Is this supposed to be an indictment of fascism? He's essentially saying that fascism is an eternal...

Well, democracy certainly follows that pattern as well. But what are you trying to say with that?

What are you? Your answer to the question "Why would Eco acknowledge this about fascism and expect us to still oppose it" was that it's violent and self-destructive. But neither of those traits are particular to fascism, so it really doesn't answer the question at all.

the original point here is that fascism shouldn't be applauded because it's 'destructive'. But if fascism isnt just destruction, and if all political movements are eventually doomed to destruction, then why single out fascism as the ideology of destruction?

Any book about fascism that is not writen by Anthony James Gregor or Renzo De Felice should be thrown into the trash. They all ignore the main ideological tenets of fascism and its governance and try to understand "how fascism came to power", what psychological weakness in the masses they did explore, etc, which makes for fine propaganda weapons to use against conservatives in 21st century politics but terrible historical analysis.

>Would that not imply that fascism is Nietszchean?
It kind of is for the dictator. If you are a follower though who actually believes him then it's full slave morality.

what do these books do that others fail to grasp?

>your answer can also be an answer for many other questions
>therefore your answer is invalid
>try again

That's not what slave morality means, the master morality was not exclusive to the single most powerful man in society.

Their authors actually study fascist literature, scrutinize their internal politics when in power and try to understand how one thing led to another, how the ideology was transformed in governance and how governance was guided by ideology. Others authors don't bother much with that, at most they read the "Doctrine of Fascism", by Mussolini, and they go back to their favorite sport, trying to create analogues between fascist propaganda towards the masses and contemporary conservative ideas.

One particular favorite among the antifascist set, for example, Robert Paxton's "Anatomy of Fascism", is particularly egregious. He managed to write an entire book about fascism without mentioning key thinkers and policy makers like Ugo Spirito, Sergio Panunzio or Carlo Costamagna. At most he mentions Giovani Gentile, but it's clear he never bothered to read him.

It is not creative. Fascism is unable to create anything novel. What it can do is reproduce its aesthetics in a manner that is almost unparalleled. This leads to fascism having high points in art, or seemingly high creativity - they're running on fumes of the initial evocation/purge.

>He's essentially saying that fascism is an eternal, inherent part of humanity that often leaks through and that for some reason we should oppose it?
No, he just says that fascism is a very loose ideology with some fixed traits. If two or more of this traits coexist in one culture they could degenerate in a form of fascism, which of course is not meant as the historical italian party but as a broad, recurrent anti-democratic sentiment

And what ideologies are able to create novel things, then?

This is obviously an argument about alternatives. Society exists and because it exists it must exist with a certain organization. Eco is clearly arguing that fascism is not the organization we should go with and that we should go with an alternative, the current organization of liberal capitalism being preferable to fascism. Your post has said that fascism is violent and self-destructive, and therefore we should go with a different alternative. Yet every alternative is violent and self-destructive. In the search for an alternative to fascism, your answer did not put forward a sufficient argument.

First of all, I'm not the user of the first post. Second, your claim that "violence and destruction are not traits particular to fascism" is false and wrong, because Fascism theorized war as an ethic of existence since its first steps. Mussolini was an unironic admirer of the ironic Marinetti because he said that "war is the world's only hygiene". Read Mussolini or Hitler's writings and you'll find out that violence and war are explicitly predefined as instruments of government and as the destination of Man.

If you're a hiding fascist just go back to your shitbox.

There are different kinds of destruction. Fascism leads to physical destruction, democracy to spiritual destruction.

Corporatism was a pretty novel model of political and economical management of society and was adopted by almost everyone else after World War II, from Sweden to Brazil.

But that's not "just" what he's saying at all, the title of the article (which is briefly expounded upon within the article) is saying a lot more than just "this is what fascism is".

Linking political ideologies to artistic creativity is retarded. Just give up with politics, it's poisoning your mind.

Just answer the fucking question. If you dont want to call it an ideology, then at least say whatever current or movement or whatever IS capable of coming up with anything new.

Stop trying to create art, that epoch in Western civilization is passed.

Attached: 1239820342.jpg (583x792, 167K)

Why do you think that coming up with something new is so important?

I don't, but the user i was responding to insisted that 'fascism isn't creative and is unable to create anything novel'. So i was curious what other movements/ideologies he considers to be able to do so, and he has yet to answer.

Futurism was unironically the best thing to come out of Western art in decades.

Attached: 14094852.jpg (246x300, 30K)

what if fascism is bad, but the alternative(blue hair queers take over) is even worse

This is more than novel.

Attached: the-charge-of-the-lancers-1915.jpg!Large.jpg (750x487, 109K)

You already got the answer. It's right here New shit in whatever you call "the world of creativity" (and I guess we're talking about art, not law or medicine) has nothing to do with politics. It's the individual that senses the novelty and translates it into a form of art.

Yeah, except it was Fascism that stemmed from Futurism and not viceversa.

>the regime didn't whole-heartedly support futurist endeavors

Excellent question. I would like to answer negatively. Obviously you can't 100% restrict human creativity without going full em (arguably not even then) so some resistance or line of flight can be always found. Fascism takes its subjects and makes them _human_. It plays idpol with its citizens, elevates them to certain symbolic archetypes (father, mother, soldier, artist, worker) ect. and then tells them precisely what those identities are, what they embody ect. The good part - this is actually a pretty good way to create a functioning society as far as just not starving and having meaning goes. The bad part - those eternal forms are extremely inflexible. They are evoked in a way to have specific inputs and outputs, that which the state needs. While they can tolerate a lot of pressure from the outside world ideologically, they don't fail gracefully - they don't do that well with novel issues nor are they able to produce novel categories or ways of life. Compare this to neoliberalism where one is encouraged to make categories (read: markets) to sell shit to plebs

Ideological cards on table - I'm very sympathetic to right wing fascists and think their project has a lot of positives, but ultimately reject them because of Deleuzean precommitments for an ethics of novelty, difference and invention.

That was after the regime went full conservative. The whole Return-to-Order thing killed Futurism, but Futurism existed way before Fascism arose.

That's not what he is saying
He is listing its characteristics
Many of which are internally inconsistent and speak to fascisms unsustainability

>He is listing its characteristics
Yes that's not what he's only doing though obviously. That's not the aspect of the paper that I am interested in.

If only D'Annunzio and not Benito had been the Duce

Yeah, if only.

Somebody tell me what Eco thought of fascism already. I need to know if I like him.

all politics are identity politics. you either play identity politics or get turned into a blue haired queer

This is a poor view, I believe Deleuze gives us the tools to ascend that. If the game sucks metagame them. Radical emancipation>Politics

how exactly?

>metagame
cringe

For me there is nothing more than novel, but as someone who is lost both in time and space, who has no home, I feel the fascist call and can sympathize.

It's creative in a crass Sorelian sense, of a kind of creative destruction that sees the destruction of the weak and the decadent (and even oneself) at the hand of the hero as a beautiful thing. Erich Fromm, Walter Benjamin, and Paul Tillich come to mind as writers who argue this, that fascism is an ideology of self-annihilation, so that fascism's creativity cannot be distinguished from its destructiveness.
It is certainly peculiar in its intensity. Just look at the reaction of the youth in fascist Italy to Mussolini's pragmatic, almost conservative approach to things once he gained power. For them he had sold out on the fighting spirit of the movement. Few other movements necessarily require an enemy to destroy and a fight to fight than fascism. Maybe everything is destructive to some degree, but fascism is leaps and bounds above anything else in that regard.

Have you read any of Roger Griffin? His whole methodology is based on empathising with fascist ideas as far as possible

>democracy to spiritual destruction
Ugh

>Few other movements necessarily require an enemy to destroy and a fight to fight than fascism.
lmao
>what is mao's cultural revolution
>what is most communist movements with piles of bodies that rival the nazis
>what is socjus and white heterosexual males

ps

benjamin was a moron who got his analyses ass backwards. he thought that politicizing aesthetics was an appropriate strategic response to the nazi's aesthetizing politics, when the politicizing of aesthetics during the weimar was the exact sort of thing the nazis were reacting against. most academic explanations for the creation of fascists is garbage that dismisses any of their real complaints, it's quite simple as to where it comes from: ultra-leftism create fascists.

>only jumps on Benjamin, who I actually questioning mentioning in my post because righties hate him

I don't think he was a genius but he is probably the most famous proponent of the "aestheticised politics" thesis regarding fascism, which is the only reason I mentioned him. Let's see you tackle Tillich or Fromm.

Also the violence and witchhunting that you see in communist countries is completely different. In communist countries its a stress on orthodoxy as the marker of loyalty to the cause, a logic that only makes sense in the context of communism's understanding of historical progress. For communists, violence is an unfortunate aspect of the dictatorship of the proletariat that is ideally temporary. For fascists, violence is a constitutive element of their ideology, and their vision of history has no peaceful golden age like Marxism, but only constant violence between nations until the end of time.

>Italians were fascist. Therefore an Italian thinks that all human beings are fascists. His mistake was assuming that Italians were human beings
absolutely based

fascism is bad because of the holocaust, which must never ever ever happen again, no matter what.

why would we just give into the darkest and most reprobate tendencies within ourselves simply because they are, in some vague way, innate?

also lol at this hair splitting over what 'inherently destructive' means, and at the question of why that might be a bad thing
real chin scratcher

this. im crying right now thinking about the 7 million.

>GORILLIONS

>7 million
Fuck off nazi, it was 12 million and no amount of "muh juice muh holohoax muh freedumb" will change that.

Why does being eternal or being instinctual for humans mean we shouldn’t oppose it?

By instinct I want to do all sorts of heinous shit, but refuse to because those things wouldn’t be compatible with the rest of what I want to do (a fuller picture of my nature). Same thing.

No doubt bouts of fascism or fascist tendencies vent pent up energies from peaceful eras, but actually going all-in results in disaster every time.

>G O R I L L I O N S

Because doing what's in your instinct is what's going to give you fulfillment on an individual level. You're right there are tons of thing I want to do that I can't do but if I could do them I'd be much happier. If fascism is the political equivalent to fulfilling your baser desires on a national level than pointing this out is not a good way to fight it. And I don't know that you can say it's going to be a "disaster every time". Fascism's failure was more a result of the geopolitical reality surrounding its rise more than anything else. Had fascism taken hold somewhere like America, Britain, or Russia instead of Germany, Italy, and Romania than we'd be living in a much different world.

libtard original sin.

you are misidentifying impulse (or 'instinct') with desire, and desire with affirmation. these kinds of equivocations are what can make fascism so appealing. it is the same with advertising, or any propaganda.
for an example, you might have an impulse to masturbate every 30 minutes. if you were to actually give in to this impulse, not only would this be spiritually debasing, it would also be physically harmful--you would tear the skin right off your dick. and i speak from experience here.
civilization is a fragile thing, the accumulated wisdom of generations. fascism builds a bonfire for our greatest achievements, and bids us jump in after them.

No it isn’t. Eating a bunch of dumb shit just because I feel like won’t make me happy except for while I’m eating it (and even then, probably not), after and before it’s a disaster.

You have good and bad instincts, for fulfillment, you follow the good ones (i.e. the ones that won’t hurt you long-term) and reject the bad.

>geopolitical reality surrounding it
You sound like a Marxist. At least Marxists have Marxism being a relatively new idea on their side... tyranny was known as a bad idea all the way back to Plato.

>Because doing what's in your instinct is what's going to give you fulfillment
Tell that to a heroin addict

nothing wrong with doing heroin

Bump

>learning about an idea from someone so obviously shilling against it
It is the slightly more scholarly equivalent of Ben Shapiro btfo out of the libtards.

>alright kids, see these mushrooms?
>okay, yes, very cool. and now, while you can eat *some* of these guys, a few of the others are really poisonous
>let me show you which ones, by what signs you can differentiate them from the edible ones
>what was that?
>no...no, you don't need to actually eat them to really know they're poisonous. that's why i'm showing you--
>what?
>i mean, so, we *know* they're poisonous because other people have eaten them in the past and gotten really sick and even died. we've also looked into their molecular composition, and seen which compounds in them are harmful to our health, and besides--
>hey, wait, no, don't d--
>what did i just say
>jesus christ, alright everyone, we gotta go back to the van
>tom, grab eric's bag. mike, billy, help me carry him

By violence being traits particular to fascism I think he meant that, as an ideology, fascism isnt alone in its violent tendencies and that almost all other ideologies are violent to some extent. Hes not saying that violence is non existent in fascism

Daily reminder that the unnamed kid is a hero, based and of course redpilled

This metaphor would only make sense if the poisonous mushroom turns out to not be that poisonous anyway, and all the other mushrooms are also slightly to moderately poisonous.

You're a fucking retard and you probably need your mom to pick out clothes for you because you know you can't make decisions, and don't want to be held responsible for any decisions you might take.

strong feelings, wow, yeah!
and that's okay! you can feel these things and not be ashamed.
but no, baby, you can't transform them into a political doctrine and force others to adapt or die.

I'm mad because you think some ideas are too dangerous to read.

i don't want to have to explain the metaphor to you, that would defeat the purpose. it was a shitpost anyway.
just understand that you've missed the point, and will probably go on missing it for a good long while

Not that guy, but memetic hazards are very real. Some works ought to be approached with caution, although not the ones you probably think

I'd go even further that ideology is inherently violent.

Yeah no they aren't

This is the nature of the revolution, of which fascism is only a subset. The same criticism is true of both democracy and socialism but everyone is going to deny it until its way too late

Violence is wrong when it's used by people who think differently from me, otherwise violence is fine.

when the definition of fascism gets thinner and thinner each day it becomes obsolete, to every anti-fascist faggot any kind of authoritarian equals fascism so it's pointless having a discussion. Eco is just beating a dead-horse just like any other non-tanky lefty or communist.

No-one gives a fuck about your downvote faggot.

Maybe if youre a brainlet
Also examples?

underrated

>How do they)))) allow this?
>because they made it
>In the second season they say that they don't lock their doors in the Reich. Implying that there aren't even locks.
>base material
>Another quality post from the land of the free and the home of the brave.
>if they dropped the whole supernatural aspect it would be such kino and i'm not even a /pol/tard

They are linked. Business and politics rely on the media, and I'd be up for defining art as craft and so include media.

unironically cringe

You mean like everything? Literally the second law of thermodynamics. Sorry that you're a brainlet

An incredibly hilarious one would be Roko's Basilisk but only if you're some sort of Bayes-Cultist. If you're interested in fictional hyperstrong memetic hazards, read Borges or if you can stomach it, the short story "Gig Economy" which is just a Borges ripoff with Land injections. Straight up Lovecraft also does that. If you want a real life memetic hazard, you have memes leading to skinner boxes, see Facebook (&Tinder&Twitter&4chins), post-60's advertising, narcissism, all ideology ect. If you want a philosophical description of memetic hazards, I don't think you can do better than Deleuze. One's brain is prime real estate, one can never be careful. Obviously memetic hazard is like LD50 - when one gets memed is very individual.

Like it’s not just cubism that glorifies machinery and war.

That looks a little too much like Nude Descending Stairs by Duchamp

Attached: 50C3ABB1-1968-400A-9FAE-AB4D96BC87E4.jpg (1100x659, 57K)

I don't know what Ur-Fascism is but it sounds fucking aesthetic desu

Look at the essay date. June 1995. It's a thinly veiled attack on the Republican congress that came into power just before he wrote it. Basically the modern equivalent of some retard getting on Twitter and ranting about Drumpf being literally Hitler because both of them gave speeches. And those same modern retards think it's some insightful essay instead of a butthurt post-election screed targeting Newt Gingrich.

What you said makes a lot of sense to me. The fascist especially nazis looked towards ancient traditional roles. Except the ancient role they portrayed wasnt real. Such as the pagan thread in the ss. The germans didnt have success as pagan but as Christians. The fascists started with an argument for a return to authenticity but didnt actually live it. In a way they failed their objective of aesthetics.

>that fascism is an ideology of self-annihilation, so that
If you take sorels train of thought you can see that he believes violence is a regenerative force similar to how God flooded the world and saved Noah (if even only a metaphor). Consider further that Hitler was training to be an artist and he put Albert speer, another artist, in charge of huge parts of the Reich. Fascism is entirely a regenerative violent act to cleanse life that is artistic beauty.

Very much so. The aestheticism of fascism is fundamental and possibly one of its most disturbing elements.

I think you're still somewhat going on the contemporary "fascism bad" in train. I think you can have an authentic and fulfilling life under fascism, authenticity is orthogonal to novelty

Well what fascist societies were good? At least commies held power longer.

When you're dealing with things as resistant to attack as fascism, dismissing them as "moon logic" or "well it didn't work" is making yourself vulnerable to it. Understanding the underlying problem(s?) that it's reacting to and what are the solutions it provides are the important part. Any study of ideology from an ideological viewpoint will be unable to assess anything other than its original viewpoint as correct

reads like an introduction to a high school essay

cringe

god, why are intellectuals so fucking obsessed with failed 20th century ideologies. get a fucking life. move on. the rest of the world has moved on. yet somehow, the academy and the literati just cant seem to let it go. its like you fuckers have this malfunctional culture that rewards being a dumbfuck attention whores instead of doing anything that betters civilization.

its sad. a dude flipping burgers at mcdonalds produces more value than you people, because at least he doesnt make things worse.

Attached: 7c4ee6332798ad6ef6e88f24f5d372ed.jpg (1280x1918, 267K)

EXCELLENT post with one exception - it's really not only academics. I in an ex-Soviet country and the wounds are still fresh for anyone around the age of 35 and up. Combine this with prongs of right-wing nationalist fascism and left-wing idpol fascism and you can see why it's still talked about.

Not at all. I am probably half fascist. For me though their pagan influence is what undermined them. If they had actually embraced a catholic revivalist in a way cresting some holy German empire I'd like it a lot more.

It's more of a guide on how to spot and prevent fascist regimes from gaining power for people who already think Fascism is a monstrous ideology. Most anti-fascist literature frames historical events leading up to violent oppressive regimes as "red flags." In the essay, Eco is just lining up red flags so you know what Fascism looks like.

eco lived and worked in italy for most of his life. he may have been in the us during that election cycle, but if so he would have only beem a visiting professor or lecturer.

>you can't understand a self-described anti-intellectual movement without understanding its intellectuals

agreed, there is only one ideology that's acceptable and it's the modern status quo. anything else belongs in le dustbin of history

Well we are the road to self destrucrion now western society. What is the difference?
Socialism is a failure on every point.
Capitalism is the most self-indulgent way of living.
You see why people rather die in a war than live like this?
Fascism have only failed in the sense that it has been defeated

yeah, defeat isn't real failure, dudes. get with it.

Without looking into what you’re saying fascism means (because it certainly isn’t any dictionary definition), ‘fascism’ seems to be the impulse in humans toward power and mastery.

Calling this impulse destructive is intentionally looking at half of the picture.

>Because fascism nebulous retardation that always ends in violence and self-annihilation.
................?
What the fuck are you even basing this off of?

lot of chittering cockroaches in this thread

>(I don't know what you mean by) fascism (because it certainly isn’t any dictionary definition)
I don't wanna be "that guy", but seriously the definition of fascism is fucked up; the meaning diversified vastly, it is nowhere closed to satisfactorily explainable.
I know that you can say this to any terms in humanities, like defining "culture" or "civilization". but at least this term they gone too far. The part of this caused by the natural feature of the term, often used as stigmatization.
If you want to know how absurd to define fascism as concrete meaning of it, check out robert o paxton's The Anatomy of Fascism.

The question of OP asked is the weakest part of any fascism theory. they dig what fascism is, they dig how bad it was, they dig what's the cause. But there's still no satisfactory explanation of what exact part of fascism is the problem.
well if I exclude OP's blatant naturalistic fallacy

Socialism.

This. Monarchy "produced" all sorts of great poetry, and Soviet Communism "produced" a lot of seminal film theory, but that's not what those ideologies were for. They were for writing laws, organizing people in relation to a government, and deciding how the food, shelter, water, etc gets distributed. Political ideologies and governmental systems don't write books.

It's equally dumb when people make the argument that "computers are a product of capitalism."

Lol at SJW ideology being Ur-Fascist

>obsessed with the past / tradition
SJW’s promote ‘indigenous science’, and are obsessed with upholding these archaic, shitty views. Eg the woman saying ‘allahu akbar’ at the woman’s march and everyone clapping

>disagreement is treason
>The first appeal of a fascist or prematurely fascist movement is an appeal against the intruders
Lol

>Ur-Fascism derives from individual or social frustration. That is why one of the most typical features of the historical fascism was the appeal to a frustrated middle class, a class suffering from an economic crisis or feelings of political humiliation

>The followers must feel humiliated by the ostentatious wealth and force of their enemies.
Down with the patriarchy! Fuck rich white men!

>
9. For Ur-Fascism there is no struggle for life but, rather, life is lived for struggle. Thus pacifism is trafficking with the enemy. It is bad because life is permanent warfare

Hence social justice **warrior**. Being complacent is being complicit

Fascism and Anarcho-capitalism are the two stupidest ideologies

you're not really wrong, but you are expressing yourself stupidly.

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy
>The term, “naturalistic fallacy” should not be confused with the appeal to nature fallacy, some examples of which are: "Something is natural; therefore, it is morally acceptable" or "This property is unnatural; therefore, this property is undesirable." Such inferences are common in discussions of medicine, sexuality, environmentalism, gender roles, race and carnism.
lol at 'carnism'

but anyway, eco does not commit the naturalistic fallacy nor does he make an appeal to nature. rather, he is giving a descriptive account of the salient features of fascism as they seem to recur over time, and suggests these must, because of such recurrence, be reflective of some innate tendency within mankind. he's not saying 'fascism is bad because it's human nature'. but, because there is some expression of human nature in fascism, we must be wary when we see outcroppings, as this may indicate a recrudescence of these darker tendencies.

>rather, he is giving a descriptive account of the salient features of fascism as they seem to recur over time, and suggests these must, because of such recurrence, be reflective of some innate tendency within mankind ... we must be wary when we see outcroppings, as this may indicate a recrudescence of these darker tendencies.

Not the guy above, but the naturalistic fallacy is a meta-ethical argument about the role of metaphysics in ethics. The crux of the bad reasoning is conflating natural properties/features/characteristics with moral properties/features/characteristics. To use terms like "descriptive," "salient features," "recur over time," "innate," and "tendencies" is to make metaphysical claims about the properties/features/characteristics of some thing. Sneaking in evaluatively loaded language like being "wary when we see" and "darker tendencies" -- that co-occur with those properties -- is exactly the structure of the naturalistic fallacy.

>liberal defenses of Islam and science are the same as being obsessed with tradition
The science thing is more indicative of a liberal obsession with being "objective" and the defense of Islam is part of a completely neoliberal idea of "diversity."
Actual radical Islam, which promotes the idea of a traditional law that everyone, including non-Muslims have to follow is closer to being ur-fascist.
The neo-liberal tendency to defend Muslims regardless of gendered laws is more of a refusal to admit that a lot of Muslims really do have values incompatible with their own.

the terms 'salient features' 'recurrence' 'innate' and 'tendencies' or even 'descriptive' are not *moral* properties being attributed to either fascism or human beings by either eco or myself. they are intended to be, as i said, descriptive of a natural phenomenon. fascism does not stand independent of the world, and when we talk about it and especially when we want to attempt to define it we must, inevitably, attribute properties to it. this is perhaps an unfortunate consequence of the structure of our language, but there it is.
eco's evaluation of fascism is independent of his description of his features. he takes it for granted that fascism is 'bad', but he does not claim that this is a 'natural' property of it.

likewise, when i write something like 'fascism expresses the darker tendencies of human nature', certainly i am making a value judgment of these tendencies, but i am not assigning a natural property by this judgment. it is my evaluation, and it must be supported beyond reference to its object to be justified. similarly, in the claim that fascism is a manifestation of these tendencies, the judgment that they are bad demands further argument.

It's a bad idea and yet it's proven incessantly successful when the good idea of mixed government as described by Aristotle or Cicero decayed/declined.

He doesn't sound like a marxist, either, he's suggesting that history/reality is not some whig inevitable march of progression - rather that it is fragile and democracy/non-fascism was not the inevitable victor or fated to succeed. Had the three major allies been fascist and opposed to democracies it's plausible to assume the fascists would have prevailed. Unless fascism would be able to mitigate the sheer material/industrial/manpower advantages that made the Axis fated to defeat after 1942.

That was something I noticed when I looked at Eco's definitions. A great many of them applied to American progressivism ("SJW" as shorthand) as we know it today. Of the list, the only ones which do not apply are:
#1, #5 (It's more "fear of the normal/the average"), #10 (far from it, the weak are idolized), and #12.

Of definitions of fascism I've seen Eco's seems rather weak. It lacks the preeminent role of secret police, the proposition of being a 'third way' between communism and capitalism, and something I see almost every definition omit - irredentism. Not all irredentists were fascist but I struggle to think of a fascist regime that didn't have major irredentism.

>#1 left socjust idpol isn't tradition-rooted
I would say that their rethoric deeply is ingrained in the Biblical-Roeussauean notion of equality. They couldn't use it straight up though, because the Bible is red tribe. It's a bit flimsy, I know, but I agree with Moldbug that they're essentially a Christian sect without the God to make it appealing in a post-Enlightenment world
>#5 hatred of the other
Here a reversal is pulled! There is a sense of "if only we could get those damn racists (partially coded as rust belters, but also stuff like neonazis ect) out of here and then oppression would stop and all would be well. Pretty sure that's a projection of all issues into the outgroup. See also punch nazis ect.
#10 Elitism
Oh God have you ever MET one of them? They constantly remind you of the fact that you are stupid and don't understand their point because you haven't read Butler ect. They are building a new "canon" of sorts (see all the "what you should read instead of the classics" lists)

They're a bit flimsy, but anyone with a brain can see that the new idpol left has some fascist elements.

Praising a woman as she yells ‘allahu akbar’ goes above and beyond a mere defense of Islam.

It’s not a 1 for 1 fit, but it goes in line with this rejection of the status quo / modernity. The modern world hs inequal and inequality is like the original sin.

I think he mentioned a secret police in there somewhere.

Anyway in this analogy, it would be Antifa

I agree with the elitist thing. The WOKE elite. Implying everyone else is asleep.

Attached: 24E7BE86-4C1E-403A-8ED0-B0FC742A961F.jpg (3937x2625, 624K)

20th century critiques of Fascism are unironically "Freudian" lamentations about daddy.

>daddy is eternal OwO i m-m-must reject him but i-i-i-AYEEEEEEE

I've always wondered over the years as to why Yea Forums of all places attracts so many fascists, you'd think a platform built around anonymity would be a hotbed for anarchists but instead its become filled with the most antithetical ideology to it

he's just trying to settle scores with Guenon (he hates his take on symbolism) and Evola (he hates his take on myth).
That also goes for the Name of the Rose, and obviously Foucault's Pendulum.

>the terms 'salient features' 'recurrence' 'innate' and 'tendencies' or even 'descriptive' are not *moral* properties

I never said they were; in fact, I said the exact opposite. I stated (with emphasis), "To use terms like "descriptive," "salient features," "recur over time," "innate," and "tendencies" is to make METAPHYSICAL claims about the properties/features/characteristics of some THING. Sneaking in EVALUATIVELY loaded language like being "wary when we see" and "darker tendencies" -- that CO-OCCUR with those [METAPHYSICAL] properties -- is exactly the structure of the naturalistic fallacy."

>this is perhaps an unfortunate consequence of the structure of our language, but there it is.

The problem has little to do with properties de dicto (of the language). The naturalistic fallacy is predominantly about properties de re (things in the world). The language is just the surface level form and not the deeper content, as G.E. Moore noted after he coined the term. The deeper problem arises from metaphysics -- people claiming how things actually are in the world, including the alleged properties that things have -- combined with the co-occurrence of evaluative properties, which leads to you (and your presentation of Eco) making two claims that map onto the "naturalistic fallacy":

1. The metaphysical claims about natural properties: "salient features" (another name for properties), "recur over time" (temporal properties), "innate," (a natural property, probably even stronger: an essentialist property), and "tendencies" (a disposition of some thing to do something. Again a property). This list you claim is, " ... intended to be, as i said, descriptive of a natural phenomenon ... when we want to attempt to define it we must, inevitably, attribute properties to it."

2. The evaluative claims about moral properties: "darker tendencies" (ascribing an evaluative property to a disposition to do some thing), "wary when we see" (pre-supposes a pre-empirical moral theory that generates wariness). These terms you claim are your, "... evaluation, and it must be supported beyond reference to its object to be justified. similarly ... the judgment that they are bad demands further argument."

Claim (2) is the issue at hand, which is exactly what Moore and others have said generates the fallacy: the move from (1) to (2) occurs without support. It has nothing to do with, "but i am not assigning a natural property by this judgment." This confuses how the naturalistic fallacy works.

He wrote this for a US publication (The New York Revie of Books) in English. He was working as a professor here when he wrote it. You really think he didn't know who Newt Gingrich was?

Poor reading of Delooz

>daddy is in the wilderness and he makes me do no-no but mommy punish DDDDDD:

Fascism is based and redpilled

Because anarchists are pussies who do constant language policing. Cant have that on an edgy image board.

>Because fascism nebulous retardation that always ends in violence and self-annihilation.
That's retarded, the ejwish bourgeois successfully lobbying the 3 world powers to attack you is not being self-destructive. Are you arguing that boot licking is good?

bad white people

anarchism is the most totalitarian ideology in existence, of course they aren't here. Anarchists oppose the state because they hierarchy gives rise to self-interested abuse of others. They want the world to be stateless and without hierarchy so that every person can be a 24/7 snitch punishing heretics/counter-revolutionaries (which include people who invest in their own future), they want to always be hunting, punishing and humiliating baddies. 4chans formats suits that poorly, they love reddit where you have nice and simple archives and its easy to make lists of the naughty posters

the 'republican revolution' wasn't the only ongoing event a progressive thinker might worry over. i imagine the oklahoma city bombing and the ideological justifcation given for it were of greater concern to eco, and maybe the real motive for writing, than gingrich's froggy face all over the news.

He specifically references Pat Robertson as an example. Then he starts demanding that we point our fingers around at anyone in "innocent guises" who is probably a secret fascist because they advocate traditionalism or "appeal to the middle class" or "oppose communists" or are "macho." It's clearly a Drumpf is Literally Hitler attack only back then Gingrich is Literally Hitler. Gingrich was getting wall to wall coverage of pretty much the same tone as Trump currently gets. The essay is pure retardation (especially in ending by praising Franklin "Put The Japs In Concentration Camps" Roosevelt who matches almost everything on the list). But that's kind of the point - to create a list for retards to help justify being nasty to their mainstream political enemies.

i mean, okay, i'm sorry you feel called out but, like, maybe you should just own it? 'proud boyz' is what y'all are callin yourselves now, isn't it? 'only anarchist faggots hide their face.'
'we just want to gut social services and transfer wealth directly into the bank accounts of our donors! why are you guys being so MEAN to us.'
it's hard to drum up sympathy for stooges, man.

I'm not in the Proud Boys or the Alt-Right or any of them. Which is kind of the point. Or part of the point. Partly I just can't stand retards posing as intellectuals. Partly I hate that our country's political debate has turned into a nasty venomous cesspool (which is mostly caused by leftist retards who think it's a good idea to be violent towards anyone who is "macho" or "appeals to the middle class."). But here's an idea for you - if you're a retard, why not just stop engaging in politics? You don't know what you're even talking about. Everybody sees through you. Why even pretend?

i've been trying to thinkmof a good word for the idw types, especially guys like rubin. you know what i'm talking about, guys that 'come out' as formerly part of the left until they encountered the, i dunno, some freak in nylons and a mustache with a bullhorn, and that was their awakening to the 'regressive' elements of the principles they had held so dear. they come on with this nauseatingly disingenuous appeal to civility and discursive temperance while at the same time serving as a platform or mouthpiece for the most disgusting right-wing rhetoric. and because they lay all this out in even-measured tones and appeal to prejudices frosted over with 'common sense', guys like you grab a fork and start shoveling it in, barfing it backnout at the rest of us, like we can't see you've just beem eating shit this whole time.

>Civility is bad
>You are a Nazi
>And if you aren't a Nazi you're some other random thing I don't like
>Now let's dress up in black and go beat the shit out of some redneck Trump supporters for disagreeing with me

Again, do you really think no one can tell you're a retard?

>you're a retard
>you fucking retard
>why can't you retards be nice? why you calling us names n' shit? fags.
>seriously, civility is important, nigger.
>but don't you dare hold a mirror up to my face!
been real fun talking with ya, man.

Tell me that antifa beating up rednecks isn't based

I'm not the one bashing people's fucking heads in. You want to call people names go to town. Politics would be great if that was all people were doing to each other. Call people fascists for all I care, but it's not some intellectual achievement to come up with a generic list of shit almost anyone can be pigeonholed into. But when you start attacking people in the streets because you don't like their red hat don't expect me to take you seriously complaining about somebody else being the fascist. You're the exact example of what this article was trying to do - give dumb people a license for political violence.

where have i defended or advicated for violence against political opponents? where does eco?
where does timothy mcveigh? oh wait..
back to the article and your own claim: what do you suppose was the syncretic knowledge system eco perceived in the republican party?

You're defending Antifa - if I was running around defending the KKK and complaining that people were criticizing it you might start to wonder. You're criticizing "civility" which is the left's new dog whistle to justify and encourage violence. Eco did what you're doing - his process of defining fascism worked backwords. Find a political opponent he doesn't like, start listing generic characteristics of those contemporary opponents and making those his definition of fascism. The fact that Roosevelt is seen as the non-fascist hero is proof of how fucked up the entire concept is. It's literally monkey-level tribal emotional hate towards his (and your) political opponents being wrapped up in pseudo-intellectual rationalizations to run around comparing them to the worst people in history. Don't pretend like that's not causing violence from the dumber people on your side.

also, people seem to be losing perspective on this: eco grew up in an actual fascist country; he survuved a war, international and civil, between fascist powers and their enemies. and he witnessed the political developments of his own and every other participating country over the decades that followed. he's not just some fuckinh crank.

being 'anti-fascist' doesn't mean i support 'antifa' or 'the black bloc' or any other dipshit youth group.
you've been and continue to be supremely ungenerous to eco; and it is, i am sure now, because my initial read on you was correct. you're a chiron figure, a rubin ruser. you're here to ferry the fallen and confused to the right side, and muddy the waters with your paddle while you're at it.
a bugman, basically.

and no, i don't 'criticize civility', either. i call out hypocrtical calls for civilty by political snake oil salesmen.

Complaining about "civility" or people not being able to hide their faces makes pretty clear who you support. I'm giving Eco exactly what he deserves, at least for this piece. You can't substantively defend it and you know it. He's defined fascism so that Roosevelt is a fascist, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton were fascists, I'm a fascist, everyone he disagrees with is a fascist. It's a stupid definition if you think about it for more than ten seconds - where are the parts that made fascism so bad, like the paramilitary groups in uniform going to the streets to suppress political opponents with violence? He doesn't include them on his list precisely because then the only fascists would be people like McVeigh or Antifa - not mainstream politicians who don't act anything like fascists in the ways that count.

>Because fascism nebulous retardation that always ends in violence and self-annihilation.
>Self-annihilation
yikes

Attacking "civility" is a dog whistle. You don't mean you want to go the Daily Show and make fun of Trump's hair. You want people screaming at each other in restaurants, starting fights, and sending fake anthrax letters. And that violence begets violence as it always does.

Wops will never recover

*chittering intensifies*
you should open a practice man
>what, me? nah, man. nah. there just wasn't a bridge here. so i built a boat. just doin' my job, you know.
for what it's worth, the roosevelt comment felt ill-considered.
i still think you're a crypto-faggot tho

again, where have i 'attacked' civility?

Nothing Umberto Eco says is meaningful or significant. The mere fact that he says something is usually proof of the opposite.

re: why wasn't he specific?
because we already know the historical manifestation of fascism. eco is interested, here, in the general, recurring, recurrent features--he's searching for the 'ur', the origin, the primordial. what are some abstract elements we can identify?
paramilitary groups are not essential to fascism, though they may enable a fascist party to seize and consolidate spheres of power, attack enemies, and to instill fear and ensure compliance in the neutral population.

This isn't jusy an issue of not being specific - it's an issue of being so generic that virtually any of his political opponents (and many liberals) fall under his definition of fascism. It's clearly intentional - both on the part of Eco as to Gingrich and on the part of people citing this essay today, largely as a disingenuous effort to paper up an "intellectual" defininition of their opponents as fascist knowing groups like Antifa will then "bash the fash." And the paramilitary aspect is what makes fascism so bad, as opposed to just being macho or nationalist. He's not only defining it in a way that is intended to make Republicans circa 1995 "fascists," he's defining it in a way that eliminates the parts of fascism that drove Hitler to exterminate people. Other countries in the 1940's were racist and nationalist. It's things like Hitler taking a prime minister hostage along with a crowd of people at machine gun point that made him Hitler, not that he was "macho" or "appealed to the middle class." Eco's bad faith is clear in the essay - he's demanding people "point fingers" using these vague descriptions, and then points his finger at somebody like Pat Robertson who is a nonviolent religious weirdo. But he's the kind of weirdo Eco hated at a primal level, so Hitler-style demonization of the other was what Eco resorted to. And the people citing this essay today do it for the same reasons - demonize the other, and partisans will do your violence for you.

mcveigh unironically did nothing wrong, feds need to watch themselves

I kinda lost track here, if I'm a racist, which one am I supposed to be cheering for?

who is citing eco today, for what actions? and where have they done this, the citing?
it is tiresome to have to do someone else's critical reasoning for them, especailly when that same person has licensed themselves a psycho-analyst. eco does this hunorously; you do it with no sense of irony or gesture of self-effacement. your opinion is gospel--so why should you need to read carefully? to actually follow the course of an argument? you've picked out the pieces you can weaponize, and you'll wield them to best effect; which is, to 'prove the retards wrong.' they're just rough stones, but they can still crack skulls.
is pat robertson a fascist? probably not. does he think the jews and their allies are conspiring to bring the world under their thumb? well, i mean, he did write a book about that very thing, so...
you accuse econof arguing in bad faith and of constructing a conceptual golem to be used against his enemies. but you're actually missing the point. eco locates the real source of fascism in all of us. it is the perennial allure of our darkest impulses. in the right circumstances, jimmy carter could have been a fascist. in the right circumstances, roosevelt actually was kind of a fascist.
i don't buy your petition to decency and non-violence for one moment, by the way. it's obvious you've had a nerve struck (you big, manly defender of the motherland, you). but your busted feelings don't actually mean much to me, or to the discussion.

>It's clearly intentional - both on the part of Eco as to Gingrich and on the part of people citing this essay today, largely as a disingenuous effort to paper up an "intellectual" defininition of their opponents as fascist knowing groups like Antifa will then "bash the fash." And the paramilitary aspect is what makes fascism so bad, as opposed to just being macho or nationalist.
ah, no, i see what you're up to now. yes, of course. antifa, in a kind of bizarro hegelian inversion, has actually become that which it negates. they are the fasc. or, at least, the useful idiots, the tools of the *real* fascists--those fucking egghead, neomarxist lunatic humanities professors!
jesus, what a boring fucking game, god dammit.

Have you never seen this referred to before? I've seen it cited a bunch of times, always by some Antifa type claiming it's proof that Drumpf is a fascist and so his supporters really are fair game. Now you're down to bromides - "there's a special fascist deep inside us all, and that's what Eco meant." That's not what he said, though. He said we should point fingers. And he did point fingers, not at violent people like McVeigh, not at himself, not at the special fascist we all have inside us, but at the "other." People of a religion he didn't like or understand. People whose political beliefs were different from his and who came from a different culture from him. And so are people today, just like a certain fascist did back in the 1930's. I don't buy your effort to pretend that's not happening or that you don't know how people are utilizing this essay for one moment, either.

Yes, I am saying that people who dress up in a paramilitary uniform with jack boots and roam the streets beating the shit out of people they disagree with are fascists.

>Have you never seen this referred to before? I've seen it cited a bunch of times, always by some Antifa type claiming it's proof that Drumpf is a fascist and so his supporters really are fair game.
where? huh? show me where.
this goes no further until you start backing your shit up.

On this website. Am I supposed to have a thread archive for that? Are you seriously pretending people are talking about this article for any other reason than to argue that Republicans are fascist because they meet the vague criteria in it?

just a weasel with beetle wings was all he really was
buzz buzz

>pointing out fascism is itself fascism
would we put that down as an instance of newspeak?

>Calling everyone you disagree with a fascist is just good old fashion democracy
>Now bash the fash, that guy over there is appealing to the middle class

Newspeak or double think?

I haven't read the book, but
>fascism is an eternal, inherent part of humanity
followed by
>for some reason we should oppose it?
Being violent and lazy are also part of the human condition. Self-imposing suffering and victimhood are, too. All of those things should be opposed. There's a reason most natural desires are referred to as "base" - they are things you should not do simply because you feel like doing them. That's the only distinction between animals and humans - humans can resist their basic, animalistic nature.

How the fuck did you miss this point? You must not actually read very much. Resisting the base urges of the human condition is THE theme.

>hey, look, a brick.
>hm. seems it came from the edifice of that building over there
>guess i'll huck it through the window
>hey, cool! now we have broken glass!
>guess i'm basically an architect now
do you do it for free, or..?

Smashing the windows of shop owners sounds more like an Antifa thing. Almost like a "Night of Crystal."

sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2018/08/09/video-berkeley-protesters-smash-windshields/

you're such a transparent schmuck, dude. but is it at least fun for you?

Come on dude. None of you guys have any serious defense of "Republicans are fascist because they are macho and they appealed to the middle class." The Eco essay is fucking stupid. Beating up people because they wear a red hat is fucking stupid. Calling conservatives or Republicans or Libertarians fascist is fucking stupid. If anyone is fascist it's the people dressed like fascists using violence against people they disagree with. All the arguments in this thread in support of Eco are flameouts. Is it fun? Yes. Should you stop doing exactly what Hitler did by demonizing your enemies with bullshit accusations to justify violence against them? Also yes.

the only contemporary american that eco names is pat robertson. he doesn't hold robertson up as an example of what a fascist is, but rather that robertson happened to have written a book that encapsulates one of the fascistic modes--which in isolation, as eco states in the essay, is neither a necessary nor a sufficient 'condition' for fascism.
*you're* the one claiming, with sparse evidence and a huge dose of speculation, that eco's 'true' target is, principally, the republican party and, secondarily, his 'enemies'. you just keep insisting on this point as if it's fact, because you apparently have special insight into the motives of a man, now dead, whom you clearly hold some animosity for. it's not on me to prove an unsupported thesis false.
eco isn't demonizing anyone. but he doesn't even need to; the nazis literally 'demonized' themselves. the occult practices and beliefs of the party leadership are well documented, and interesting in their own right. and remember! that's one of the 'tenements' of fascism, a detail you continually pass over or ignore. you've zeroed in on 'machismo' and 'appeal to a [frustrated, another careful omission on your part]', because it is those elements that seem the most exploitable by you in your little smear campaign.

Good one!

Give me a fucking break. There's no way he wasn't writing this with Republicans in mind. I was alive then and in the US then - it was the exact same freaked out media environment we have now except about the evil Republican Congress. I know absolutely nothing about Eco other than reading this essay and reading people on this site citing it for the proposition that Republicans are fascists. If you were just talking about actual Nazis then we wouldn't even be arguing. You would just say "yeah, being macho and traditional and Republican is nothing like being a fascist. I'm talking about those crazy fuckers on StormFront." Strangely though you won't say that. You could just say "yeah, Antifa are violent assholes, fuck them, I don't agree with Trump and I don't like Trump but he's not a fascist, but (x) and (y) are fascists because they act just Hitler did." You don't say those things because you aren't just trying to condemn the KKK or the Proud Boys or StormFront or some asshole on pol. You are doing what Hitler did and what Eco did: trying to condemn your mainstream political opponents by tying them to lunatics of the past despite no real similarities. You are doing it with the knowledge that calling someone a fascist will cause a portion of the left to react with violence against them. You are encouraging violence against people who you disagree with most likely because of religious or cultural differences. This is the behavior of an utter asshole and you should be ashamed of yourself. If you want to condemn Nazis, fine - that's not what you're doing. You, like Eco, and like Hitler, want to point fingers. And you point them against the other - people different from you.

bugman doesn't like the feel of the light on him
bugman burrows deeper into the wall, into the dark, where he can roll up the collected shit with his chitinous forelegs

This is the sound of someone with no substantive response.

bugman can't register self-irony over sound of his own chittering

>Dehumanize the Other

What was that about fascist tactics again?

tu quoquequequeque again and again and again and again and again and again

Attached: e50.gif (480x360, 580K)

>You are doing what Hitler did and what Eco did:
my sides

>I know absolutely nothing about Eco

Then maybe you shouldn't post about things you're obviously ignorant of. Is it therapeutic for you to give us your half-formed deranged thoughts?

You sound like a real scholar - notice again no substantive defense of those criteria being a coherent definition of fascism. Just more "bash the fash, whoever they are, let's bash them."

Because I have no interest in engaging with some crazy person who goes off on a rant about Trump, antifa, Hitler, etc. unprompted You ignored that other user completely to go on an emotional rant about how Republicans aren't fascist.

Fascism is the West's generic brand of police state, communism the East's. They function in much the same lawless way, usually with a charismatic psychopath at the top, and lots of cultish paranoia to misdirect the public's view of who the real culprits are. They also come in "lite" versions, which are better managed exactly insofar as unoppressive. They pertain to the knee-jerk instinct for ridding the local environment of rival tribes, and are to states roughly what the abusive style of domesticity is to families.

So what were the systems of Germany and Italy that they had around the Second World War? That sounds awfully like what we have now. If we live under fascism what do you call the people who opposed it?

LO fucking L, this is some deranged nonsense. Keep drinking the kool-aid

it's hard to respond substantively to something without substance

the defining attribute of Kristalnacht wasn't "broken windows." If you honestly think that, then you clearly don't know anything about the significance of the event

"Calling conservatives or Republicans or Libertarians fascist is fucking stupid"

I mean, libertarians directly appeal to the inherent hierarchies of capitalism which is how fascism derives its power dynamics, a merging of state and corporate hierarchies

>One particular favorite among the antifascist set, for example, Robert Paxton's "Anatomy of Fascism", is particularly egregious. He managed to write an entire book about fascism without mentioning key thinkers and policy makers like Ugo Spirito, Sergio Panunzio or Carlo Costamagna. At most he mentions Giovani Gentile, but it's clear he never bothered to read him.

I have a commie friend who talked to me recently about this book. How he explained it:

His view/Paxton's view is that the intellectuals of fascism were not important, because fascism as a form of governance ditched a lot of its ideologically baggage when in power. Paxton's view is that fascism as government was a result of the existing elites needing to make concessions to that half of the masses who had been radicalized rightwards, as opposed to just crushing the labour movement with a normal military dictatorship. So 'fascism' in power and fascist movements are not identical.

Attached: hqdefault.jpg (480x360, 22K)

Jesus Christ this is so supremely retarded it hurts. Fuck your commie friend. I don't even like fascists, but if this is the best they can do - "uhhh the rethoric they spout is uhh different from governance uhhh so we don't have to interact with fascist thinkers uhhh" then we're just doomed. The fascists are going to take over and nobody will notice because everyone fucking has this shitty meme understanding of fascists as just vulgar neonazis.

>We will lose to fascism because we don’t understand
Good, glad to see a optimist here.

He meant the URSS not antifa, and I kinda agree with him
Be a little honest intellectually

>The defining attribute of Kristalnacht wasn't broken windows
>But the defining attributes of being a fascist are being macho, appealing to the middle class, and being traditional

Turnabout is fair play.

Which means socialists and communists are also fascists because they merge those power structures into one, and we're back to a pointlessly broad definition that has nothing to do with why fascism was bad (not the merger of power but the manner of its exercise). And again the "antifascists" are using that definition as a weapon to label their political enemies, demonize them, and encourage the stupider people among them to engage in violence to shut down political debate - the same kind of misuse of political power structures that made fascism bad.

>real fascism has never been tried

Attached: bx142_2bc2_9-e1527968040342.jpg (727x545, 45K)

there he goes again, click click clicking his mandibles
he's even dropped the pretense of the centrist mediator
bugman's a partisan
but we knew that
we are careful taxonomists

Is being a bug supposed to be some kind of insult or something where you are? Or is this more pretentious "I really am smart I promise" posing about how you've heard of some Greek mythology and shit, so your midwit logical reasoning abilities don't matter? Everybody has some party. The "center" in this context is about 99% of the country. There's a small rump of idiots on the right who really believe in Nazism / fascism and a small rump of idiots on the left who commit all this violence. And then there's people who goad others into that violence by trying to expand the definition of fascism to include half the country instead of the fraction that actually believes in it.

>the structural elements are not what's important, guys
>no, no
>the real important thing, the thing you all gotta notice, is that faggots in black bandanas are punching my friends in the face
>thtat's the real horror here
>that's what fascism is *really* about--punching people

do the r/the_donald mods give you a stipend for what you do here, or is it truly a work of love?

Yeah, actually, if all the structural elements you identify also exist in other countries and systems, and those countries and systems do not replicate the same level of violence as fascism did, you start to wonder whether maybe it's not being macho, unifying power, or appealing to the middle class that is the problem. Maybe it is in fact something about taking power using insanely violent means (burning down the Reichstag, murdering thousands at political rallies, taking entire political rallies hostage, attempted coups, constant low level violence, etc.). By encouraging your followers to engage in that violence, to view it as a valid means of resolving person to person political disputes or acquiring power, and by promoting the people who most engage in that street violence, maybe you are infecting the system with attitudes and incentives that are then replicated throughout that system and result in violence on an industrial scale by the same people who organized it on a local scale. Or maybe I'm wrong, maybe it was all those appeals to the middle class.

syncretism
the rejection of modernism
irrationalism
unity of opinion and rejection of pluralism
fear of difference
appeal to a *frustrated* middle class
conspiratorial thinking, obsession with a plot
fantasies of humiliation and revenge
ideology of life as permanent warfare; armageddon paradox
popular elitism and contempt for the weak
thanatic cultism and hero worship
machismo
selective populism and distrust of parliamemtary procedure
proliferation of newspeak and other propagandist weapons
those are the elements eco identifies, in brief
contend with them all togeher or shut the fuck up

Real capitalism has never been tried.
In all honestly, like your image suggests, Mussolini had a thing going, but the Axis lost the war so of course that wouldn't last.
>wubba Hitler tho?
The man inherited a country that was completely fucked.

You can apply all of these to Antifa or many of other countries. You can apply the entire list to pretty much every country in existence up until 1980 or so. Defining fascism as "everyone" and then urging people to "point fingers" at hidden fascists in a paranoid screed does not make Eco some intelligent thinker. The omission all the things that resulted in the actual violence and genocide is glaring. It's expressly intended by the essay. If those things were included, you wouldn't be able to use the definition for the purpose Eco expressly says in the essay people should use it for - accusing people who do not actually believe in fascism of fascism. And what's the result? Replication of all the street violence that created Hitler, only you're wearing black instead of brown.

you are trying to collapse fascism, and anything that might make it distinctive, into political violence simpliciter. by this move, you can then point your own finger at anyone you personal oppose, and level a--by your new criteriom--valid accusation of fascistic actions.
fascism, by your account, is simply pointing out people you don't like, and suggesting someone punch them, which is a strategy open to anyone, and has nothing to do with what makes fascism a unique and potentially very dangerous movement. violence is not unique to anyone.
it is so, so obvious what you're up to, it should be insulting. as it is, though, it's mostly just pathetic.

I think it's a mistake to view American Progressivism as anything other than an imperial cult, it's a hodgepodge of beliefs the US requires it's citizens to hold. Any core proposition of, say, liberalism, might hold for one ethnic group but not another, e.g. labor theory of property holds for blacks and Natives, such that any property labored on by a black is rightful black property for all time, when a white person does the same, they didn't build that or it was racist. Desires are prior to society for gays but not for blacks, Darwinism is good when it can be used to attack Christianity but bad when it implies race differences, and so on. The only unifying threads are opposition to the native population by the elite, and materialism.

How is fascism a "subset" of revolution? That makes no sense whatsoever. Fascism generally comes to rise through electoralism and reform, not revolution

Ahahhahahahahahahahhahahaahahahahahahhhhahahaaaaahhahahahahahahahahahahahahhahhh@hhahaahahahahahahh@hahaahaahaa+ahhh@hahahah+@hhaalamallamalamalmallamalamlalamaalallamalam kkekekekekkekke bhur bur hiehue jiehehahajahahahahah you stupid nigger ahhahahahaqhahahqhahahahahahahahahaahahhaqhahhaqhqhhaahHhxjxjxuahahahah

antifa is decentralized. there's no overarching power structure with antifa. I doubt you understand what socialism or communism are if you're making that kind of statement. Marxists-leninists use the power of a revolutionized worker's state to subvert existing corporate power structures and instate democracy. Whether or not that's how it plays out in practice is another question, but that is the goal. And ML's are only a subsection of socialist/communist theories/ideology

That's not "turnabout," you're comparing the characteristic of a single event to the historical characteristics or an ideology. By your logic, a kid hitting a baseball into a window accidentally is exercising fascist ideology.

Fascism inherently strives toward hierarchy which has been established in the past through the family model which includes all of those traits. Not that those are the "inherent traits" (idk who said that where). The new crypto-fascist movement appeals to the business model which is still largely dominated by appeals to masculinity and traditionalism, so not much has changed.

whew buddy, take a deep breath. Maybe step outside a minute. I'm sure you can form a coherent statement if you give it some time