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

121–130 of 205 posts

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

#121

Post by kergonath »

ceilingcorner wrote: post #108
kergonath wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The medical analogy is useful. Tons of disease cause headache, or joint pain, or fever, or rashes, or stomach pain, or runny nose, or cough.

Some combinations of symptoms help diagnosing a specific disease. It's not the parts taken in isolation, it's the sum of it, and how it evolves over time. Some symptoms that worsen suddenly should be taken seriously.

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

And you should be deeply suspicious of anything linking religious purity with anything. But he does not say that it leads to fascism, just that fascism feeds on it. Also, I think in this specific instance he lets his own religion cloud his argument, and that he should have said "ideologies" instead of religious beliefs. People do not need religion to be terrible to other people.

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

#122

Post by 13415 »

ceilingcorner wrote: post #74
Cederfjard wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Absolutely. From my reading, it’s being used to describe everyone from anti-government libertarians to rationalists, to nationalists to people who think religion is an important part of civic society. I’d like to point out the complete absurdity of describing those wanting smaller government as fascists, but alas, here we are. As I said in another comment, it’s become a byword for “person with right wing opinions tha…

You primarily come across as someone who hasn't read Eco's influential essay or doesn't want to talk about it and instead makes up various straw man arguments. Eco describes fascism very well, based on personal experience with it and a deep knowledge of its origins and appearances.

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

#123

Post by amadeuspagel »

> The first feature of Ur-Fascism is the cult of tradition.

The word "cult" in the phrase "cult of tradition" serves as a synonym for "too much" in an attempt to avoid the question: How much is too much? Celebrating christmas? Easter? And: Is too little also possible? A too radical rejection of tradition, such as the ten day week in the french revolution?

> This new culture had to be syncretistic.

So, muslims celebrating christmas, for example? Are those ur-fascists?

> Traditionalism implies the rejection of modernism. Both Fascists and Nazis worshiped technology, while traditionalist thinkers usually reject it as a negation of traditional spiritual values. However, even though Nazism was proud of its industrial achievements, its praise of modernism was only the surface of an ideology based upon Blood and Earth (Blut und Boden). The rejection of the modern world was disguised as a rebuttal of the capitalistic way of life, but it mainly concerned the rejection of the Spirit of 1789 (and of 1776, of course)

One almost gets the impression that Eco imagines Hitler and Goebbels as anxious to avoid being judged as fascist according to Eco's list, and therefore cleverly disguising their true traditionalism with a modernist facade.

> Distrust of the intellectual world has always been a symptom of Ur-Fascism, from Goering’s alleged statement (“When I hear talk of culture I reach for my gun”)

That would be a very strange statement to make for someone who looted two hundred million dollars worth of art[1] and indeed google returns only Eco's essay when searching for this quote. But maybe, whenever he heard talk of culture he reached for his gun to steal some of it?

[1]: https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/the-revelations-...

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

#124

Post by scythe »

ceilingcorner wrote: post #93
scythe wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

>labeling everyone you disagree with as the most negative adjective possible is dangerous for democracy

I generally agree, which is why I tend to have a very high bar for calling someone a Nazi.

However, "fascist" is a rung below that. I have generally taken the definition to mean "ideologically selective disrespect for [democracy/rule of law/both] motivated by both a claim of victimhood and a belief in the superiority of [some ethnic/cultural heritage], where particularly the claim of victimhood involves some kind of secret manipulation on the part of [political activists/foreigners/minorities]".

It is unfortunate that a major political party in my country has come so close to satisfying this definition ever since the Ukraine affair (confirmed extensively by John Bolton in his recent book), which I spent some time studying/developing around 2016 mostly to ensure that I would be intellectually consistent in determining whether there were actually fascists in the US government. It has never been with eagerness that I called anyone a fascist.

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

#126

Post by rjsw »

FlownScepter wrote: post #57
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? 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 ki…

What makes you think Japan wasn't Fascist ? It was a military dictatorship. All the Axis powers were explicitly Fascist, as were neutral Spain and Portugal.

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

#127

Post by n4r9 »

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 don't down vote on here but if I were to guess, it's not for stating facts, but for asserting your rigid interpretation of those facts as if it were the only obvious conclusion.

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

#128

Post by notahacker »

throwaway894345 wrote: post #29
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…

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…

> So I guess I'm trying to understand what it is about fascism in particular that preoccupies us--why are we on such high alert for fascism specifically, but we don't seem to be concerned at all about other ideologies which incorporate many of the elements of fascism?

Fascism attempted to exterminate races its adherents disapproved of and started a world war. It is perhaps unsurprising we view a combination of political philosophies and tendencies optimised towards achieving those goals as more alarming than other political philosophies which incidentally have a characteristic of fascism like preferring an economically self sufficient state or lacking some commitment to some aspect of liberal democracy.

I'm not sure why you refer to the well established concept of horseshoe theory in the one breath and ponder the possibility you are the only person who sees things this way in the next. Though perhaps nobody else is prepared to take it to quite such reductio ad absurdum extremes. Sure, it is well established that Soviet communists who had gulags of their own were amongst the most vocal antifascists and the Nazis were amongst the most vocal anticommunists (except when partitioning Poland...) despite some similarities, but Soviet communists are not exactly a significant portion of the people criticising America in the last five years.

If you genuinely are "trying to understand better and not offend", may I politely suggest you stop with ridiculous false equivalences like 'perhaps one could argue that "people of color" is their "master race"', as if somehow a bunch of mostly white people arguing some non-white people need some special protections is broadly similar to planning the systematic extermination of 'lesser' races.

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

#129

Post by dang »

macintux wrote: post #42
kencausey wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps you haven't noticed the search field at the bottom of the page? https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...

The “past” link at the top is more convenient for this specific use case.

(Edit: never mind I forgot how this works.)

That shows past HN front pages (in sort of a weird time-lapsed version that never actually existed) for particular days. How would you use that to get to past threads about a topic?

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

#130

Post by FlownScepter »

rjsw wrote: post #126
FlownScepter wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 ki…

What makes you think Japan wasn't Fascist ? It was a military dictatorship. All the Axis powers were explicitly Fascist, as were neutral Spain and Portugal.

I dunno if I'd qualify a military dictatorship as Fascist though, since the typical hallmark of a Fascist government is the singular leader who enthralls the public. Which I guess you could say the emperor, but I dunno, it doesn't hit the same way for me.
Post reply on HN