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

81–90 of 205 posts

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

#81

Post by kergonath »

jknoepfler wrote: post #39
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.

The fascist bit (in Ur-Fascism) is the resistance to reconciliation. Bits are taken on piecemeal due to historical accident or on a whim. There is no notion of consistency or inconsistency - no notion of tolerating inconsistency for a reason, even. There's just "our way" with no room for reason. (The essay is taking the concept of syncresis to an extreme to make a polemical point)

Syncretism is part of what makes these movements appealing, though. Same as for conspiracy theories: it gives a broad appeal because everyone can come with their pet theory which will find a neat niche within the arch-conspiracy framework. There needs to be some flexibility otherwise everything crumbles under the weight of the contradictions and cognitive dissonance.

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

#82

Post by matthewmacleod »

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…

Again, I hope I was minimally offensive.

You were not, but your primary offence was of gross ignorance. This likely explains why you feel isolated in your view.

You have conflated complex and nuanced concepts—like, say, the recognition of a revolutionary imperative with a general rejection of violence, or the “liberal democracy” with “unrestricted free speech”—and as a result you aren’t able to come to any logical conclusions.

I would definitely recommend taking a step back and considering the validity of the ideas and preconceptions you hold.

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

#83

Post by avereveard »

potta_coffee wrote: post #37
ceilingcorner wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 don't understand what's controversial about your statement or why it's being downvoted.

with the 99.9% of people opinions are wrong but mine it's the perfect instance of "everyone else is wrong but me"

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

#84

Post by hindsightbias »

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…

New Age has been a broad band of beliefs for decades and without central tenets or leadership it just hasn’t gotten that dangerous.

The thing about this era is more contrarian cultism. Lots of disparate groups that are syncretic seem to be able to mold Trump as a central figurehead. They really haven’t had anyone else to attach to (Jimmy Carter, H. Ross Perot, Pat Buchanan, Palin maybe).

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

#85

Post by RIMR »

ceilingcorner wrote: post #77
RIMR wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Sigh. One can’t even point out historical facts without being accused of being a Nazi. The level of discourse really has fallen here. I merely said it was ironic that people calling others fascists don’t usually refer to the group who invented the concept.

Just like how Facebook isn't a social media website, since MySpace Tom already "invented the concept". Do I have your logic down right?

What kind of argument is this, exactly? Nazis were Fascists in an objective, demonstrable way. That's not something that's up for debate, and it is extremely suspicious for anyone to attempt to correct the record on this.

It's like people who are "skeptical" of the holocaust. That's not skepticism, it's antisemitism, because the Holocaust isn't up for debate. There are millions of pieces of evidence that it occurred to the degree we understand it to have occurred, just as there are millions of pieces of evidence that the Nazi party was fascist.

Italians may have "invented" fascism (mostly just coined the term), but they were not historically unique, and they certainly aren't the only fascist movement ever to have occurred.

The arguments you make sound like the kind of cryptofascist politics that come out of white nationalist groups that aim to normalize modern day right-wing extremism. If you don't want to get grouped together with those people, consider not talking exactly like they do about far-right nationalism and authoritarianism

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

#86

Post by Bakary »

ceilingcorner wrote: post #62
nytgop77 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good point. Words are means of communication. Though there is a problem of ambiguity if word is reused (adjusted) for different meaning, while books (and people) from 1940 still continue using the old meaning. (just pointing out that meaning of words of dead people also matter)

Then what’s the new definition? Anyone with right wing opinions I don’t like? And I can redefine communist as anyone with left wing opinions that I dislike? Do you see why this is a dangerous path to go down?

New words appear constantly or old words are re-appropriated to fill the semantic necessities as they appear

Seeing it as a dangerous path implies some voluntarily action and that is not exactly the mechanism at hand.

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

#87

Post by ceilingcorner »

RIMR wrote: post #85
ceilingcorner wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sigh. One can’t even point out historical facts without being accused of being a Nazi. The level of discourse really has fallen here. I merely said it was ironic that people calling others fascists don’t usually refer to the group who invented the concept.

Just like how Facebook isn't a social media website, since MySpace Tom already "invented the concept". Do I have your logic down right? What kind of argument is this, exactly? Nazis were Fascists in an objective, demonstrable way. That's not something that's up for debate, and it is extremely suspicious for anyone to attempt to correct the record on this. It's like people who are "skeptical" of the holocaust. That's…

You’re reading a ton of stuff into my comment that isn’t there. The origin of the term fascist comes from the Italian Fascist party. That’s what it was called. That’s where the word comes from. This is a historical fact. That is literally all I wrote. Absolutely no where did I say the Nazis weren’t fascists or defend them in any way whatsoever.

Thank you for reminding me to never, ever discuss politics on this website. No one even reads what you wrote and instead projects their own inane political universe onto you. No thanks.

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

#88

Post by judgemcjudgy »

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…

So that now is your proof that he is a fascist? What a joke - literally.

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

#89

Post by heavyset_go »

herval wrote: post #73
heavyset_go wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're making the mistake of believing that the parties represent the sides that exist in America. Most people on the right would disagree that the Republican party represents them, and most of the left would disagree that the Democratic party represents them.

That's basically what the original poster said - "Many Americans view our federal government poorly, on both sides of the aisle". I can imagine Americans of both sides don't see the parties as representing them. This seems to be a theme these days, no matter if the party in power is left/right/center, and it's not only contained to democracies either (it's pretty clear by now that turkish and russian folks aren't hap…

> It somewhat feels _distrusting centralized forms of government_ is the (new?) trend?

I think it is more that people recognize that many parties and politicians exist to serve those with power, and act to enforce plutocracy over those without power.

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

#90

Post by scythe »

ceilingcorner wrote: post #77
RIMR wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Sigh. One can’t even point out historical facts without being accused of being a Nazi. The level of discourse really has fallen here. I merely said it was ironic that people calling others fascists don’t usually refer to the group who invented the concept.

>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 want to talk about in detail, I suggest you do so; it is much nicer to carry out discussions when we don't have to guess what the point is.

Post reply on HN