4 ms·

Having only read the subtitles for each section, it is interesting to me to see how this could easily be understood by either political party to vilify their op

by beaner 7y ago

Having only read the subtitles for each section, it is interesting to me to see how this could easily be understood by either political party to vilify their opponents and find things that they do that fall under each. Some categories seem to apply more to the current-day left, others the current-day right. Maybe it means they're both screwed up and we're on the path to disaster. Maybe it means neither is really all that fascist and we're kind of okay for now.

sb057 7y ago
Or perhaps it means that this essay is fluff.
- beaner 7y ago
  Could be. I don't necessarily think it's fluff to identify what fascism looks like. Identification is interesting and you can learn from it. But I guess you could say that simply knowing what fascism is, is insufficient for figuring out if we're on the path towards it.
  - jrochkind1 7y ago
    I don't know if anything is truly 'sufficient' in the logical sense, but if you are familiar with the features of fascism, it of course helps you recognize it. There is lots of different theory on what fascism looks like, what the key commonalities/components of it are. With some overlap. This article is not too out of line with a lot of scholarship and theoretical work, but it isn't the only answer. Other things people often say characterizes fascist ideology is: * Fascism is "reactionary" in the sense of wanting to go back to an earlier time believed to have been better and more socially stable, while "radical" in the sense of wanting major changes to society for a "collective rebirth" to get back to that. * Fascists glorify power and violence, not only being willing to use it against their enemies or for their purposes, but believing engaging in violence makes you a better person/nation, that violence is good, and "natural" (especially for men). * Fascists generally demonize both "up" and "down" in social directions. Both the very rich ("Finance capital", "George Soros", whatever) and the poor are considered 'parasites' on the productive 'real workers' middle class. Being worried about "parasites" taking what "belongs to us" in general, feeling threatened that certain classes or kinds of people who are not "us" want to take what is rightfully "ours". * Of course fascists are extreme nationalists, believing there is an "us" and "them" on national membership boundaries (whether race or country), and that the "us" is under threat from the "them", and any means necessary are justifiable in defense. I dunno, but many of those who have been studying and paying attention to fascism are feeling some not great recognition these days about what they are seeing (not just in the U.S. either, but here in the U.S. yes). Normally fascism is also builds mass organizations, often with quasi-legal/paramilitary components. I am not sure we are seeing that yet. Matthew Lyons writes: "Fascism doesn't just terrorize and repress. It also inspires and mobilizes large masses of people around a vision of collective rebirth in a time of crisis. Building a mass movement outside traditional channels is central to fascism's bid to win state power. As a regime, fascism uses mass organizations and rituals to create a sense of participation and direct identification with the state. Fascism celebrates the nation, race, or cultural group as an organic community to which all other loyalties must be subordinated. In place of individual liberties or social justice, fascism offers its followers a culture of action, virility, heroic sacrifice, cathartic public spectacle, and being part of a vast social organism. " I think the ideology seems terrifying familiar, but I don't think we are seeing mass organizations like that. But the role of the internet is a weird one, that I wonder if to some extent substitutes for actual belonging to/participating in organizations in pre-internet times.
  - corey_moncure 7y ago
    It's fluff because it doesn't actually examine any of its theses closely. The author's choice of words dismisses, prima facie, any possibility of sympathy for the people he describes and the legitimacy of their plight. Their fear is "exploited", not justified. They are "obsessed" with a "plot", not concerned about a pattern of events. They are "racist" regardless of the nature of their difference with the invaders.
    - inflatableDodo 7y ago
      >"It's fluff because it doesn't actually examine any of its theses closely." Since you would like to see them being expanded upon, here's the piece that this is an excerpt from, happy reading - https://www.pegc.us/archive/Articles/eco_ur-fascism.pdf https://www.pegc.us/archive/Articles/eco_ur-fascism.pdf However, it does say this right at the top of the page. You must have missed it in your hurry - >The very personal essay that this is an excerpt of is "Ur-Fascism"
- pje 7y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umberto_Eco https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umberto_Eco
- topkai22 7y ago
  It's an essay by a very important 20th century intellectual who lived under the Italian fascist regime. I don't think it's fluff. It provides a very elegant framework to think about components of the worst political ideology of all time, and provides a warning for those that might echo fascism in their beliefs or actions that that there is danger there.
  - JasonFruit 7y ago
    It's a framework, but it's a very personal and idiosyncratic one, and it paints with a pretty broad brush. There's a lot that's neither fascism nor harmful that might look pretty dark after a pass with that brush.
inflatableDodo 7y ago
>Maybe it means neither is really all that fascist and we're kind of okay for now. Ask the kids caught up in this what they think of that appraisal - The Trump administration argued before a Ninth Circuit panel Tuesday that the government is not required to give soap or toothbrushes to children apprehended at the U.S.-Mexico border and can have them sleep on concrete floors in frigid, overcrowded cells, despite a settlement agreement that requires detainees be kept in “safe and sanitary” facilities. All three judges appeared incredulous during the hearing in San Francisco, in which the Trump administration challenged previous legal findings that it is violating a landmark class action settlement by mistreating undocumented immigrant children at U.S. detention facilities. “You’re really going to stand up and tell us that being able to sleep isn’t a question of safe and sanitary conditions?'” U.S. Circuit Judge Marsha Berzon asked the Justice Department’s Sarah Fabian Tuesday. U.S. Circuit Judge William Fletcher also questioned the government’s interpretation of the settlement agreement. “Are you arguing seriously that you do not read the agreement as requiring you to do anything other than what I just described: cold all night long, lights on all night long, sleeping on concrete and you’ve got an aluminum foil blanket?” Fletcher asked. “I find that inconceivable that the government would say that that is safe and sanitary.” The settlement at issue came out of Jenny Lisette Flores v. Edwin Meese, filed in 1985 on behalf of a class of unaccompanied minors fleeing torture and abuse in Central America. Finally agreed upon in 1997, the settlement established guidelines for the humane detention, treatment and release of minors taken into federal immigration custody. The guidelines include the right to a bond hearing and requirements that immigration authorities timely release children to parents or guardians and place those not released in facilities that meet certain standards. The facilities are supposed to be “safe and sanitary.” The settlement landed back in court in 2015, when class members moved to enforce it following the Obama administration’s announcement that it would scrap bond hearings because they conflicted with newer immigration laws. In legal filings, the class contended the elimination of bond hearings and dirty and dangerous conditions at short-term holding facilities operated by the Border Patrol violated the agreement. U.S. District Judge Dolly Gee in Los Angeles granted the class’ motion and ordered the appointment of an independent monitor to ensure government compliance with Flores. Gee said the administration had breached Flores by failing to provide detainees with adequate food and clean drinking water, or with hygiene items like soap, toothbrushes and towels. She also concluded that the children were being deprived of sleep and access to bathrooms, and were subjected to near-freezing temperatures. The Ninth Circuit affirmed much of Gee’s ruling in July 2017, finding that detainees were still entitled to bond hearings. On Tuesday, Fabian asked the Ninth Circuit to reverse Gee’s findings because they added new requirements – such as giving detainees soap and toothbrushes – that were not specifically included in Flores. https://www.courthousenews.com/feds-tell-9th-circuit-detained-kids-safe-and-sanitary-without-soap/ https://www.courthousenews.com/feds-tell-9th-circuit-detaine...
topkai22 7y ago
Early on the essay makes clear distinctions that not all moves toward fascism are necessarily fascist, in the very first bullet calling out “traditionalism” as being very distinct from “fascism.” I myself find solace in some of the points of fascism- that part of the meaning of life is struggle, and the cult of heroism (are the Marvel movies fascist?). I certainly don't believe that qualifies me as a fascist, especially because I also strongly believe that tolerance of others is one of core principals of political morality.
- maxerickson 7y ago
  Isn't the cult of heroism a rejection of civilization? For instance, Tony Stark is a murderer, a sociopathic one at that. The whole Marvel Cinematic Universe practically kicks off with him doing revenge killings, almost killing a government pilot and chuckling about it with his pal. Of course, the trope of the righteous individual is heavily leaned on in movies.
  - topkai22 7y ago
    I think it depends on how you view it. I am not well studied in this area so my terms may be inaccurate, but to me a "heroic" ideal of self sacrifice for the benefit of others or some ideal is not anti-civilization. It may in fact be the basis of civilization- that there is something larger than ourselves or our immediate family to work toward.
- humanrebar 7y ago
  Leftist culture can also traditionalist about different things. Nature. Organics. Natural birth and parenting. Unions. Public schools. Native languages. > I also strongly believe that tolerance of others is one of core principals of political morality. Maybe not you, but there is definitely a strain of the "anti-fascist" culture that is pretty fascist. In the name of diversity and tolerance no less. Including firings, blackballing, and public beatings in extreme cases. Of course there are fascists that appeal back to an idyllic monoculture that never really existed, but they get enough press that it's already well covered.

by beaner 7y ago

sb057 7y ago

Or perhaps it means that this essay is fluff.

beaner 7y ago
Could be. I don't necessarily think it's fluff to identify what fascism looks like. Identification is interesting and you can learn from it. But I guess you could say that simply knowing what fascism is, is insufficient for figuring out if we're on the path towards it.
- jrochkind1 7y ago
  I don't know if anything is truly 'sufficient' in the logical sense, but if you are familiar with the features of fascism, it of course helps you recognize it. There is lots of different theory on what fascism looks like, what the key commonalities/components of it are. With some overlap. This article is not too out of line with a lot of scholarship and theoretical work, but it isn't the only answer. Other things people often say characterizes fascist ideology is: * Fascism is "reactionary" in the sense of wanting to go back to an earlier time believed to have been better and more socially stable, while "radical" in the sense of wanting major changes to society for a "collective rebirth" to get back to that. * Fascists glorify power and violence, not only being willing to use it against their enemies or for their purposes, but believing engaging in violence makes you a better person/nation, that violence is good, and "natural" (especially for men). * Fascists generally demonize both "up" and "down" in social directions. Both the very rich ("Finance capital", "George Soros", whatever) and the poor are considered 'parasites' on the productive 'real workers' middle class. Being worried about "parasites" taking what "belongs to us" in general, feeling threatened that certain classes or kinds of people who are not "us" want to take what is rightfully "ours". * Of course fascists are extreme nationalists, believing there is an "us" and "them" on national membership boundaries (whether race or country), and that the "us" is under threat from the "them", and any means necessary are justifiable in defense. I dunno, but many of those who have been studying and paying attention to fascism are feeling some not great recognition these days about what they are seeing (not just in the U.S. either, but here in the U.S. yes). Normally fascism is also builds mass organizations, often with quasi-legal/paramilitary components. I am not sure we are seeing that yet. Matthew Lyons writes: "Fascism doesn't just terrorize and repress. It also inspires and mobilizes large masses of people around a vision of collective rebirth in a time of crisis. Building a mass movement outside traditional channels is central to fascism's bid to win state power. As a regime, fascism uses mass organizations and rituals to create a sense of participation and direct identification with the state. Fascism celebrates the nation, race, or cultural group as an organic community to which all other loyalties must be subordinated. In place of individual liberties or social justice, fascism offers its followers a culture of action, virility, heroic sacrifice, cathartic public spectacle, and being part of a vast social organism. " I think the ideology seems terrifying familiar, but I don't think we are seeing mass organizations like that. But the role of the internet is a weird one, that I wonder if to some extent substitutes for actual belonging to/participating in organizations in pre-internet times.
- corey_moncure 7y ago
  It's fluff because it doesn't actually examine any of its theses closely. The author's choice of words dismisses, prima facie, any possibility of sympathy for the people he describes and the legitimacy of their plight. Their fear is "exploited", not justified. They are "obsessed" with a "plot", not concerned about a pattern of events. They are "racist" regardless of the nature of their difference with the invaders.
  - inflatableDodo 7y ago
    >"It's fluff because it doesn't actually examine any of its theses closely." Since you would like to see them being expanded upon, here's the piece that this is an excerpt from, happy reading - https://www.pegc.us/archive/Articles/eco_ur-fascism.pdf https://www.pegc.us/archive/Articles/eco_ur-fascism.pdf However, it does say this right at the top of the page. You must have missed it in your hurry - >The very personal essay that this is an excerpt of is "Ur-Fascism"
pje 7y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umberto_Eco https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umberto_Eco
topkai22 7y ago
It's an essay by a very important 20th century intellectual who lived under the Italian fascist regime. I don't think it's fluff. It provides a very elegant framework to think about components of the worst political ideology of all time, and provides a warning for those that might echo fascism in their beliefs or actions that that there is danger there.
- JasonFruit 7y ago
  It's a framework, but it's a very personal and idiosyncratic one, and it paints with a pretty broad brush. There's a lot that's neither fascism nor harmful that might look pretty dark after a pass with that brush.

inflatableDodo 7y ago

>Maybe it means neither is really all that fascist and we're kind of okay for now. Ask the kids caught up in this what they think of that appraisal - The Trump administration argued before a Ninth Circuit panel Tuesday that the government is not required to give soap or toothbrushes to children apprehended at the U.S.-Mexico border and can have them sleep on concrete floors in frigid, overcrowded cells, despite a settlement agreement that requires detainees be kept in “safe and sanitary” facilities. All three judges appeared incredulous during the hearing in San Francisco, in which the Trump administration challenged previous legal findings that it is violating a landmark class action settlement by mistreating undocumented immigrant children at U.S. detention facilities. “You’re really going to stand up and tell us that being able to sleep isn’t a question of safe and sanitary conditions?'” U.S. Circuit Judge Marsha Berzon asked the Justice Department’s Sarah Fabian Tuesday. U.S. Circuit Judge William Fletcher also questioned the government’s interpretation of the settlement agreement. “Are you arguing seriously that you do not read the agreement as requiring you to do anything other than what I just described: cold all night long, lights on all night long, sleeping on concrete and you’ve got an aluminum foil blanket?” Fletcher asked. “I find that inconceivable that the government would say that that is safe and sanitary.” The settlement at issue came out of Jenny Lisette Flores v. Edwin Meese, filed in 1985 on behalf of a class of unaccompanied minors fleeing torture and abuse in Central America. Finally agreed upon in 1997, the settlement established guidelines for the humane detention, treatment and release of minors taken into federal immigration custody. The guidelines include the right to a bond hearing and requirements that immigration authorities timely release children to parents or guardians and place those not released in facilities that meet certain standards. The facilities are supposed to be “safe and sanitary.” The settlement landed back in court in 2015, when class members moved to enforce it following the Obama administration’s announcement that it would scrap bond hearings because they conflicted with newer immigration laws. In legal filings, the class contended the elimination of bond hearings and dirty and dangerous conditions at short-term holding facilities operated by the Border Patrol violated the agreement. U.S. District Judge Dolly Gee in Los Angeles granted the class’ motion and ordered the appointment of an independent monitor to ensure government compliance with Flores. Gee said the administration had breached Flores by failing to provide detainees with adequate food and clean drinking water, or with hygiene items like soap, toothbrushes and towels. She also concluded that the children were being deprived of sleep and access to bathrooms, and were subjected to near-freezing temperatures. The Ninth Circuit affirmed much of Gee’s ruling in July 2017, finding that detainees were still entitled to bond hearings. On Tuesday, Fabian asked the Ninth Circuit to reverse Gee’s findings because they added new requirements – such as giving detainees soap and toothbrushes – that were not specifically included in Flores. https://www.courthousenews.com/feds-tell-9th-circuit-detained-kids-safe-and-sanitary-without-soap/ https://www.courthousenews.com/feds-tell-9th-circuit-detaine...

topkai22 7y ago

Early on the essay makes clear distinctions that not all moves toward fascism are necessarily fascist, in the very first bullet calling out “traditionalism” as being very distinct from “fascism.” I myself find solace in some of the points of fascism- that part of the meaning of life is struggle, and the cult of heroism (are the Marvel movies fascist?). I certainly don't believe that qualifies me as a fascist, especially because I also strongly believe that tolerance of others is one of core principals of political morality.

maxerickson 7y ago
Isn't the cult of heroism a rejection of civilization? For instance, Tony Stark is a murderer, a sociopathic one at that. The whole Marvel Cinematic Universe practically kicks off with him doing revenge killings, almost killing a government pilot and chuckling about it with his pal. Of course, the trope of the righteous individual is heavily leaned on in movies.
- topkai22 7y ago
  I think it depends on how you view it. I am not well studied in this area so my terms may be inaccurate, but to me a "heroic" ideal of self sacrifice for the benefit of others or some ideal is not anti-civilization. It may in fact be the basis of civilization- that there is something larger than ourselves or our immediate family to work toward.
humanrebar 7y ago
Leftist culture can also traditionalist about different things. Nature. Organics. Natural birth and parenting. Unions. Public schools. Native languages. > I also strongly believe that tolerance of others is one of core principals of political morality. Maybe not you, but there is definitely a strain of the "anti-fascist" culture that is pretty fascist. In the name of diversity and tolerance no less. Including firings, blackballing, and public beatings in extreme cases. Of course there are fascists that appeal back to an idyllic monoculture that never really existed, but they get enough press that it's already well covered.