4 ms·

> 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,

> 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.
- 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 ago
    Obviously 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 ago
Soviet 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...
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > Crushing pre-existing Russian national pride was central to Soviet dogma Dogma and reality often differed quite a bit in the Soviet Union; I would say that the evidence is that the USSR did not actually crush pre-existing Russian national pride, although they managed to temporarily transfer the outward expression of that pride into what was, at least superficially, expression of pride in the Soviet State rather than the Russian nation. This still, though -- despite the internationalist orientation of the Leninist ideology -- retained a substantial nationalist tinge, even if oriented around a new and somewhat broader national identity.
- internaut 10y ago
  I have to wonder whether Eco's approach is flawed in its systematizing. It is a noble flaw in every intellectual to categorize, dissect and flay their prey. Then produce a general theory from the evidence scattered before him. Hayek used to bitch about it. However another view could be the gaps that exist between Fascism and Communism are to be explained by historical circumstances, geography and the prevailing orthodoxies of the day rather than a grand theory of Anarchism, Capitalism, Communism or any other -ism. Those could just be the retroactively generated cover stories. We like coherent stories to hang our ideas on. Notice for instance how World War II has gradually resolved in the public's mind as something like a historical fiction, involving 'good guys' and 'bad guys'. I am not a relativist but I find it frightening that 'good guys' has a flexible enough range to include Joesph Stalin. Apart from the problem of treating a World War like a Cowboy Western, much less attention is paid today to the interaction between the extreme leftists (Bolsheviks and anarchists) and the extreme right (Nazis) in the lead up to World War II. For instance I was very surprised to understand in the BBC documentary "The Nazis, a warning from history" (an excellent documentary) the degree to which the activities of the Bolsheviks influenced the rise of the Nazis. The hate directed towards the Jews is incomprehensible unless you grasp the fact that nearly every Bolshevik bomber was Jewish. My school textbook neglected to mention this and popular culture also uses racial hate as a deus ex machina of a backstory. It is a given, but never elaborated on. This only finally clicked with me when I saw interviews with German POWs who were constantly harping on protecting civilization from the Bolsheviks. To them everything they did was justified in light of that. They weren't Nazis and they didn't appear to especially hate Jews. Still, they were part of the machine. This means to me, that hate is a short term impulse and the actual destruction of minorities within Germany was in fact a clinical decision, fully rationalized and accepted by the public. The newspapers might have ranted but the public weren't composed mostly of bigots. They were composed of people who eventually just stopped caring because their way of life was under threat. The threat to a minority isn't necessarily hate, but a kind of widely shared exhaustion and apathy. I fear those who complain we've forgotten our history, have actually forgotten our history for an absurd simplification about irrational hate. I feel like the mainstream interpretation of history is actually now the politically incorrect one.
azernik 10y ago
There's actually a pretty good argument that North Korea is a lot closer [1] to early-20th-century fascism than to Communism. Soviet ideology tended not to glorify the nation as such but rather a class; tended to glorify underdogs as long as they were fighting capitalists; and tended to be very ashamed of lies and very insistent on the internal consistency and intellectual credibility of its propaganda. "Promise of vengeance", I agree, is pretty generically associated with any revolutionary movement. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jy1iudsIKa8; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jy1iudsIKa8; the book is quite good.
- tim333 10y ago
  Yeah I was thinking N Korea is probably the closest modern example to Nazi style fascism. They've got the unswerving loyalty to the dictator for the military good of the country thing going on. Not very good at building autobahns and industrialising though.

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.

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 ago
  Obviously 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 ago

Soviet 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...
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > Crushing pre-existing Russian national pride was central to Soviet dogma Dogma and reality often differed quite a bit in the Soviet Union; I would say that the evidence is that the USSR did not actually crush pre-existing Russian national pride, although they managed to temporarily transfer the outward expression of that pride into what was, at least superficially, expression of pride in the Soviet State rather than the Russian nation. This still, though -- despite the internationalist orientation of the Leninist ideology -- retained a substantial nationalist tinge, even if oriented around a new and somewhat broader national identity.
internaut 10y ago
I have to wonder whether Eco's approach is flawed in its systematizing. It is a noble flaw in every intellectual to categorize, dissect and flay their prey. Then produce a general theory from the evidence scattered before him. Hayek used to bitch about it. However another view could be the gaps that exist between Fascism and Communism are to be explained by historical circumstances, geography and the prevailing orthodoxies of the day rather than a grand theory of Anarchism, Capitalism, Communism or any other -ism. Those could just be the retroactively generated cover stories. We like coherent stories to hang our ideas on. Notice for instance how World War II has gradually resolved in the public's mind as something like a historical fiction, involving 'good guys' and 'bad guys'. I am not a relativist but I find it frightening that 'good guys' has a flexible enough range to include Joesph Stalin. Apart from the problem of treating a World War like a Cowboy Western, much less attention is paid today to the interaction between the extreme leftists (Bolsheviks and anarchists) and the extreme right (Nazis) in the lead up to World War II. For instance I was very surprised to understand in the BBC documentary "The Nazis, a warning from history" (an excellent documentary) the degree to which the activities of the Bolsheviks influenced the rise of the Nazis. The hate directed towards the Jews is incomprehensible unless you grasp the fact that nearly every Bolshevik bomber was Jewish. My school textbook neglected to mention this and popular culture also uses racial hate as a deus ex machina of a backstory. It is a given, but never elaborated on. This only finally clicked with me when I saw interviews with German POWs who were constantly harping on protecting civilization from the Bolsheviks. To them everything they did was justified in light of that. They weren't Nazis and they didn't appear to especially hate Jews. Still, they were part of the machine. This means to me, that hate is a short term impulse and the actual destruction of minorities within Germany was in fact a clinical decision, fully rationalized and accepted by the public. The newspapers might have ranted but the public weren't composed mostly of bigots. They were composed of people who eventually just stopped caring because their way of life was under threat. The threat to a minority isn't necessarily hate, but a kind of widely shared exhaustion and apathy. I fear those who complain we've forgotten our history, have actually forgotten our history for an absurd simplification about irrational hate. I feel like the mainstream interpretation of history is actually now the politically incorrect one.

azernik 10y ago

There's actually a pretty good argument that North Korea is a lot closer [1] to early-20th-century fascism than to Communism. Soviet ideology tended not to glorify the nation as such but rather a class; tended to glorify underdogs as long as they were fighting capitalists; and tended to be very ashamed of lies and very insistent on the internal consistency and intellectual credibility of its propaganda. "Promise of vengeance", I agree, is pretty generically associated with any revolutionary movement. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jy1iudsIKa8; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jy1iudsIKa8; the book is quite good.

tim333 10y ago
Yeah I was thinking N Korea is probably the closest modern example to Nazi style fascism. They've got the unswerving loyalty to the dictator for the military good of the country thing going on. Not very good at building autobahns and industrialising though.