3 ms·

For what it's worth, the best attempt to define fascism that I know of comes from Umberto Eco (who actually enter adolescence under fascicm): https://www.pegc.u

by Yoric 5y ago

For what it's worth, the best attempt to define fascism that I know of comes from Umberto Eco (who actually enter adolescence under fascicm): https://www.pegc.us/archive/Articles/eco_ur-fascism.pdf https://www.pegc.us/archive/Articles/eco_ur-fascism.pdf . I think that we should all read it before calling each other fascists :)

pmoriarty 5y ago
That's a good definition, but it's just one among many, many, many others.[1] [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_fascism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_fascism
- Yoric 5y ago
  Good point. It's still the best definition I know, though.
GameOfFrowns 5y ago
I always felt like (lifelong socialist and therefore not exactly unbiased) Umberto Eco had to tack on 2 or 3 extra bullet points to his definition of "ur-fascism", so it wouldn't just fit to totalitarian communism just as easily. Which isn't surprising when you look at the political career of Benito Mussolini.
ttfkam 5y ago
> Nazism was decidedly anti-Christian and neo-pagan Such an odd statement considering "Gott mit uns" (God with us) was the official motto of the Wehrmacht. If by that he meant differing substantially in doctrine from other Christian denominations, it's worth pointing out that many Southern Baptists often consider other denominations not "true Christians" and will happily explain why they will all end up in Hell. From what I've seen, Nazism simply didn't want authority diluted between the church and the Fuhrer. The Fuhrer for them was the ultimate arbiter of truth and righteousness as defined by their notion of the Christian God. Does it make logical or theological sense? Not much about fascists does, so why should this be different? (See: essay's point #4)
- pasabagi 5y ago
  I figure it's actually rather complex: certainly the area most unanimous in their support for the Nazis (Bavaria) is also the most deeply religious. The simple explanation is that the Nazis were a big tent coalition that had a fetish for appearing ultra-unified - so you often get loads of conflicting and contradictory policies, together with an almost hysterical presentation of the mess resulting as the product of a unified vision of a unifying figure. It's chimes with the article, actually. Just like Hirohito, Hitler was a void.
  - jessaustin 5y ago
    Eh, Hitler was a politician who regularly made rousing speeches. Hirohito was never seen in public, and the gyokuon-hōsō was the first time the public had heard any emperor's voice. On a regular basis, Hirohito would sit through entire meetings without speaking. If Hitler was a "void", it was definitely in a different sense than Hirohito was a void.
    - pasabagi 5y ago
      Well, Hirohito is from a tradition of leadership where he's supposed to say nothing. Hitler is from a tradition where he's supposed to be a genius from which all policy flows. This obviously makes it a much more contentious assertion in Hitler's case, and it's compounded by the post-war political conveniences about who was and was not responsible on the German side. The analogy in my head is Trump- Trump had a lot of opinions, strongly-held opinions, even, and he would broadcast them at every opportunity. However, at its base, there wasn't a coherent world-view there. He didn't really have a grand political project that his positions stemmed from. Most of what Trump did was simply to try and please his audience, whoever that was. That's unlike, say, Nixon, or Carter, Wilson, or Obama.

by Yoric 5y ago

pmoriarty 5y ago

That's a good definition, but it's just one among many, many, many others.[1] [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_fascism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_fascism

Yoric 5y ago
Good point. It's still the best definition I know, though.

GameOfFrowns 5y ago

I always felt like (lifelong socialist and therefore not exactly unbiased) Umberto Eco had to tack on 2 or 3 extra bullet points to his definition of "ur-fascism", so it wouldn't just fit to totalitarian communism just as easily. Which isn't surprising when you look at the political career of Benito Mussolini.

ttfkam 5y ago

> Nazism was decidedly anti-Christian and neo-pagan Such an odd statement considering "Gott mit uns" (God with us) was the official motto of the Wehrmacht. If by that he meant differing substantially in doctrine from other Christian denominations, it's worth pointing out that many Southern Baptists often consider other denominations not "true Christians" and will happily explain why they will all end up in Hell. From what I've seen, Nazism simply didn't want authority diluted between the church and the Fuhrer. The Fuhrer for them was the ultimate arbiter of truth and righteousness as defined by their notion of the Christian God. Does it make logical or theological sense? Not much about fascists does, so why should this be different? (See: essay's point #4)

pasabagi 5y ago
I figure it's actually rather complex: certainly the area most unanimous in their support for the Nazis (Bavaria) is also the most deeply religious. The simple explanation is that the Nazis were a big tent coalition that had a fetish for appearing ultra-unified - so you often get loads of conflicting and contradictory policies, together with an almost hysterical presentation of the mess resulting as the product of a unified vision of a unifying figure. It's chimes with the article, actually. Just like Hirohito, Hitler was a void.
- jessaustin 5y ago
  Eh, Hitler was a politician who regularly made rousing speeches. Hirohito was never seen in public, and the gyokuon-hōsō was the first time the public had heard any emperor's voice. On a regular basis, Hirohito would sit through entire meetings without speaking. If Hitler was a "void", it was definitely in a different sense than Hirohito was a void.
  - pasabagi 5y ago
    Well, Hirohito is from a tradition of leadership where he's supposed to say nothing. Hitler is from a tradition where he's supposed to be a genius from which all policy flows. This obviously makes it a much more contentious assertion in Hitler's case, and it's compounded by the post-war political conveniences about who was and was not responsible on the German side. The analogy in my head is Trump- Trump had a lot of opinions, strongly-held opinions, even, and he would broadcast them at every opportunity. However, at its base, there wasn't a coherent world-view there. He didn't really have a grand political project that his positions stemmed from. Most of what Trump did was simply to try and please his audience, whoever that was. That's unlike, say, Nixon, or Carter, Wilson, or Obama.