… Thus, by a continuous shifting of
rhetorical focus, the enemies are at the same time too strong and too weak. …
Eco does make a point of clarifying that the presence of absence of any single trait he has identified does not prove a thing is or isn’t fascist.
But in spite of this fuzziness, I think it is possible to outline a list of features that are
typical of what I would like to call Ur-Fascism, or Eternal Fascism. These features cannot
be organized into a system; many of them contradict each other, and are also typical of
other kinds of despotism or fanaticism. But it is enough that one of them be present to
allow fascism to coagulate around it.
(The full text of the feature I quoted above)
The followers must feel humiliated by the ostentatious wealth and force of their
enemies. When I was a boy I was taught to think of Englishmen as the five-meal people.
They ate more frequently than the poor but sober Italians. Jews are rich and help each
other through a secret web of mutual assistance. However, the followers must be
convinced that they can overwhelm the enemies. Thus, by a continuous shifting of
rhetorical focus, the enemies are at the same time too strong and too weak. Fascist
governments are condemned to lose wars because they are constitutionally incapable of
objectively evaluating the force of the enemy.
It’s pretty fantastic. In 2020 (only just beginning my journey of recovery from a conservative upbringing), I decided I should understand what fascism actually was. I found that dictionary definitions were terribly imprecise but eventually found Eco’s essay. I understand there are other methods–of similar scholarly integrity–used to define fascism, but I have not spent the effort to find and compare these other works. It is my (uninterrogated assumption) vague understanding that Eco’s definition isn’t regarded as opinionated.
deleted by creator
It’s the typical “the enemy is both strong and weak at the same time” shtick that authoritarians use.
“We’re oppressed/we have them on the run”
Hey look, feature 8 of Umberto Eco’s Ur Fascism!
Eco does make a point of clarifying that the presence of absence of any single trait he has identified does not prove a thing is or isn’t fascist.
(The full text of the feature I quoted above)
I was unaware of this text. Seems very interesting indeed. Thanks a lot! ♥️
It’s pretty fantastic. In 2020 (only just beginning my journey of recovery from a conservative upbringing), I decided I should understand what fascism actually was. I found that dictionary definitions were terribly imprecise but eventually found Eco’s essay. I understand there are other methods–of similar scholarly integrity–used to define fascism, but I have not spent the effort to find and compare these other works. It is my (uninterrogated assumption) vague understanding that Eco’s definition isn’t regarded as opinionated.
Isn’t that just 4chan trolling stupid people again. Eg flat earth