Umberto Eco: Ur-Fascism (1995) [pdf] • Hacker News Board

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

#201

Post by ardy42 » Wed, Feb 17, 2021, 11:01 PM UTC

herval wrote: post #23

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.

I know this is usually how americans explain democrats vs republicans, but is it really how the parties function? As an outsider (not american) looking in, and judging by the policies of the last couple decades, it seems republicans always increase government spending (therefore they don't actually believe in "small government"), and democrats pretty much rule for the oligarchs (therefore they don't really believe in…

>> 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.

> I know this is usually how americans explain democrats vs republicans, but is it really how the parties function? As an outsider (not american) looking in, and judging by the policies of the last couple decades, it seems republicans always increase government spending (therefore they don't actually believe in "small government"), and democrats pretty much rule for the oligarchs (therefore they don't really believe in the better of the "collective")?

IIRC. Republicans pretty much always try to cut or reduce social spending, regulation, and programs meant to help poor and middle class Americans; and their stated reasons are basically "government itself is per se bad." They don't mind military spending, and tend to increase the deficit through tax cuts (despite making a big deal about how deficits are bad whenever Democrats are in power).

The Democrats generally believe the government can perform useful social functions, so they pursue social spending, regulation, and government programs. However, they're often milquetoast about it and tend to preemptively cave to anticipated Republican objections.

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

#202

Post by apostacy » Thu, Feb 18, 2021, 1:16 AM UTC

simonh wrote: post #192

apostacy wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Well, as I said there are more than just 2 sides in this. There are multiple groups with multiple agendas. On the BLM side I see a subset of violent criminals in a movement aiming to reform policing and governance. I think they're largely wrong, but they're not a threat to the democratic process and they can be negotiated with or opposed institutionally. In Trumpism I see a subset of violent criminals in a movement t…

> On the BLM side I see a subset of violent criminals in a movement aiming to reform policing and governance.

Again, the arson, the vehicular terror attacks, the kidnappings, and the mass shootings are bit too much for me to stomach. And no effort is made to distance themselves from the violence and coercion.

It is like trying to say that soup is really good except for the poop in it; 'mostly' peaceful.

I don't think there is any evidence that Trumpists wanted to overthrow democracy. The Trump supporters did a BLM-lite style protest of the capital building. They were actually much nicer than BLM usually is. They shuffled around the hallways of an empty building for 45 minutes and then left. A guy had plastic zip-ties, which people theorize that he was going to take hostages or something (but didn't). Their action was clearly symbolic, and the overreaction to it just shows how detached and insincere people are.

So no, I'm sorry I just don't see what you are seeing.

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

#203

Post by simonh » Thu, Feb 18, 2021, 7:21 AM UTC

apostacy wrote: post #202

simonh wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, as I said there are more than just 2 sides in this. There are multiple groups with multiple agendas. On the BLM side I see a subset of violent criminals in a movement aiming to reform policing and governance. I think they're largely wrong, but they're not a threat to the democratic process and they can be negotiated with or opposed institutionally. In Trumpism I see a subset of violent criminals in a movement t…

> On the BLM side I see a subset of violent criminals in a movement aiming to reform policing and governance. Again, the arson, the vehicular terror attacks, the kidnappings, and the mass shootings are bit too much for me to stomach. And no effort is made to distance themselves from the violence and coercion. It is like trying to say that soup is really good except for the poop in it; 'mostly' peaceful. I don't think…

>And no effort is made to distance themselves from the violence and coercion.

and

>Their action was clearly symbolic

In the same post. Wow.

The personal testimony of a lot of the people actually there seems to disagree with your assessment. They seem to have known exactly what they were there to do and weren't shy of saying so.

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

#204

Post by jancsika » Thu, Feb 18, 2021, 8:05 PM UTC

Brendinooo wrote: post #140

jancsika wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.)

>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? I would say...no? Maybe in some cases, but I would think it rather unsustainable for humans in general to have to 1) keep records on what fringe elements believe and 2) be held accountable for people who share the same beliefs but also do things…

Taking on the responsibility to be clear about the context of one's positions doesn't mean one would be "held accountable" for people who share the same beliefs. To me it just means taking on the responsibility to be clear, especially if it's in the context of something that quite glaringly intersects with neo-fascist or even nihilistic sarcasm rhetoric which often has the opposite goal. Unfortunately, I don't think those are fringe beliefs at the moment.

The other problem-- a whole lotta people are getting used to the social media economy of impressions and attention-keeping. Since the most effective current methods have to do with divisive and controversial content, it sure seems like there are a lot of bloggers and podcasters who go out of their way not to clarify positions that may intersect with a lot of nasty ideologies.

So at least until we figure out a way for social media to be less socially destructive, I'm going to take it upon myself to carry around a heavy backpack of context for all my online utterances. Otherwise I'm just leaving things to various dark patterns and algos which I know are up to no good.

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

#205

Post by n4r9 » Fri, Feb 19, 2021, 6:04 PM UTC

ceilingcorner wrote: post #167

kergonath wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 commit…

It seems to me that great crimes are only possible with centralized power sources. Typically that is a government, but it is often an unaccountable corporation, too. If power is distributed, you may have more gang and guerrilla activity, but that seems far less damaging than the Holocaust or the Soviet purges. As I said, while I don’t follow the position myself, I think it’s pretty reasonable to be skeptical of power…

Great crimes are possible with centralised power sources led by a single strong person who cannot be removed. If you spread the power amongst a committee and enforce a regular turnover of it as part of your political process, then you greatly mitigate the risk of "great crimes". In fact I regard this as a cornerstone of democracy.