For those who actually want fascism to mean something, Umberto Eco's 14 key points of Ur-Fascism are handy:
-
"The cult of tradition", characterized by cultural syncretism, even at the risk of internal contradiction. When all truth has already been revealed by tradition, no new learning can occur, only further interpretation and refinement.
-
"The rejection of modernism", which views the rationalistic development of Western culture since the Enlightenment as a descent into depravity. Eco distinguishes this from a rejection of superficial technological advancement, as many fascist regimes cite their industrial potency as proof of the vitality of their system.
-
"The cult of action for action's sake", which dictates that action is of value in itself and should be taken without intellectual reflection. This, says Eco, is connected with anti-intellectualism and irrationalism, and often manifests in attacks on modern culture and science.
-
"Disagreement is treason" – fascism devalues intellectual discourse and critical reasoning as barriers to action, as well as out of fear that such analysis will expose the contradictions embodied in a syncretistic faith.
-
"Fear of difference", which fascism seeks to exploit and exacerbate, often in the form of racism or an appeal against foreigners and immigrants.
-
"Appeal to a frustrated middle class", fearing economic pressure from the demands and aspirations of lower social groups.
-
"Obsession with a plot" and the hyping-up of an enemy threat. This often combines an appeal to xenophobia with a fear of disloyalty and sabotage from marginalized groups living within the society. Eco also cites Pat Robertson's book The New World Order as a prominent example of a plot obsession.
-
Fascist societies rhetorically cast their enemies as "at the same time too strong and too weak". On the one hand, fascists play up the power of certain disfavored elites to encourage in their followers a sense of grievance and humiliation. On the other hand, fascist leaders point to the decadence of those elites as proof of their ultimate feebleness in the face of an overwhelming popular will.
-
"Pacifism is trafficking with the enemy" because "life is permanent warfare" – there must always be an enemy to fight. Both fascist Germany under Hitler and Italy under Mussolini worked first to organize and clean up their respective countries and then build the war machines that they later intended to and did use, despite Germany being under restrictions of the Versailles treaty to not build a military force. This principle leads to a fundamental contradiction within fascism: the incompatibility of ultimate triumph with perpetual war.
-
"Contempt for the weak", which is uncomfortably married to a chauvinistic popular elitism, in which every member of society is superior to outsiders by virtue of belonging to the in-group. Eco sees in these attitudes the root of a deep tension in the fundamentally hierarchical structure of fascist polities, as they encourage leaders to despise their underlings, up to the ultimate leader, who holds the whole country in contempt for having allowed him to overtake it by force.
-
"Everybody is educated to become a hero", which leads to the embrace of a cult of death. As Eco observes, "[t]he Ur-Fascist hero is impatient to die. In his impatience, he more frequently sends other people to death."
-
"Machismo", which sublimates the difficult work of permanent war and heroism into the sexual sphere. Fascists thus hold "both disdain for women and intolerance and condemnation of nonstandard sexual habits, from chastity to homosexuality".
-
"Selective populism" – the people, conceived monolithically, have a common will, distinct from and superior to the viewpoint of any individual. As no mass of people can ever be truly unanimous, the leader holds himself out as the interpreter of the popular will (though truly he alone dictates it). Fascists use this concept to delegitimize democratic institutions they accuse of "no longer represent[ing] the voice of the people".
-
"Newspeak" – fascism employs and promotes an impoverished vocabulary in order to limit critical reasoning.
Cool, I actually have. Have you actually read the Doctrine of Fascism?
Yes, how horrible that a definition of fascism might have traits that exclude one of the primary ideological foes of fascism even according to fascism itself?
How positively unhinged.
Oh yes, how horrible would it be if non-fascists used fascists as a point of comparison to prove that they aren't fascists.
liberal democracies are breeding grounds for fascism. every fascist regime has emerged from them.
How would you characterize the right-wing of the Kuomintang under Chiang Kai-shek?
lmao either say what you're trying to say or shut the fuck up. Stop trying to cryptically flex historical knowledge when you clearly are just trying to simp for Democrats who, by the way, are very clearly fascist in actions, words, style. The Dems play just as much into military machismo culture as the Republicans, they just want gay soldiers to die in war, too.
"I don't think you know what you're talking about and a simple historical example will show as much"?
Yow.
Yes exactly, your point is "I think I'm smarter than you." That's a shitty point. People can be educated on fascism and not know about the history of fascism in every country 🙄
If someone claims "Every fascist regime emerges from liberal democracy", and I contradict them with an example of fascism emerging from a non-liberal origin, I guess that's... what, a red card? Orange? I don't know sports very well. What kind of foul am I looking at here for "Showing a point is blatantly and factually wrong"?
If you wanted to say that's what you meant, you could have said that lmao that's my point you dumbass
That's literally what I did say. An example of fascism emerging from a non-liberal origin.
If you said, "I disagree bc this historical event is an example of fascism coming from a non-liberal origin"... then yes, that would have been literally what you said. But that's not what you said. So why say that's literally what you said? It literally is not lol
Yes exactly. You didn't make any points, you just brought something up. You did explain your point way further down, but, that is only after being called out lmao
I think everyone understood the counter argument immediately.
You made a claim and @PugJesus@lemmy.world disproved it within seconds and now you're butthurt about it and because you don't have a counter argument you're dragging on about rhetorical devices and argumentation.
I wasn't arguing with pugjesus, just in contention with their disingenuous communication. PugJesus did not disprove any claims I made. I think you're not following the conversation.
You don't have any evidence one way or the other that everyone understood the counter argument immediately, what he brought up was a relatively obscure historical event and if you disagree with that assertion, I can't even begin to take you seriously.
Don't worry, we get it. You have nothing of substance left to say so we're left with your sad deconstruction of rhetorical devices.
? I entered the conversation pointing out a rude style of communication. You're just continuing it lol. Talking about communication is substantial.
Yeah, no one is fooled by your rhetorical critique. But nice try to dodge the convo.
It's not really dodging a conversation when you enter it being critical of the rhetoric, and not the content. I don't think anyone is fooled but I think you are confused.
LMAO democrats being the primary foe of fascism. Have you never heard of.... any left wing theory? 😂😂😂
The Clinton campaign's strategy was literally promoting Trump. They want to promote the most extreme, overtly bigoted Republicans so that they seem like a good deal in comparison. This isn't something I made up, it was their actual campaign strategy.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/11/hillary-clinton-2016-donald-trump-214428/
They prop up extremists to try to get people to vote for their LGBT-friendly center-right party instead of voting left. All the policies that impact fascist imperial power [war-mongering, healthcare (not having access to healthcare outside of work weakens the labor movement/left wing organizing), immigration etc] stay largely the same.
Stop trying to be a pompous ass about what you have and haven't read and pay attention.
Liberal democracies was the point of contention. And the Doctrine of Fascism literally goes over this point.
"We gambled that the American people would soundly reject fascism, and we lost that gamble. Therefore, we are now fascists"?
I didn't realize that when someone says "You can read Mussolini to see what fascism is" I'm not allowed to say "I have" without being a pompous ass.
Yeah, you know damn well that Democrats are one of the major parties in the US liberal Democracy, and you know damn well you are trying to defend them.
They gambled fascism because their policy is not far enough away from the Republican ideology for it to have been a serious existential concern. You're almost there....
And yes, the way you said " Actually, I have read it" and immediately was like "ohhh but have you read this??" was extremely pompous and gross lol
Oh? Is that why?
Well, I'm sorry for being a pompous intellectual who 'reads things' and 'responds when told to read something he has already read and in fact contradicts the point being made'.
If you just name titles of books and concepts, you're not contradicting any points you're leaving the contradiction as an exercise to the reader and like, bragging about reading which is obnoxious and which you're doing again here 😂
I apologize for being literate and being able to respond when someone asks me "Have you read X?"
It's not that you read, it's that you name drop books and knowledge instead of incorporating them into a discussion. And your self-defensive posture of "well SORRY for READING" is like the oldest trick in the manipulator's book.
It's not that you read, it's that you brag about reading in a way that doesn't contribute to the conversation. It's not that you responded, it's that you responded in a way that turned the suggestion into a pissing match of who has read what.
I'm telling you this, but I'm sure you know this because you probably do this all the time to give yourself an ego boost.
Oh, okay. Who brought up reading Mussolini in this discussion, again, and used it as an assertion of fascism's definition, without ever defining fascism with the actual writings of Mussolini? Was it me or the other commenter? Sorry, I'm very scatter-brained, you'll have to remind me.
they said if you want to learn more about a topic that they described, that you can read Mussolini.
you responsed with a sarcastic "Cool" and said oh by the way have you actually even read Mussolini?
I can't be the first person to tell you how obnoxious you are lol. And I know you know what you're doing lol.
Yes, I asked if they'd read, specifically, the Doctrine of Fascism since the Doctrine of Fascism quite literally contradicts their points.
Yeah, arguing?
If you felt there was a contradiction, you could have named that contradiction. All you did was say that you thought the other person hasn't even read it. The tone was not, "oh if you have read Mussolini why do you think he says etc etc when the Doctrine of Fascism says etc etc " it was "I have read a lot and I don't think you have read the things you said you have read"
What you're doing is acting passive aggressively superior at every turn and not making or directly addressing any actual points 🥴 very liberal coded of you, not surprising
Okay.
Glad you agree, sucks you won't ever change