
Ur-Fascism by Umberto Eco (1995) - azuajef
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1995/06/22/ur-fascism/
======
mturmon
What an insightful piece. It is interwoven with Eco's experience as a kid in
Fascist Italy, but written 50 years later. At the end is a little listicle of
typical characteristics of a Fascist movement, with a careful indication that
not all will be present.

Being written in 1995, the training set is independent of the test set, and
one is thus free to find parallels in the current moment:

"Irrationalism also depends on the cult of _action for action’s sake_. Action
being beautiful in itself, it must be taken before, or without, any previous
reflection. Thinking is a form of emasculation."

"Ur-Fascism grows up and seeks for consensus by exploiting and exacerbating
the natural fear of difference. The first appeal of a fascist or prematurely
fascist movement is an appeal against the intruders."

"To people who feel deprived of a clear social identity, Ur-Fascism says that
their only privilege is the most common one, to be born in the same country.
This is the origin of nationalism."

~~~
Snargorf
It's pretty trivial to apply these signals to nearly any collectivist social
movement.

1\. Action for action's sake - Black Lives Matter protests to block highways.

2\. Exploit the fear of difference - Those horrible racist uneducated people
are nothing like us, we can't let them take the country! This is basic
tribalism and it applies to every major social movement.

3\. Rewritten: "To people who feel deprived of a clear social identity, Anti-
Fascism says that their only privilege is the most common one, to be good,
moral egalitarians. This is the origin of anti-fascism."

Here I've applied them to Western progressivism, but if you deny the basic
assumptions of any collectivist social movement you could apply them.
Scientology, communism, socialism, fascism. Switch a few unimportant words and
there you are with the same meaningless parallels.

The human mind is a great pattern matching machine but has a problem with
false positives.

EDIT: It's important to remember when comparing Trump to old fascists that the
people who defeated those fascists enacted Trump's policies. For example, in
1945, immigration policy in all western countries was effectively, "whites
only".

So if you're gonna notice parallels between Trump and Hitler, you have to
notice even closer parallels between Trump and the people who defeated Hitler.
You should also notice the differences: Trump is an isolationist who wants to
start wars less than Hillary - a lot like pre-WW2 America.

~~~
apalmer
Your points are valid, but that kind misses the major thrust of the
argument... which is that facism isn't based on a shared set of common
principles or political thought, facism is in the authors opinion not linked
to specific beliefs...

as for trump being a facist, i think the primary reason he wouldnt be a facist
is he doesnt really seem to have any strong interest in athoratarian
centralized power... in fact if anything unless kaisich is actually just flat
out lying, he is pretty open about wanting to minimize his day to day control
and be more of a symbol for the movement... thats extremely un-facist

~~~
morgante
Actually, the Kasich offer makes his fascist tendencies clearer to me. Trump
is _not_ interested in actually governing or implementing policies, he's
interested in having a massive adoring audience.

Like historical fascists, he doesn't care what policies get him that power and
adoration. He'd be happy running an isolationist government, but just as happy
militantly dropping nuclear bombs in the Middle East.

The one consistent in Trump's political "career" is a worship of power. He's
obsessed with winners and losers, and if you're winning he likes you. If you
criticize him, he hates you and will try to destroy you, whether it's legal or
not. I don't think he could, as president, tolerate a free press.

------
ScottBurson
Along similar lines let me recommend a couple of Adam Gopnik pieces on Trump
and fascism:

[http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/going-there-
with...](http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/going-there-with-donald-
trump)

[http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/being-honest-
abo...](http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/being-honest-about-trump)

This in particular echoes Eco:

 _The arguments about whether [Trump] meets every point in some static fascism
matrix show a misunderstanding of what that ideology involves. It is the
essence of fascism to have no single fixed form—an attenuated form of
nationalism in its basic nature, it naturally takes on the colors and
practices of each nation it infects. In Italy, it is bombastic and
neoclassical in form; in Spain, Catholic and religious; in Germany, violent
and romantic. It took forms still crazier and more feverishly sinister, if one
can imagine, in Romania, whereas under Oswald Mosley, in England, its manner
was predictably paternalistic and aristocratic. It is no surprise that the
American face of fascism would take on the forms of celebrity television and
the casino greeter’s come-on, since that is as much our symbolic scene as
nostalgic re-creations of Roman splendors once were Italy’s.

What all forms of fascism have in common is the glorification of the nation,
and the exaggeration of its humiliations, with violence promised to its
enemies, at home and abroad; the worship of power wherever it appears and
whoever holds it; contempt for the rule of law and for reason; unashamed
employment of repeated lies as a rhetorical strategy; and a promise of
vengeance for those who feel themselves disempowered by history._

~~~
internaut
> What all forms of fascism have in common is the glorification of the nation,
> and the exaggeration of its humiliations, with violence promised to its
> enemies, at home and abroad; the worship of power wherever it appears and
> whoever holds it; contempt for the rule of law and for reason; unashamed
> employment of repeated lies as a rhetorical strategy; and a promise of
> vengeance for those who feel themselves disempowered by history.

What is the difference between this, and North Korean or Soviet Communism? Is
there a difference?

~~~
dragonwriter
Soviet Communism, while _also_ a totalitarian system (and thus sharing those
features that fascism has not as _unique_ to fascism, but as common to all
totalitarianisms) differed in some key ways from that list; notably, while it
certainly did not _erase_ pre-existing Russian national pride, embraced
internationalism and global class-identity as opposed to glorification of the
nation.

~~~
guard-of-terra
> certainly did not erase pre-existing Russian national pride

It did. Crushing pre-existing Russian national pride was central to Soviet
dogma, they called it "великодержавный шовинизм".

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korenizatsiya#Against_Great-
Ru...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korenizatsiya#Against_Great-
Russian_chauvinism)

~~~
dragonwriter
> Crushing pre-existing Russian national pride was central to Soviet dogma

Dogma and reality often differed quite a bit in the Soviet Union; I would say
that the evidence is that the USSR _did not_ actually crush pre-existing
Russian national pride, although they managed to temporarily transfer the
outward expression of that pride into what was, at least superficially,
expression of pride in the Soviet State rather than the Russian nation. This
still, though -- despite the internationalist orientation of the Leninist
ideology -- retained a substantial nationalist tinge, even if oriented around
a new and somewhat broader national identity.

------
benbenolson
It would be the height of insanity to not read this piece and be wary of the
combination of ideologies that can lead to fascism, and to draw parallels to
modern times. I can't comment much on the individual points because I've never
lived in a fascist country, but they do seem to lead to a combined ideology
that would further the reaching powers of an aspiring fascist.

As an American, however, I can't help but think that the increasingly bold
steps that our government is taking towards authoritarianism is making this
piece all the more relevant: both parties are guilty of increasing the
strength and powers of the government, as well as unnecessarily using the
might of the military for nebulous gains. No longer do political candidates
debate individual issues; instead, they appeal to a persona that the populous
wants to see. Some might simply call it "entertainment", not "politics." This
is an unnerving trend.

Were our federal government less powerful overall: financially, legally, etc.,
pieces like this would be less pertinent due to the "spreading out" of power
that Italy nor Germany never had.

~~~
noobermin
Here's a novel thought:

At least some of the points Eco mentioned _do not require_ an authoritarian
government to implement. For example, selective populism and racism were alive
and well in the South prior to the 60's, and happily administered in a
democratic system. It took, yes, a powerful government to break it up.

Removing all power from the government transforms a nation into a state of
nature that empowers such fascist and elitist groups to suppress marginalized
groups in the same way an authoritarian government would. This is why many
neo-fascists and alt-righters pay lip-service to libertarian (or classically
liberal) ideals and the two groups often overlap in practice, because a truly
stateless nation would allow the "weak" to be dominated by the "naturally
strong", ie., this or that better poised group.

Counter-intuitively, a state is required to maintain individual liberty, I
think.

PS: To be fair, I think most people who are libertarian do not want the state
of nature. For example, libertarians, AFAIK, want a government that protects
property rights for example. Yes, I think if one considers Snowden's
revelations, these developments don't enable the state's protection of
individual liberty arguably. As we've seen, they haven't been very effective
while instead are very compromising of individuals' rights.

It comes down to details, but blanket removal of all power the state just
places power in the hands of the de-facto elites. It's a delicate balance we
have to strike and yes debate.

~~~
manachar
"Counter-intuitively, a state is required to maintain individual liberty, I
think."

Why is this counterintuitive to so many people? This was one of the prime
reasonings by almost all Enlightenment-era thinkers for the reason for a
government, including it being beautifully laid out in the Declaration of
Independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that
they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among
these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these
rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from
the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes
destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to
abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such
principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most
likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

The key line is "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among
Men".

~~~
te_chris
It's like people forget how govt. evolved, just completely ignore feudalism,
monarchism, tribalism etc. The reason we have democratic govt. is as a
reaction to systems like that - creating an entity more powerful than all
single groups but accountable to all (in theory). Of course, it turns out
power always finds a way to concentrate, but that's just life, and why it's so
important to have a strong and critical civil society as a bulwark against the
concentration of power.

------
openasocket
OK, so this was obviously brought up because of the parallels with Trump, but
while reading I noticed another group that strongly aligns with these
principles: ISIS. I've mostly thought of them as a regressive, extremist
theocracy, but they really do match up with every one of these points. You
have the cult of tradition and rejection of modernism, action for action's
sake, a fear of difference, obsession with violence, and most especially the
cult of heroism (martyrdom).

I wonder if this is just coincidence, or if the recent explosion of Islamic
extremism is a new variation on Fascism.

~~~
nooron
I think this is a very fair comparison. One important way that I think people
miss is their demographic similarity. Fascism was largely a movement of young
people, especially men. This is true of ISIS.

To be clear, I don't think how you deal with ISIS is the same as Nazi Germany
because they are also quite different in practical and ideological terms.

It's worth considering that ISIS is at least nominally a globalist, not
nationalist movement– they have a vision of umma/Islamic community that means
to include all races. This is not true of the Third Reich.

~~~
openasocket
ISIS has two faces: the globalist terrorist group that organizes out suicide
bombings and shootings all over the world, and the sectarian militia group
which conquers and holds territory. The nation-state component is very much
like Nazi Germany: it's going around conquering its neighbors, persecuting
minorities, and there is active resistance from those they have conquered.

Though, as a nation-state ISIS is rather weak; most of its perceived strength
comes from the global terrorist attacks. I wonder what would have become of
the Nazis if they hadn't taken control of Germany, or if they failed to amass
enough military power to invade other nations. Perhaps they would have
switched to guerrilla-style tactics and terrorist attacks?

------
clock_tower
At least for me, the most novel item in here, the one thing that makes the
whole article invaluable, was the 14th point on Eco's list: the use of
Newspeak and simplified language. I had never heard of this, but it's not
surprising; it's internally consistent with the rest of what I know about
Naziism and Fascism in general. It also reminds me of "Kids Against Trump",
founded by a 9-year-old who could understand every word in Trump's speeches
and was, accordingly, thoroughly creeped out.
([http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2016/07/why-
are...](http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2016/07/why-are-third-
graders-afraid-of-donald-trump/491567/))

Of course, Trump isn't likely to murder dissidents, and he has no desire for
us-against-the-world unwinnable wars of conquest; likewise, I don't see a
timeline in which Marine Le Pen revives Napoleon's ambitions, so the current
alt-right moment has its advantages over historical fascism. (Alt-right-ness
in general seems to be about staying home and hating/expelling foreigners,
rather than looking for glory outside one's borders.) But these are unsettled
times, all the same, and if you'd told me in the 1990s what I'd be seeing in
the 2010s, I would never have believed you...

~~~
jimbokun
"Of course, Trump isn't likely to murder dissidents..."

He has expressed great enthusiasm for locking up dissident journalists and
committing war crimes against those he considers enemies, and boasted he could
murder someone in the street and remain incredibly popular.

So, no, he hasn't quite outright expressed a willingness to murder dissidents,
but seems to get a little closer to this line every day.

~~~
dragonwriter
Perhaps more to the point, he's specifically said it was a problem that there
weren't "consequences" to protesting any more, lamenting that "nobody wants to
hurt eachother any more", and that "In the good old days, this doesn't happen
because they used to treat them very, very rough, and when they protested
once, they would not do it again so easily", blaming the present tolerance for
protest on the fact that "we've become weak".

------
atemerev
I remember this essay being widely cited a few years ago in Russia, as being
more and more relevant to the recent changes in our politics.

Now it is becoming more and more relevant to the rest of the world.

Russia: pioneering the world's social change since 1917.

~~~
etangent
That's a really interesting and overlooked point. If correct (that is, if
populist/proto-fascistic tendencies in modern Russia exist and have something
in common with their equivalents in the West), it almost seems to overturn the
commonly accepted theory that the rise of dangerous populism in everywhere is
mostly due to economic stagnation -- since by comparison, Russia have done
quite well in the past decade up until the drop of oil prices.

------
ajuc
I've read this years before, but reading it now I can't help to feel it very
relevant to current state of Polish (and probably not only Polish) democracy.

There is minority, but growing "cultural Catholics" that don't particulary
care about the dekalog, anticonception and all that, but will leash on you for
"LGBT propaganda", demand that Catholic symbols are prominent everywhere, and
Islam/whatever other symbols are removed.

They consider the current pope "too leftist" because he quotes Jesus on
refuges. They "are not antisemitist, but these damn Jews control Poland". It's
connected with Polish nationalism, EU-scepticism, and outright racism
sometimes, and for a few years already it's "cool" to be a nationalist in
15-25 age group.

They are also persuaded nationalism is the default state, in each country, and
it's only the leftist media conspiracy that covers that up.

And these people are actively encouraged by current conservative government
(probably with their noses held, but what that changes?) because they are the
obvious demographics that can help them against the main centro-liberal
opposition parties.

Their propaganda is anti-intellectual, refers to "common sense" against
scientific theories, ignores all subtle distinctions and paints very "we vs
them" world, calls everybody disagreeing with them "traitors", and sees a
conspiracy of Soros and leftist behind everything.

It's very sad to see how bad political luck and cynism can undo so much
progress in so short time.

------
riffraff
I know people are inclined to read this in terms of Trump, so let me just
remind people of this: Berlusconi entered the political arena in Italy in
1994, so this piece, from 1995, might have been very likely inspired by a
somewhat similar situation.

EDIT: not in the sense that B. was an evil fascist, but in the more important
sense of "Freedom and liberation are an unending task"

~~~
toyg
Agree. '90s Italy was in a state of turmoil: the economy was tanking, public
finances were in disarray, the Balkans were exploding producing waves of
refugees, old political parties were dying... in the newly-empty ideological
landscape, Berlusconi saw an opening and took it. Rivers of ink were spent
analysing that phenomenon, under the fear that we were witnessing a new
Mussolini. In the end he never went full-fascist, his movement self-deflated
under the weight of its own contradictions, and he buried his head in sexual
escapades.

The experience of living my formative years under Berlusconi makes me
optimistic on Trump. "The Donald" does not control the media landscape to the
degree that Berlusconi did (or could have done); his conflicts of interest are
minor; his platform is much more confusing and badly put together; and even
most of his own footsoldiers don't take him too seriously, which is why he had
to get a fundie for VP. Silvio was in a much better position, with more
fanatical followers and widespread support from the establishment, and stil
achieved very little, because the country stubbornly refused to bow to his
demands. I expect Americans will similarly drag their feet. You can't dig a
moat if people won't pick up their shovels.

~~~
willholloway
I tend to agree on Trump, as someone who has been studying him and the
campaign closely.

In the final analysis, if he were to be elected, I think he would be a fairly
typical Republican president, and one that seriously toned down the GOP's
cultural conservatism.

From looking at his history and my take on his personality, if he were to take
office he would want to 'win' at the job.

I think that for him 'winning' at president would be measured by economic
metrics and his approval numbers.

I went into the cycle outraged at the fascistic overtones of his campaign, and
fearful. Now I think it was mostly showmanship and an effort to win the votes
of the rubes in the GOP base.

I think he would approach the job as being CEO of America, and focus on
economic growth and negotiating better 'deals' for the country.

He will quickly find that the ISIS problem is intractable, and that he has
seriously overpromised on that front. The situation is going to escalate no
matter who takes office. There is no sizable cohort in America working on de-
escalating tensions with the Islamic world, no peace movement to be found.

The West has a serious empathy deficit in regards to the Middle East. It just
can't see past the religious identity of the terrorists, and see it as
essentially a desperate and weak revenge effort by people that feel
transgressed against and humiliated. This blind spot means more aerial killer
robots, and more pissed off people on the other end of those hellfires.

Both Trump and Hillary will inevitably play right into the hands of the
extremists, and the diabolical ISIS plan of eliminating the grey zone will no
doubt work, as Europe's social cohesion is on the brink and repression against
the Muslim population will no doubt increase due to these grotesque asymmetric
terror attacks. This is a very sad state of affairs for liberalism, and the
chance for peace in our time.

Tragically, it's going to be counterproductive military action from the West,
and insane, lunatic barbarism from the Islamic side in response.

The current phase of this conflict really kicked off when I was just 17, on
9/11/2001, it heated up during my 20's and got seriously out of control around
when I turned 30.

Lately I've been pondering the fact that I've never been the victim of a
terror attack, and I've never fought in a conflict overseas. My entire
interface with the horror show has strictly been through the media, and just
the images and knowledge has effected me very negatively. I could have just
avoided the news and lived in safe and tranquil ignorance. Instead I've
endured this impotent worry, a feeling of something terrible happening to
people all around the world that I could do nothing to save.

I'm now resigned to this stupid conflict continuing for my entire life.

~~~
amyjess
> and one that seriously toned down the GOP's cultural conservatism.

That's not going to happen. The GOP's 2016 platform is its most anti-LGBT
platform ever, and it's going to gain traction because a GOP president isn't
going to do anything to block the GOP's legislative agenda. Even if Trump
doesn't personally do anything to advance the GOP's anti-LGBT agenda, the fact
that he won't even try to stop it will cause untold damage to our rights. He's
not going to veto his own party's bills.

Also, remember that some of the most important advances to LGBT rights in the
last few years have been the result of Obama using Title IX and the EEOC to
fight discrimination. Trump isn't going to continue that.

~~~
willholloway
I wasn't aware of the GOP's platform this year, and now that I've looked into
it I see what you mean.

My take from watching the RNC was what seemed to me to be a new found
inclusiveness of the GOP, with Peter Thiel's prominent speaking spot, and
several speakers including Trump himself vowing to include and defend LGBTQ
Americans.

I took it as the strength of the civil rights movement and it's victories over
the last eight years. Just from watching the convention I took away that the
LGBTQ movement has won, and even the historically adversarial GOP seemed to
have to concede.

It seemed that the GOP had changed, but from the party platform it seems that
the producers of the RNC and the rank and file power base of the GOP are at
odds.

------
edgarvaldes
It's interesting to see Trump being mentioned here (I'm not american, so I
read the article from a very distinct perspective and background). Eco lists
14 features of Ur-Fascism. Do you find more than one in the Trump Campaign?

~~~
bbctol
All of the features are pretty vague and certainly up for debate, but here's
my shot at the potential links to the Trump campaign:

1\. Cult of tradition. This, I think, has the weakest link to Trump; obviously
the "Make America Great _Again_ " slogan speaks to nostalgia, but I do think
Eco here is talking about a particular kind of primordial, ancient tradition
that is present in European fascism. America doesn't really have the sense of
a people dating back thousands of years, so we avoid it.

2\. Rejection of modernism. Again, Eco is speaking here to some specific
aspects of the Enlightenment vs pre-modern ways of thought, but I do think
there is a connection here to Trump's focus on a manufacturing/manual labor-
based middle class vs. a service sector, educated economy. He "loves the
uneducated" and "wonders why we don't make anything anymore"; the modern world
is too abstract and irrelevant a place.

3\. Cult of action. Uh, absolutely. It's honestly hard to find a place in
Trump's rhetoric where this doesn't appear. Universities are filled with
effete snobs, and thinking is a form of emasculation; Trump will take action,
won't listen to the so-called experts, will consult his gut, etc.

4\. Disagreement is treason. Again, definitely. Trump's said repeatedly that
he attacks anyone who attacks him ten times over, be they other politicians or
members of the media, and promises to inflict harsh penalties on members of
the press who criticize him.

5\. Fear of difference. America is under attack by Muslims, Mexicans, and
China, all of whom are broad categories to be feared and met with strength.

6\. Appeal to a frustrated middle class. Trump's base of support are those who
have seen other groups make greater strides in recent years, the white,
largely (at least nominally) Christian, less-educated manufacturing class.
They're definitely suffering feelings of humiliation, in part warranted, that
Trump's tapping in to; he is against the free trade agreements blamed for
their job loss and the social mores that have propped up other races, genders,
and identities.

7\. Obsession with plot. At its most obvious, there's Trump's famous view of
global warming as a Chinese conspiracy to hurt manufacturing, and his
perception that Obama is not born in America, and may be cooperating with
terrorists ("if he's so smart, something else is happening.") Still, I'd call
this debatable; Trump certainly doesn't have the obsession with conspiracy of
the Nazis (although who did?) and the particular place of the Jews is
different in a modern American cultural context. Not that people who _are_
obsessed with Jewish plots aren't big Trump supporters, of course.

8\. Shifting rhetoric; opponents are both humiliatingly strong and too weak. I
think this is again reflected in his rhetoric on Obama; he's a weak President
who isn't respected, but also a dictator trying to control your lives. This
also isn't as strong, though.

9\. Life is struggle. Not always a big theme in the campaign so far, but lots
of Trump statements from books and interviews say, pretty directly, that he
believes life is a constant struggle and you always need to be the strongest
and the best. He hasn't taken this to the warmongering lengths that
traditional fascists do, though; it's more of a philosophical theme than a
declaration of actual war. Again, we're in a very different geopolitical
context to that of early fascists, and all-out war is harder to sell.

10\. Popular elitism. Hard to say. A component of fascist societies, rather
than a particular trait of the leader, and we don't know what Trump's America
will look like, and how much of that will have to do with Trump.

11\. Cult of heroism and death. Not really. We're going to win and keep on
winning. (A boot against a human face--forever!)

12\. Machismo. Yup. Disdain for women and need for strength and dominance.
Well-attested.

13\. Selective populism. Absolutely. Trump is the voice of the people, in his
own words, and derives his legitimacy from having been elected through a
pretty bizarre process. Trump supporters are the real Americans, his enemies
are not a part of the populace he wants to lead. "The emotional response of a
small group of people" has been selected. "Wherever a politician casts doubt
on the legitimacy of a parliament because it no longer represents the Voice of
the People, we can smell Ur-Fascism."

14\. Newspeak. Debatable, as fun as it is to link Trump's simple vocabulary to
simple ideas. I'm less in the Sapir-Whorf camp than Orwell; I think Trump's
use of simple sentences is more a reflection of a simple worldview than cause.
But, I suppose it is hard to debate him when he has such vague positions, and
those vague positions are established with the use of basic language. We're
going to win. How? We're going to do it right, that's how!

I'm at work right now (oops) so this is poorly sourced and mainly based on
memory. I definitely think you can apply these categories in lots of ways,
depending on your political bias, and as much as I adore Eco, he shouldn't be
taken as the final word on fascism and politics in general. That said...
there's a lot of fascism in Trump.

~~~
jfoutz
> This, I think, has the weakest link to Trump; obviously the "Make America
> Great Again" slogan speaks to nostalgia, but I do think Eco here is talking
> about a particular kind of primordial, ancient tradition that is present in
> European fascism. America doesn't really have the sense of a people dating
> back thousands of years, so we avoid it.

I disagree. As other posters pointed out Fascism infects with it's own unique
flavor of the host country. In the US, post ww2 was an idilic time (not
really, but there's so much rockwell imagery). It's post slavery and genocide.
It ends with landing on the moon.

The mythic version of the post war boom is appealing. High paying jobs. A
house with a white picket fence. A new car every few years. Everyone lives in
a small town and knows their neighbors. Kids go fishing with grandpa. it's a
fantasy, it avoids so many deep problems, but it's easy to see the appeal.

I would expect trump to knock off "morning in america" [1] for his positive
ads. (if he winds up having positive ads).

[1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EU-
IBF8nwSY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EU-IBF8nwSY)

~~~
flubert
>High paying jobs. A house with a white picket fence. A new car every few
years. Everyone lives in a small town and knows their neighbors. Kids go
fishing with grandpa. it's a fantasy

...can you tell us a little bit more about how you see the fantasy part? Is
that something you think is unobtainable for most people? And the reason is
automation, or globalism, or climate change, or X. (I'm just curious to get
another/urban/foreign perspective, since my kids just got back from two weeks
of fishing with Grandpa, but we don't have a picket fence).

~~~
jfoutz
When my mother was a little girl, she traveled with her grandmother across the
country, probably 1958 or so. They stopped at a gas station. My mother went in
the "wrong" bathroom. It created an awkward situation.

The post ww2 boom had some wonderful effects. There were, and still are some
ugly aspects to that time that are easy to gloss over. IIRC, it wasn't legally
possible to rape a spouse. The Cuyahoga River was so polluted it would catch
on fire, the largest in 1952.

There were some very ugly parts to that time. if you weren't a white man with
a good job, i think it was pretty rough. The nostalgic view tends to wash away
those ugly parts.

 _edit_

This is probably a harsher reply than was warrented by your question, but...
it's easy to be misty eyed about that time. I wasn't around, but i think it
sucked for a lot of people.

~~~
flubert
Ah, I misunderstood what you said, and the fantasy part is the overlooking of
historical problems. Any thoughts on the white picket fence as an aspiration
nowadays?

~~~
jfoutz
I'd hope people do what they like. You want it, go for it! But if you really
want a little apartment with a cat and stacks of books, go for that. I think
there's was a pressure to get married, buy a house and start having kids, at
least through the 80's. There's nothing wrong with that, and it makes lots of
people happy. I could do that, but i don't want the commute.

------
brlewis
The article compares the term "fascism" to the term "game" in that it names a
family of things that may not share any given trait.

If I say the stock market is a game, I have some hope people will understand
I'm saying there are winners or losers. If I say commenting on HN is a game I
have some hope people will understand I'm saying it's more for amusement than
for any other purpose.

With the term "fascism" I have no such hope. Nobody understands if I say
"Trump is fascist" or "Hillary is fascist" unless we're already thinking along
the same lines, in which case I'm not communicating anything new.

My conclusion is that "fascism" is not a useful term for discussion.

~~~
morgante
> Nobody understands if I say "Drumpf is fascist" or "Hillary is fascist"
> unless we're already thinking along the same lines, in which case I'm not
> communicating anything new.

I think you're right when it comes to Internet commenting, but it's possible.

I've personally convinced a few people to support Johnson instead of Trump by
pointing out the distinctively fascist elements of his campaign. Thinking
people are entirely polarized and unwilling to listen to respectful points
just enhances polarization.

------
bobthechef
Speaking of modernism, this encyclical from 1907 has very interesting things
to say about the subject. Interpreting fascism's relation to modernism in this
light, and interpreting Eco's essay in this light, are fascinating.

[http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-x/en/encyclicals/documents...](http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-x/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-
x_enc_19070908_pascendi-dominici-gregis.html)

~~~
bobthechef
Also this interesting note about "games" and irrationality and how they relate
to Eco:

[http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2016/02/the-real-umberto-
ec...](http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2016/02/the-real-umberto-eco-how-
deeply.html)

------
MichaelMoser123
fourteen defining features for fascism; i think that's a lot, some of them are
framed very broadly, and i don't quite see how they all interconnect.

I wonder why it does not include 'readiness to suppress your political
opponent', i would have thought that this is the defining feature of fascism;
you can be all of the fourteen features, but as long as you don't smack your
political opponents you are not a real fascist.

~~~
nekopa
I think that's covered by point 4, dissent is treason.

~~~
MichaelMoser123
you still need to be prepared to actively punish the traitors; for instance
any religion would view non believers in their congregation as some form of
traitors, but not all religions would be ready to burn them at the stake or do
anything about it.

------
frabbit
Anyone else remember this (very beautifully written and interesting) piece
being rolled out during previous elections?

Interesting that Clinton is stumping with the Bushes (the previous boogeymen)
now: [https://www.yahoo.com/news/hillary-clinton-invokes-
unlikely-...](https://www.yahoo.com/news/hillary-clinton-invokes-unlikely-
allies-000000292.html)

~~~
dragonwriter
> Interesting that Clinton is stumping with the Bushes (the previous
> boogeymen) now: [https://www.yahoo.com/news/hillary-clinton-invokes-
> unlikely-...](https://www.yahoo.com/news/hillary-clinton-invokes-
> unlikely-..).

She's not stumping with the Bushes, and that article doesn't indicate that she
is.

------
unimpressive
For a slightly different perspective from Mussolini:

[http://legacy.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/mussolini-
fascism.asp](http://legacy.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/mussolini-fascism.asp)

[https://archive.org/details/MyAutobiography](https://archive.org/details/MyAutobiography)

Primary sources are important, they give you details and textures that are
smoothed over in a retelling or distillation.

My personal opinion, since this story has basically become about whether or
not Trump represents an American Fascist movement, is that crying fascism all
the time is very much a 'boy who cried wolf' scenario. I don't think Trump is
a fascist per se. Moreover, considering that fascism was a term adopted by the
left to describe the heretical forms of syndicalism, socialism, etc that split
from Leninism in the early to mid 20th century and was used for the POUM[1] as
readily as Hitler's SS[2] I submit that the term in fact means nothing.
Fascism has no central character because it's a bogeyman of self described
antifas who want to import European style street brawl politics[3] into the
United States.

Instead of trying to conceptualize and denounce Trump in terms of the past, I
think it would be more effective to point out the concrete dangers he
represents to domestic and foreign policy with his actual stated politics, or
his hypocrisy, or any of the other many traits you can go after with him.[4]

[1]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homage_to_catalonia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homage_to_catalonia)

[2]: They are after all the National _Socialists_. Though by the time Hitler
was appointed Chancellor the actual 'socialist' wing of the party had been
purged to win over the minds of wealthy donors.

[3]: [http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-neo-nazi-
event-s...](http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-neo-nazi-event-
stabbings-capitol-20160627-snap-story.html)

[4]: For example, compare this
([https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOJrYxHQO-E&nohtml5=False](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOJrYxHQO-E&nohtml5=False))
Ted Cruz ad to John Kaisch's invoking Godwin.
([https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_isVZN65Ss&nohtml5=False](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_isVZN65Ss&nohtml5=False))

~~~
mark_edward
[http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=fascist](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=fascist)

~~~
unimpressive
Yes. Which is why where my post originally said 'invented' I changed to
'adopted'. (In all probability you read the version which said 'adopted',
since I made that change soon after I wrote it.)

------
vog
I wish the article had some more historical treatment of fascism. It starts
with nazi germany and WWII, but fascism started earlier in Germany, going back
at least as far as the "Pan-German League" (1891-1939), who essentially laid
the ideological foundation on which almost all modern rightists build their
theories.

EDIT: Make my point clearer.

~~~
jljljl
I think the author was less interested in describing the ideology from a
historical perspective, and more interested in pointing out warning signs that
could signal an ideological movement is trending towards fascism.

His point is that a future rise of fascism might not look like the path from
the Pan-German League to the Nazis, but it will have some ideological
hallmarks that we can detect.

~~~
dhconnelly
Right. This is comparative rather than historical - looking at a few fascist
movements in recent times and distilling a common core.

------
fatdog
Few object to fascism when it was _their_ fascism. When you use it as a catch-
all euphemism for evil, sure it sounds bad. But more often than not, fascism
is a trope held up to make otherwise totalitarian ideas seem moderate.

I have no love for people who identify as fascists, as to me they are just
morbid personalities fixated on a nostalgia for ugliness. Same type of people
who like slasher/torture films.

But, some alt-right'ists (trigger warning) have put some recent thought into
the topic: [http://www.jack-donovan.com/axis/2013/03/anarcho-
fascism/](http://www.jack-donovan.com/axis/2013/03/anarcho-fascism/)

It is fairly well considered. These days, Eco is an old hack doomed to the
museum/prison of being a national treasure. He has become too precious to
edit, and his books are mainly didactic posturing for middle brow book clubs.
His criticisms provide a kind of hall of mirrors for people who already
believe in them, and don't provide actual illumination.

------
syntheticnature
Mods, can we get a (1995) on here?

~~~
Florin_Andrei
Sure, but the ideas described are largely timeless.

~~~
ChuckMcM
I think it is important to understand that this was in 1995 looking forward,
as opposed to trying to create things that describe the current situation and
cherry picking details to fit the narrative. I have often expressed the
opinion that Donald Trump's campaign, and his vision for the country, is
reflective of a fascist ideology. That is hard for someone to hear who doesn't
consider themselves a fascist but supports Trump because it challenges them to
see that both statements that they hold to be true, can not be true. To sway
their feeling of cognitive dissonance they attack the facts and assert bias
and cherry picking.

Umberto Eco knows nothing of Trump's campaign as he writes, so he cannot be
cherry picking his facts out of the current affairs. That is why I consider it
important to know this was written in 1995.

~~~
flubert
>That is hard for someone to hear who doesn't consider themselves a fascist
but supports Trump because it challenges them to see that both statements that
they hold to be true, can not be true. To sway their feeling of cognitive
dissonance they attack the facts and assert bias and cherry picking.

I wonder what people's thoughts are about a "crying wolf" type of phenomena
developing? What if people just started shrugging their shoulders, and saying
if I support Trump and that's fascist, then I'm a fascist, oh well? Kind of
like "racism" as a term is starting to lose its sting. People just say, "I
thought everyone was racist", and "I thought there is no such thing as race
(so therefore you can't be a racist)".

~~~
theorique
_I wonder what people 's thoughts are about a "crying wolf" type of phenomena
developing? What if people just started shrugging their shoulders, and saying
if I support Trump and that's fascist, then I'm a fascist, oh well? Kind of
like "racism" as a term is starting to lose its sting. People just say, "I
thought everyone was racist", and "I thought there is no such thing as race
(so therefore you can't be a racist)"._

I definitely believe this is happening. The Left is overplaying their hand
because their targeted adversary is doing reasonably (and unexpectedly) well.
So they are deploying out the big words like "racist" and "sexist" and now,
"fascist".

And lots of American voters are reading his platform and policies and
thinking, "hmm, that policy seems like common sense - does that mean that (1)
the Left is in error in labeling Trump a fascist or (2) I, myself, am a
fascist and maybe fascism is not really that bad?"

Ultimately, a single word is too reductive to apply to a candidate and his
policies. But lots of voters are too lazy to read or listen to full sentences
and paragraphs, so we are locked into these simplifications.

~~~
Florin_Andrei
> _But lots of voters are too lazy to read or listen to full sentences and
> paragraphs, so we are locked into these simplifications._

I would say you could take it for granted that a large majority of people are
like that most of the time. And I think it's very likely that this phenomenon
was consciously and cynically exploited, and therefore facilitated the
lowering of standards and the rise of bullshit in American politics in the
last 20 years or so.

------
sbierwagen
(1995)

------
lintiness
i guess we're supposed to wax angry about trump here ...

