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

101–110 of 205 posts

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

#101

Post by nebolo »

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.

I am not sure I understand your use of the word "symptom". Being syncretistic, by itself, is clearly not indicative of fascism (as you point out all religion is syncretistic to some extent, so is art, etc.), but if you see many of the symptoms that Eco describes - not just syncretism, but also traditionalism, irrationalism, uniformity of thought, fear of difference, populism, nationalism, etc. - then syncretism becomes part of your "fascism" diagnosis. By themselves these things can be part of various strands of political thought, only together are they Ur-Fascism.

Just like a headache, by itself is not indicative of a disease, but can be a clue in combination with other symptoms.

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

#102

Post by jancsika »

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…

> Am I 1/14 fascist because I critique various aspects of modernism?

No.

Nevertheless-- isn't it your responsibility to know the intersection between your own personal beliefs and what's being used by, say, a neofascist movement in order to gain more followers? (Say, if that were the case.)

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

#103

Post by DenisM »

hansjorg wrote: post #60

The Behind The Bastards podcast has just finished a special run called Behind The Insurrections where they examine how various fascist movements came to power. They briefly discuss Eco's essay before delving into quite detailed accounts of various insurrections. The series has episodes on The Beer Hall Putsch, The March on Rome, The Spanish Civil War (with the usual caveats about Franco being a fascist or not) and th…

And that is what I came here for! Thank you.

In case you are not aware of it, the podcast Revolutions by Mike Dunkan is a great way to learn about, well, revolutions.

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

#104

Post by ceilingcorner »

nebolo wrote: post #101
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.

I am not sure I understand your use of the word "symptom". Being syncretistic, by itself , is clearly not indicative of fascism (as you point out all religion is syncretistic to some extent, so is art, etc.), but if you see many of the symptoms that Eco describes - not just syncretism, but also traditionalism, irrationalism, uniformity of thought, fear of difference, populism, nationalism, etc. - then syncretism beco…

I was just replying to the last line of the comment:

But combining Saint Augustine and Stonehenge—that is a symptom of Ur-Fascism.

That, to me, is just an unacceptable statement that is clearly wrong. Plenty of modern pagans, for example, draw some ideas from Christian writers like Augustine and combine them with symbols like Stonehenge. That certainly doesn’t make them fascists.

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

#105

Post by kergonath »

ceilingcorner wrote: post #24
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.

This sort of onesidedness is exactly the cause of the issue. Virtually all of the great crimes of the last century were conducted by governments. While I wouldn’t consider myself an anarchist/libertarian/anti-government, it seems eminently reasonable to me to be deeply skeptical of centralized governmental authority. Whether that’s actually desirable or practical is a different matter.

Virtually all the great crimes were conducted by people. Let's just kill them all...

Seriously though, large-scale crimes are committed by people with power, so it's not surprising to see governments in there. But that would be ignoring all gangs, guerrillas, sects, etc.

You cannot really put in the same bag dictatorships and democracies. Not to say the latter are perfect. There are many examples of atrocities committed under democratic regimes, which are indeed cautionary tales of government gone wrong. But under a dictatorship, the state serves one person or clan, it's a completely different beast. The lesson from these is more like "don't ever put a strongman in power".

Also, limiting yourself to the last century is very reductive, because it was a period with strong governments and powerful nations, which limited excesses from private entities. But if you take government control away, those will back filling up the power vacuum. I am not certain we would be enthusiastic bout a 21st century version of the East India Company, and several corporations would have the resources to do something like that.

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

#106

Post by kergonath »

ceilingcorner wrote: post #104
nebolo wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not sure I understand your use of the word "symptom". Being syncretistic, by itself , is clearly not indicative of fascism (as you point out all religion is syncretistic to some extent, so is art, etc.), but if you see many of the symptoms that Eco describes - not just syncretism, but also traditionalism, irrationalism, uniformity of thought, fear of difference, populism, nationalism, etc. - then syncretism beco…

I was just replying to the last line of the comment: But combining Saint Augustine and Stonehenge—that is a symptom of Ur-Fascism. That, to me, is just an unacceptable statement that is clearly wrong. Plenty of modern pagans, for example, draw some ideas from Christian writers like Augustine and combine them with symbols like Stonehenge. That certainly doesn’t make them fascists.

It is a symptom, as in "fascism makes this type of combination of ideas more likely", not as "all syncretism is fascism".

A=>B, not AB, if you will. B can result form many other things.

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

#107

Post by TazeTSchnitzel »

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…

QAnon is a sort of syncretism for conspiracy theories. It's managed to bring every conspiracy theory into its fold. (And conspiracy theories themselves were already very syncretic!)

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

#108

Post by ceilingcorner »

kergonath wrote: post #106
ceilingcorner wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was just replying to the last line of the comment: But combining Saint Augustine and Stonehenge—that is a symptom of Ur-Fascism. That, to me, is just an unacceptable statement that is clearly wrong. Plenty of modern pagans, for example, draw some ideas from Christian writers like Augustine and combine them with symbols like Stonehenge. That certainly doesn’t make them fascists.

It is a symptom, as in "fascism makes this type of combination of ideas more likely", not as "all syncretism is fascism". A=>B, not A B, if you will. B can result form many other things.

By that measure, virtually everything is a symptom of something else. Sorry, I fail to see how that is a useful statement.

And again, I have a deep problem with the idea that only “pure” religious beliefs are somehow less likely to lead to fascism.

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

#109

Post by nebolo »

ceilingcorner wrote: post #104
nebolo wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not sure I understand your use of the word "symptom". Being syncretistic, by itself , is clearly not indicative of fascism (as you point out all religion is syncretistic to some extent, so is art, etc.), but if you see many of the symptoms that Eco describes - not just syncretism, but also traditionalism, irrationalism, uniformity of thought, fear of difference, populism, nationalism, etc. - then syncretism beco…

I was just replying to the last line of the comment: But combining Saint Augustine and Stonehenge—that is a symptom of Ur-Fascism. That, to me, is just an unacceptable statement that is clearly wrong. Plenty of modern pagans, for example, draw some ideas from Christian writers like Augustine and combine them with symbols like Stonehenge. That certainly doesn’t make them fascists.

No it doesn't make them fascist, and that's not what Eco is saying. Combining Saint Augustine and Stonehenge is syncretism, which is a symptom of Ur Fascism (as discussed) above. Symptom does not equal implication.

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

#110

Post by ashtonkem »

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…

They single out a disaffected middle class as a key fascist constituency because that’s historically accurate. The Nazis in particular were built on the lower rungs of the middle class who had some status to lose, but not enough to fully insulate themselves from economic swings. Think small shop owners more than factory owners.

Poorer laborers during that time were more likely to be swayed by the communists, who had more to offer poor workers. Fear of these same communists helped also drive upper class tolerance for nazis and fascists too.

Post reply on HN