3 ms·

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.

• 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 You could argue that there's a new word "fascist*" that means "authoritarian and mean", but when making specific historical reference to the original term "fascist" it's sometimes important to strictly use the original definition (inasmuch as there was a strict original definition; part of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".