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. Each of the original messages contains a sliver of wisdom, and 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 of learning. Truth has been already spelled out once and for all, and we can only keep interpreting its obscure message.
[...]
If you browse in the shelves that, in American bookstores, are labeled as New Age, you can find there even Saint Augustine who, as far as I know, was not a fascist. But combining Saint Augustine and Stonehenge—that is a symptom of Ur-Fascism.
My critique of this essay is that Eco implies that it is a contradiction for there to be an external enemy which is overpowering and humiliating, and yet at the same time easy to defeat if our people would just stand up to them. That is not a contradiction. If a people have been demoralized and degenerated, it is actually very easy for them to be in such a state.
A really great example of this phenomena is China.
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.
China is a Fascist success story, and it undermines Eco's essay.
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.
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.
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 think it was one of The Exiled writers -- John Dolan, Matt Tiabi, or Mark Ames -- who said something to the effect of:
"All nationalism is, by definition, wounded."
You're either avenging a real or perceived loss, humiliation, or simply taking umbrage at the fact the world isn't kneeling to you as deeply as it should; "Make America Great Again".
> 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.
QAnon is a sort of syncretism for conspiracy theories. It's managed to bring every conspiracy theory into its fold. (And conspiracy theories themselves were already very syncretic!)
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.
I watched a little mini-documentary on QAnon the other day, and I was struck by how diverse the adherents are. I figured it'd be mostly older, middle-class white people, but footage of some of their protests revealed them to be a cross-section of all kinds of ages and races. It really does seem to have some kind of universal appeal.
Intersectionality is at its root a similarly syncretistic idea and praxis, though obviously it sits on a radically different "side" of the political spectrum than the Qanon nutcases.
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).
This sort of thing struck me reading gulag archipelago. The courts used the class struggle dialectic to make any enemies of Lenin or Stalin criminals, regardless of what they'd actually done. I see this sort of thing all throughout our culture, not just Qanon.
I am not sure I understand your use of the word "symptom". Being syncretistic, by itself, is clearly not indicative of fascism (as you point out all religion is syncretistic to some extent, so is art, etc.), but if you see many of the symptoms that Eco describes - not just syncretism, but also traditionalism, irrationalism, uniformity of thought, fear of difference, populism, nationalism, etc. - then syncretism becomes part of your "fascism" diagnosis. By themselves these things can be part of various strands of political thought, only together are they Ur-Fascism.
Just like a headache, by itself is not indicative of a disease, but can be a clue in combination with other symptoms.
There is a trend, where persons religion is treated as evidence of stupidity and root of evil. If it would have a name it would be called ultra-atheist.
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)
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 of learning"
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.
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 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 kinds to slip through the cracks.
> 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 contra-
dictions. Each of the original messages contains a silver of wisdom, and 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 of learning. Truth has been already spelled
out once and for all, and we can only keep interpreting its obscure message.
This is a bit ironic, no? He's amalgamating aspects of different cultures into a generalized descriptor of a culture that's still being referenced decades later.
> But in spite of this fuzziness, I think it is possible to outline a list of features that are typical of
what I would like to call Ur-Fascism, or Eternal Fascism. These features cannot be organized into
a system; many of them contradict each other, and are also typical of other kinds of despotism
or fanaticism. But it is enough that one of them be present to allow fascism to coagulate around
it.
Think of these not as "prerequisites for Facism", but rather, "common features of many Fascist societies, systems and beliefs".
Somewhat related: This video essay on the relation of modernist and fascist art was where I first encountered this essay. While I don't agree with all of the author's conclusions, I found it an enjoyable and thought-provoking watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5DqmTtCPiQ
> But it seems like the list gets wielded in a way to stick the 'fascist' label on someone, and not much else.
Hmm, maybe that's the way some people use it, but it doesn't seem to be Eco's intent, and I assume most people who share this article these days are mainly trying to broaden out our understanding of history, in all its complexity.
At least, that's my intent in chiming in here to recommend this slightly more in-depth perspective:
The first page or two was promising, I'll try to get through it later.
> it doesn't seem to be Eco's intent, and I assume most people who share this article these days are mainly trying to broaden out our understanding of history
Yeah, I agree with this. One way I've been starting to look at it is that anthropologists/sociologist will study this stuff academically, observationally, but then some distortions can happen:
- In an attempt to provide a tidy narrative, various shades of gray get lumped into the black and white columns
- The results of the research get weaponized. Guilt by association.
> 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.)
Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. Is it the responsibility of a running clock to know the time that the stopped clock displays?
That is, I am not so worried that I'm a fascist that I'm going through the list, making sure that I share no points of intersection. I could have a point in common (syncretistic beliefs, say, or criticism of modernism) as part of a completely benign worldview. The fact that there is one point in common does not render my worldview fascistic or otherwise malignant. (In this, I am disagreeing with Eco, who said "But it is enough that one of them be present to allow fascism to coagulate around it.")
Now, the closer I get to all the points in common, the more concerning it is (and also the less likely I am to honestly do the comparison). But no, I'm not worried about "1/14 fascist"... at least not in myself, because I'm pretty sure my worldview is benign. (On the other hand, everybody thinks that...)
>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 that are bad.
> 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?
After carefully reading your comment I carefully read all the replies, just to make sure this hasn't been addressed: by focusing on whether this or that item from Eco's list qualifies you individually as a fascist is missing the point. The essay is about movements, not a checklist to asses individual leanings.
>This is a bit ironic, no? He's amalgamating aspects of different cultures into a generalized descriptor of a culture that's still being referenced decades later.
It's not the amalgamations, it's that that is the end of it.
To create an illustrator straw man
They say: All knowledge is already written and we just need to recombine it in new ways.
You say: Ah but here is a criticism of that, using new or different sources
They say: Those don't count we know all we need to know, everything know is already written.
I think you misinterpreted it. The intent is not to put labels on someone's forehead.
Some of these symptoms are not related to fascism, and are not problematic in themselves. But when you see more of these showing up, you need to be a bit critical and see how fascism has worked in other countries, because you might be in a position to stop its rise. It's more a warning about the need to be careful.
If someone ticks 12 of the 14 boxes, it means that person should be approached cautiously. Same way as someone believing in flat earth and fake moon landings makes them more likely to fall for QAnon.
> 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
There were a bunch of far-right and/or nationalists governments in the early 20th Century. It did not really end well and that is not something we should emulate.
Also, this definition does not only apply narrowly to self-professed fascists. It fits Stalinism and Maoism (and Xi-ism, Putinism, and Orbanism, if that is a thing) quite well, too. These regimes are fascist in all but name. I think if you want to swap mentally "fascism" with "totalitarianism", the essay is still instructive.
> This is a bit ironic, no?
No, I think he is right on point. This is how QAnon followers get over cognitive dissonance and how populists harness conflicting conspiracy theories and ideologies to their advantage. Not all syncretism is bad, but syncretism is a very powerful tool in the hands of an oppressor. This is how the Romans bought peace, and how the Church extended its power.
Look at how Trump (a notorious rich liar, divorced philanderer who ostensibly made fortunes in casinos and who never showed an ounce of religious belief) managed to unite Republicans, poor Whites, and Christians fundamentalists. He (said he) offered to everyone something they wanted, regardless of the consistency of it all.
> If someone hits 12 of the 14 markers, does that make him a fascist?
as with everything, depends on point of view.
If you are in a region/demographic being crushed by foreign powers, i'd say someone hitting even 1 of the 14 markers could legitimacy be considered one
Likewise, from your very comfortable point of view, even someone hitting 14 of the markers may not be considered one. I mean, you can have that one friend with the racist jokes that even have a couple black friends, right?
>If you are in a region/demographic being crushed by foreign powers, i'd say someone hitting even 1 of the 14 markers could legitimacy be considered one
I don't understand this, could you elaborate?
> you can have that one friend with the racist jokes that even have a couple black friends, right?
I don't know. I guess if a friend was exhibiting racist behavior, I'd be more interested in trying to get him to stop than trying to figure out if he's a racist, or a fascist.
> 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 kinds to slip through the cracks.
I think this comes down to Fascism just being a bit of an odd duck in the political discussion. Fascism seems to be an ever-present undercurrent of basically all Democratic and Republic-style societies, always there but not always apparent. There is always a subset of the population that believes their Government doesn't work, for any number of reasons, and to any given extent: Fascism plays well with a certain subset of those people. And the appeal is very easy to understand: if you perceive the systems that rule over you are fatally flawed, wouldn't it be so much better and easier to circumvent those systems and put in place people who would break the rules, but improve the nation?
But that of course alone does not constitute Fascism. I was listening to one of Robert Evan's podcasts where he and his guest (I'm sorry I forget the episode and show) were remarking that Fascism is less an ideology or even a movement, and more of just, an aesthetic that could be adopted by basically any ideology or movement, if the appropriate leader comes along, which is one of the reasons it gets thrown around so much, besides just the historical connotations to the Nazis, of course. They theorized that the values of most Fascist movements (appeals to tradition/a mythic past, hatred of weakness, hatred of the other) make them more compatible with those of a conservative bent, but leftists are not immune from it either.
People tend to forget that most of the Axis powers, save perhaps for Imperial Japan, were also extremely Fascist. Italy especially. And, prior to the United States' involvement in WWII, Hitler and Mussolini were renowned for their invigorating of their respective countries and their abilities as orators.
> This is a bit ironic, no? He's amalgamating aspects of different cultures into a generalized descriptor of a culture that's still being referenced decades later.
I mean, it keeps showing up. There are authoritarians seemingly all over the place at our particular moment of world history, many of which tick off numerous boxes on Eco's list. Does this mean they are all Fascists? I would say, yes, to a degree. I don't think one must wait for all the boxes to be checked before asking some questions. Does that mean they all merit interventions ala World War II? No. I just think it's something worth keeping in mind. And besides, America, the world police, are currently ticking far too many of those boxes ourselves to be throwing any stones out of our glass Fascist house anyway.
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.
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.
Collected from your various comments in this subthread:
>99.9% of the people throwing around the word fascist today have little to no understanding of what that political ideology means.
The author explains in the first line of the article, that he was a member of the fascist youth wing. Do you really think he doesn't know what it is? If you think he doesn't, I'd certainly be interested in hearing why.
>I’m relying on the definition from dictionaries and historians
The author is a historian.
>Considering that the label of fascism is usually being used with reference the the Nazis (ironically almost never to the actual Italian fascists themselves - a symptom of the historical ignorance I mentioned), I’m gonna say yes, the word has a specific meaning.
The author is Italian, so again it seems strange to accuse him of conflating Nazism with Italian fascism. Especially because the article compares the two in detail.
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
The Behind The Bastards podcast has just finished a special run called Behind The Insurrections where they examine how various fascist movements came to power.
They briefly discuss Eco's essay before delving into quite detailed accounts of various insurrections.
The series has episodes on The Beer Hall Putsch, The March on Rome, The Spanish Civil War (with the usual caveats about Franco being a fascist or not) and the assault on the French national assembly in 1934.
The historical parallels, while perhaps a tad exaggerated by the hosts, are quite interesting.
Duncan also did 'The History of Rome' podcast. Which was amazing. I'm still grinding through 'Revolutions' and am only on the Haitian revolution still.
But, this early on, one thing I've noticed is that the cycle of revolutions is, well, pretty easy to predict. Brett Deveraux of the ACOUP blog has a good few on the greek idea of stasis. https://acoup.blog/tag/stasis/ . It's application to Duncan's 'Revolutions' is perfectly fitting.
One other thing I've noticed is that in a Revolution, unless you are very wealthy or very lucky or very cunning, the best way to get through a revolution is to get out of it. Go somewhere else, be an expat, write some essays, just don't be anywhere near the mobs or the soldiers.
I remember reading this in the Utne Reader in the 90's.
4. No syncretistic faith can withstand analytical criticism. The critical spirit makes distinctions, and to distinguish is a sign of modernism. In modern culture the scientific community praises disagreement as a way to improve knowledge. For Ur-Fascism, disagreement is treason.
> 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 both sides of the aisle, and in the last 20 years 'working' across the aisle has become a meme rather than a reality. We just impeached the same president twice, and congress has a what, single digit approval rating?
Earlier in this essay the author states that a disaffected middle class can lead to fascism but I don't think he nailed why. I think it is this:
When people stop believing democracy can function, they readily look for alternatives.
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")?
The right is absolutely not anti-government. They're just against the use of government to disrupt existing hierarchies or interfere with tradition.
For concrete proof look at Federal deficits and spending under right and left wing administrations, or the corresponding growth in the size and scope of government. There is at best no difference, and in a few cases government actually shrank in nominal terms under more left-leaning administrations.
The left believes we need government for pragmatic reasons, but most of them could be sold on the idea of giving up state power if alternative mechanisms to achieve their goals could be found and demonstrated to work in real life. The right on the other hand worships hierarchy and authority as a good in and of itself and almost deifies the state and its hierarchy as a manifestation of a divine order. The right would never let go of the state even if it were no longer needed, for doing so would mean there would be no mechanism for enforcement of divinely ordained hierarchy.
(This is why libertarians are neither left nor right.)
This sort of onesidedness is exactly the cause of the issue. Virtually all of the great crimes of the last century were conducted by governments. While I wouldn’t consider myself an anarchist/libertarian/anti-government, it seems eminently reasonable to me to be deeply skeptical of centralized governmental authority. Whether that’s actually desirable or practical is a different matter.
> The other side believes government cannot be improved because government itself is per se bad.
I agree - it's clear that the social democrats and other leftists would clearly like to remove government entirely and achieve a stateless society.
Or did you mean the right-wing libertarian types who want to have no government so they can own nukes?
These analogies are just silly and not really the point - the goals don't really matter to the point. The point is that when there is less perceived legitimacy of government, people are more willing to look for other options.
both sides are very ok with using power of government to further their agenda, and both sides are making the government as big as possible when and where it serves their interests. What worst is both sides are using power of majority to attack, instead of protecting, the rights of the minority. That usage of democracy as an attack weapon destroys public trust for democracy and transforms the democracy into ochlocracy, and thus moves the society one step closer to totalitarism.
It's crucial, however, to realize that we live in an interconnected global society and that to better OUR lot is called "Nationalism" and to do so at the expense of others is called "Imperialism", and as far as I am concerned they're synonymous with the worst ideological components of Fascism.
They single out a disaffected middle class as a key fascist constituency because that’s historically accurate. The Nazis in particular were built on the lower rungs of the middle class who had some status to lose, but not enough to fully insulate themselves from economic swings. Think small shop owners more than factory owners.
Poorer laborers during that time were more likely to be swayed by the communists, who had more to offer poor workers. Fear of these same communists helped also drive upper class tolerance for nazis and fascists too.
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 self-sufficient state
* Frequently incorporates some notion of a "master race"
I want to be delicate with this next part because it's controversial and touches on people's deeply held convictions, so I want to be sensitive and disclaim that I'm trying to understand better and not offend:
So I understand that the collection of ills seems to denote fascism, but it often seems that the people who are the most vocally anti-fascist seem to be fine with many of those ills individually (or put differently, they seem not to be "ills" when they're unbundled from fascism). It seems like they're only against the whole package arranged in a particular way. For example, a lot of people who have vocally criticized America in the last 5 years as being a fascist country seem to be pretty opposed to liberal values like freedom of speech and nonviolence with many such people either rationalizing left-wing violence (BLM riots as well as general antifa violence) if not outright arguing that political violence and even (capital-R) Revolution is necessary. Many support communism and talk about how great life was in the USSR or how amazing China is, which suggests that they're not just referring to some abstract communism that "hasn't been tried yet", but rather specific instances of communist regimes that tick many (all?) of the 'fascism qualities' boxes. I don't know if they can be described as having some "master race" ideology, but the USSR and China are hardly paradigms of tolerance, and many left-wing Americans seem to have pretty segregationist views on race even if they don't have a "master race" per se (perhaps one could argue that "people of color" is their "master race" in the way that various European identities coalesced into "white" in prior centuries?).
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? To me at least it seems very horse-shoe like: the far right and the far left seem very similar in nearly all important respects, and I want to understand why it frequently feels like I'm the only one who sees things this way.
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.
> 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.
This seems to be a fairly common perspective, and I'll try to take it at face value and respond to it in parts. Sorry if I'm late and you got a bunch of other lengthy responses already.
> For example, a lot of people who have vocally criticized America in the last 5 years as being a fascist country seem to be pretty opposed to liberal values like freedom of speech and nonviolence with many such people either rationalizing left-wing violence (BLM riots as well as general antifa violence) if not outright arguing that political violence and even (capital-R) Revolution is necessary.
One problem I've had with this perspective is that the BLM movement is ongoing and has developed into a more coherent (but still decentralized) organization. According to the The Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project (https://acleddata.com/2020/09/03/demonstrations-political-vi...):
"Between 24 May and 22 August, ACLED records more than 10,600 demonstration events across the country. Over 10,100 of these — or nearly 95% — involve peaceful protesters. Fewer than 570 — or approximately 5% — involve demonstrators engaging in violence."
I disavow the violence and rioting. The looting and destruction of storefronts is unconscionable. But it doesn't represent the majority of the movement.
As for Antifa, that ends up being a whole conversation unto itself—a poignant one given the main topic of fascism. Antifa exists as an idea more so than a formal movement. It's not something you are, it's something you do. It is a form of counter protest directed at fascists and (particularly in the US) white supremacists. It isn't a club with members that you join. The most publicized actions are violent, but more often there is no violence involved. You can counter-protest a white nationalist rally, but you can also call the hotel they are staying at and warn the management that white nationalists will be frequenting the establishment.
> Many support communism and talk about how great life was in the USSR or how amazing China is, which suggests that they're not just referring to some abstract communism that "hasn't been tried yet", but rather specific instances of communist regimes that tick many (all?) of the 'fascism qualities' boxes.
Funny enough, there's a derisive term for this in progressive circles: "Tankies"
They're an exceptionally fringe group, especially in the US, and I would appreciate some additional evidence for the claim that "many" support the USSR and China. Even for people on the left who explicitly advocate for socialism, they do so in advocacy of social justice and workplace democracy, neither of which is reflected at all in the USSR or China.
> many left-wing Americans seem to have pretty segregationist views on race even if they don't have a "master race" per se (perhaps one could argue that "people of color" is their "master race" in the way that various European identities coalesced into "white" in prior centuries?).
Again, I'd appreciate if you could provide some evidence for your claim of "many" left-wing Americans holding these views. I agree that in the last 20-30 years there has been massive re-segregation of schools in the US, and a significant demographic of Biden voters are the people who live in these very segregated suburbs. However, this issue is a common talking point for progressives in this country. I'd argue they're the only group bringing it up and attempting to address it. As for the "master race" thing, I am not entirely sure how to respond to this. Of course you can find any sort of fringe belief on the internet, but I have never seen any traction for this ideology in any of the progressive movements in the US. I know it has been a talking point when criticizing BLM (e.g. countering with "all lives matter"), but this criticism to me is intentionally misunderstanding the movement. BLM is meant to be aspirational, not exclusionary: Black lives also matter.
Two final notes:
1. You talk about a horseshoe where the fringes of the political spectrum are closer together. This is, in my opinion, an incorrect projection of the political landscape, since it implies a single dimension between right and left. I would encourage you to look at https://www.politicalcompass.org. One could get more complicated about it, but I think the distinction on authoritarian/libertarian and conservative/liberal is important. You can be a right-wing or left-wing authoritarian (e.g. Stalin vs. Hitler) and you can be a left-wing or right-wing libertarian (e.g. Noam Chomsky vs. Robert Nozick).
2. I don't want to dismiss the possibility or danger of left-wing authoritarianism. We have plenty examples of that. I do what to emphasize that fascism in particular is not one of them. It is a specific form of conservative authoritarianism that relies heavily on conservative ideology, specifically the desire for hierarchy. In every political movement we would identify as fascist, progressives and communists were the first group to be attacked as the fascists rose to power.
No, I think both sides have an idea of the perfect government. It's just that the ideas differ radically (in fact, they are mutually incompatible). So we get the current situation, where neither side is satisfied with what they have. And I fear the degree to which both sides think they have to destroy the other side in order to get what they want...
The less effective the status quo is, the more willing people are to try radical approaches, be it technology, politics, dieting, etc.
In my own small world of political banter, the number of people who have floated, or not disagreed with the concept of balkanizing the U.S.A is astounding. When I grew up, America was the greatest country in the world, and now my friends say - well we tried. Maybe balkanization would be easier since nobody can seem to agree on a damn thing, not even the budget!
The farther apart the two sides of the political sphere, the less the work together to actually produce tangible results for the average American, the less happy and healthy the average American - the more likely we as Americans are to support a scrapping of it all and supporting Communism, Anarchism, Direct Democracy, Fascism, Theocracy, or other ideologies, and not Republicanism (that is, being a republic).
Something that for many years I've seen as "Ur-Fascist" in our culture is the popularity and continuous production of relatively vapid superhero movies. The majority of these are power fantasy porn, and like porn the only focus is really on the fetish and the orgasm. There's little characterization and little plot, and the villains are always cast as either pure evil or as a straw man representation of some other point of view.
The rough cop and action movies of the 1980s and 1990s are far more subtile and intelligent than most superhero flicks. Watch Die Hard for example. It has actual characterization. You get at least a bit of a sense for who the characters are, their motives, and their flaws. I'm not saying it's high art but compared to the average comic book flick it's quite deep. The hero is a divorced cop who has obviously thrown himself into his work to numb his emotional pain. The villain comes off like a narcissist whose crimes are motivated by a burning desire to become the moneyed aristocrat he believes himself entitled to be. Throughout the film you can see the hero at least indirectly confront some of his personal demons while the villain's narcissism drives him further into depravity and in the end is his ruin.
I wonder if the rise of fascist thinking of the 4chan /pol variety among younger people can in part be explained by their entire generation having been raised on a steady diet of comic book flicks and of course similar "fanservice" Anime.
There was a really interesting paper [1] being circulated a bit last week in the circles I frequent on a few sites that dug a bit deeper into this. The villains are often very superficial and the consequences of the ensuing fight is very rarely shown in the movie itself, and if it is mentioned only in passing. There is this 'cleansliness' to the fight scenes that give you all of the enjoyment while removing any of the dirty human tragedies from the context.
Really interesting read, and something that I have thought about quite a few times while seeing how popular these movies are nowadays
It certainly seems like a lot of super hero franchises were started as outright far right propaganda, even if now, the profit motives of the licensee corporations have dulled the messaging somewhat.
I think 'The Incredibles' is an interesting movie in this regard. It's probably the most family friendly pro fascist romp ever made.
The protagonists are literally Ubermensch held back by an ignorant and fearful society. The evil goal of the bad guy is to give everyone super powers. It wouldn't be possible to spell this out any clearer.
>I wonder if the rise of fascist thinking of the 4chan /pol variety among younger people can in part be explained by their entire generation having been raised on a steady diet of comic book flicks and of course similar "fanservice" Anime.
4chan is a contrarian website. The "rise of fascist thinking" is directly related to younger people being brought up on a steady diet of social justice nonsense being forced on them from every direction, for which the obvious opposite and most contrarian stance is the one held by the one and only, the late Adolf Hitler.
I agree with this deeply. The Marvel Cinematic Universe, and its ilk, are propaganda projects designed to push manipulative falsehoods into the public's understanding of reality. I am not talking about Dr. Strange's magic, or Superman's laser vision; those fantastical elements are such pure fiction that they stand in contrast to the allegedly "realistic" elements on which the world rests. This contrast has always been a mechanism of science fiction[0], but in these super hero movies, what's left to be assumed as "reality" against which fantasy contrasts? Fascist tropes, such as:
- the patronizing Übermensch (literally "Superman") on whom "the weak" must rely
- moral nihilism of the "good" guys winning by force
- patriarchal masculinity left and right
- the untarnished benevolence of the Pentagon
Their entire purpose is to help American audiences perform the mental gymnastics (pun intended) of differentiating "good" Populist Nationalism from "bad" Populist Nationalism.
0. (e.g. the replicator is entirely fantastical, but allows Starfleet to make allegedly realistic points about the politics of abundance and deprivation)
Thank you. Do you just recall these off the top of your head or do you generally check each post that makes it to the front page, either manually or with a script?
I use HN Search manually but support that in a browser extension that I use for HN moderation. For example, I have keyboard shortcuts to open an HN search tab for the URL or title of a selected post, another to restrict the search to threads that got comments, another to convert search results into a list on HN itself, another to copy the title/URL of a selected post to the clipboard, and so on. (One of these years I will find a way to share this software with HN users, since it's kind of an HN power-reader, besides the mod functions.)
That lets me find and scan past threads fairly quickly to find the interesting ones. It's still too manual, though; I need to make more steps towards automation. I'm not sure it can be fully automated because you have to do human interventions to either track down relevant past threads or exclude boring ones. The endgame is probably not to fully automate these lists but to have software generate a starter version and then give the community ways to edit it.
The only place that recalling things off the top of my head (or somewhere in the poorly-lit middle of it) plays a role is that often I vaguely remember that there existed a discussion about $X in past years and then tweak the searches till I find it.
> There is in our future a TV or Internet populism, in which the emotional response of a selected group of citizens can be presented and accepted as the Voice of the People.
A nice prediction – note the frequency with which news organizations list quotes from Twitter in this capacity.
Readit News
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. Each of the original messages contains a sliver of wisdom, and 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 of learning. Truth has been already spelled out once and for all, and we can only keep interpreting its obscure message.
[...]
If you browse in the shelves that, in American bookstores, are labeled as New Age, you can find there even Saint Augustine who, as far as I know, was not a fascist. But combining Saint Augustine and Stonehenge—that is a symptom of Ur-Fascism.
A really great example of this phenomena is China.
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.
China is a Fascist success story, and it undermines Eco's essay.
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.
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.
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.
"All nationalism is, by definition, wounded."
You're either avenging a real or perceived loss, humiliation, or simply taking umbrage at the fact the world isn't kneeling to you as deeply as it should; "Make America Great Again".
and now, the Chinese are simply oppressed
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.
If you have not read it already, check out Numero Zero by... hmmm... Umberto Eco.
Deleted Comment
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).
Dead Comment
What an inane comment from an apparently well-educated writer.
Just like a headache, by itself is not indicative of a disease, but can be a clue in combination with other symptoms.
(The essay is taking the concept of syncresis to an extreme to make a polemical point)
"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 of learning"
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 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 kinds to slip through the cracks.
> 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 contra- dictions. Each of the original messages contains a silver of wisdom, and 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 of learning. Truth has been already spelled out once and for all, and we can only keep interpreting its obscure message.
This is a bit ironic, no? He's amalgamating aspects of different cultures into a generalized descriptor of a culture that's still being referenced decades later.
> But in spite of this fuzziness, I think it is possible to outline a list of features that are typical of what I would like to call Ur-Fascism, or Eternal Fascism. These features cannot be organized into a system; many of them contradict each other, and are also typical of other kinds of despotism or fanaticism. But it is enough that one of them be present to allow fascism to coagulate around it.
Think of these not as "prerequisites for Facism", but rather, "common features of many Fascist societies, systems and beliefs".
Of course, this is just one view in an actively studied subject. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_fascism has a survey of various perspectives.
Somewhat related: This video essay on the relation of modernist and fascist art was where I first encountered this essay. While I don't agree with all of the author's conclusions, I found it an enjoyable and thought-provoking watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5DqmTtCPiQ
Hmm, maybe that's the way some people use it, but it doesn't seem to be Eco's intent, and I assume most people who share this article these days are mainly trying to broaden out our understanding of history, in all its complexity.
At least, that's my intent in chiming in here to recommend this slightly more in-depth perspective:
http://w3.salemstate.edu/~cmauriello/pdfEuropean/Paxton_Five...
> it doesn't seem to be Eco's intent, and I assume most people who share this article these days are mainly trying to broaden out our understanding of history
Yeah, I agree with this. One way I've been starting to look at it is that anthropologists/sociologist will study this stuff academically, observationally, but then some distortions can happen:
- In an attempt to provide a tidy narrative, various shades of gray get lumped into the black and white columns
- The results of the research get weaponized. Guilt by association.
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.)
That is, I am not so worried that I'm a fascist that I'm going through the list, making sure that I share no points of intersection. I could have a point in common (syncretistic beliefs, say, or criticism of modernism) as part of a completely benign worldview. The fact that there is one point in common does not render my worldview fascistic or otherwise malignant. (In this, I am disagreeing with Eco, who said "But it is enough that one of them be present to allow fascism to coagulate around it.")
Now, the closer I get to all the points in common, the more concerning it is (and also the less likely I am to honestly do the comparison). But no, I'm not worried about "1/14 fascist"... at least not in myself, because I'm pretty sure my worldview is benign. (On the other hand, everybody thinks that...)
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 that are bad.
After carefully reading your comment I carefully read all the replies, just to make sure this hasn't been addressed: by focusing on whether this or that item from Eco's list qualifies you individually as a fascist is missing the point. The essay is about movements, not a checklist to asses individual leanings.
It's not the amalgamations, it's that that is the end of it.
To create an illustrator straw man
They say: All knowledge is already written and we just need to recombine it in new ways.
You say: Ah but here is a criticism of that, using new or different sources
They say: Those don't count we know all we need to know, everything know is already written.
Some of these symptoms are not related to fascism, and are not problematic in themselves. But when you see more of these showing up, you need to be a bit critical and see how fascism has worked in other countries, because you might be in a position to stop its rise. It's more a warning about the need to be careful.
If someone ticks 12 of the 14 boxes, it means that person should be approached cautiously. Same way as someone believing in flat earth and fake moon landings makes them more likely to fall for QAnon.
> 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
There were a bunch of far-right and/or nationalists governments in the early 20th Century. It did not really end well and that is not something we should emulate.
Also, this definition does not only apply narrowly to self-professed fascists. It fits Stalinism and Maoism (and Xi-ism, Putinism, and Orbanism, if that is a thing) quite well, too. These regimes are fascist in all but name. I think if you want to swap mentally "fascism" with "totalitarianism", the essay is still instructive.
> This is a bit ironic, no?
No, I think he is right on point. This is how QAnon followers get over cognitive dissonance and how populists harness conflicting conspiracy theories and ideologies to their advantage. Not all syncretism is bad, but syncretism is a very powerful tool in the hands of an oppressor. This is how the Romans bought peace, and how the Church extended its power.
Look at how Trump (a notorious rich liar, divorced philanderer who ostensibly made fortunes in casinos and who never showed an ounce of religious belief) managed to unite Republicans, poor Whites, and Christians fundamentalists. He (said he) offered to everyone something they wanted, regardless of the consistency of it all.
as with everything, depends on point of view.
If you are in a region/demographic being crushed by foreign powers, i'd say someone hitting even 1 of the 14 markers could legitimacy be considered one
Likewise, from your very comfortable point of view, even someone hitting 14 of the markers may not be considered one. I mean, you can have that one friend with the racist jokes that even have a couple black friends, right?
I don't understand this, could you elaborate?
> you can have that one friend with the racist jokes that even have a couple black friends, right?
I don't know. I guess if a friend was exhibiting racist behavior, I'd be more interested in trying to get him to stop than trying to figure out if he's a racist, or a fascist.
Deleted Comment
> 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 kinds to slip through the cracks.
I think this comes down to Fascism just being a bit of an odd duck in the political discussion. Fascism seems to be an ever-present undercurrent of basically all Democratic and Republic-style societies, always there but not always apparent. There is always a subset of the population that believes their Government doesn't work, for any number of reasons, and to any given extent: Fascism plays well with a certain subset of those people. And the appeal is very easy to understand: if you perceive the systems that rule over you are fatally flawed, wouldn't it be so much better and easier to circumvent those systems and put in place people who would break the rules, but improve the nation?
But that of course alone does not constitute Fascism. I was listening to one of Robert Evan's podcasts where he and his guest (I'm sorry I forget the episode and show) were remarking that Fascism is less an ideology or even a movement, and more of just, an aesthetic that could be adopted by basically any ideology or movement, if the appropriate leader comes along, which is one of the reasons it gets thrown around so much, besides just the historical connotations to the Nazis, of course. They theorized that the values of most Fascist movements (appeals to tradition/a mythic past, hatred of weakness, hatred of the other) make them more compatible with those of a conservative bent, but leftists are not immune from it either.
People tend to forget that most of the Axis powers, save perhaps for Imperial Japan, were also extremely Fascist. Italy especially. And, prior to the United States' involvement in WWII, Hitler and Mussolini were renowned for their invigorating of their respective countries and their abilities as orators.
> This is a bit ironic, no? He's amalgamating aspects of different cultures into a generalized descriptor of a culture that's still being referenced decades later.
I mean, it keeps showing up. There are authoritarians seemingly all over the place at our particular moment of world history, many of which tick off numerous boxes on Eco's list. Does this mean they are all Fascists? I would say, yes, to a degree. I don't think one must wait for all the boxes to be checked before asking some questions. Does that mean they all merit interventions ala World War II? No. I just think it's something worth keeping in mind. And besides, America, the world police, are currently ticking far too many of those boxes ourselves to be throwing any stones out of our glass Fascist house anyway.
Nobody forgets this.
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.
Webster didn't get his dictionary from a discrete meeting with some cave spirit.
>99.9% of the people throwing around the word fascist today have little to no understanding of what that political ideology means.
The author explains in the first line of the article, that he was a member of the fascist youth wing. Do you really think he doesn't know what it is? If you think he doesn't, I'd certainly be interested in hearing why.
>I’m relying on the definition from dictionaries and historians
The author is a historian.
>Considering that the label of fascism is usually being used with reference the the Nazis (ironically almost never to the actual Italian fascists themselves - a symptom of the historical ignorance I mentioned), I’m gonna say yes, the word has a specific meaning.
The author is Italian, so again it seems strange to accuse him of conflating Nazism with Italian fascism. Especially because the article compares the two in detail.
Deleted Comment
They briefly discuss Eco's essay before delving into quite detailed accounts of various insurrections.
The series has episodes on The Beer Hall Putsch, The March on Rome, The Spanish Civil War (with the usual caveats about Franco being a fascist or not) and the assault on the French national assembly in 1934.
The historical parallels, while perhaps a tad exaggerated by the hosts, are quite interesting.
https://youtu.be/erbyCO6QcX8
In case you are not aware of it, the podcast Revolutions by Mike Dunkan is a great way to learn about, well, revolutions.
But, this early on, one thing I've noticed is that the cycle of revolutions is, well, pretty easy to predict. Brett Deveraux of the ACOUP blog has a good few on the greek idea of stasis. https://acoup.blog/tag/stasis/ . It's application to Duncan's 'Revolutions' is perfectly fitting.
One other thing I've noticed is that in a Revolution, unless you are very wealthy or very lucky or very cunning, the best way to get through a revolution is to get out of it. Go somewhere else, be an expat, write some essays, just don't be anywhere near the mobs or the soldiers.
4. No syncretistic faith can withstand analytical criticism. The critical spirit makes distinctions, and to distinguish is a sign of modernism. In modern culture the scientific community praises disagreement as a way to improve knowledge. For Ur-Fascism, disagreement is treason.
> 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 both sides of the aisle, and in the last 20 years 'working' across the aisle has become a meme rather than a reality. We just impeached the same president twice, and congress has a what, single digit approval rating?
Earlier in this essay the author states that a disaffected middle class can lead to fascism but I don't think he nailed why. I think it is this:
When people stop believing democracy can function, they readily look for alternatives.
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.
For concrete proof look at Federal deficits and spending under right and left wing administrations, or the corresponding growth in the size and scope of government. There is at best no difference, and in a few cases government actually shrank in nominal terms under more left-leaning administrations.
The left believes we need government for pragmatic reasons, but most of them could be sold on the idea of giving up state power if alternative mechanisms to achieve their goals could be found and demonstrated to work in real life. The right on the other hand worships hierarchy and authority as a good in and of itself and almost deifies the state and its hierarchy as a manifestation of a divine order. The right would never let go of the state even if it were no longer needed, for doing so would mean there would be no mechanism for enforcement of divinely ordained hierarchy.
(This is why libertarians are neither left nor right.)
I agree - it's clear that the social democrats and other leftists would clearly like to remove government entirely and achieve a stateless society.
Or did you mean the right-wing libertarian types who want to have no government so they can own nukes?
These analogies are just silly and not really the point - the goals don't really matter to the point. The point is that when there is less perceived legitimacy of government, people are more willing to look for other options.
Only one side attacks democracy and government as concepts.
It's crucial, however, to realize that we live in an interconnected global society and that to better OUR lot is called "Nationalism" and to do so at the expense of others is called "Imperialism", and as far as I am concerned they're synonymous with the worst ideological components of Fascism.
Poorer laborers during that time were more likely to be swayed by the communists, who had more to offer poor workers. Fear of these same communists helped also drive upper class tolerance for nazis and fascists too.
* 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 self-sufficient state
* Frequently incorporates some notion of a "master race"
I want to be delicate with this next part because it's controversial and touches on people's deeply held convictions, so I want to be sensitive and disclaim that I'm trying to understand better and not offend:
So I understand that the collection of ills seems to denote fascism, but it often seems that the people who are the most vocally anti-fascist seem to be fine with many of those ills individually (or put differently, they seem not to be "ills" when they're unbundled from fascism). It seems like they're only against the whole package arranged in a particular way. For example, a lot of people who have vocally criticized America in the last 5 years as being a fascist country seem to be pretty opposed to liberal values like freedom of speech and nonviolence with many such people either rationalizing left-wing violence (BLM riots as well as general antifa violence) if not outright arguing that political violence and even (capital-R) Revolution is necessary. Many support communism and talk about how great life was in the USSR or how amazing China is, which suggests that they're not just referring to some abstract communism that "hasn't been tried yet", but rather specific instances of communist regimes that tick many (all?) of the 'fascism qualities' boxes. I don't know if they can be described as having some "master race" ideology, but the USSR and China are hardly paradigms of tolerance, and many left-wing Americans seem to have pretty segregationist views on race even if they don't have a "master race" per se (perhaps one could argue that "people of color" is their "master race" in the way that various European identities coalesced into "white" in prior centuries?).
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? To me at least it seems very horse-shoe like: the far right and the far left seem very similar in nearly all important respects, and I want to understand why it frequently feels like I'm the only one who sees things this way.
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.
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.
> For example, a lot of people who have vocally criticized America in the last 5 years as being a fascist country seem to be pretty opposed to liberal values like freedom of speech and nonviolence with many such people either rationalizing left-wing violence (BLM riots as well as general antifa violence) if not outright arguing that political violence and even (capital-R) Revolution is necessary.
One problem I've had with this perspective is that the BLM movement is ongoing and has developed into a more coherent (but still decentralized) organization. According to the The Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project (https://acleddata.com/2020/09/03/demonstrations-political-vi...):
"Between 24 May and 22 August, ACLED records more than 10,600 demonstration events across the country. Over 10,100 of these — or nearly 95% — involve peaceful protesters. Fewer than 570 — or approximately 5% — involve demonstrators engaging in violence."
I disavow the violence and rioting. The looting and destruction of storefronts is unconscionable. But it doesn't represent the majority of the movement.
As for Antifa, that ends up being a whole conversation unto itself—a poignant one given the main topic of fascism. Antifa exists as an idea more so than a formal movement. It's not something you are, it's something you do. It is a form of counter protest directed at fascists and (particularly in the US) white supremacists. It isn't a club with members that you join. The most publicized actions are violent, but more often there is no violence involved. You can counter-protest a white nationalist rally, but you can also call the hotel they are staying at and warn the management that white nationalists will be frequenting the establishment.
I'd recommend watching https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bgwS_FMZ3nQ for a decent summary.
> Many support communism and talk about how great life was in the USSR or how amazing China is, which suggests that they're not just referring to some abstract communism that "hasn't been tried yet", but rather specific instances of communist regimes that tick many (all?) of the 'fascism qualities' boxes.
Funny enough, there's a derisive term for this in progressive circles: "Tankies"
They're an exceptionally fringe group, especially in the US, and I would appreciate some additional evidence for the claim that "many" support the USSR and China. Even for people on the left who explicitly advocate for socialism, they do so in advocacy of social justice and workplace democracy, neither of which is reflected at all in the USSR or China.
> many left-wing Americans seem to have pretty segregationist views on race even if they don't have a "master race" per se (perhaps one could argue that "people of color" is their "master race" in the way that various European identities coalesced into "white" in prior centuries?).
Again, I'd appreciate if you could provide some evidence for your claim of "many" left-wing Americans holding these views. I agree that in the last 20-30 years there has been massive re-segregation of schools in the US, and a significant demographic of Biden voters are the people who live in these very segregated suburbs. However, this issue is a common talking point for progressives in this country. I'd argue they're the only group bringing it up and attempting to address it. As for the "master race" thing, I am not entirely sure how to respond to this. Of course you can find any sort of fringe belief on the internet, but I have never seen any traction for this ideology in any of the progressive movements in the US. I know it has been a talking point when criticizing BLM (e.g. countering with "all lives matter"), but this criticism to me is intentionally misunderstanding the movement. BLM is meant to be aspirational, not exclusionary: Black lives also matter.
Two final notes:
1. You talk about a horseshoe where the fringes of the political spectrum are closer together. This is, in my opinion, an incorrect projection of the political landscape, since it implies a single dimension between right and left. I would encourage you to look at https://www.politicalcompass.org. One could get more complicated about it, but I think the distinction on authoritarian/libertarian and conservative/liberal is important. You can be a right-wing or left-wing authoritarian (e.g. Stalin vs. Hitler) and you can be a left-wing or right-wing libertarian (e.g. Noam Chomsky vs. Robert Nozick).
2. I don't want to dismiss the possibility or danger of left-wing authoritarianism. We have plenty examples of that. I do what to emphasize that fascism in particular is not one of them. It is a specific form of conservative authoritarianism that relies heavily on conservative ideology, specifically the desire for hierarchy. In every political movement we would identify as fascist, progressives and communists were the first group to be attacked as the fascists rose to power.
Maybe the current instance of the government.
But as for the idea of government in general, the opinions are sharply different across the aisle.
In my own small world of political banter, the number of people who have floated, or not disagreed with the concept of balkanizing the U.S.A is astounding. When I grew up, America was the greatest country in the world, and now my friends say - well we tried. Maybe balkanization would be easier since nobody can seem to agree on a damn thing, not even the budget!
The farther apart the two sides of the political sphere, the less the work together to actually produce tangible results for the average American, the less happy and healthy the average American - the more likely we as Americans are to support a scrapping of it all and supporting Communism, Anarchism, Direct Democracy, Fascism, Theocracy, or other ideologies, and not Republicanism (that is, being a republic).
The rough cop and action movies of the 1980s and 1990s are far more subtile and intelligent than most superhero flicks. Watch Die Hard for example. It has actual characterization. You get at least a bit of a sense for who the characters are, their motives, and their flaws. I'm not saying it's high art but compared to the average comic book flick it's quite deep. The hero is a divorced cop who has obviously thrown himself into his work to numb his emotional pain. The villain comes off like a narcissist whose crimes are motivated by a burning desire to become the moneyed aristocrat he believes himself entitled to be. Throughout the film you can see the hero at least indirectly confront some of his personal demons while the villain's narcissism drives him further into depravity and in the end is his ruin.
I wonder if the rise of fascist thinking of the 4chan /pol variety among younger people can in part be explained by their entire generation having been raised on a steady diet of comic book flicks and of course similar "fanservice" Anime.
Really interesting read, and something that I have thought about quite a few times while seeing how popular these movies are nowadays
[1] https://academicworks.cuny.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4...
It certainly seems like a lot of super hero franchises were started as outright far right propaganda, even if now, the profit motives of the licensee corporations have dulled the messaging somewhat.
I think 'The Incredibles' is an interesting movie in this regard. It's probably the most family friendly pro fascist romp ever made.
The protagonists are literally Ubermensch held back by an ignorant and fearful society. The evil goal of the bad guy is to give everyone super powers. It wouldn't be possible to spell this out any clearer.
https://boards.4chan.org/search#/capeshit
Deleted Comment
4chan is a contrarian website. The "rise of fascist thinking" is directly related to younger people being brought up on a steady diet of social justice nonsense being forced on them from every direction, for which the obvious opposite and most contrarian stance is the one held by the one and only, the late Adolf Hitler.
- the patronizing Übermensch (literally "Superman") on whom "the weak" must rely - moral nihilism of the "good" guys winning by force - patriarchal masculinity left and right - the untarnished benevolence of the Pentagon
Their entire purpose is to help American audiences perform the mental gymnastics (pun intended) of differentiating "good" Populist Nationalism from "bad" Populist Nationalism.
0. (e.g. the replicator is entirely fantastical, but allows Starfleet to make allegedly realistic points about the politics of abundance and deprivation)
2018 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17413908
2016 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12173823
That lets me find and scan past threads fairly quickly to find the interesting ones. It's still too manual, though; I need to make more steps towards automation. I'm not sure it can be fully automated because you have to do human interventions to either track down relevant past threads or exclude boring ones. The endgame is probably not to fully automate these lists but to have software generate a starter version and then give the community ways to edit it.
The only place that recalling things off the top of my head (or somewhere in the poorly-lit middle of it) plays a role is that often I vaguely remember that there existed a discussion about $X in past years and then tweak the searches till I find it.
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
A nice prediction – note the frequency with which news organizations list quotes from Twitter in this capacity.