. Rejection of modernism. Again, Eco is speaking here to some specific aspects of the Enlightenment vs pre-modern ways of thought, but I do think there is a connection here to Trump's focus on a manufacturing/manual labor-based middle class vs. a service sector, educated economy. He "loves the uneducated" and "wonders why we don't make anything anymore"; the modern world is too abstract and irrelevant a place. 3. Cult of action. Uh, absolutely. It's honestly hard to find a place in Trump's rhetoric where this doesn't appear. Universities are filled with effete snobs, and thinking is a form of emasculation; Trump will take action, won't listen to the so-called experts, will consult his gut, etc. 4. Disagreement is treason. Again, definitely. Trump's said repeatedly that he attacks anyone who attacks him ten times over, be they other politicians or members of the media, and promises to inflict harsh penalties on members of the press who criticize him. 5. Fear of difference. America is under attack by Muslims, Mexicans, and China, all of whom are broad categories to be feared and met with strength. 6. Appeal to a frustrated middle class. Trump's base of support are those who have seen other groups make greater strides in recent years, the white, largely (at least nominally) Christian, less-educated manufacturing class. They're definitely suffering feelings of humiliation, in part warranted, that Trump's tapping in to; he is against the free trade agreements blamed for their job loss and the social mores that have propped up other races, genders, and identities. 7. Obsession with plot. At its most obvious, there's Trump's famous view of global warming as a Chinese conspiracy to hurt manufacturing, and his perception that Obama is not born in America, and may be cooperating with terrorists ("if he's so smart, something else is happening.") Still, I'd call this debatable; Trump certainly doesn't have the obsession with conspiracy of the Nazis (although who did?) and the particular place of the Jews is different in a modern American cultural context. Not that people who are obsessed with Jewish plots aren't big Trump supporters, of course. 8. Shifting rhetoric; opponents are both humiliatingly strong and too weak. I think this is again reflected in his rhetoric on Obama; he's a weak President who isn't respected, but also a dictator trying to control your lives. This also isn't as strong, though. 9. Life is struggle. Not always a big theme in the campaign so far, but lots of Trump statements from books and interviews say, pretty directly, that he believes life is a constant struggle and you always need to be the strongest and the best. He hasn't taken this to the warmongering lengths that traditional fascists do, though; it's more of a philosophical theme than a declaration of actual war. Again, we're in a very different geopolitical context to that of early fascists, and all-out war is harder to sell. 10. Popular elitism. Hard to say. A component of fascist societies, rather than a particular trait of the leader, and we don't know what Trump's America will look like, and how much of that will have to do with Trump. 11. Cult of heroism and death. Not really. We're going to win and keep on winning. (A boot against a human face--forever!) 12. Machismo. Yup. Disdain for women and need for strength and dominance. Well-attested. 13. Selective populism. Absolutely. Trump is the voice of the people, in his own words, and derives his legitimacy from having been elected through a pretty bizarre process. Trump supporters are the real Americans, his enemies are not a part of the populace he wants to lead. "The emotional response of a small group of people" has been selected. "Wherever a politician casts doubt on the legitimacy of a parliament because it no longer represents the Voice of the People, we can smell Ur-Fascism." 14. Newspeak. Debatable, as fun as it is to link Trump's simple vocabulary to simple ideas. I'm less in the Sapir-Whorf camp than Orwell; I think Trump's use of simple sentences is more a reflection of a simple worldview than cause. But, I suppose it is hard to debate him when he has such vague positions, and those vague positions are established with the use of basic language. We're going to win. How? We're going to do it right, that's how! I'm at work right now (oops) so this is poorly sourced and mainly based on memory. I definitely think you can apply these categories in lots of ways, depending on your political bias, and as much as I adore Eco, he shouldn't be taken as the final word on fascism and politics in general. That said... there's a lot of fascism in Trump.
benbenolson 10y ago
It would be the height of insanity to not read this piece and be wary of the combination of ideologies that can lead to fascism, and to draw parallels to modern times. I can't comment much on the individual points because I've never lived in a fascist country, but they do seem to lead to a combined ideology that would further the reaching powers of an aspiring fascist. As an American, however, I can't help but think that the increasingly bold steps that our government is taking towards authoritarianism is making this piece all the more relevant: both parties are guilty of increasing the strength and powers of the government, as well as unnecessarily using the might of the military for nebulous gains. No longer do political candidates debate individual issues; instead, they appeal to a persona that the populous wants to see. Some might simply call it "entertainment", not "politics." This is an unnerving trend. Were our federal government less powerful overall: financially, legally, etc., pieces like this would be less pertinent due to the "spreading out" of power that Italy nor Germany never had.
- vixen99 10y ago
  I guess there's a 'not' in the wrong place?
  - benbenolson 10y ago
    I don't see any misplaced words. Care to explain?
    - brlewis 10y ago
      "to not read this piece and be wary" is more clearly written as "to read this piece and not be wary" I think most readers subconsciously eliminated the nonsense interpretation.
      - ScottBurson 10y ago
        That tripped me up too. Though the author's intention was clearly "to not (read this piece and be wary)", it's easily misread as "to (not read this piece) and be wary".
ScottBurson 10y ago
Along similar lines let me recommend a couple of Adam Gopnik pieces on Trump and fascism: http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/going-there-with-donald-trump http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/going-there-with... http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/being-honest-about-trump http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/being-honest-abo... This in particular echoes Eco: The arguments about whether [Trump] meets every point in some static fascism matrix show a misunderstanding of what that ideology involves. It is the essence of fascism to have no single fixed form—an attenuated form of nationalism in its basic nature, it naturally takes on the colors and practices of each nation it infects. In Italy, it is bombastic and neoclassical in form; in Spain, Catholic and religious; in Germany, violent and romantic. It took forms still crazier and more feverishly sinister, if one can imagine, in Romania, whereas under Oswald Mosley, in England, its manner was predictably paternalistic and aristocratic. It is no surprise that the American face of fascism would take on the forms of celebrity television and the casino greeter’s come-on, since that is as much our symbolic scene as nostalgic re-creations of Roman splendors once were Italy’s. What all forms of fascism have in common is the glorification of the nation, and the exaggeration of its humiliations, with violence promised to its enemies, at home and abroad; the worship of power wherever it appears and whoever holds it; contempt for the rule of law and for reason; unashamed employment of repeated lies as a rhetorical strategy; and a promise of vengeance for those who feel themselves disempowered by history.
- internaut 10y ago
  > What all forms of fascism have in common is the glorification of the nation, and the exaggeration of its humiliations, with violence promised to its enemies, at home and abroad; the worship of power wherever it appears and whoever holds it; contempt for the rule of law and for reason; unashamed employment of repeated lies as a rhetorical strategy; and a promise of vengeance for those who feel themselves disempowered by history. What is the difference between this, and North Korean or Soviet Communism? Is there a difference?
  - hansjorg 10y ago
    The Soviet Union was opposed to nationalism and racism, at least nominally. International solidarity and all that. They made a big deal out of (the very real) US racism and oppression in their propaganda. North Korea is so far out that it's hard to compare it to anything else.
lintiness 10y ago
i guess we're supposed to wax angry about trump here ...
riffraff 10y ago
I know people are inclined to read this in terms of Trump, so let me just remind people of this: Berlusconi entered the political arena in Italy in 1994, so this piece, from 1995, might have been very likely inspired by a somewhat similar situation. EDIT: not in the sense that B. was an evil fascist, but in the more important sense of "Freedom and liberation are an unending task"
- toyg 10y ago
  Agree. '90s Italy was in a state of turmoil: the economy was tanking, public finances were in disarray, the Balkans were exploding producing waves of refugees, old political parties were dying... in the newly-empty ideological landscape, Berlusconi saw an opening and took it. Rivers of ink were spent analysing that phenomenon, under the fear that we were witnessing a new Mussolini. In the end he never went full-fascist, his movement self-deflated under the weight of its own contradictions, and he buried his head in sexual escapades. The experience of living my formative years under Berlusconi makes me optimistic on Trump. "The Donald" does not control the media landscape to the degree that Berlusconi did (or could have done); his conflicts of interest are minor; his platform is much more confusing and badly put together; and even most of his own footsoldiers don't take him too seriously, which is why he had to get a fundie for VP. Silvio was in a much better position, with more fanatical followers and widespread support from the establishment, and stil achieved very little, because the country stubbornly refused to bow to his demands. I expect Americans will similarly drag their feet. You can't dig a moat if people won't pick up their shovels.
  - willholloway 10y ago
    I tend to agree on Trump, as someone who has been studying him and the campaign closely. In the final analysis, if he were to be elected, I think he would be a fairly typical Republican president, and one that seriously toned down the GOP's cultural conservatism. From looking at his history and my take on his personality, if he were to take office he would want to 'win' at the job. I think that for him 'winning' at president would be measured by economic metrics and his approval numbers. I went into the cycle outraged at the fascistic overtones of his campaign, and fearful. Now I think it was mostly showmanship and an effort to win the votes of the rubes in the GOP base. I think he would approach the job as being CEO of America, and focus on economic growth and negotiating better 'deals' for the country. He will quickly find that the ISIS problem is intractable, and that he has seriously overpromised on that front. The situation is going to escalate no matter who takes office. There is no sizable cohort in America working on de-escalating tensions with the Islamic world, no peace movement to be found. The West has a serious empathy deficit in regards to the Middle East. It just can't see past the religious identity of the terrorists, and see it as essentially a desperate and weak revenge effort by people that feel transgressed against and humiliated. This blind spot means more aerial killer robots, and more pissed off people on the other end of those hellfires. Both Trump and Hillary will inevitably play right into the hands of the extremists, and the diabolical ISIS plan of eliminating the grey zone will no doubt work, as Europe's social cohesion is on the brink and repression against the Muslim population will no doubt increase due to these grotesque asymmetric terror attacks. This is a very sad state of affairs for liberalism, and the chance for peace in our time. Tragically, it's going to be counterproductive military action from the West, and insane, lunatic barbarism from the Islamic side in response. The current phase of this conflict really kicked off when I was just 17, on 9/11/2001, it heated up during my 20's and got seriously out of control around when I turned 30. Lately I've been pondering the fact that I've never been the victim of a terror attack, and I've never fought in a conflict overseas. My entire interface with the horror show has strictly been through the media, and just the images and knowledge has effected me very negatively. I could have just avoided the news and lived in safe and tranquil ignorance. Instead I've endured this impotent worry, a feeling of something terrible happening to people all around the world that I could do nothing to save. I'm now resigned to this stupid conflict continuing for my entire life.
openasocket 10y ago
OK, so this was obviously brought up because of the parallels with Trump, but while reading I noticed another group that strongly aligns with these principles: ISIS. I've mostly thought of them as a regressive, extremist theocracy, but they really do match up with every one of these points. You have the cult of tradition and rejection of modernism, action for action's sake, a fear of difference, obsession with violence, and most especially the cult of heroism (martyrdom). I wonder if this is just coincidence, or if the recent explosion of Islamic extremism is a new variation on Fascism.
- nooron 10y ago
  I think this is a very fair comparison. One important way that I think people miss is their demographic similarity. Fascism was largely a movement of young people, especially men. This is true of ISIS. To be clear, I don't think how you deal with ISIS is the same as Nazi Germany because they are also quite different in practical and ideological terms. It's worth considering that ISIS is at least nominally a globalist, not nationalist movement– they have a vision of umma/Islamic community that means to include all races. This is not true of the Third Reich.
  - openasocket 10y ago
    ISIS has two faces: the globalist terrorist group that organizes out suicide bombings and shootings all over the world, and the sectarian militia group which conquers and holds territory. The nation-state component is very much like Nazi Germany: it's going around conquering its neighbors, persecuting minorities, and there is active resistance from those they have conquered. Though, as a nation-state ISIS is rather weak; most of its perceived strength comes from the global terrorist attacks. I wonder what would have become of the Nazis if they hadn't taken control of Germany, or if they failed to amass enough military power to invade other nations. Perhaps they would have switched to guerrilla-style tactics and terrorist attacks?
  - morgante 10y ago
    Is ISIS actually globalist? As far as I know, they don't openly incorporate Muslims from other cultures. I think they're more imperialist than globalist: they must cast their reach wide to liberate the oppressed Muslims of other nations.
frabbit 10y ago
Anyone else remember this (very beautifully written and interesting) piece being rolled out during previous elections? Interesting that Clinton is stumping with the Bushes (the previous boogeymen) now: https://www.yahoo.com/news/hillary-clinton-invokes-unlikely-allies-000000292.html https://www.yahoo.com/news/hillary-clinton-invokes-unlikely-...
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > Interesting that Clinton is stumping with the Bushes (the previous boogeymen) now: https://www.yahoo.com/news/hillary-clinton-invokes-unlikely-.. https://www.yahoo.com/news/hillary-clinton-invokes-unlikely-.... She's not stumping with the Bushes, and that article doesn't indicate that she is.
bobthechef 10y ago
Speaking of modernism, this encyclical from 1907 has very interesting things to say about the subject. Interpreting fascism's relation to modernism in this light, and interpreting Eco's essay in this light, are fascinating. http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-x/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-x_enc_19070908_pascendi-dominici-gregis.html http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-x/en/encyclicals/documents...
- bobthechef 10y ago
  Also this interesting note about "games" and irrationality and how they relate to Eco: http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2016/02/the-real-umberto-eco-how-deeply.html http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2016/02/the-real-umberto-ec...
unimpressive 10y ago
For a slightly different perspective from Mussolini: http://legacy.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/mussolini-fascism.asp http://legacy.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/mussolini-fascism.asp https://archive.org/details/MyAutobiography https://archive.org/details/MyAutobiography Primary sources are important, they give you details and textures that are smoothed over in a retelling or distillation. My personal opinion, since this story has basically become about whether or not Trump represents an American Fascist movement, is that crying fascism all the time is very much a 'boy who cried wolf' scenario. I don't think Trump is a fascist per se. Moreover, considering that fascism was a term adopted by the left to describe the heretical forms of syndicalism, socialism, etc that split from Leninism in the early to mid 20th century and was used for the POUM[1] as readily as Hitler's SS[2] I submit that the term in fact means nothing. Fascism has no central character because it's a bogeyman of self described antifas who want to import European style street brawl politics[3] into the United States. Instead of trying to conceptualize and denounce Trump in terms of the past, I think it would be more effective to point out the concrete dangers he represents to domestic and foreign policy with his actual stated politics, or his hypocrisy, or any of the other many traits you can go after with him.[4] [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homage_to_catalonia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homage_to_catalonia [2]: They are after all the National Socialists. Though by the time Hitler was appointed Chancellor the actual 'socialist' wing of the party had been purged to win over the minds of wealthy donors. [3]: http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-neo-nazi-event-stabbings-capitol-20160627-snap-story.html http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-neo-nazi-event-s... [4]: For example, compare this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOJrYxHQO-E&nohtml5=False https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOJrYxHQO-E&nohtml5=False) Ted Cruz ad to John Kaisch's invoking Godwin. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_isVZN65Ss&nohtml5=False https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_isVZN65Ss&nohtml5=False)
- mark_edward 10y ago
  http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=fascist http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=fascist
  - unimpressive 10y ago
    Yes. Which is why where my post originally said 'invented' I changed to 'adopted'. (In all probability you read the version which said 'adopted', since I made that change soon after I wrote it.)
brlewis 10y ago
The article compares the term "fascism" to the term "game" in that it names a family of things that may not share any given trait. If I say the stock market is a game, I have some hope people will understand I'm saying there are winners or losers. If I say commenting on HN is a game I have some hope people will understand I'm saying it's more for amusement than for any other purpose. With the term "fascism" I have no such hope. Nobody understands if I say "Trump is fascist" or "Hillary is fascist" unless we're already thinking along the same lines, in which case I'm not communicating anything new. My conclusion is that "fascism" is not a useful term for discussion.
- morgante 10y ago
  > Nobody understands if I say "Drumpf is fascist" or "Hillary is fascist" unless we're already thinking along the same lines, in which case I'm not communicating anything new. I think you're right when it comes to Internet commenting, but it's possible. I've personally convinced a few people to support Johnson instead of Trump by pointing out the distinctively fascist elements of his campaign. Thinking people are entirely polarized and unwilling to listen to respectful points just enhances polarization.
fatdog 10y ago
Few object to fascism when it was _their_ fascism. When you use it as a catch-all euphemism for evil, sure it sounds bad. But more often than not, fascism is a trope held up to make otherwise totalitarian ideas seem moderate. I have no love for people who identify as fascists, as to me they are just morbid personalities fixated on a nostalgia for ugliness. Same type of people who like slasher/torture films. But, some alt-right'ists (trigger warning) have put some recent thought into the topic: http://www.jack-donovan.com/axis/2013/03/anarcho-fascism/ http://www.jack-donovan.com/axis/2013/03/anarcho-fascism/ It is fairly well considered. These days, Eco is an old hack doomed to the museum/prison of being a national treasure. He has become too precious to edit, and his books are mainly didactic posturing for middle brow book clubs. His criticisms provide a kind of hall of mirrors for people who already believe in them, and don't provide actual illumination.
ajuc 10y ago
I've read this years before, but reading it now I can't help to feel it very relevant to current state of Polish (and probably not only Polish) democracy. There is minority, but growing "cultural Catholics" that don't particulary care about the dekalog, anticonception and all that, but will leash on you for "LGBT propaganda", demand that Catholic symbols are prominent everywhere, and Islam/whatever other symbols are removed. They consider the current pope "too leftist" because he quotes Jesus on refuges. They "are not antisemitist, but these damn Jews control Poland". It's connected with Polish nationalism, EU-scepticism, and outright racism sometimes, and for a few years already it's "cool" to be a nationalist in 15-25 age group. They are also persuaded nationalism is the default state, in each country, and it's only the leftist media conspiracy that covers that up. And these people are actively encouraged by current conservative government (probably with their noses held, but what that changes?) because they are the obvious demographics that can help them against the main centro-liberal opposition parties. Their propaganda is anti-intellectual, refers to "common sense" against scientific theories, ignores all subtle distinctions and paints very "we vs them" world, calls everybody disagreeing with them "traitors", and sees a conspiracy of Soros and leftist behind everything. It's very sad to see how bad political luck and cynism can undo so much progress in so short time.
- guard-of-terra 10y ago
  > Their propaganda is anti-intellectual, refers to "common sense" against scientific theories I can see you're disgusted by this. I can relate to you. On other hand, I'm disgusted when people get to ignore observations and facts because they don't fit their dominant ideology. For example, there's this current ideology that "terrorism doesn't have a religion" and no amounts of facts are allowed to counter it.
  - ajuc 10y ago
    Well, in my country there were 2 terrorist acts since 50s, both by young political extremists. One by right-wing Catholic (well, I'm not sure he's Catholic, but I'm sure he's not Muslim), and the other by 2 most probably atheistic left-wing extremists. And Poles had a lot experience with political terrorism when we were under occupation. Even our 1920s-30s leader Piłsudski was a terrorist once. So yes, terrorism isn't about religion, it's just correlated with one (and not even that strongly, usually - the current wave of terrorism doesn't even have the highest victim count in the last 50 years in Europe).
MichaelMoser123 10y ago
fourteen defining features for fascism; i think that's a lot, some of them are framed very broadly, and i don't quite see how they all interconnect. I wonder why it does not include 'readiness to suppress your political opponent', i would have thought that this is the defining feature of fascism; you can be all of the fourteen features, but as long as you don't smack your political opponents you are not a real fascist.
- nekopa 10y ago
  I think that's covered by point 4, dissent is treason.
  - MichaelMoser123 10y ago
    you still need to be prepared to actively punish the traitors; for instance any religion would view non believers in their congregation as some form of traitors, but not all religions would be ready to burn them at the stake or do anything about it.

235 points by azuajef 10y ago

vog 10y ago

I wish the article had some more historical treatment of fascism. It starts with nazi germany and WWII, but fascism started earlier in Germany, going back at least as far as the "Pan-German League" (1891-1939), who essentially laid the ideological foundation on which almost all modern rightists build their theories. EDIT: Make my point clearer.

jljljl 10y ago
I think the author was less interested in describing the ideology from a historical perspective, and more interested in pointing out warning signs that could signal an ideological movement is trending towards fascism. His point is that a future rise of fascism might not look like the path from the Pan-German League to the Nazis, but it will have some ideological hallmarks that we can detect.
- dhconnelly 10y ago
  Right. This is comparative rather than historical - looking at a few fascist movements in recent times and distilling a common core.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

mturmon 10y ago

What an insightful piece. It is interwoven with Eco's experience as a kid in Fascist Italy, but written 50 years later. At the end is a little listicle of typical characteristics of a Fascist movement, with a careful indication that not all will be present. Being written in 1995, the training set is independent of the test set, and one is thus free to find parallels in the current moment: "Irrationalism also depends on the cult of action for action’s sake. Action being beautiful in itself, it must be taken before, or without, any previous reflection. Thinking is a form of emasculation." "Ur-Fascism grows up and seeks for consensus by exploiting and exacerbating the natural fear of difference. The first appeal of a fascist or prematurely fascist movement is an appeal against the intruders." "To people who feel deprived of a clear social identity, Ur-Fascism says that their only privilege is the most common one, to be born in the same country. This is the origin of nationalism."

ep103 10y ago
I highly recommend reading: http://w3.salemstate.edu/~cmauriello/pdfEuropean/Paxton_Five%20Stages%20of%20Fascism.pdf http://w3.salemstate.edu/~cmauriello/pdfEuropean/Paxton_Five... Its not particularly long, but is one of the more eye opening things I ever read on the subject
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
trhway 10y ago
>"Ur-Fascism grows up and seeks for consensus by exploiting and exacerbating the natural fear of difference. The first appeal of a fascist or prematurely fascist movement is an appeal against the intruders." >"To people who feel deprived of a clear social identity, Ur-Fascism says that their only privilege is the most common one, to be born in the same country. This is the origin of nationalism." Yep, the birth of fascism, ie. Italian fascism, was a final act of the Italian national independence process which started in the first half of 19th century. The independence from Austrian empire and from Catholic Church - Mussolini in particular finalized the relationships with papal states/Vatican. Interesting that Mussolini started as Socialist and split with them on very similar grounds as the "bolsheviks"/Lenin split from Socialists in Russia around the same time - push for more forceful action, for unchecked power (dictatorship) - the difference being that in Russia Lenin was pushing for dictatorship of the working class while Mussolini was for dictatorship of the national state. While one may say that whose ideologies are of different colors, structurally they are the same and thus produced similar results - totalitarian states. As an example, just replace national dimension with the "aristocracy - capitalists - worker class/peasants" dimension in the 2 quotes above and you'll get the socialist/communist principle of the "class war" and that idea that just by being of "working class" makes people intrinsically good and thus gives them moral power and entitles them to [dictatorially] rule and decide the fate of others.
- frabbit 10y ago
  > push for more forceful action, for unchecked power Is this something like Barack Obama carrying out drone strikes? Or Madeleine Albright approving the starving of 500,000 Iraqi children? Or Hilary Clinton getting a knife stuck up Gaddafi's rectum? Or the invasion of Iran on a pretext? Or does it have to be something in dim and distant past which we can tut about as it was done by "those other ones"?

VLM 10y ago

I clicked "flag" because its basically a comparison of modern progressive SJW viewpoints and 30s 40s fascism. Which is interesting and accurate but rather off topic for HN and the political discussion will be tired sloganeering. Its not a problem with the (late) author, he's an excellent writer, but this is a selection of his work that does little than trigger traditional SJW perspectives.

saboot 10y ago
Disagreeing with an article is no reason to flag it. Although you aren't disagreeing even, just saying "it sounds like SJW (??) so I don't like it and no one else should".
- brbrodude 10y ago
  That's the level of stupidity we're at.
mturmon 10y ago
It's not easy to see how the article could "compare modern progressive SJW viewpoints" because it was written in 1995, before that derisive term was invented. But yes, it is quite possible that discussion here will be tired sloganeering. To keep that from happening, we have to engage with the piece itself.
empath75 10y ago
If you use the word 'trigger' or 'sjw' unironically, you spend way too much time in the alt-right cesspool of reddit.
pizza 10y ago
I wonder if Americans fighting in the Spanish War in the 1930s would fall under the class Social Justice Warrior.. edit: and if there are social justice warriors, are the people who beleaguer them social anarchists?
- pizzaTime2 10y ago

sbierwagen 10y ago

(1995)

syntheticnature 10y ago

Mods, can we get a (1995) on here?

Florin_Andrei 10y ago
Sure, but the ideas described are largely timeless.
- ChuckMcM 10y ago
  I think it is important to understand that this was in 1995 looking forward, as opposed to trying to create things that describe the current situation and cherry picking details to fit the narrative. I have often expressed the opinion that Donald Trump's campaign, and his vision for the country, is reflective of a fascist ideology. That is hard for someone to hear who doesn't consider themselves a fascist but supports Trump because it challenges them to see that both statements that they hold to be true, can not be true. To sway their feeling of cognitive dissonance they attack the facts and assert bias and cherry picking. Umberto Eco knows nothing of Trump's campaign as he writes, so he cannot be cherry picking his facts out of the current affairs. That is why I consider it important to know this was written in 1995.
  - cpr 10y ago
    Actually, what we have now in the US is full blown fascism, which technically means the government and corporations together in a "fasces," a bundle of sticks. Calls for caution in the face of the madness of our current immigration and essentially open borders, and for taking radical Islamism seriously, don't amount to anything like fascism.
    - tdb7893 10y ago
      Wikipedia has different definitions (example below). I don’t know where you get your definition from. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism “a genus of political ideology whose mythic core in its various permutations is a palingenetic form of populist ultranationalism”

clock_tower 10y ago

At least for me, the most novel item in here, the one thing that makes the whole article invaluable, was the 14th point on Eco's list: the use of Newspeak and simplified language. I had never heard of this, but it's not surprising; it's internally consistent with the rest of what I know about Naziism and Fascism in general. It also reminds me of "Kids Against Trump", founded by a 9-year-old who could understand every word in Trump's speeches and was, accordingly, thoroughly creeped out. (http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2016/07/why-are-third-graders-afraid-of-donald-trump/491567/ http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2016/07/why-are...) Of course, Trump isn't likely to murder dissidents, and he has no desire for us-against-the-world unwinnable wars of conquest; likewise, I don't see a timeline in which Marine Le Pen revives Napoleon's ambitions, so the current alt-right moment has its advantages over historical fascism. (Alt-right-ness in general seems to be about staying home and hating/expelling foreigners, rather than looking for glory outside one's borders.) But these are unsettled times, all the same, and if you'd told me in the 1990s what I'd be seeing in the 2010s, I would never have believed you...

eternalban 10y ago
Newspeak is so old news. Try Cognitive Infiltration for size: http://www.salon.com/2010/01/15/sunstein_2/ http://www.salon.com/2010/01/15/sunstein_2/
Jtsummers 10y ago
Keep in mind, wrt Trump and conquest, he thinks we (the US) should break international law and claim oil (and other resources) from the countries that we've already invaded. And he still wants to take the war to ISIS. Even if it's not a war of conquest, it's still a war outside our borders and a major talking point of his campaign and his disparagement of Clinton and the Democratic Party (their apparent refusal to reference ISIS in particular and Islamic terrorism in general).
jonathankoren 10y ago
The hating foreigners and feeling constantly maligned can easily transition into "Are we going take being disrespected like that? Hell no! Let's go punch them in the face!" and the tanks start rolling. If there's one bright side to Western Europe's 30+ years of low military spending, they don't have many tanks to send. Of course that's easily fixed as well.

atemerev 10y ago

I remember this essay being widely cited a few years ago in Russia, as being more and more relevant to the recent changes in our politics. Now it is becoming more and more relevant to the rest of the world. Russia: pioneering the world's social change since 1917.

etangent 10y ago
That's a really interesting and overlooked point. If correct (that is, if populist/proto-fascistic tendencies in modern Russia exist and have something in common with their equivalents in the West), it almost seems to overturn the commonly accepted theory that the rise of dangerous populism in everywhere is mostly due to economic stagnation -- since by comparison, Russia have done quite well in the past decade up until the drop of oil prices.

edgarvaldes 10y ago

It's interesting to see Trump being mentioned here (I'm not american, so I read the article from a very distinct perspective and background). Eco lists 14 features of Ur-Fascism. Do you find more than one in the Trump Campaign?

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
bbctol 10y ago
All of the features are pretty vague and certainly up for debate, but here's my shot at the potential links to the Trump campaign: 1. Cult of tradition. This, I think, has the weakest link to Trump; obviously the "Make America Great Again" slogan speaks to nostalgia, but I do think Eco here is talking about a particular kind of primordial, ancient tradition that is present in European fascism. America doesn't really have the sense of a people dating back thousands of years, so we avoid it. 2. Rejection of modernism. Again, Eco is speaking here to some specific aspects of the Enlightenment vs pre-modern ways of thought, but I do think there is a connection here to Trump's focus on a manufacturing/manual labor-based middle class vs. a service sector, educated economy. He "loves the uneducated" and "wonders why we don't make anything anymore"; the modern world is too abstract and irrelevant a place. 3. Cult of action. Uh, absolutely. It's honestly hard to find a place in Trump's rhetoric where this doesn't appear. Universities are filled with effete snobs, and thinking is a form of emasculation; Trump will take action, won't listen to the so-called experts, will consult his gut, etc. 4. Disagreement is treason. Again, definitely. Trump's said repeatedly that he attacks anyone who attacks him ten times over, be they other politicians or members of the media, and promises to inflict harsh penalties on members of the press who criticize him. 5. Fear of difference. America is under attack by Muslims, Mexicans, and China, all of whom are broad categories to be feared and met with strength. 6. Appeal to a frustrated middle class. Trump's base of support are those who have seen other groups make greater strides in recent years, the white, largely (at least nominally) Christian, less-educated manufacturing class. They're definitely suffering feelings of humiliation, in part warranted, that Trump's tapping in to; he is against the free trade agreements blamed for their job loss and the social mores that have propped up other races, genders, and identities. 7. Obsession with plot. At its most obvious, there's Trump's famous view of global warming as a Chinese conspiracy to hurt manufacturing, and his perception that Obama is not born in America, and may be cooperating with terrorists ("if he's so smart, something else is happening.") Still, I'd call this debatable; Trump certainly doesn't have the obsession with conspiracy of the Nazis (although who did?) and the particular place of the Jews is different in a modern American cultural context. Not that people who are obsessed with Jewish plots aren't big Trump supporters, of course. 8. Shifting rhetoric; opponents are both humiliatingly strong and too weak. I think this is again reflected in his rhetoric on Obama; he's a weak President who isn't respected, but also a dictator trying to control your lives. This also isn't as strong, though. 9. Life is struggle. Not always a big theme in the campaign so far, but lots of Trump statements from books and interviews say, pretty directly, that he believes life is a constant struggle and you always need to be the strongest and the best. He hasn't taken this to the warmongering lengths that traditional fascists do, though; it's more of a philosophical theme than a declaration of actual war. Again, we're in a very different geopolitical context to that of early fascists, and all-out war is harder to sell. 10. Popular elitism. Hard to say. A component of fascist societies, rather than a particular trait of the leader, and we don't know what Trump's America will look like, and how much of that will have to do with Trump. 11. Cult of heroism and death. Not really. We're going to win and keep on winning. (A boot against a human face--forever!) 12. Machismo. Yup. Disdain for women and need for strength and dominance. Well-attested. 13. Selective populism. Absolutely. Trump is the voice of the people, in his own words, and derives his legitimacy from having been elected through a pretty bizarre process. Trump supporters are the real Americans, his enemies are not a part of the populace he wants to lead. "The emotional response of a small group of people" has been selected. "Wherever a politician casts doubt on the legitimacy of a parliament because it no longer represents the Voice of the People, we can smell Ur-Fascism." 14. Newspeak. Debatable, as fun as it is to link Trump's simple vocabulary to simple ideas. I'm less in the Sapir-Whorf camp than Orwell; I think Trump's use of simple sentences is more a reflection of a simple worldview than cause. But, I suppose it is hard to debate him when he has such vague positions, and those vague positions are established with the use of basic language. We're going to win. How? We're going to do it right, that's how! I'm at work right now (oops) so this is poorly sourced and mainly based on memory. I definitely think you can apply these categories in lots of ways, depending on your political bias, and as much as I adore Eco, he shouldn't be taken as the final word on fascism and politics in general. That said... there's a lot of fascism in Trump.

benbenolson 10y ago

It would be the height of insanity to not read this piece and be wary of the combination of ideologies that can lead to fascism, and to draw parallels to modern times. I can't comment much on the individual points because I've never lived in a fascist country, but they do seem to lead to a combined ideology that would further the reaching powers of an aspiring fascist. As an American, however, I can't help but think that the increasingly bold steps that our government is taking towards authoritarianism is making this piece all the more relevant: both parties are guilty of increasing the strength and powers of the government, as well as unnecessarily using the might of the military for nebulous gains. No longer do political candidates debate individual issues; instead, they appeal to a persona that the populous wants to see. Some might simply call it "entertainment", not "politics." This is an unnerving trend. Were our federal government less powerful overall: financially, legally, etc., pieces like this would be less pertinent due to the "spreading out" of power that Italy nor Germany never had.

vixen99 10y ago
I guess there's a 'not' in the wrong place?
- benbenolson 10y ago
  I don't see any misplaced words. Care to explain?
  - brlewis 10y ago
    "to not read this piece and be wary" is more clearly written as "to read this piece and not be wary" I think most readers subconsciously eliminated the nonsense interpretation.
    - ScottBurson 10y ago
      That tripped me up too. Though the author's intention was clearly "to not (read this piece and be wary)", it's easily misread as "to (not read this piece) and be wary".

ScottBurson 10y ago

Along similar lines let me recommend a couple of Adam Gopnik pieces on Trump and fascism: http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/going-there-with-donald-trump http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/going-there-with... http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/being-honest-about-trump http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/being-honest-abo... This in particular echoes Eco: The arguments about whether [Trump] meets every point in some static fascism matrix show a misunderstanding of what that ideology involves. It is the essence of fascism to have no single fixed form—an attenuated form of nationalism in its basic nature, it naturally takes on the colors and practices of each nation it infects. In Italy, it is bombastic and neoclassical in form; in Spain, Catholic and religious; in Germany, violent and romantic. It took forms still crazier and more feverishly sinister, if one can imagine, in Romania, whereas under Oswald Mosley, in England, its manner was predictably paternalistic and aristocratic. It is no surprise that the American face of fascism would take on the forms of celebrity television and the casino greeter’s come-on, since that is as much our symbolic scene as nostalgic re-creations of Roman splendors once were Italy’s. What all forms of fascism have in common is the glorification of the nation, and the exaggeration of its humiliations, with violence promised to its enemies, at home and abroad; the worship of power wherever it appears and whoever holds it; contempt for the rule of law and for reason; unashamed employment of repeated lies as a rhetorical strategy; and a promise of vengeance for those who feel themselves disempowered by history.

internaut 10y ago
> What all forms of fascism have in common is the glorification of the nation, and the exaggeration of its humiliations, with violence promised to its enemies, at home and abroad; the worship of power wherever it appears and whoever holds it; contempt for the rule of law and for reason; unashamed employment of repeated lies as a rhetorical strategy; and a promise of vengeance for those who feel themselves disempowered by history. What is the difference between this, and North Korean or Soviet Communism? Is there a difference?
- hansjorg 10y ago
  The Soviet Union was opposed to nationalism and racism, at least nominally. International solidarity and all that. They made a big deal out of (the very real) US racism and oppression in their propaganda. North Korea is so far out that it's hard to compare it to anything else.

lintiness 10y ago

i guess we're supposed to wax angry about trump here ...

riffraff 10y ago

I know people are inclined to read this in terms of Trump, so let me just remind people of this: Berlusconi entered the political arena in Italy in 1994, so this piece, from 1995, might have been very likely inspired by a somewhat similar situation. EDIT: not in the sense that B. was an evil fascist, but in the more important sense of "Freedom and liberation are an unending task"

toyg 10y ago
Agree. '90s Italy was in a state of turmoil: the economy was tanking, public finances were in disarray, the Balkans were exploding producing waves of refugees, old political parties were dying... in the newly-empty ideological landscape, Berlusconi saw an opening and took it. Rivers of ink were spent analysing that phenomenon, under the fear that we were witnessing a new Mussolini. In the end he never went full-fascist, his movement self-deflated under the weight of its own contradictions, and he buried his head in sexual escapades. The experience of living my formative years under Berlusconi makes me optimistic on Trump. "The Donald" does not control the media landscape to the degree that Berlusconi did (or could have done); his conflicts of interest are minor; his platform is much more confusing and badly put together; and even most of his own footsoldiers don't take him too seriously, which is why he had to get a fundie for VP. Silvio was in a much better position, with more fanatical followers and widespread support from the establishment, and stil achieved very little, because the country stubbornly refused to bow to his demands. I expect Americans will similarly drag their feet. You can't dig a moat if people won't pick up their shovels.
- willholloway 10y ago
  I tend to agree on Trump, as someone who has been studying him and the campaign closely. In the final analysis, if he were to be elected, I think he would be a fairly typical Republican president, and one that seriously toned down the GOP's cultural conservatism. From looking at his history and my take on his personality, if he were to take office he would want to 'win' at the job. I think that for him 'winning' at president would be measured by economic metrics and his approval numbers. I went into the cycle outraged at the fascistic overtones of his campaign, and fearful. Now I think it was mostly showmanship and an effort to win the votes of the rubes in the GOP base. I think he would approach the job as being CEO of America, and focus on economic growth and negotiating better 'deals' for the country. He will quickly find that the ISIS problem is intractable, and that he has seriously overpromised on that front. The situation is going to escalate no matter who takes office. There is no sizable cohort in America working on de-escalating tensions with the Islamic world, no peace movement to be found. The West has a serious empathy deficit in regards to the Middle East. It just can't see past the religious identity of the terrorists, and see it as essentially a desperate and weak revenge effort by people that feel transgressed against and humiliated. This blind spot means more aerial killer robots, and more pissed off people on the other end of those hellfires. Both Trump and Hillary will inevitably play right into the hands of the extremists, and the diabolical ISIS plan of eliminating the grey zone will no doubt work, as Europe's social cohesion is on the brink and repression against the Muslim population will no doubt increase due to these grotesque asymmetric terror attacks. This is a very sad state of affairs for liberalism, and the chance for peace in our time. Tragically, it's going to be counterproductive military action from the West, and insane, lunatic barbarism from the Islamic side in response. The current phase of this conflict really kicked off when I was just 17, on 9/11/2001, it heated up during my 20's and got seriously out of control around when I turned 30. Lately I've been pondering the fact that I've never been the victim of a terror attack, and I've never fought in a conflict overseas. My entire interface with the horror show has strictly been through the media, and just the images and knowledge has effected me very negatively. I could have just avoided the news and lived in safe and tranquil ignorance. Instead I've endured this impotent worry, a feeling of something terrible happening to people all around the world that I could do nothing to save. I'm now resigned to this stupid conflict continuing for my entire life.

openasocket 10y ago

OK, so this was obviously brought up because of the parallels with Trump, but while reading I noticed another group that strongly aligns with these principles: ISIS. I've mostly thought of them as a regressive, extremist theocracy, but they really do match up with every one of these points. You have the cult of tradition and rejection of modernism, action for action's sake, a fear of difference, obsession with violence, and most especially the cult of heroism (martyrdom). I wonder if this is just coincidence, or if the recent explosion of Islamic extremism is a new variation on Fascism.

nooron 10y ago
I think this is a very fair comparison. One important way that I think people miss is their demographic similarity. Fascism was largely a movement of young people, especially men. This is true of ISIS. To be clear, I don't think how you deal with ISIS is the same as Nazi Germany because they are also quite different in practical and ideological terms. It's worth considering that ISIS is at least nominally a globalist, not nationalist movement– they have a vision of umma/Islamic community that means to include all races. This is not true of the Third Reich.
- openasocket 10y ago
  ISIS has two faces: the globalist terrorist group that organizes out suicide bombings and shootings all over the world, and the sectarian militia group which conquers and holds territory. The nation-state component is very much like Nazi Germany: it's going around conquering its neighbors, persecuting minorities, and there is active resistance from those they have conquered. Though, as a nation-state ISIS is rather weak; most of its perceived strength comes from the global terrorist attacks. I wonder what would have become of the Nazis if they hadn't taken control of Germany, or if they failed to amass enough military power to invade other nations. Perhaps they would have switched to guerrilla-style tactics and terrorist attacks?
- morgante 10y ago
  Is ISIS actually globalist? As far as I know, they don't openly incorporate Muslims from other cultures. I think they're more imperialist than globalist: they must cast their reach wide to liberate the oppressed Muslims of other nations.

frabbit 10y ago

Anyone else remember this (very beautifully written and interesting) piece being rolled out during previous elections? Interesting that Clinton is stumping with the Bushes (the previous boogeymen) now: https://www.yahoo.com/news/hillary-clinton-invokes-unlikely-allies-000000292.html https://www.yahoo.com/news/hillary-clinton-invokes-unlikely-...

dragonwriter 10y ago
> Interesting that Clinton is stumping with the Bushes (the previous boogeymen) now: https://www.yahoo.com/news/hillary-clinton-invokes-unlikely-.. https://www.yahoo.com/news/hillary-clinton-invokes-unlikely-.... She's not stumping with the Bushes, and that article doesn't indicate that she is.

bobthechef 10y ago

Speaking of modernism, this encyclical from 1907 has very interesting things to say about the subject. Interpreting fascism's relation to modernism in this light, and interpreting Eco's essay in this light, are fascinating. http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-x/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-x_enc_19070908_pascendi-dominici-gregis.html http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-x/en/encyclicals/documents...

bobthechef 10y ago
Also this interesting note about "games" and irrationality and how they relate to Eco: http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2016/02/the-real-umberto-eco-how-deeply.html http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2016/02/the-real-umberto-ec...

unimpressive 10y ago

For a slightly different perspective from Mussolini: http://legacy.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/mussolini-fascism.asp http://legacy.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/mussolini-fascism.asp https://archive.org/details/MyAutobiography https://archive.org/details/MyAutobiography Primary sources are important, they give you details and textures that are smoothed over in a retelling or distillation. My personal opinion, since this story has basically become about whether or not Trump represents an American Fascist movement, is that crying fascism all the time is very much a 'boy who cried wolf' scenario. I don't think Trump is a fascist per se. Moreover, considering that fascism was a term adopted by the left to describe the heretical forms of syndicalism, socialism, etc that split from Leninism in the early to mid 20th century and was used for the POUM[1] as readily as Hitler's SS[2] I submit that the term in fact means nothing. Fascism has no central character because it's a bogeyman of self described antifas who want to import European style street brawl politics[3] into the United States. Instead of trying to conceptualize and denounce Trump in terms of the past, I think it would be more effective to point out the concrete dangers he represents to domestic and foreign policy with his actual stated politics, or his hypocrisy, or any of the other many traits you can go after with him.[4] [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homage_to_catalonia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homage_to_catalonia [2]: They are after all the National Socialists. Though by the time Hitler was appointed Chancellor the actual 'socialist' wing of the party had been purged to win over the minds of wealthy donors. [3]: http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-neo-nazi-event-stabbings-capitol-20160627-snap-story.html http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-neo-nazi-event-s... [4]: For example, compare this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOJrYxHQO-E&nohtml5=False https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOJrYxHQO-E&nohtml5=False) Ted Cruz ad to John Kaisch's invoking Godwin. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_isVZN65Ss&nohtml5=False https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_isVZN65Ss&nohtml5=False)

mark_edward 10y ago
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=fascist http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=fascist
- unimpressive 10y ago
  Yes. Which is why where my post originally said 'invented' I changed to 'adopted'. (In all probability you read the version which said 'adopted', since I made that change soon after I wrote it.)

brlewis 10y ago

The article compares the term "fascism" to the term "game" in that it names a family of things that may not share any given trait. If I say the stock market is a game, I have some hope people will understand I'm saying there are winners or losers. If I say commenting on HN is a game I have some hope people will understand I'm saying it's more for amusement than for any other purpose. With the term "fascism" I have no such hope. Nobody understands if I say "Trump is fascist" or "Hillary is fascist" unless we're already thinking along the same lines, in which case I'm not communicating anything new. My conclusion is that "fascism" is not a useful term for discussion.

morgante 10y ago
> Nobody understands if I say "Drumpf is fascist" or "Hillary is fascist" unless we're already thinking along the same lines, in which case I'm not communicating anything new. I think you're right when it comes to Internet commenting, but it's possible. I've personally convinced a few people to support Johnson instead of Trump by pointing out the distinctively fascist elements of his campaign. Thinking people are entirely polarized and unwilling to listen to respectful points just enhances polarization.

fatdog 10y ago

Few object to fascism when it was _their_ fascism. When you use it as a catch-all euphemism for evil, sure it sounds bad. But more often than not, fascism is a trope held up to make otherwise totalitarian ideas seem moderate. I have no love for people who identify as fascists, as to me they are just morbid personalities fixated on a nostalgia for ugliness. Same type of people who like slasher/torture films. But, some alt-right'ists (trigger warning) have put some recent thought into the topic: http://www.jack-donovan.com/axis/2013/03/anarcho-fascism/ http://www.jack-donovan.com/axis/2013/03/anarcho-fascism/ It is fairly well considered. These days, Eco is an old hack doomed to the museum/prison of being a national treasure. He has become too precious to edit, and his books are mainly didactic posturing for middle brow book clubs. His criticisms provide a kind of hall of mirrors for people who already believe in them, and don't provide actual illumination.

ajuc 10y ago

I've read this years before, but reading it now I can't help to feel it very relevant to current state of Polish (and probably not only Polish) democracy. There is minority, but growing "cultural Catholics" that don't particulary care about the dekalog, anticonception and all that, but will leash on you for "LGBT propaganda", demand that Catholic symbols are prominent everywhere, and Islam/whatever other symbols are removed. They consider the current pope "too leftist" because he quotes Jesus on refuges. They "are not antisemitist, but these damn Jews control Poland". It's connected with Polish nationalism, EU-scepticism, and outright racism sometimes, and for a few years already it's "cool" to be a nationalist in 15-25 age group. They are also persuaded nationalism is the default state, in each country, and it's only the leftist media conspiracy that covers that up. And these people are actively encouraged by current conservative government (probably with their noses held, but what that changes?) because they are the obvious demographics that can help them against the main centro-liberal opposition parties. Their propaganda is anti-intellectual, refers to "common sense" against scientific theories, ignores all subtle distinctions and paints very "we vs them" world, calls everybody disagreeing with them "traitors", and sees a conspiracy of Soros and leftist behind everything. It's very sad to see how bad political luck and cynism can undo so much progress in so short time.

guard-of-terra 10y ago
> Their propaganda is anti-intellectual, refers to "common sense" against scientific theories I can see you're disgusted by this. I can relate to you. On other hand, I'm disgusted when people get to ignore observations and facts because they don't fit their dominant ideology. For example, there's this current ideology that "terrorism doesn't have a religion" and no amounts of facts are allowed to counter it.
- ajuc 10y ago
  Well, in my country there were 2 terrorist acts since 50s, both by young political extremists. One by right-wing Catholic (well, I'm not sure he's Catholic, but I'm sure he's not Muslim), and the other by 2 most probably atheistic left-wing extremists. And Poles had a lot experience with political terrorism when we were under occupation. Even our 1920s-30s leader Piłsudski was a terrorist once. So yes, terrorism isn't about religion, it's just correlated with one (and not even that strongly, usually - the current wave of terrorism doesn't even have the highest victim count in the last 50 years in Europe).

MichaelMoser123 10y ago

fourteen defining features for fascism; i think that's a lot, some of them are framed very broadly, and i don't quite see how they all interconnect. I wonder why it does not include 'readiness to suppress your political opponent', i would have thought that this is the defining feature of fascism; you can be all of the fourteen features, but as long as you don't smack your political opponents you are not a real fascist.

nekopa 10y ago
I think that's covered by point 4, dissent is treason.
- MichaelMoser123 10y ago
  you still need to be prepared to actively punish the traitors; for instance any religion would view non believers in their congregation as some form of traitors, but not all religions would be ready to burn them at the stake or do anything about it.