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

61–70 of 205 posts

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

#61

Post by selimthegrim »

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…

This pisses me off for the same reason as “In the Beginning was the Command Line”

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

#62

Post by ceilingcorner »

nytgop77 wrote: post #59
frenchy wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Good point. Words are means of communication. Though there is a problem of ambiguity if word is reused (adjusted) for different meaning, while books (and people) from 1940 still continue using the old meaning. (just pointing out that meaning of words of dead people also matter)

Then what’s the new definition? Anyone with right wing opinions I don’t like? And I can redefine communist as anyone with left wing opinions that I dislike?

Do you see why this is a dangerous path to go down?

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

#63

Post by ceilingcorner »

nytgop77 wrote: post #44
ceilingcorner wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There is a trend, where persons religion is treated as evidence of stupidity and root of evil. If it would have a name it would be called ultra-atheist.

HN is clearly not the place for open mindedness about religion, that’s for sure.

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

#64

Post by ahepp »

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.

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.

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

#65

Post by ceilingcorner »

ahepp wrote: post #64
ceilingcorner wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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 o…

This essay is from 25 years ago. I was referring to people today.

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

#66

Post by Cederfjard »

ceilingcorner wrote: post #54
RIMR wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If only 0.1% of people agree with your definition of fascism, maybe you're the one with the incorrect definition.

I’m relying on the definition from dictionaries and historians, not the collective ignorance of the mob. Truth isn’t a matter of upvotes.

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

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.

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

#67

Post by ahepp »

frenchy wrote: post #38
ceilingcorner wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I suspect you may have meant "discreet" rather than "discrete" (although I suppose the latter could make sense). I mix them up quite often myself.

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

#68

Post by heavyset_go »

api wrote: post #52
heavyset_go wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> (This is why libertarians are neither left nor right.) I'd have to say that the Americans that adopted the libertarian label are on the right, but the original anarchists for whom the term 'libertarian' was coined were on the left. That dichotomy is where the labels right-libertarian[1] and left-libertarian[2] were derived. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-libertarianism [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lef…

I mostly agree. A lot of American libertarianism also comes via Ayn Rand, whom I consider to be more of a liberal heretic than a conservative. "Racism is the lowest form of collectivism." - Ayn Rand I've read Randian / Marxist where there is broad agreement as to many humanistic goals. There's just a deep disagreement about how best to get there. (I'm not a Randian, though I do think she's worth reading and had some…

> In the past few years alt-right types have started trying to bogart the term libertarian as part of their broad recruitment efforts.

I was part of the effort to rid r/Libertarian of the literal fascists that took over the sub a couple of years ago. It is apparently really easy to turn an Ayn Rand libertarian into a full blown fascist.

At the heart of it, and to touch back on your previous points, is that right-libertarians worship hierarchy as much as their right-wing peers do. Yes, they seem to have disdain for political hierarchies, but they love market-created hierarchies. They also have no problem using state violence to enforce those hierarchies, either, so long as the state is shooting at people to protect private property.

It doesn't take much to push right-libertarians into supporting the use of state violence in a very Hoppean[1] manner, either. Most right-libertarians view anyone to the left of them as an existential threat, so it isn't hard to get them to support Pinochet's helicopter rides[2] for "communists" and other perceived threats from the left.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans-Hermann_Hoppe#Expulsion_o...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_flights

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

#69

Post by arduanika »

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…

> 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...

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

#70

Post by RIMR »

ceilingcorner wrote: post #54
RIMR wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If only 0.1% of people agree with your definition of fascism, maybe you're the one with the incorrect definition.

I’m relying on the definition from dictionaries and historians, not the collective ignorance of the mob. Truth isn’t a matter of upvotes.

Language is not defined by dictionaries and historians. It's defined by how people use it.

If 99.9% of people disagree with you on the meaning of a word, you are wrong. You are the one incapable of communicating your ideas in a way that others can understand.

The opponents of Hitler in Germany during the rise of the Nazi party called Hitler and his party "Fascist". The namesake of Antifa, "Antifaschistische Aktion", was founded in Germany in 1932. To insist that Nazis were not fascists isn't commitment to linguistic accuracy, it's Nazi Apologetics and historical revisionism.

Post reply on HN