Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ur-Fascism (1995)

nybooks.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 38 posts

Re: Ur-Fascism (1995)

#21

Post by md_ »

coldtea wrote: post #15
mercurysmessage wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It most certainly is, how can a group they disparage simultaneously be weak and subhuman, while also having lots of power and "controlling the world"?

One obvious answer (not ascribing to the theory, just playing devil's advocate) is through deception and manipulation. A group is weak, so it resorts to manipulation and deceiving , and thus gains power over stronger more "pure" groups don't stoop down to these tactics.

Oddly, this is a common trope in a lot of popular media, where heroes are often noble and strong, whereas their opponents are weak but cunning. (Various "Batman" movies have such plots, where Batman is almost brought low by the scheming of physically weak adversaries.)

Re: Ur-Fascism (1995)

#22

Post by woodandsteel »

_bxg1 wrote: post #2

The Enlightenment, the Age of Reason, is seen as the beginning of modern depravity. In this sense Ur-Fascism can be defined as irrationalism. Ironically, totalitarianism is itself a product of modernism: the idea that you can premeditate a "perfect" society and then bring it about at scale, by force. The theme of mastery over nature is extremely modernist, where nature in this case is humanity.

>Ironically, totalitarianism is itself a product of modernism: the idea that you can premeditate a "perfect" society and then bring it about at scale, by force.

That is quite true. However, in the modern era we also have more pragmatic, moderate forms of liberalism that recognize that striving for perfection actually makes things worse than settling for imperfect but workable solutions.

Re: Ur-Fascism (1995)

#23

Post by woodandsteel »

This is a brilliant article. I would just like to add that it seems to me you can summarize what fascism is by saying it is the attempt to impose premodern, tribalistic social forms and ways of thinking on a modern, industrial society. This is not workable, and so I think it accounts for the many ideological contradictions that Eco points out.

Re: Ur-Fascism (1995)

#24

Post by rurban »

_bxg1 wrote: post #2

The Enlightenment, the Age of Reason, is seen as the beginning of modern depravity. In this sense Ur-Fascism can be defined as irrationalism. Ironically, totalitarianism is itself a product of modernism: the idea that you can premeditate a "perfect" society and then bring it about at scale, by force. The theme of mastery over nature is extremely modernist, where nature in this case is humanity.

Exactly. See also the Futurists, a strong influence to Fascism.

Re: Ur-Fascism (1995)

#25

Post by jonhendry18 »

coldtea wrote: post #15
mercurysmessage wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It most certainly is, how can a group they disparage simultaneously be weak and subhuman, while also having lots of power and "controlling the world"?

One obvious answer (not ascribing to the theory, just playing devil's advocate) is through deception and manipulation. A group is weak, so it resorts to manipulation and deceiving , and thus gains power over stronger more "pure" groups don't stoop down to these tactics.

"A group is weak, so it resorts to manipulation and deceiving"

And yet the "superior" group isn't smart enough to evade or detect this effectively.

Re: Ur-Fascism (1995)

#26

Post by jonhendry18 »

nwah1 wrote: post #7
beaconstudios wrote: post #5

it's odd that they characterise ur-fascism with irrationalism given the level of scientific innovation present in Nazi Germany (even though that innovation was entirely directed at more efficiently killing people). I'd more characterise it as anti-intellectual, as from reading this article the scorn seemed to be more directed at academics, bourgeois artists and armchair thinker types than science or rationality in ge…

Irrational is accurate. The "syncretism" that is mentioned can only be achieved through ignoring contradictions. Science can be employed by irrational people, and scientists themselves can be irrational. There's been lots of people who note that engineers are disproportionately represented among terrorist groups. You have Nobel prize winners like Kary Mullis who take copious amounts of psychedelics and deny that HIV…

"There's been lots of people who note that engineers are disproportionately represented among terrorist groups."

It's also been noted that engineers are common among creationists. (The "Salem Hypothesis")

Re: Ur-Fascism (1995)

#27

Post by jonhendry18 »

neaden wrote: post #8
beaconstudios wrote: post #5

it's odd that they characterise ur-fascism with irrationalism given the level of scientific innovation present in Nazi Germany (even though that innovation was entirely directed at more efficiently killing people). I'd more characterise it as anti-intellectual, as from reading this article the scorn seemed to be more directed at academics, bourgeois artists and armchair thinker types than science or rationality in ge…

The amount of scientific innovation in Nazi Germany is incredibly overhyped. In reality outside of rockets they made very few major advances. And even in Rocketry there were major scientific breakthroughs, just improved engineering. The medical experiments inflicted on prisoners were useless scientifically, just pure sadism. The "experiments" to test hypothermia for instance often did not record the patience weight,…

They also fell behind Russia in tank manufacturing technologies like submerged arc welding (which allowed making large, deep, quality welds) and casting large pieces of steel for armor.

Re: Ur-Fascism (1995)

#28

Post by jonhendry18 »

evgen wrote: post #20
neaden wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's the whole mad science angle that we have in our culture I think. But that ignores that ethics are tied to things like oversight, methodology, and being objective which are all important for research.

It is also worth noting that a lot of those mad-science projects that we look back at and consider potentially visionary were often stabs in the dark by scientists who saw a ministry picking up their project as a way to avoid conscription into the army. They were seldom backed up by any real science and frequently had little chance of success, but they somewhat resemble something that was developed later so we assume…

Also, perhaps they were adept at playing on the misconceptions or weird beliefs of those in powerful positions.

Re: Ur-Fascism (1995)

#29

Post by natecham »

chongli wrote: post #11
Gibbon1 wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sort of having an esthetic and being willing threaten people, throw them in prison, to exile, or kill them over it.

Yes. This is the essential flaw in utopianism. Utopias always feature a foundational philosophy, an aesthetic as you describe it, and it has yet to be demonstrated that there exists any non-trivial example which everyone could agree is the "best."

To reach utopia the ends always justify the means, which in the past has resulted in trying to fit a population to an ideology. It's next to impossible to reverse the two, engineering an ideology that fits us, but very likely a target that we never stop working towards no matter the consequences along the way.

We seem to believe that reaching utopia will satisfy some ultimate survival need or help us reach some higher unforeseen goal, otherwise why would we commit such damaging acts against our own species in pursuit of it?

Re: Ur-Fascism (1995)

#30

Post by natecham »

woodandsteel wrote: post #22
_bxg1 wrote: post #2

The Enlightenment, the Age of Reason, is seen as the beginning of modern depravity. In this sense Ur-Fascism can be defined as irrationalism. Ironically, totalitarianism is itself a product of modernism: the idea that you can premeditate a "perfect" society and then bring it about at scale, by force. The theme of mastery over nature is extremely modernist, where nature in this case is humanity.

>Ironically, totalitarianism is itself a product of modernism: the idea that you can premeditate a "perfect" society and then bring it about at scale, by force. That is quite true. However, in the modern era we also have more pragmatic, moderate forms of liberalism that recognize that striving for perfection actually makes things worse than settling for imperfect but workable solutions.

Or we have been willing to admit to ourselves that our view of perfection was flawed and that these forms of liberalism are a better step in the direction towards our ultimate goal, whatever that may be.
Post reply on HN