5 ms·
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-t
by 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 agoThe 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.
- trhway 10y ago>North Korea is so far out that it's hard to compare it to anything else. not really. Whenever i read/see things about NK it is just like a trip back up the memory lane to my childhood in USSR in the 197x/198x.
- wavefunction 10y agoObviously someone like me who didn't experience what you did wouldn't know, but I read about things like NK executing people with anti-aircraft guns or having them torn apart alive by trained dogs and I feel like there is a difference. Though intellectually inhumanity is inhumanity whatever the form it takes.
- dragonwriter 10y agoSoviet Communism, while also a totalitarian system (and thus sharing those features that fascism has not as unique to fascism, but as common to all totalitarianisms) differed in some key ways from that list; notably, while it certainly did not erase pre-existing Russian national pride, embraced internationalism and global class-identity as opposed to glorification of the nation.
- guard-of-terra 10y ago> certainly did not erase pre-existing Russian national pride It did. Crushing pre-existing Russian national pride was central to Soviet dogma, they called it "великодержавный шовинизм". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korenizatsiya#Against_Great-Russian_chauvinism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korenizatsiya#Against_Great-Ru...