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."
In particular, I've observed that one hallmark of fascistic movements is an obsession with "emasculation" and condemnation of any society or part of society deemed "effeminate".
You can see it in the writings of Julius Evola. While Evola never described himself as a "fascist", it was only because he felt that Mussolini and the Fascist Party didn't go far enough. He was an extreme right-wing nationalist, and it's not uncommon for modern Neo-Nazi groups to quote his writing as if it were scripture. Evola was obsessed with the idea that healthy societies are masculine and degenerate societies are effeminate, and he wrote at length about how he felt that Jewish culture is both degenerate and effeminate.
It's also common in modern far-right white nationalist groups. You'll notice that many such communities describe men they don't like as "betas" and "cucks", and they blame society's problems on women becoming more and more prominent in society (and on feminist men, too, for letting women in; they especially get called "cucks").
And it's not just the white supremacists; I've observed the same obsession with "emasculation" in extremist Asian identity groups, which are typically dominated by unsuccessful Asian men blaming the fact that they can't get laid on a conspiracy of Asian women and white men to emasculate Asian men.
>"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."
Yep, the birth of fascism, ie. Italian fascism, was a final act of the Italian national independence process which started in the first half of 19th century. The independence from Austrian empire and from Catholic Church - Mussolini in particular finalized the relationships with papal states/Vatican.
Interesting that Mussolini started as Socialist and split with them on very similar grounds as the "bolsheviks"/Lenin split from Socialists in Russia around the same time - push for more forceful action, for unchecked power (dictatorship) - the difference being that in Russia Lenin was pushing for dictatorship of the working class while Mussolini was for dictatorship of the national state. While one may say that whose ideologies are of different colors, structurally they are the same and thus produced similar results - totalitarian states.
As an example, just replace national dimension with the "aristocracy - capitalists - worker class/peasants" dimension in the 2 quotes above and you'll get the socialist/communist principle of the "class war" and that idea that just by being of "working class" makes people intrinsically good and thus gives them moral power and entitles them to [dictatorially] rule and decide the fate of others.
The three items you list -- anti-intellectualism and love of physical action; xenophobia and fear of subversion; national or tribal supremacism -- remind me of the Scotch-Irish, especially the lowland Scotch-Irish who've traded in their dulcimers, moonshine, and family feuds for NASCAR, OxyContin, and Christian Dominionism.
How does one convince a society, especially a very xenophobic society, to abandon characteristics that make it unusually vulnerable to fascism?
> Being written in 1995, the training set is independent of the test set
There is an important bias effect in play. OF the books written in the past about the rise of tyranny, not all are brought up equally in discussions. It is easy to observe that people upvote articles that support their ideology and flag articles (concrete example: the recent terror attacks were flagkilled off the front page) that go against it.
The articles that make it though this filter are not independent of the test set.
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.
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.
> 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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
>I wonder if this is just coincidence, or if the recent explosion of Islamic extremism is a new variation on Fascism.
Several authors have studied the connection and found that the earliest Islamists (as we currently know them) actually cited the European fascists openly and approvingly, being contemporaries!
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...)
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...
Keep in mind, wrt Trump and conquest, he thinks we (the US) should break international law and claim oil (and other resources) from the countries that we've already invaded. And he still wants to take the war to ISIS. Even if it's not a war of conquest, it's still a war outside our borders and a major talking point of his campaign and his disparagement of Clinton and the Democratic Party (their apparent refusal to reference ISIS in particular and Islamic terrorism in general).
"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.
The hating foreigners and feeling constantly maligned can easily transition into "Are we going take being disrespected like that? Hell no! Let's go punch them in the face!" and the tanks start rolling.
If there's one bright side to Western Europe's 30+ years of low military spending, they don't have many tanks to send. Of course that's easily fixed as well.
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.
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.
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"
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.
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?
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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]
[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.
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.
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.
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.
[+] [-] mturmon|9 years ago|reply
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."
[+] [-] amyjess|9 years ago|reply
In particular, I've observed that one hallmark of fascistic movements is an obsession with "emasculation" and condemnation of any society or part of society deemed "effeminate".
You can see it in the writings of Julius Evola. While Evola never described himself as a "fascist", it was only because he felt that Mussolini and the Fascist Party didn't go far enough. He was an extreme right-wing nationalist, and it's not uncommon for modern Neo-Nazi groups to quote his writing as if it were scripture. Evola was obsessed with the idea that healthy societies are masculine and degenerate societies are effeminate, and he wrote at length about how he felt that Jewish culture is both degenerate and effeminate.
It's also common in modern far-right white nationalist groups. You'll notice that many such communities describe men they don't like as "betas" and "cucks", and they blame society's problems on women becoming more and more prominent in society (and on feminist men, too, for letting women in; they especially get called "cucks").
And it's not just the white supremacists; I've observed the same obsession with "emasculation" in extremist Asian identity groups, which are typically dominated by unsuccessful Asian men blaming the fact that they can't get laid on a conspiracy of Asian women and white men to emasculate Asian men.
[+] [-] trhway|9 years ago|reply
>"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."
Yep, the birth of fascism, ie. Italian fascism, was a final act of the Italian national independence process which started in the first half of 19th century. The independence from Austrian empire and from Catholic Church - Mussolini in particular finalized the relationships with papal states/Vatican.
Interesting that Mussolini started as Socialist and split with them on very similar grounds as the "bolsheviks"/Lenin split from Socialists in Russia around the same time - push for more forceful action, for unchecked power (dictatorship) - the difference being that in Russia Lenin was pushing for dictatorship of the working class while Mussolini was for dictatorship of the national state. While one may say that whose ideologies are of different colors, structurally they are the same and thus produced similar results - totalitarian states.
As an example, just replace national dimension with the "aristocracy - capitalists - worker class/peasants" dimension in the 2 quotes above and you'll get the socialist/communist principle of the "class war" and that idea that just by being of "working class" makes people intrinsically good and thus gives them moral power and entitles them to [dictatorially] rule and decide the fate of others.
[+] [-] ep103|9 years ago|reply
Its not particularly long, but is one of the more eye opening things I ever read on the subject
[+] [-] clock_tower|9 years ago|reply
How does one convince a society, especially a very xenophobic society, to abandon characteristics that make it unusually vulnerable to fascism?
[+] [-] im4w1l|9 years ago|reply
There is an important bias effect in play. OF the books written in the past about the rise of tyranny, not all are brought up equally in discussions. It is easy to observe that people upvote articles that support their ideology and flag articles (concrete example: the recent terror attacks were flagkilled off the front page) that go against it.
The articles that make it though this filter are not independent of the test set.
[+] [-] Snargorf|9 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] ScottBurson|9 years ago|reply
http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/going-there-with...
http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/being-honest-abo...
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|9 years ago|reply
What is the difference between this, and North Korean or Soviet Communism? Is there a difference?
[+] [-] benbenolson|9 years ago|reply
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|9 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] kiba|9 years ago|reply
I would say those actions were 'half-hearted' due to the risk of angering the public.
But if we're going to use the military, I would like it to be in a decisive and overwhelming manner with a well defined objective.
To do that, we must be willing to accept casualty.
If we aren't willing to commit to our goal, whatever that may be, with all the necessary resources, why are we fighting there?
Let just stay home.
[+] [-] AnimalMuppet|9 years ago|reply
Worse: Increasing the strength and powers of the chief executive, at the expense of Congress.
[+] [-] vixen99|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] openasocket|9 years ago|reply
I wonder if this is just coincidence, or if the recent explosion of Islamic extremism is a new variation on Fascism.
[+] [-] nooron|9 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] eli_gottlieb|9 years ago|reply
Several authors have studied the connection and found that the earliest Islamists (as we currently know them) actually cited the European fascists openly and approvingly, being contemporaries!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terror_and_Liberalism
http://eustonmanifesto.org/the-euston-manifesto/
[+] [-] clock_tower|9 years ago|reply
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...
[+] [-] Jtsummers|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jimbokun|9 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] jonathankoren|9 years ago|reply
If there's one bright side to Western Europe's 30+ years of low military spending, they don't have many tanks to send. Of course that's easily fixed as well.
[+] [-] eternalban|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hackaflocka|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] atemerev|9 years ago|reply
Now it is becoming more and more relevant to the rest of the world.
Russia: pioneering the world's social change since 1917.
[+] [-] etangent|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ajuc|9 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] guard-of-terra|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] riffraff|9 years ago|reply
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|9 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] edgarvaldes|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bbctol|9 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] unknown|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] brlewis|9 years ago|reply
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|9 years ago|reply
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|9 years ago|reply
http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-x/en/encyclicals/documents...
[+] [-] bobthechef|9 years ago|reply
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2016/02/the-real-umberto-ec...
[+] [-] MichaelMoser123|9 years ago|reply
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|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] frabbit|9 years ago|reply
Interesting that Clinton is stumping with the Bushes (the previous boogeymen) now: https://www.yahoo.com/news/hillary-clinton-invokes-unlikely-...
[+] [-] dragonwriter|9 years ago|reply
She's not stumping with the Bushes, and that article doesn't indicate that she is.
[+] [-] unimpressive|9 years ago|reply
http://legacy.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/mussolini-fascism.asp
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
[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...
[4]: For example, compare this (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)
[+] [-] mark_edward|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vog|9 years ago|reply
EDIT: Make my point clearer.
[+] [-] fatdog|9 years ago|reply
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/
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|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Florin_Andrei|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sbierwagen|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lintiness|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] VLM|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]