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

Umberto Eco: Ur-Fascism (1995) [pdf]

theanarchistlibrary.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 205 posts

Re: Umberto Eco: Ur-Fascism (1995) [pdf]

#31

Post by Miner49er »

herval wrote: post #23
thenewwazoo wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Many Americans view our federal government poorly, on both sides of the aisle One side believes that government can be, and should be, improved by collective effort. The other side believes government cannot be improved because government itself is per se bad. There is zero equivalence between the two.

I know this is usually how americans explain democrats vs republicans, but is it really how the parties function? As an outsider (not american) looking in, and judging by the policies of the last couple decades, it seems republicans always increase government spending (therefore they don't actually believe in "small government"), and democrats pretty much rule for the oligarchs (therefore they don't really believe in…

As an American, I can say that what OP is saying is not at all how the parties function, but it is maybe what most Americans think.

I think, the real answer is that both parties rule for the oligarchs, just different ones, and they also take on opposing sides in certain culture wars that Americans care about to win votes.

Re: Umberto Eco: Ur-Fascism (1995) [pdf]

#32

Post by heavyset_go »

herval wrote: post #23
thenewwazoo wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Many Americans view our federal government poorly, on both sides of the aisle One side believes that government can be, and should be, improved by collective effort. The other side believes government cannot be improved because government itself is per se bad. There is zero equivalence between the two.

I know this is usually how americans explain democrats vs republicans, but is it really how the parties function? As an outsider (not american) looking in, and judging by the policies of the last couple decades, it seems republicans always increase government spending (therefore they don't actually believe in "small government"), and democrats pretty much rule for the oligarchs (therefore they don't really believe in…

You're making the mistake of believing that the parties represent the sides that exist in America. Most people on the right would disagree that the Republican party represents them, and most of the left would disagree that the Democratic party represents them.

Re: Umberto Eco: Ur-Fascism (1995) [pdf]

#33

Post by Brendinooo »

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.

Re: Umberto Eco: Ur-Fascism (1995) [pdf]

#34

Post by api »

thenewwazoo wrote: post #15
calvinmorrison wrote: post #8

Well met > Franklin Roosevelt’s words of November 4,1938, are worth recalling:I venture the challenging statement that if American democracy ceases to move for-ward as a living force, seeking day and night by peaceful means to better the lot ofour citizens, fascism will grow in strength in our land. A very interesting quote that should be taken seriously today. Many Americans view our federal government poorly, on bo…

> Many Americans view our federal government poorly, on both sides of the aisle One side believes that government can be, and should be, improved by collective effort. The other side believes government cannot be improved because government itself is per se bad. There is zero equivalence between the two.

The right is absolutely not anti-government. They're just against the use of government to disrupt existing hierarchies or interfere with tradition.

For concrete proof look at Federal deficits and spending under right and left wing administrations, or the corresponding growth in the size and scope of government. There is at best no difference, and in a few cases government actually shrank in nominal terms under more left-leaning administrations.

The left believes we need government for pragmatic reasons, but most of them could be sold on the idea of giving up state power if alternative mechanisms to achieve their goals could be found and demonstrated to work in real life. The right on the other hand worships hierarchy and authority as a good in and of itself and almost deifies the state and its hierarchy as a manifestation of a divine order. The right would never let go of the state even if it were no longer needed, for doing so would mean there would be no mechanism for enforcement of divinely ordained hierarchy.

(This is why libertarians are neither left nor right.)

Re: Umberto Eco: Ur-Fascism (1995) [pdf]

#35

Post by rexpop »

api wrote: post #21

Something that for many years I've seen as "Ur-Fascist" in our culture is the popularity and continuous production of relatively vapid superhero movies. The majority of these are power fantasy porn, and like porn the only focus is really on the fetish and the orgasm. There's little characterization and little plot, and the villains are always cast as either pure evil or as a straw man representation of some other poi…

I agree with this deeply. The Marvel Cinematic Universe, and its ilk, are propaganda projects designed to push manipulative falsehoods into the public's understanding of reality. I am not talking about Dr. Strange's magic, or Superman's laser vision; those fantastical elements are such pure fiction that they stand in contrast to the allegedly "realistic" elements on which the world rests. This contrast has always been a mechanism of science fiction[0], but in these super hero movies, what's left to be assumed as "reality" against which fantasy contrasts? Fascist tropes, such as:

- the patronizing Übermensch (literally "Superman") on whom "the weak" must rely - moral nihilism of the "good" guys winning by force - patriarchal masculinity left and right - the untarnished benevolence of the Pentagon

Their entire purpose is to help American audiences perform the mental gymnastics (pun intended) of differentiating "good" Populist Nationalism from "bad" Populist Nationalism.

0. (e.g. the replicator is entirely fantastical, but allows Starfleet to make allegedly realistic points about the politics of abundance and deprivation)

Re: Umberto Eco: Ur-Fascism (1995) [pdf]

#36

Post by ceilingcorner »

Brendinooo wrote: post #33

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…

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.

Re: Umberto Eco: Ur-Fascism (1995) [pdf]

#37

Post by potta_coffee »

ceilingcorner wrote: post #36
Brendinooo wrote: post #33

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…

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.

I don't understand what's controversial about your statement or why it's being downvoted.

Re: Umberto Eco: Ur-Fascism (1995) [pdf]

#38

Post by frenchy »

ceilingcorner wrote: post #36
Brendinooo wrote: post #33

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…

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.

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.

Re: Umberto Eco: Ur-Fascism (1995) [pdf]

#39

Post by jknoepfler »

ceilingcorner wrote: post #26
nebolo wrote: post #19

I returned to this essay when I saw the photo of the Jake Angeli in the Capitol - a Q-supporter wearing an Indian buffalo mask and a tattoo of Odin, storming the capitol alongside evangelical Christians. Relevant quote: 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 contradictions. Ea…

Every religion is syncretic at some level. And being inspired by various incarnations of human religion is hardly a symptom of fascism. What an inane comment from an apparently well-educated writer.

The fascist bit (in Ur-Fascism) is the resistance to reconciliation. Bits are taken on piecemeal due to historical accident or on a whim. There is no notion of consistency or inconsistency - no notion of tolerating inconsistency for a reason, even. There's just "our way" with no room for reason.

(The essay is taking the concept of syncresis to an extreme to make a polemical point)

Re: Umberto Eco: Ur-Fascism (1995) [pdf]

#40

Post by [deleted] »

ceilingcorner wrote: post #36
Brendinooo wrote: post #33

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…

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.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN