7 ms·

This has been making the rounds lately, and the use of it hasn't sat well with me. I've struggled to articulate why; gonna try to do so here. The analysis is g

This has been making the rounds lately, and the use of it hasn't sat well with me. I've struggled to articulate why; gonna try to do so here. The analysis is good, and finally getting to see the original source is better, because what tends to get circulated is way more reductive than this. But it seems like the list gets wielded in a way to stick the 'fascist' label on someone, and not much else. If someone hits 12 of the 14 markers, does that make him a fascist? What about six, or three, or one? Am I 1/14 fascist because I critique various aspects of modernism? To the extent they someone does match the list, all that really does is note that he'd match the characteristics of a few governments in the early 20th century. But that's only one kind of totalitarianism, and obsessive focus on it allows other kinds to slip through the cracks. > This new culture had to be syncretistic. Syncretism is not only, as the dictionary says, “the combination of different forms of belief or practice”; such a combination must tolerate contra- dictions. Each of the original messages contains a silver of wisdom, and whenever they seem to say different or incompatible things it is only because all are alluding, allegorically, to the same primeval truth. > As a consequence, there can be no advancement of learning. Truth has been already spelled out once and for all, and we can only keep interpreting its obscure message. This is a bit ironic, no? He's amalgamating aspects of different cultures into a generalized descriptor of a culture that's still being referenced decades later.

ceilingcorner 6y ago
99.9% of the people throwing around the word fascist today have little to no understanding of what that political ideology means. The exact same situation happens with the word communist, excerpt with the roles reversed. Both are symptoms of falling educational levels, lack of historical knowledge, and an increasing drive to dehumanize and polarize the opposition.
- potta_coffee 6y ago
  I don't understand what's controversial about your statement or why it's being downvoted.
  - ahepp 6y ago
    Well, in the case of this particular piece, the very first lines are the author explaining that he was a member of the youth wing of the Italian fascist party. So it seems to me a strange context to complain about people who talk about fascism without knowing what it is.
    - theptip 6y ago
      Perhaps the parent was referring to the GP commenter's > the list gets wielded in a way to stick the 'fascist' label on someone, and not much else. rather than throwing shade on Eco's specific usage. For what it's worth I agree with the sentiment that most people using the word "fascist" couldn't give you an accurate definition of the original meaning of the term. You could argue that there's a new word "fascist*" that means "authoritarian and mean", but when making specific historical reference to the original term "fascist" it's sometimes important to strictly use the original definition (inasmuch as there was a strict original definition; part of Eco's thesis I think is that Fascism has always been somewhat amorphous). For example if you're comparing and contrasting the rise of the Nazi party in Germany to modern Trumpism, or making a claim about historical communist systems of governments leading to tyranny, then you need readers to interpret you as using "fascist" or "communist" (no *). If you're trying to get your tribe riled up on cable news then you are probably using "fascist*" or "communist*". I think it's OK to rail against people mis-using "fascist*", but I think it's about as futile as complaining about people mis-using the words "literally" or "comprised of".
  - avereveard 6y ago
    with the 99.9% of people opinions are wrong but mine it's the perfect instance of "everyone else is wrong but me"
- frenchy 6y ago
  If 99.9% of people missunderstand what a word means, then maybe it doesn't really mean what you think it does, or has no clear meaning at all. Webster didn't get his dictionary from a discrete meeting with some cave spirit.
  - ceilingcorner 6y ago
    Considering that the label of fascism is usually being used with reference the the Nazis (ironically almost never to the actual Italian fascists themselves - a symptom of the historical ignorance I mentioned), I’m gonna say yes, the word has a specific meaning.
    - RIMR 6y ago
      You say "actual Italian fascists" as if the Nazi party wasn't "actually fascist". I would say it's pretty clear that you're the one with the poor understanding of fascism.
      - ceilingcorner 6y ago
        I said actual Italian fascists because... that’s where the word came from. They invented it. The Nazis copied many ideas from Mussolini, who was in power for a decade or so before the Nazis. Apparently historical facts are downvoted now?
        dumb_troll 6y ago
        I'd suggest reading the article before going 2012 era TCOT
        n4r9 6y ago
        I don't down vote on here but if I were to guess, it's not for stating facts, but for asserting your rigid interpretation of those facts as if it were the only obvious conclusion.
  - nytgop77 6y ago
- red-montaigne 6y ago
  Orwell was commenting on this decades ago. Any government you like is a "democracy," any government you don't like is fascist or communist. "Politics and the English Language" is a masterpiece. On the other hand, I do think an unsettling number of Americans would be totally fine ruling by authority and force, as long as the person in charge was from their own political party. So as far as that goes the label is appropriate.
- RIMR 6y ago
  If only 0.1% of people agree with your definition of fascism, maybe you're the one with the incorrect definition.
  - ceilingcorner 6y ago
    I’m relying on the definition from dictionaries and historians, not the collective ignorance of the mob. Truth isn’t a matter of upvotes.
    - Cederfjard 6y ago
      fascism noun fas· cism | \ ˈfa-ˌshi-zəm also ˈfa-ˌsi- \ Definition of fascism 1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition 2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascism https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascism Does the definition of the 99.9% not fit in with that? As a glib riposte to your last statement: Truth may not be a matter of upvotes, but language definitely is.
      - ceilingcorner 6y ago
        Absolutely. From my reading, it’s being used to describe everyone from anti-government libertarians to rationalists, to nationalists to people who think religion is an important part of civic society. I’d like to point out the complete absurdity of describing those wanting smaller government as fascists, but alas, here we are. As I said in another comment, it’s become a byword for “person with right wing opinions that I disagree with.”
        13415 6y ago
        You primarily come across as someone who hasn't read Eco's influential essay or doesn't want to talk about it and instead makes up various straw man arguments. Eco describes fascism very well, based on personal experience with it and a deep knowledge of its origins and appearances.
- ahepp 6y ago
  Collected from your various comments in this subthread: >99.9% of the people throwing around the word fascist today have little to no understanding of what that political ideology means. The author explains in the first line of the article, that he was a member of the fascist youth wing. Do you really think he doesn't know what it is? If you think he doesn't, I'd certainly be interested in hearing why. >I’m relying on the definition from dictionaries and historians The author is a historian. >Considering that the label of fascism is usually being used with reference the the Nazis (ironically almost never to the actual Italian fascists themselves - a symptom of the historical ignorance I mentioned), I’m gonna say yes, the word has a specific meaning. The author is Italian, so again it seems strange to accuse him of conflating Nazism with Italian fascism. Especially because the article compares the two in detail.
  - ceilingcorner 6y ago
    This essay is from 25 years ago. I was referring to people today.
    - RIMR 6y ago
      It sounds to me like you're complaining that people correctly call the Nazi party "fascist", and that you seem suspiciously personally invested in this narrative...
      - ceilingcorner 6y ago
        Sigh. One can’t even point out historical facts without being accused of being a Nazi. The level of discourse really has fallen here. I merely said it was ironic that people calling others fascists don’t usually refer to the group who invented the concept.
        RIMR 6y ago
        Just like how Facebook isn't a social media website, since MySpace Tom already "invented the concept". Do I have your logic down right? What kind of argument is this, exactly? Nazis were Fascists in an objective, demonstrable way. That's not something that's up for debate, and it is extremely suspicious for anyone to attempt to correct the record on this. It's like people who are "skeptical" of the holocaust. That's not skepticism, it's antisemitism, because the Holocaust isn't up for debate. There are millions of pieces of evidence that it occurred to the degree we understand it to have occurred, just as there are millions of pieces of evidence that the Nazi party was fascist. Italians may have "invented" fascism (mostly just coined the term), but they were not historically unique, and they certainly aren't the only fascist movement ever to have occurred. The arguments you make sound like the kind of cryptofascist politics that come out of white nationalist groups that aim to normalize modern day right-wing extremism. If you don't want to get grouped together with those people, consider not talking exactly like they do about far-right nationalism and authoritarianism
- cjohansson 6y ago
  I agree, I think the word has lost it's instrumental value today, I read lately about "Thomas the Tank Engine & Friends" are fascist and that people who believe in truth "realism is a fascist" is fascist. The discourse today is a discourse of accusing people of things to exclude them from discussions
BEEdwards 6y ago
>This is a bit ironic, no? He's amalgamating aspects of different cultures into a generalized descriptor of a culture that's still being referenced decades later. It's not the amalgamations, it's that that is the end of it. To create an illustrator straw man They say: All knowledge is already written and we just need to recombine it in new ways. You say: Ah but here is a criticism of that, using new or different sources They say: Those don't count we know all we need to know, everything know is already written.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
FlownScepter 6y ago
> If someone hits 12 of the 14 markers, does that make him a fascist? What about six, or three, or one? Am I 1/14 fascist because I critique various aspects of modernism? > To the extent they someone does match the list, all that really does is note that he'd match the characteristics of a few governments in the early 20th century. But that's only one kind of totalitarianism, and obsessive focus on it allows other kinds to slip through the cracks. I think this comes down to Fascism just being a bit of an odd duck in the political discussion. Fascism seems to be an ever-present undercurrent of basically all Democratic and Republic-style societies, always there but not always apparent. There is always a subset of the population that believes their Government doesn't work, for any number of reasons, and to any given extent: Fascism plays well with a certain subset of those people. And the appeal is very easy to understand: if you perceive the systems that rule over you are fatally flawed, wouldn't it be so much better and easier to circumvent those systems and put in place people who would break the rules, but improve the nation? But that of course alone does not constitute Fascism. I was listening to one of Robert Evan's podcasts where he and his guest (I'm sorry I forget the episode and show) were remarking that Fascism is less an ideology or even a movement, and more of just, an aesthetic that could be adopted by basically any ideology or movement, if the appropriate leader comes along, which is one of the reasons it gets thrown around so much, besides just the historical connotations to the Nazis, of course. They theorized that the values of most Fascist movements (appeals to tradition/a mythic past, hatred of weakness, hatred of the other) make them more compatible with those of a conservative bent, but leftists are not immune from it either. People tend to forget that most of the Axis powers, save perhaps for Imperial Japan, were also extremely Fascist. Italy especially. And, prior to the United States' involvement in WWII, Hitler and Mussolini were renowned for their invigorating of their respective countries and their abilities as orators. > This is a bit ironic, no? He's amalgamating aspects of different cultures into a generalized descriptor of a culture that's still being referenced decades later. I mean, it keeps showing up. There are authoritarians seemingly all over the place at our particular moment of world history, many of which tick off numerous boxes on Eco's list. Does this mean they are all Fascists? I would say, yes, to a degree. I don't think one must wait for all the boxes to be checked before asking some questions. Does that mean they all merit interventions ala World War II? No. I just think it's something worth keeping in mind. And besides, America, the world police, are currently ticking far too many of those boxes ourselves to be throwing any stones out of our glass Fascist house anyway.
arduanika 6y ago
> But it seems like the list gets wielded in a way to stick the 'fascist' label on someone, and not much else. Hmm, maybe that's the way some people use it, but it doesn't seem to be Eco's intent, and I assume most people who share this article these days are mainly trying to broaden out our understanding of history, in all its complexity. At least, that's my intent in chiming in here to recommend this slightly more in-depth perspective: http://w3.salemstate.edu/~cmauriello/pdfEuropean/Paxton_Five%20Stages%20of%20Fascism.pdf http://w3.salemstate.edu/~cmauriello/pdfEuropean/Paxton_Five...
- Brendinooo 6y ago
  The first page or two was promising, I'll try to get through it later. > it doesn't seem to be Eco's intent, and I assume most people who share this article these days are mainly trying to broaden out our understanding of history Yeah, I agree with this. One way I've been starting to look at it is that anthropologists/sociologist will study this stuff academically, observationally, but then some distortions can happen: - In an attempt to provide a tidy narrative, various shades of gray get lumped into the black and white columns - The results of the research get weaponized. Guilt by association.
glsdfgkjsklfj 6y ago
> If someone hits 12 of the 14 markers, does that make him a fascist? as with everything, depends on point of view. If you are in a region/demographic being crushed by foreign powers, i'd say someone hitting even 1 of the 14 markers could legitimacy be considered one Likewise, from your very comfortable point of view, even someone hitting 14 of the markers may not be considered one. I mean, you can have that one friend with the racist jokes that even have a couple black friends, right?
- Brendinooo 6y ago
  >If you are in a region/demographic being crushed by foreign powers, i'd say someone hitting even 1 of the 14 markers could legitimacy be considered one I don't understand this, could you elaborate? > you can have that one friend with the racist jokes that even have a couple black friends, right? I don't know. I guess if a friend was exhibiting racist behavior, I'd be more interested in trying to get him to stop than trying to figure out if he's a racist, or a fascist.
jancsika 6y ago
> Am I 1/14 fascist because I critique various aspects of modernism? No. Nevertheless-- isn't it your responsibility to know the intersection between your own personal beliefs and what's being used by, say, a neofascist movement in order to gain more followers? (Say, if that were the case.)
- AnimalMuppet 6y ago
  Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. Is it the responsibility of a running clock to know the time that the stopped clock displays? That is, I am not so worried that I'm a fascist that I'm going through the list, making sure that I share no points of intersection. I could have a point in common (syncretistic beliefs, say, or criticism of modernism) as part of a completely benign worldview. The fact that there is one point in common does not render my worldview fascistic or otherwise malignant. (In this, I am disagreeing with Eco, who said "But it is enough that one of them be present to allow fascism to coagulate around it.") Now, the closer I get to all the points in common, the more concerning it is (and also the less likely I am to honestly do the comparison). But no, I'm not worried about "1/14 fascist"... at least not in myself, because I'm pretty sure my worldview is benign. (On the other hand, everybody thinks that...)
  - Brendinooo 6y ago
    This is a thoughtful reply; thanks for it. I know that my framing is a sorites paradox, and won't have a tidy answer. But maybe that's my point: Fascism is but one particular flavor of malicious totalitarianism, and totalitarianism can coagulate around a vast variety of beliefs across the political/religious/cultural spectra. Studying the commonalities of particular flavors can be helpful, but it's tremendously unhelpful to whip out the list, check some boxes, and decide that someone is A Bad Person as a result.
    - AnimalMuppet 6y ago
      I think it's at least as often used to decide that I am not A Bad Person...
dharmab 6y ago
From the PDF: > But in spite of this fuzziness, I think it is possible to outline a list of features that are typical of what I would like to call Ur-Fascism, or Eternal Fascism. These features cannot be organized into a system; many of them contradict each other, and are also typical of other kinds of despotism or fanaticism. But it is enough that one of them be present to allow fascism to coagulate around it. Think of these not as "prerequisites for Facism", but rather, "common features of many Fascist societies, systems and beliefs". Of course, this is just one view in an actively studied subject. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_fascism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_fascism has a survey of various perspectives. Somewhat related: This video essay on the relation of modernist and fascist art was where I first encountered this essay. While I don't agree with all of the author's conclusions, I found it an enjoyable and thought-provoking watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5DqmTtCPiQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5DqmTtCPiQ
kergonath 6y ago
I think you misinterpreted it. The intent is not to put labels on someone's forehead. Some of these symptoms are not related to fascism, and are not problematic in themselves. But when you see more of these showing up, you need to be a bit critical and see how fascism has worked in other countries, because you might be in a position to stop its rise. It's more a warning about the need to be careful. If someone ticks 12 of the 14 boxes, it means that person should be approached cautiously. Same way as someone believing in flat earth and fake moon landings makes them more likely to fall for QAnon. > To the extent they someone does match the list, all that really does is note that he'd match the characteristics of a few governments in the early 20th century There were a bunch of far-right and/or nationalists governments in the early 20th Century. It did not really end well and that is not something we should emulate. Also, this definition does not only apply narrowly to self-professed fascists. It fits Stalinism and Maoism (and Xi-ism, Putinism, and Orbanism, if that is a thing) quite well, too. These regimes are fascist in all but name. I think if you want to swap mentally "fascism" with "totalitarianism", the essay is still instructive. > This is a bit ironic, no? No, I think he is right on point. This is how QAnon followers get over cognitive dissonance and how populists harness conflicting conspiracy theories and ideologies to their advantage. Not all syncretism is bad, but syncretism is a very powerful tool in the hands of an oppressor. This is how the Romans bought peace, and how the Church extended its power. Look at how Trump (a notorious rich liar, divorced philanderer who ostensibly made fortunes in casinos and who never showed an ounce of religious belief) managed to unite Republicans, poor Whites, and Christians fundamentalists. He (said he) offered to everyone something they wanted, regardless of the consistency of it all.
iak8god 6y ago
> If someone hits 12 of the 14 markers, does that make him a fascist? What about six, or three, or one? Am I 1/14 fascist because I critique various aspects of modernism? After carefully reading your comment I carefully read all the replies, just to make sure this hasn't been addressed: by focusing on whether this or that item from Eco's list qualifies you individually as a fascist is missing the point. The essay is about movements, not a checklist to asses individual leanings.

ceilingcorner 6y ago

99.9% of the people throwing around the word fascist today have little to no understanding of what that political ideology means. The exact same situation happens with the word communist, excerpt with the roles reversed. Both are symptoms of falling educational levels, lack of historical knowledge, and an increasing drive to dehumanize and polarize the opposition.

potta_coffee 6y ago
I don't understand what's controversial about your statement or why it's being downvoted.
- ahepp 6y ago
  Well, in the case of this particular piece, the very first lines are the author explaining that he was a member of the youth wing of the Italian fascist party. So it seems to me a strange context to complain about people who talk about fascism without knowing what it is.
  - theptip 6y ago
    Perhaps the parent was referring to the GP commenter's > the list gets wielded in a way to stick the 'fascist' label on someone, and not much else. rather than throwing shade on Eco's specific usage. For what it's worth I agree with the sentiment that most people using the word "fascist" couldn't give you an accurate definition of the original meaning of the term. You could argue that there's a new word "fascist*" that means "authoritarian and mean", but when making specific historical reference to the original term "fascist" it's sometimes important to strictly use the original definition (inasmuch as there was a strict original definition; part of Eco's thesis I think is that Fascism has always been somewhat amorphous). For example if you're comparing and contrasting the rise of the Nazi party in Germany to modern Trumpism, or making a claim about historical communist systems of governments leading to tyranny, then you need readers to interpret you as using "fascist" or "communist" (no *). If you're trying to get your tribe riled up on cable news then you are probably using "fascist*" or "communist*". I think it's OK to rail against people mis-using "fascist*", but I think it's about as futile as complaining about people mis-using the words "literally" or "comprised of".
- avereveard 6y ago
  with the 99.9% of people opinions are wrong but mine it's the perfect instance of "everyone else is wrong but me"
frenchy 6y ago
If 99.9% of people missunderstand what a word means, then maybe it doesn't really mean what you think it does, or has no clear meaning at all. Webster didn't get his dictionary from a discrete meeting with some cave spirit.
- ceilingcorner 6y ago
  Considering that the label of fascism is usually being used with reference the the Nazis (ironically almost never to the actual Italian fascists themselves - a symptom of the historical ignorance I mentioned), I’m gonna say yes, the word has a specific meaning.
  - RIMR 6y ago
    You say "actual Italian fascists" as if the Nazi party wasn't "actually fascist". I would say it's pretty clear that you're the one with the poor understanding of fascism.
    - ceilingcorner 6y ago
      I said actual Italian fascists because... that’s where the word came from. They invented it. The Nazis copied many ideas from Mussolini, who was in power for a decade or so before the Nazis. Apparently historical facts are downvoted now?
      - dumb_troll 6y ago
        I'd suggest reading the article before going 2012 era TCOT
      - n4r9 6y ago
        I don't down vote on here but if I were to guess, it's not for stating facts, but for asserting your rigid interpretation of those facts as if it were the only obvious conclusion.
- nytgop77 6y ago
red-montaigne 6y ago
Orwell was commenting on this decades ago. Any government you like is a "democracy," any government you don't like is fascist or communist. "Politics and the English Language" is a masterpiece. On the other hand, I do think an unsettling number of Americans would be totally fine ruling by authority and force, as long as the person in charge was from their own political party. So as far as that goes the label is appropriate.
RIMR 6y ago
If only 0.1% of people agree with your definition of fascism, maybe you're the one with the incorrect definition.
- ceilingcorner 6y ago
  I’m relying on the definition from dictionaries and historians, not the collective ignorance of the mob. Truth isn’t a matter of upvotes.
  - Cederfjard 6y ago
    fascism noun fas· cism | \ ˈfa-ˌshi-zəm also ˈfa-ˌsi- \ Definition of fascism 1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition 2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascism https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascism Does the definition of the 99.9% not fit in with that? As a glib riposte to your last statement: Truth may not be a matter of upvotes, but language definitely is.
    - ceilingcorner 6y ago
      Absolutely. From my reading, it’s being used to describe everyone from anti-government libertarians to rationalists, to nationalists to people who think religion is an important part of civic society. I’d like to point out the complete absurdity of describing those wanting smaller government as fascists, but alas, here we are. As I said in another comment, it’s become a byword for “person with right wing opinions that I disagree with.”
      - 13415 6y ago
        You primarily come across as someone who hasn't read Eco's influential essay or doesn't want to talk about it and instead makes up various straw man arguments. Eco describes fascism very well, based on personal experience with it and a deep knowledge of its origins and appearances.
ahepp 6y ago
Collected from your various comments in this subthread: >99.9% of the people throwing around the word fascist today have little to no understanding of what that political ideology means. The author explains in the first line of the article, that he was a member of the fascist youth wing. Do you really think he doesn't know what it is? If you think he doesn't, I'd certainly be interested in hearing why. >I’m relying on the definition from dictionaries and historians The author is a historian. >Considering that the label of fascism is usually being used with reference the the Nazis (ironically almost never to the actual Italian fascists themselves - a symptom of the historical ignorance I mentioned), I’m gonna say yes, the word has a specific meaning. The author is Italian, so again it seems strange to accuse him of conflating Nazism with Italian fascism. Especially because the article compares the two in detail.
- ceilingcorner 6y ago
  This essay is from 25 years ago. I was referring to people today.
  - RIMR 6y ago
    It sounds to me like you're complaining that people correctly call the Nazi party "fascist", and that you seem suspiciously personally invested in this narrative...
    - ceilingcorner 6y ago
      Sigh. One can’t even point out historical facts without being accused of being a Nazi. The level of discourse really has fallen here. I merely said it was ironic that people calling others fascists don’t usually refer to the group who invented the concept.
      - RIMR 6y ago
        Just like how Facebook isn't a social media website, since MySpace Tom already "invented the concept". Do I have your logic down right? What kind of argument is this, exactly? Nazis were Fascists in an objective, demonstrable way. That's not something that's up for debate, and it is extremely suspicious for anyone to attempt to correct the record on this. It's like people who are "skeptical" of the holocaust. That's not skepticism, it's antisemitism, because the Holocaust isn't up for debate. There are millions of pieces of evidence that it occurred to the degree we understand it to have occurred, just as there are millions of pieces of evidence that the Nazi party was fascist. Italians may have "invented" fascism (mostly just coined the term), but they were not historically unique, and they certainly aren't the only fascist movement ever to have occurred. The arguments you make sound like the kind of cryptofascist politics that come out of white nationalist groups that aim to normalize modern day right-wing extremism. If you don't want to get grouped together with those people, consider not talking exactly like they do about far-right nationalism and authoritarianism
cjohansson 6y ago
I agree, I think the word has lost it's instrumental value today, I read lately about "Thomas the Tank Engine & Friends" are fascist and that people who believe in truth "realism is a fascist" is fascist. The discourse today is a discourse of accusing people of things to exclude them from discussions

BEEdwards 6y ago

>This is a bit ironic, no? He's amalgamating aspects of different cultures into a generalized descriptor of a culture that's still being referenced decades later. It's not the amalgamations, it's that that is the end of it. To create an illustrator straw man They say: All knowledge is already written and we just need to recombine it in new ways. You say: Ah but here is a criticism of that, using new or different sources They say: Those don't count we know all we need to know, everything know is already written.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

FlownScepter 6y ago

> If someone hits 12 of the 14 markers, does that make him a fascist? What about six, or three, or one? Am I 1/14 fascist because I critique various aspects of modernism? > To the extent they someone does match the list, all that really does is note that he'd match the characteristics of a few governments in the early 20th century. But that's only one kind of totalitarianism, and obsessive focus on it allows other kinds to slip through the cracks. I think this comes down to Fascism just being a bit of an odd duck in the political discussion. Fascism seems to be an ever-present undercurrent of basically all Democratic and Republic-style societies, always there but not always apparent. There is always a subset of the population that believes their Government doesn't work, for any number of reasons, and to any given extent: Fascism plays well with a certain subset of those people. And the appeal is very easy to understand: if you perceive the systems that rule over you are fatally flawed, wouldn't it be so much better and easier to circumvent those systems and put in place people who would break the rules, but improve the nation? But that of course alone does not constitute Fascism. I was listening to one of Robert Evan's podcasts where he and his guest (I'm sorry I forget the episode and show) were remarking that Fascism is less an ideology or even a movement, and more of just, an aesthetic that could be adopted by basically any ideology or movement, if the appropriate leader comes along, which is one of the reasons it gets thrown around so much, besides just the historical connotations to the Nazis, of course. They theorized that the values of most Fascist movements (appeals to tradition/a mythic past, hatred of weakness, hatred of the other) make them more compatible with those of a conservative bent, but leftists are not immune from it either. People tend to forget that most of the Axis powers, save perhaps for Imperial Japan, were also extremely Fascist. Italy especially. And, prior to the United States' involvement in WWII, Hitler and Mussolini were renowned for their invigorating of their respective countries and their abilities as orators. > This is a bit ironic, no? He's amalgamating aspects of different cultures into a generalized descriptor of a culture that's still being referenced decades later. I mean, it keeps showing up. There are authoritarians seemingly all over the place at our particular moment of world history, many of which tick off numerous boxes on Eco's list. Does this mean they are all Fascists? I would say, yes, to a degree. I don't think one must wait for all the boxes to be checked before asking some questions. Does that mean they all merit interventions ala World War II? No. I just think it's something worth keeping in mind. And besides, America, the world police, are currently ticking far too many of those boxes ourselves to be throwing any stones out of our glass Fascist house anyway.

arduanika 6y ago

> But it seems like the list gets wielded in a way to stick the 'fascist' label on someone, and not much else. Hmm, maybe that's the way some people use it, but it doesn't seem to be Eco's intent, and I assume most people who share this article these days are mainly trying to broaden out our understanding of history, in all its complexity. At least, that's my intent in chiming in here to recommend this slightly more in-depth perspective: http://w3.salemstate.edu/~cmauriello/pdfEuropean/Paxton_Five%20Stages%20of%20Fascism.pdf http://w3.salemstate.edu/~cmauriello/pdfEuropean/Paxton_Five...

Brendinooo 6y ago
The first page or two was promising, I'll try to get through it later. > it doesn't seem to be Eco's intent, and I assume most people who share this article these days are mainly trying to broaden out our understanding of history Yeah, I agree with this. One way I've been starting to look at it is that anthropologists/sociologist will study this stuff academically, observationally, but then some distortions can happen: - In an attempt to provide a tidy narrative, various shades of gray get lumped into the black and white columns - The results of the research get weaponized. Guilt by association.

glsdfgkjsklfj 6y ago

> If someone hits 12 of the 14 markers, does that make him a fascist? as with everything, depends on point of view. If you are in a region/demographic being crushed by foreign powers, i'd say someone hitting even 1 of the 14 markers could legitimacy be considered one Likewise, from your very comfortable point of view, even someone hitting 14 of the markers may not be considered one. I mean, you can have that one friend with the racist jokes that even have a couple black friends, right?

Brendinooo 6y ago
>If you are in a region/demographic being crushed by foreign powers, i'd say someone hitting even 1 of the 14 markers could legitimacy be considered one I don't understand this, could you elaborate? > you can have that one friend with the racist jokes that even have a couple black friends, right? I don't know. I guess if a friend was exhibiting racist behavior, I'd be more interested in trying to get him to stop than trying to figure out if he's a racist, or a fascist.

jancsika 6y ago

> Am I 1/14 fascist because I critique various aspects of modernism? No. Nevertheless-- isn't it your responsibility to know the intersection between your own personal beliefs and what's being used by, say, a neofascist movement in order to gain more followers? (Say, if that were the case.)

AnimalMuppet 6y ago
Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. Is it the responsibility of a running clock to know the time that the stopped clock displays? That is, I am not so worried that I'm a fascist that I'm going through the list, making sure that I share no points of intersection. I could have a point in common (syncretistic beliefs, say, or criticism of modernism) as part of a completely benign worldview. The fact that there is one point in common does not render my worldview fascistic or otherwise malignant. (In this, I am disagreeing with Eco, who said "But it is enough that one of them be present to allow fascism to coagulate around it.") Now, the closer I get to all the points in common, the more concerning it is (and also the less likely I am to honestly do the comparison). But no, I'm not worried about "1/14 fascist"... at least not in myself, because I'm pretty sure my worldview is benign. (On the other hand, everybody thinks that...)
- Brendinooo 6y ago
  This is a thoughtful reply; thanks for it. I know that my framing is a sorites paradox, and won't have a tidy answer. But maybe that's my point: Fascism is but one particular flavor of malicious totalitarianism, and totalitarianism can coagulate around a vast variety of beliefs across the political/religious/cultural spectra. Studying the commonalities of particular flavors can be helpful, but it's tremendously unhelpful to whip out the list, check some boxes, and decide that someone is A Bad Person as a result.
  - AnimalMuppet 6y ago
    I think it's at least as often used to decide that I am not A Bad Person...

dharmab 6y ago

From the PDF: > But in spite of this fuzziness, I think it is possible to outline a list of features that are typical of what I would like to call Ur-Fascism, or Eternal Fascism. These features cannot be organized into a system; many of them contradict each other, and are also typical of other kinds of despotism or fanaticism. But it is enough that one of them be present to allow fascism to coagulate around it. Think of these not as "prerequisites for Facism", but rather, "common features of many Fascist societies, systems and beliefs". Of course, this is just one view in an actively studied subject. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_fascism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_fascism has a survey of various perspectives. Somewhat related: This video essay on the relation of modernist and fascist art was where I first encountered this essay. While I don't agree with all of the author's conclusions, I found it an enjoyable and thought-provoking watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5DqmTtCPiQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5DqmTtCPiQ

kergonath 6y ago

I think you misinterpreted it. The intent is not to put labels on someone's forehead. Some of these symptoms are not related to fascism, and are not problematic in themselves. But when you see more of these showing up, you need to be a bit critical and see how fascism has worked in other countries, because you might be in a position to stop its rise. It's more a warning about the need to be careful. If someone ticks 12 of the 14 boxes, it means that person should be approached cautiously. Same way as someone believing in flat earth and fake moon landings makes them more likely to fall for QAnon. > To the extent they someone does match the list, all that really does is note that he'd match the characteristics of a few governments in the early 20th century There were a bunch of far-right and/or nationalists governments in the early 20th Century. It did not really end well and that is not something we should emulate. Also, this definition does not only apply narrowly to self-professed fascists. It fits Stalinism and Maoism (and Xi-ism, Putinism, and Orbanism, if that is a thing) quite well, too. These regimes are fascist in all but name. I think if you want to swap mentally "fascism" with "totalitarianism", the essay is still instructive. > This is a bit ironic, no? No, I think he is right on point. This is how QAnon followers get over cognitive dissonance and how populists harness conflicting conspiracy theories and ideologies to their advantage. Not all syncretism is bad, but syncretism is a very powerful tool in the hands of an oppressor. This is how the Romans bought peace, and how the Church extended its power. Look at how Trump (a notorious rich liar, divorced philanderer who ostensibly made fortunes in casinos and who never showed an ounce of religious belief) managed to unite Republicans, poor Whites, and Christians fundamentalists. He (said he) offered to everyone something they wanted, regardless of the consistency of it all.

iak8god 6y ago

> If someone hits 12 of the 14 markers, does that make him a fascist? What about six, or three, or one? Am I 1/14 fascist because I critique various aspects of modernism? After carefully reading your comment I carefully read all the replies, just to make sure this hasn't been addressed: by focusing on whether this or that item from Eco's list qualifies you individually as a fascist is missing the point. The essay is about movements, not a checklist to asses individual leanings.