You’re the one who brought up fascism. I said I can’t think of an example of fascism working. Cutting government scope is the opposite of fascism. Fascism is characterized by a strong centralized authority, which cutting is the opposite of.
Oh - my mistake - you think you’re not supporting fascism… It’d be quaint if it weren’t for the consequences.
Fascism is characterised by the merging of state and commercial interests, not a strong centralised authority in a beuracratic sense. Let’s run the list, shall we?
“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.
Check.
“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.
Check.
“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.
Check.
“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.
Big check.
“Fear of difference”, which fascism seeks to exploit and exacerbate, often in the form of racism or an appeal against foreigners and immigrants.
That couldn’t be Trum- CHECK.
“Appeal to a frustrated middle class”, fearing economic pressure from the demands and aspirations of lower social groups.
Check.
“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.
Check.
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.
Check.
“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.
Ukraine/Palestine - soft check.
“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.
Check.
“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.”
Soft check, but that’s clearly firming up.
“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”.
Check.
“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”.
Check.
“Newspeak” – fascism employs and promotes an impoverished vocabulary in order to limit critical reasoning.
Thanks for the long and thoughtful response, but I think there is some misunderstandings about how Eco’s framework applies here. Ur-Fascism identifies things that may tend to lead to fascist thinking, rather than giving a definitive checklist of all actions that are fascist. Traits alone are not fascism; fascism arises when the state pushes to unify under a regime that enforces conformity, suppresses opposition, and uses centralized power to control people’s lives.
Remember, we’re discussing cutting government programs here, which is an economic decision, not inherently an authoritarian one. Fascism means expanding government power into private lives, enforcing a singular national identity, and controlling all discourse and industries. Cutting state programs, even if you personally disagree with the decision, limits government reach, which contradicts the key central tendency of fascism.
I think Eco’s framework is important for recognizing creeping authoritarianism, but when you carelessly apply it too broadly, you risk watering down the concept of fascism. Mislabeling every policy decision you disagree with as “fascist” can make it harder to identify actual authoritarian threats when they arise, and is inherently divisive, attempting to shut down meaningful discussion rather than welcome it. Instead of carelessly jumping straight to labels, I think it’s important to have more nuanced discussions about the reasons and implications of government policy.
Cutting agencies isn’t a fascist policy. It’s a move toward decentralization. Rather than expanding the government and corporate power, cuts to state agencies seek to limit their control over individual lives. It’s a move toward necessary fiscal responsibility. The US federal government’s current level of spending is not sustainable, and will inevitably lead to the shutdown of all of these agencies and more, crippling taxes (of course always on the middle and lower class), hyperinflation, or an unpleasant mixture of all three.
In fact, I will argue that excessive debt is a powerful driver of authoritarian policies, as the state is forced to prioritize revenue collection, even it it means infringing on the well-being of the people. Fiscal restraint, in contrast, reduces the risk state power will expand through financial necessity, making it anti-authoritarian. I think that’s a good thing.
When very charitably, at least 12 of Eco’s 14 signs of Ur fascism has been checked off along with the dictionary definition, this is a pretty weak argument - Where do you get your meaning of words if it’s not based on the dictionary or on something’s traits?
Deregulation and the outsourcing of state power to complicit, newly empowered commercial interests is standard within fascism, and pushing that power from notionally democratic direct government control to undemocratic businesses that have an interest in preserving the government that removed their guardrails and handed them all that power is undeniably authoritarian. Would you make the argument that company towns aren’t authoritarian or centralised because it’s not government power?
Excessive debt is indeed a driver of authoritatian policy for better or worse, but fascism isn’t the only flavour of authoritarianism. Similarly, company towns tend to thrive in small government environments, and are historically incredibly authoritarian. That’s not a good thing.
I don’t agree that company towns were authoritarian. Can you find a real example that wasn’t just a newspaper political cartoon or a song? What did it mean to live in those towns? Think about it rationally. Let’s argue that a company was able to completely set up a new town with no previously existing infrastructure. Perhaps a mining company in remote Alaska. How do they get workers? They offer low rent or free housing, good schools, and reasonably priced shops, in addition to attractive salaries. This creates a real-life “company town” we’ve all heard of. What would happen if the company ever slacked off or attempted to exploit its “monopoly”? Of course, workers would begin to leave and look for work elsewhere! Who could possibly stop them from doing so, other than the state?
That’s the major difference between a state authority and a private “authority”. Private organizations are subject to market forces and competition. They can’t just simply be elected and do as they will for 2,4, 10 years, or life, without concern. The worse job private institutions do, the more unfair their pricing, the more attractive it becomes for competitive forces to come in and take their place. All the examples you can find of how terrible privatization is (e.g. healthcare) is actually because they are completely backed by the full might of the state, creating true monopolies and anti-competitive environment. These often come about as corruption and authoritarianism, private companies give money to key stakeholders in the state, who then use their power to craft regulation to protect their friends at the private companies, in return for more money. This will always happen, regardless of how many rules or safeguards you craft. If you don’t like that happening, the only solution is to stop giving the state the power to do that.
What confident ignorance that would be overcome with any research whatsoever. This is clear enough that I don’t need to bother with an explanation - Here’s 3 search terms for you:
You’re the one who brought up fascism. I said I can’t think of an example of fascism working. Cutting government scope is the opposite of fascism. Fascism is characterized by a strong centralized authority, which cutting is the opposite of.
Oh - my mistake - you think you’re not supporting fascism… It’d be quaint if it weren’t for the consequences.
Fascism is characterised by the merging of state and commercial interests, not a strong centralised authority in a beuracratic sense. Let’s run the list, shall we?
Check.
Check.
Check.
Big check.
That couldn’t be Trum- CHECK.
Check.
Check.
Check.
Ukraine/Palestine - soft check.
Check.
Soft check, but that’s clearly firming up.
Check.
Check.
Check.
I’ve got bad news for you…
Thanks for the long and thoughtful response, but I think there is some misunderstandings about how Eco’s framework applies here. Ur-Fascism identifies things that may tend to lead to fascist thinking, rather than giving a definitive checklist of all actions that are fascist. Traits alone are not fascism; fascism arises when the state pushes to unify under a regime that enforces conformity, suppresses opposition, and uses centralized power to control people’s lives.
Remember, we’re discussing cutting government programs here, which is an economic decision, not inherently an authoritarian one. Fascism means expanding government power into private lives, enforcing a singular national identity, and controlling all discourse and industries. Cutting state programs, even if you personally disagree with the decision, limits government reach, which contradicts the key central tendency of fascism.
I think Eco’s framework is important for recognizing creeping authoritarianism, but when you carelessly apply it too broadly, you risk watering down the concept of fascism. Mislabeling every policy decision you disagree with as “fascist” can make it harder to identify actual authoritarian threats when they arise, and is inherently divisive, attempting to shut down meaningful discussion rather than welcome it. Instead of carelessly jumping straight to labels, I think it’s important to have more nuanced discussions about the reasons and implications of government policy.
Cutting agencies isn’t a fascist policy. It’s a move toward decentralization. Rather than expanding the government and corporate power, cuts to state agencies seek to limit their control over individual lives. It’s a move toward necessary fiscal responsibility. The US federal government’s current level of spending is not sustainable, and will inevitably lead to the shutdown of all of these agencies and more, crippling taxes (of course always on the middle and lower class), hyperinflation, or an unpleasant mixture of all three.
In fact, I will argue that excessive debt is a powerful driver of authoritarian policies, as the state is forced to prioritize revenue collection, even it it means infringing on the well-being of the people. Fiscal restraint, in contrast, reduces the risk state power will expand through financial necessity, making it anti-authoritarian. I think that’s a good thing.
When very charitably, at least 12 of Eco’s 14 signs of Ur fascism has been checked off along with the dictionary definition, this is a pretty weak argument - Where do you get your meaning of words if it’s not based on the dictionary or on something’s traits?
Deregulation and the outsourcing of state power to complicit, newly empowered commercial interests is standard within fascism, and pushing that power from notionally democratic direct government control to undemocratic businesses that have an interest in preserving the government that removed their guardrails and handed them all that power is undeniably authoritarian. Would you make the argument that company towns aren’t authoritarian or centralised because it’s not government power?
Excessive debt is indeed a driver of authoritatian policy for better or worse, but fascism isn’t the only flavour of authoritarianism. Similarly, company towns tend to thrive in small government environments, and are historically incredibly authoritarian. That’s not a good thing.
I don’t agree that company towns were authoritarian. Can you find a real example that wasn’t just a newspaper political cartoon or a song? What did it mean to live in those towns? Think about it rationally. Let’s argue that a company was able to completely set up a new town with no previously existing infrastructure. Perhaps a mining company in remote Alaska. How do they get workers? They offer low rent or free housing, good schools, and reasonably priced shops, in addition to attractive salaries. This creates a real-life “company town” we’ve all heard of. What would happen if the company ever slacked off or attempted to exploit its “monopoly”? Of course, workers would begin to leave and look for work elsewhere! Who could possibly stop them from doing so, other than the state?
That’s the major difference between a state authority and a private “authority”. Private organizations are subject to market forces and competition. They can’t just simply be elected and do as they will for 2,4, 10 years, or life, without concern. The worse job private institutions do, the more unfair their pricing, the more attractive it becomes for competitive forces to come in and take their place. All the examples you can find of how terrible privatization is (e.g. healthcare) is actually because they are completely backed by the full might of the state, creating true monopolies and anti-competitive environment. These often come about as corruption and authoritarianism, private companies give money to key stakeholders in the state, who then use their power to craft regulation to protect their friends at the private companies, in return for more money. This will always happen, regardless of how many rules or safeguards you craft. If you don’t like that happening, the only solution is to stop giving the state the power to do that.
What confident ignorance that would be overcome with any research whatsoever. This is clear enough that I don’t need to bother with an explanation - Here’s 3 search terms for you:
Company town
Pullman
Monopoly