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

91–100 of 205 posts

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

#91

Post by ceilingcorner »

Bakary wrote: post #86
ceilingcorner wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

New words appear constantly or old words are re-appropriated to fill the semantic necessities as they appear Seeing it as a dangerous path implies some voluntarily action and that is not exactly the mechanism at hand.

I think it’s a dangerous path because it leads to dehumanizing the other. As I said, the exact same thing happens when people on the right call anyone left wing a communist. Exactly same phenomenon, just as dangerous.

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

#92

Post by dumb_troll »

ceilingcorner wrote: post #56
RIMR wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You say "actual Italian fascists" as if the Nazi party wasn't "actually fascist". I would say it's pretty clear that you're the one with the poor understanding of fascism.

I said actual Italian fascists because... that’s where the word came from. They invented it. The Nazis copied many ideas from Mussolini, who was in power for a decade or so before the Nazis. Apparently historical facts are downvoted now?

I'd suggest reading the article before going 2012 era TCOT

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

#93

Post by ceilingcorner »

scythe wrote: post #90
ceilingcorner wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sigh. One can’t even point out historical facts without being accused of being a Nazi. The level of discourse really has fallen here. I merely said it was ironic that people calling others fascists don’t usually refer to the group who invented the concept.

>you seem suspiciously personally invested in this narrative... He didn't call you a Nazi. What he said was: you're alleging the misuse of a term, but you're doing so while being very vague and giving brief, angry replies to comments all over the place, and this... pattern... is characteristic of bad-faith and/or extremist commenters on threads about anything posted almost anywhere. If you have some information you w…

I think words have meanings, and labeling everyone you disagree with as the most negative adjective possible is dangerous for democracy and society. It is dehumanizing, which only leads to further polarization.

Why that is controversial, I have absolutely no idea.

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

#94

Post by eznzt »

>Jews are rich and help each other through a secretweb of mutual assistance.

They don't? Have you guys seen Hollywood or finance or mass media or...? Or is the mistake in that line that the web is not really that secret?

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

#95

Post by hansjorg »

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 think this is spot on.

It certainly seems like a lot of super hero franchises were started as outright far right propaganda, even if now, the profit motives of the licensee corporations have dulled the messaging somewhat.

I think 'The Incredibles' is an interesting movie in this regard. It's probably the most family friendly pro fascist romp ever made.

The protagonists are literally Ubermensch held back by an ignorant and fearful society. The evil goal of the bad guy is to give everyone super powers. It wouldn't be possible to spell this out any clearer.

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

#96

Post by nickelcitymario »

ceilingcorner wrote: post #63
nytgop77 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I humbly disagree! Although most folks on HN seem to swing atheistic, I have found them to be comparably respectful, considerate, and open-minded.

Just because someone disagrees doesn't make them close minded. Perhaps your experience has been different than mine. But whenever I've brought up my (ever evolving) beliefs, I've found people to more respectful here than in the world at large, and certainly more respectful than the web at large.

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

#97

Post by glsdfgkjsklfj »

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…

> If someone hits 12 of the 14 markers, does that make him a fascist?

as with everything, depends on point of view.

If you are in a region/demographic being crushed by foreign powers, i'd say someone hitting even 1 of the 14 markers could legitimacy be considered one

Likewise, from your very comfortable point of view, even someone hitting 14 of the markers may not be considered one. I mean, you can have that one friend with the racist jokes that even have a couple black friends, right?

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

#98

Post by scythe »

heavyset_go wrote: post #45
api wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> (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…

>That dichotomy is where the labels right-libertarian[1] and left-libertarian[2] were derived.

This is not quite accurate.

The descendants of anti-authoritarian radical labor-pricing (communist, etc) theorists are generally now called libertarian socialist or simply anarchist.

The term left-libertarian is more often used for derivatives of Georgism (Steiner-Vallentyne, etc) and frameworks promoting employee ownership and union bargaining power within an essentially capitalist economy (mutualism, etc). It might be more appropriately called "center-libertarian", although the bevy of unconventional ideas therein is difficult to reconcile as "center-" anything.

Some libertarian socialists do call themselves "left-libertarian" but more often they seem to reject being lumped in with people who like capitalism (at least a little).

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

#99

Post by throwaway894345 »

matthewmacleod wrote: post #82
throwaway894345 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is perhaps a tangent, but I always struggle in conversations about fascism. Wikipedia describes fascism as a specific collection of qualities: * Rejection of liberal democracy * Support for a totalitarian, single-party state * Led by a single strong dictator * Rejection that violence is automatically negative in nature * Imperialism, violence, and war can rejuvenate the state * Desirability for an economically s…

Again, I hope I was minimally offensive. You were not, but your primary offence was of gross ignorance. This likely explains why you feel isolated in your view. You have conflated complex and nuanced concepts—like, say, the recognition of a revolutionary imperative with a general rejection of violence, or the “liberal democracy” with “unrestricted free speech”—and as a result you aren’t able to come to any logical co…

> your primary offence was of gross ignorance

Well, I'm here now, trying to correct that.

> You have conflated complex and nuanced concepts—like, say, the recognition of a revolutionary imperative with a general rejection of violence, or the “liberal democracy” with “unrestricted free speech”—and as a result you aren’t able to come to any logical conclusions.

Isn't "liberal democracy" pretty incompatible with political violence (I don't think anyone--fascists or leftists--is talking about a general tolerance[^1] for violence)? And when I said "free speech", I wasn't talking about "unrestricted free speech", but rather the idea that we should minimize restrictions on speech (you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater, but you can say things that offend). Note that there are people who assert that the government should enforce stricter speech codes, but the more common and more disturbing practice is cancellation (or defending the same) of livelihood and healthcare ("Social Consequences") for ideological transgressions while arguing in the next breath that these are basic human rights. I'm not a philosopher, but allowing citizens to deny each other their basic human rights seems (on the basis of speech) seems incompatible with free speech.

> I would definitely recommend taking a step back and considering the validity of the ideas and preconceptions you hold.

I agree, hence this thread. :)

[^1]: I assume you meant "tolerance of violence" rather than "rejection of violence"

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

#100

Post by tryonenow »

Cederfjard wrote: post #66
ceilingcorner wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The first definition sounds an awful lot like the Soviet Union.
Post reply on HN