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

> The question is really about objectives. The BLM movement isn't fundamentally anti-democratic or revolutionary, it's reformist.

I think you are judging Trump supporters by the worst of them, and BLM by the best of them.

When I look at BLM, I see black ethnonationalists, people who are eager to use violence, and just generally a lot of dangerous people. Are my eyes lying to me? How can you just dismiss that?

It's so easy to point to a peaceful nice subset of BLM, and say that that is all BLM is.

Indeed, people even go as far as to say "BLM just means that you think that 'black lives matter'", which is nonsense. I've seen Scientologists say "Scientology is just about helping people, if you agree with that then you agree with us", or "Feminism is just about believing that men and women are equal, if you agree with that sentence, you are a feminist". Of course most people already agree that 'black lives matter', but that is certainly not the same thing as agreeing with 'Black Lives Matter'.

I think it is quite a leap to simply call them "reformist". If you can focus only on the reformist elements of BLM, then others are completely justified in doing the same Trump supporters.

Well.. I think if there was a blockbuster movie that came out with Brad Pitt starring as Il Duce and it clearly articulated the origins, I think it would have a significant effect.

The prescriptive/descriptive discussion doesn't mean much to me (although DFW has a great essay on it if you are so inclined). I just wanted to throw my 2c in with the guy being downvoted, because I think he's right. I think the extent of Average Joe's historical knowledge is basically whatever Hollywood has made movies about. AverageJoe thinks that the Nazis are Nazis, and Fascism is a more generic term which contains the Nazis and other 'far right' groups.. and who knows, maybe _it is that_ now, but lets be honest how we got here - that nearly everybody, even the most vocal 'anti-facists' are historical ignoramuses. They think that by merely existing they have the necessary information to assert their opinions on historical/political movements. It's a joke

Doh! I don't think I ever noticed that we'd overloaded that word that way. Damn it.

Of course you're right. I just never use that link because of the keyboard shortcuts I mentioned upthread.

> A century ago, the Chinese were indeed oppressed by foreigners, who humiliated and dominated them. However, these outsiders were paper tigers, when the people were united and stood against them. The only reason these foreigners were oppressing them was because of the weakness of their leaders, compromising with the outsiders instead of kicking them out and putting up walls.

This is not a contradiction. In china's case, it did not last long once they realised the actual weakness of their oppressors. They were never in a situation of being both overwhelmed and (perceived as) more powerful than their enemies. Chinese governments were not in a position of force when colonialists were in place. You could argue that it applies to post-colonialist China, and certainly to Maoism, and I think that is a valid point. What Eco describes is broader than just Mussolini's Italy or Hitler's Germany.

The difference with totalitarianism (not only fascism) is that the contradiction is a way of functioning and thinking over the long term. This is actually a fairly common idea and is central to Orwell (both 1984 and Animal Farm), for example.

> Indeed, many anti-colonial struggles can be described that way. Foreigners ("immigrants") oppressing a local population in collusion with corrupt local elites and chieftains. And an indigenous population too divided to do anything about it. Fascist scholars would say that Fascism would have protected the American Indians. Plenty of Black nationalists like Marcus Garvey were actually self described Fascists, and wanted to use Fascism to resist European colonialism.

I don't really see where the contradiction is. There is nothing preventing Black people from being fascists or exhibiting fascist tendencies. Being oppressed at one point in time does not prevent anyone from becoming an oppressor in other circumstances.

> Indigenous tribes that have had their social fabric and identities compromised by foreign influence and corrupt elites allow themselves to be colonized. Usually it is capitalism that corrupts them. A flood of cheap goods completely undermines them, and destroys their way of life. They almost always outnumber their oppressors, and if they could just reclaim their sense of national identity, they could easily rise up and take back their country.

Yes, and plenty did without going all the way to a nationalist, totalitarian regime. Patriotism is not unique to fascism, or even nationalism.

> Anyway, I'm not saying that I agree with Fascism, but I do think that Eco is presenting a straw man of it, which is not a good thing if you are opposed to Fascism and want to defeat it.

I actually think you agree with him more than you might think, but some vocabulary has shifted slightly over the decades. And, as has been pointed out several times, this is not a rigorous equivalence, as in "all fascist regimes do this, and any regime that does this is fascist". It is a spectrum.

> I think that suggested to the Capitol Hill rioters that political violence was no longer out-of-bounds; rather, it was legitimate and necessary.

I hadn't thought of that. I could definitely see it playing a role, especially since there was likely a much larger emphasis on the violence of the protests within their bubble. It probably imprinted stronger than it would have on anyone with less partisan sources.

I would like to draw a line here, though. The rioters at the capitol did not turn violent because they were primed by BLM or Antifa. They turned violent because they were fed a warped image of the protest movement, an image that demonized the left so thoroughly that they came to view them as (sometimes literally) devils seeking to undermine the fabric of American democracy.

> the media, the academy, silicon valley, Hollywood, and virtually every other prominent cultural institution either condoned or ignored the violence over the summer

This is definitely something I'm concerned about. The whole thing is suspicious to me as well because none of these institutions have much interest in actually aiding the movements they claim to support. Swapping your profile picture to a black square isn't support. It's just a cynical performative wokeness. They are not really allies to these causes, and have no interest in improving conditions for people in a way that would make the protests unnecessary.

> I think we need to reestablish non-partisan norms of honesty, civility, and non-violence and consistently enforce breaches of those ethics whether from the right or the left.

agreed.

> This is a long-winded way of saying that reigning in the far left feels like a prerequisite to reigning in the far-right.

I have the exact opposite view. I disagree with the perspective that we were in a well-oriented, moderate position on liberal democracy that is now being torn apart by equally radical right-wing and left-wing movements. The political trend in this country over the last 40 years has been more appeasement to right-wing policies, more corporate favoritism, and a weakening of social institutions (i.e. neoliberalism). People like Bernie Sanders advocate for policies that do not raise an eyebrow in any other developed country, yet he is vilified by supposedly centrist news sources (though I suppose it's relaxed now that he isn't threatening to run for president anymore). If we had a legitimate left-wing party advocating for policies that helped people climb out of their collective pits of despair, the BLM protests would never have happened, and the far right would never have had such ease in their recruiting efforts.

My perspective is that the progressive movement has answers to deal with the violence on both sides. The people on the far-right turn to these proto-fascist movements because they are desperate for change, any kind of change. The system is not working for them and they wish to return to some mythologized past where they could still have dignity and hope for the future. Many of the people who voted enthusiastically for Trump in 2020 knew he wouldn't fulfill many (any?) of his promises, but they felt that he saw them. He recognized that they exist, and he spoke to them directly and at their level. I believe the violent protesters and belligerent twitter users that you mentioned are also frustrated by the disintegration of the American dream. They're upset, they abandoned, and their solution is a rejection of the system.

In a way, I think we want the same thing. We cannot sustain our democracy while demonizing each other. But to me it seems you want to emphasize on improving the discourse. I think the discourse improves itself when the material conditions of people's lives are improved. I don't mean to imply we must choose to focus on one thing or the other, but that the latter choice will be more effective.

And also maybe Twitter was a mistake.