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

171–180 of 205 posts

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

#171

Post by cjohansson »

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 agree, I think the word has lost it's instrumental value today, I read lately about "Thomas the Tank Engine & Friends" are fascist and that people who believe in truth "realism is a fascist" is fascist. The discourse today is a discourse of accusing people of things to exclude them from discussions

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

#172

Post by leonardo_p »

darkwater wrote: post #125

Does anybody happen to know if there is an Italian version (by Eco himself) of this essay? I cannot find one searching and being written for The New York Review maybe there is not but...

There is the Italian translation by Eco himself, it's titled: "Il fascismo eterno".

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

#173

Post by 2dvisio »

darkwater wrote: post #125

Does anybody happen to know if there is an Italian version (by Eco himself) of this essay? I cannot find one searching and being written for The New York Review maybe there is not but...

Check this out: https://malacoda3.webnode.it/_files/200000986-03da704d28/ECO...

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

#174

Post by Apocryphon »

mcguire wrote: post #152
Apocryphon wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Conspiracy theories tend to encourage syncretism. It's as easy to disbelieve the official narrative on one subject and to substitute it for a theory, as it is to do the same to another. Different theories are but different crimes from the same culprits.

And fun, when you start finding links between different theories. Eco wrote novels about it.

As did Robert Shea and Robert Anton Wilson.

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

#175

Post by NotSammyHagar »

selimthegrim wrote: post #61
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”

Explain why this pisses you off and why Neil Stephenson's work also pissed you off?

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

#176

Post by darkwater »

2dvisio wrote: post #173
darkwater wrote: post #125

Does anybody happen to know if there is an Italian version (by Eco himself) of this essay? I cannot find one searching and being written for The New York Review maybe there is not but...

Check this out: https://malacoda3.webnode.it/_files/200000986-03da704d28/ECO...

Thank you very much!

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

#177

Post by simonh »

apostacy wrote: post #168
matthewmacleod wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't "liberal democracy" pretty incompatible with political violence? No, there is no simple conclusion to be drawn along those lines. We can clearly observe circumstances in which the goal of political violence is to achieve liberal democracy in a situation where it is perceived to be failing. A functioning democracy is one in which political violence is rendered unnecessary by providing peaceful and effective chan…

> We can clearly observe circumstances in which the goal of political violence is to achieve liberal democracy in a situation where it is perceived to be failing. A functioning democracy is one in which political violence is rendered unnecessary by providing peaceful and effective channels for resolving political conflict. The existence of political violence effectively demonstrates the lack of a more effective chann…

Yes you’re right, many of these people on Jan 6th believe that they had been denied their democratic rights. That’s why they were willing to directly attack and attempt to overturn the electoral process. In contrast no such extreme perception is present in the BLM movement, some are radicalised sure, but not entire protest mobs. It’s not a core belief of the movement that reform is impossible.

If it were true that democracy had been subverted, that the election had been stolen and that Trump had actually won then such action might even be justified. So then the question is, why are these claims being made and are they valid? That’s the fundamental issue the right needs to decide. Do you believe the electoral process accurately reflects the will of the people as the constitution intended, or do you not, and if not what is to be done about it. Also why wasn’t something done since 2016 when Trump made exactly the same claims of massive fraud. Why wasn't this tackled then?

The division between Republicans on whether the election was fair or not is the core issue. One of these sides is correct and the other therefore are reckless, irresponsible and enemies of democracy. Is it the ones negligently and corruptly handing over power to electoral cheats that have stolen an election through massive vote fraud right under their noses; or is it the ones making baseless, unsubstantiated claims with the express goal of undermining and subverting the electoral process. Or does factional unity take precedence, and whichever of these you believe, loyalty to the side is what ultimately matters.

Personally I'm a lifelong conservative, but democracy comes first and I know which side I'm on now.

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

#178

Post by Udik »

chaganated wrote: post #111
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 Eco fellow is a little sloppy. The same underlying phenomenon often looks very different from perspective to perspective. The history of science has born this out repeatedly. The works of Newton being a superb counterexample to: " 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…

He is indeed. Every time I read something by Eco I'm both surprised by how pleasant he is as a writer, and by how handwavy and poorly supported are his arguments and conclusions.

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

#179

Post by fenderbluesjr »

Bakary wrote: post #114
ceilingcorner wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What I'm saying is that it's going to happen regardless of the consequences, because of how languages evolve. Coming from a culture that likes to regulate language, I find that any effort in that vein tends to fail pretty spectacularly. At best, you can mandate spelling reforms. If dehumanization occurs, and people then counter that phenomenon, new words and new meanings will appear naturally just like they always ha…

Well, people like to throw around the term Nazi much in the way. I think in general society does a pretty good job of containing the spread of that word so that _for the most part_, when somebody says Nazi, you can assume they are referring to a party that existed in Germany ~1935, or something very close (self-declared decsendents of Nazis etc) .. Further, I think you will often be checked if you try and mislabel something as Nazi, and rightly so..

It's certainly not the same as with Fascism and I would probably agree with the OP in this thread that the main is reason is that while people have seen plenty of movies about Hitler et al, the same can't be said for Mussolini. The Italian origins of the word seemed to have been lost largely due to historical ignorance..

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

#180

Post by apostacy »

simonh wrote: post #177
apostacy wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We can clearly observe circumstances in which the goal of political violence is to achieve liberal democracy in a situation where it is perceived to be failing. A functioning democracy is one in which political violence is rendered unnecessary by providing peaceful and effective channels for resolving political conflict. The existence of political violence effectively demonstrates the lack of a more effective chann…

Yes you’re right, many of these people on Jan 6th believe that they had been denied their democratic rights. That’s why they were willing to directly attack and attempt to overturn the electoral process. In contrast no such extreme perception is present in the BLM movement, some are radicalised sure, but not entire protest mobs. It’s not a core belief of the movement that reform is impossible. If it were true that de…

The problem with defending violence, is that you have to defend the underlying grievances that led to violence. Can you blame people who engage in violence if they had a sincere belief that they were justified?

What if it turns out that actually the election WAS stolen? Would you retroactively excuse them?

> In contrast no such extreme perception is present in the BLM movement, some are radicalised sure, but not entire protest mobs.

I don't know how you can say that. There's absolutely no shortage of violence in BLM. I would assert that it easily eclipses anything by Trump supporters. Most of the Trump supporters were also peaceful. The reason they rushed the capital without masks is because they spent all summer watching BLM doing it, and they thought it was normal. They didn't understand that they will be held to different standards.

I think for every act of violence by someone on the right, you can find something worse by BLM. Where is the outrage about a high ranking BLM organizer engaging in vehicular terrorism? [1] It is dismissed as just another lone wolf, in a cascade of lone wolves.

1: https://www.npr.org/2020/09/27/917523942/woman-charged-with-...

Post reply on HN