29 ms·

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

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".
kiba 10y ago
unnecessarily using the might of the military for nebulous gains I would say those actions were 'half-hearted' due to the risk of angering the public. But if we're going to use the military, I would like it to be in a decisive and overwhelming manner with a well defined objective. To do that, we must be willing to accept casualty. If we aren't willing to commit to our goal, whatever that may be, with all the necessary resources, why are we fighting there? Let just stay home.
- benbenolson 10y ago
  Yeah, that's a good point: if force absolutely needs to be done, let it be swift and to the point. Drawing out a foreign war, and then griping about casualties, is no way to keep the peace. Let alone the unknown intentions of said war.
  - Animats 10y ago
    War doesn't work like that any more. "The guerrilla must move amongst the people as a fish swims in the sea." - Mao Zedong. The enemy today is distributed amongst people you don't want to kill. Nobody stands up a big army in one place any more, unless they have absolute air superiority. The last one to try was Saddam Hussein. The Roman Empire had a solution to this. If a province became too rebellious, they went in with the legions and killed everybody. Today this is considered overkill. Eco points out that the resistance movement was more of a political exercise in keeping opposition alive than a military success. That was also true of the French Resistance. The efforts of the French Resistance before D-Day didn't accomplish much. They were supported by the Allies primarily so that they could do some key attacks on D-Day to confuse the situation and maintain the deception that the attack was at Calais. The most important function of the Resistance was that they provided the core of the French government once it was back in power. "The Third Republic has never ceased to exist" - de Gaulle.
    - benbenolson 10y ago
      Fair point. Surely my solution would not work against such an enemy, since there is no "head" to attack swiftly.
noobermin 10y ago
Here's a novel thought: At least some of the points Eco mentioned do not require an authoritarian government to implement. For example, selective populism and racism were alive and well in the South prior to the 60's, and happily administered in a democratic system. It took, yes, a powerful government to break it up. Removing all power from the government transforms a nation into a state of nature that empowers such fascist and elitist groups to suppress marginalized groups in the same way an authoritarian government would. This is why many neo-fascists and alt-righters pay lip-service to libertarian (or classically liberal) ideals and the two groups often overlap in practice, because a truly stateless nation would allow the "weak" to be dominated by the "naturally strong", ie., this or that better poised group. Counter-intuitively, a state is required to maintain individual liberty, I think. PS: To be fair, I think most people who are libertarian do not want the state of nature. For example, libertarians, AFAIK, want a government that protects property rights for example. Yes, I think if one considers Snowden's revelations, these developments don't enable the state's protection of individual liberty arguably. As we've seen, they haven't been very effective while instead are very compromising of individuals' rights. It comes down to details, but blanket removal of all power the state just places power in the hands of the de-facto elites. It's a delicate balance we have to strike and yes debate.
- vec 10y ago
  To expand on your point, calling Mississippi circa 1950 "democratic" is, while not technically wrong, extremely misleading. Systematically denying the less privileged half the population access to the vote, both by legal means and by extralegal coercion up to and including murder, does not generally lead to what we now consider to be democratically elected governments. The "tyranny of the majority" can be as harsh as the tyranny of any single strongman, but it's important to note how closely that process is tied to systematically de-legitimizing other voices and perspectives.
- manachar 10y ago
  "Counter-intuitively, a state is required to maintain individual liberty, I think." Why is this counterintuitive to so many people? This was one of the prime reasonings by almost all Enlightenment-era thinkers for the reason for a government, including it being beautifully laid out in the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." The key line is "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men".
AnimalMuppet 10y ago
> both parties are guilty of increasing the strength and powers of the government Worse: Increasing the strength and powers of the chief executive, at the expense of Congress.

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".

kiba 10y ago

unnecessarily using the might of the military for nebulous gains I would say those actions were 'half-hearted' due to the risk of angering the public. But if we're going to use the military, I would like it to be in a decisive and overwhelming manner with a well defined objective. To do that, we must be willing to accept casualty. If we aren't willing to commit to our goal, whatever that may be, with all the necessary resources, why are we fighting there? Let just stay home.

benbenolson 10y ago
Yeah, that's a good point: if force absolutely needs to be done, let it be swift and to the point. Drawing out a foreign war, and then griping about casualties, is no way to keep the peace. Let alone the unknown intentions of said war.
- Animats 10y ago
  War doesn't work like that any more. "The guerrilla must move amongst the people as a fish swims in the sea." - Mao Zedong. The enemy today is distributed amongst people you don't want to kill. Nobody stands up a big army in one place any more, unless they have absolute air superiority. The last one to try was Saddam Hussein. The Roman Empire had a solution to this. If a province became too rebellious, they went in with the legions and killed everybody. Today this is considered overkill. Eco points out that the resistance movement was more of a political exercise in keeping opposition alive than a military success. That was also true of the French Resistance. The efforts of the French Resistance before D-Day didn't accomplish much. They were supported by the Allies primarily so that they could do some key attacks on D-Day to confuse the situation and maintain the deception that the attack was at Calais. The most important function of the Resistance was that they provided the core of the French government once it was back in power. "The Third Republic has never ceased to exist" - de Gaulle.
  - benbenolson 10y ago
    Fair point. Surely my solution would not work against such an enemy, since there is no "head" to attack swiftly.

noobermin 10y ago

Here's a novel thought: At least some of the points Eco mentioned do not require an authoritarian government to implement. For example, selective populism and racism were alive and well in the South prior to the 60's, and happily administered in a democratic system. It took, yes, a powerful government to break it up. Removing all power from the government transforms a nation into a state of nature that empowers such fascist and elitist groups to suppress marginalized groups in the same way an authoritarian government would. This is why many neo-fascists and alt-righters pay lip-service to libertarian (or classically liberal) ideals and the two groups often overlap in practice, because a truly stateless nation would allow the "weak" to be dominated by the "naturally strong", ie., this or that better poised group. Counter-intuitively, a state is required to maintain individual liberty, I think. PS: To be fair, I think most people who are libertarian do not want the state of nature. For example, libertarians, AFAIK, want a government that protects property rights for example. Yes, I think if one considers Snowden's revelations, these developments don't enable the state's protection of individual liberty arguably. As we've seen, they haven't been very effective while instead are very compromising of individuals' rights. It comes down to details, but blanket removal of all power the state just places power in the hands of the de-facto elites. It's a delicate balance we have to strike and yes debate.

vec 10y ago
To expand on your point, calling Mississippi circa 1950 "democratic" is, while not technically wrong, extremely misleading. Systematically denying the less privileged half the population access to the vote, both by legal means and by extralegal coercion up to and including murder, does not generally lead to what we now consider to be democratically elected governments. The "tyranny of the majority" can be as harsh as the tyranny of any single strongman, but it's important to note how closely that process is tied to systematically de-legitimizing other voices and perspectives.
manachar 10y ago
"Counter-intuitively, a state is required to maintain individual liberty, I think." Why is this counterintuitive to so many people? This was one of the prime reasonings by almost all Enlightenment-era thinkers for the reason for a government, including it being beautifully laid out in the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." The key line is "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men".

AnimalMuppet 10y ago

> both parties are guilty of increasing the strength and powers of the government Worse: Increasing the strength and powers of the chief executive, at the expense of Congress.