From the PDF:

> But in spite of this fuzziness, I think it is possible to outline a list of features that are typical of what I would like to call Ur-Fascism, or Eternal Fascism. These features cannot be organized into a system; many of them contradict each other, and are also typical of other kinds of despotism or fanaticism. But it is enough that one of them be present to allow fascism to coagulate around it.

Think of these not as "prerequisites for Facism", but rather, "common features of many Fascist societies, systems and beliefs".

Of course, this is just one view in an actively studied subject. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_fascism has a survey of various perspectives.

Somewhat related: This video essay on the relation of modernist and fascist art was where I first encountered this essay. While I don't agree with all of the author's conclusions, I found it an enjoyable and thought-provoking watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5DqmTtCPiQ

> But it seems like the list gets wielded in a way to stick the 'fascist' label on someone, and not much else.

Hmm, maybe that's the way some people use it, but it doesn't seem to be Eco's intent, and I assume most people who share this article these days are mainly trying to broaden out our understanding of history, in all its complexity.

At least, that's my intent in chiming in here to recommend this slightly more in-depth perspective:

http://w3.salemstate.edu/~cmauriello/pdfEuropean/Paxton_Five...

The first page or two was promising, I'll try to get through it later.

> it doesn't seem to be Eco's intent, and I assume most people who share this article these days are mainly trying to broaden out our understanding of history

Yeah, I agree with this. One way I've been starting to look at it is that anthropologists/sociologist will study this stuff academically, observationally, but then some distortions can happen:

- In an attempt to provide a tidy narrative, various shades of gray get lumped into the black and white columns

- The results of the research get weaponized. Guilt by association.

> Am I 1/14 fascist because I critique various aspects of modernism?

No.

Nevertheless-- isn't it your responsibility to know the intersection between your own personal beliefs and what's being used by, say, a neofascist movement in order to gain more followers? (Say, if that were the case.)

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. Is it the responsibility of a running clock to know the time that the stopped clock displays?

That is, I am not so worried that I'm a fascist that I'm going through the list, making sure that I share no points of intersection. I could have a point in common (syncretistic beliefs, say, or criticism of modernism) as part of a completely benign worldview. The fact that there is one point in common does not render my worldview fascistic or otherwise malignant. (In this, I am disagreeing with Eco, who said "But it is enough that one of them be present to allow fascism to coagulate around it.")

Now, the closer I get to all the points in common, the more concerning it is (and also the less likely I am to honestly do the comparison). But no, I'm not worried about "1/14 fascist"... at least not in myself, because I'm pretty sure my worldview is benign. (On the other hand, everybody thinks that...)

> at least not in myself

I'm not worried about HN users' ability to assess their own internal beliefs.

I am worried about HN users beginning and ending their self-reflection at a mere assessment of whether they think their intentions are good/benign/etc.

To go old school with your broken clock example-- if everyone's unset VCR eternally reads "12:00", you probably want to know whether the current time is exactly 12:00 when you try to convince a neighbor you programmed yours. (Well, theirs would blink, but you get the idea.)

It's a bigger deal when a benign belief intersects with the beliefs of neo-fascists or other asshole ideologies.

That may or may not require one to do anything in particular in response, depending on the context. But to not realize the intersections with asshole ideologies, or-- worse-- to actively resist caring (not saying you are, but that seems a growing pattern on social media)-- seems at best like electing to be a willing troglodyte in a complex world.

Edit: clarification

This is a thoughtful reply; thanks for it. I know that my framing is a sorites paradox, and won't have a tidy answer.

But maybe that's my point: Fascism is but one particular flavor of malicious totalitarianism, and totalitarianism can coagulate around a vast variety of beliefs across the political/religious/cultural spectra.

Studying the commonalities of particular flavors can be helpful, but it's tremendously unhelpful to whip out the list, check some boxes, and decide that someone is A Bad Person as a result.

I think it's at least as often used to decide that I am not A Bad Person...

What do you mean?

You said:

> Fascism is but one particular flavor of malicious totalitarianism, and totalitarianism can coagulate around a vast variety of beliefs across the political/religious/cultural spectra.

I can go through a list like that, make sure that I check none of the boxes, and decide that I am verifiably not A Bad Person. (As if the only kinds of badness are fitting Eco's fascism checklist.) Or that the movement I'm attracted to is verifiably not A Bad Movement.

(All that said, it's not a totally bad list, and it does cross over some between different flavors of politics. Even Antifa checks more boxes than they would be comfortable with, if they seriously considered it.)

Thanks for clarifying!

>isn't it your responsibility to know the intersection between your own personal beliefs and what's being used by, say, a neofascist movement in order to gain more followers?

I would say...no? Maybe in some cases, but I would think it rather unsustainable for humans in general to have to 1) keep records on what fringe elements believe and 2) be held accountable for people who share the same beliefs but also do things that are bad.

Taking on the responsibility to be clear about the context of one's positions doesn't mean one would be "held accountable" for people who share the same beliefs. To me it just means taking on the responsibility to be clear, especially if it's in the context of something that quite glaringly intersects with neo-fascist or even nihilistic sarcasm rhetoric which often has the opposite goal. Unfortunately, I don't think those are fringe beliefs at the moment.

The other problem-- a whole lotta people are getting used to the social media economy of impressions and attention-keeping. Since the most effective current methods have to do with divisive and controversial content, it sure seems like there are a lot of bloggers and podcasters who go out of their way not to clarify positions that may intersect with a lot of nasty ideologies.

So at least until we figure out a way for social media to be less socially destructive, I'm going to take it upon myself to carry around a heavy backpack of context for all my online utterances. Otherwise I'm just leaving things to various dark patterns and algos which I know are up to no good.

> If someone hits 12 of the 14 markers, does that make him a fascist? What about six, or three, or one? Am I 1/14 fascist because I critique various aspects of modernism?

After carefully reading your comment I carefully read all the replies, just to make sure this hasn't been addressed: by focusing on whether this or that item from Eco's list qualifies you individually as a fascist is missing the point. The essay is about movements, not a checklist to asses individual leanings.

>This is a bit ironic, no? He's amalgamating aspects of different cultures into a generalized descriptor of a culture that's still being referenced decades later.

It's not the amalgamations, it's that that is the end of it.

To create an illustrator straw man

They say: All knowledge is already written and we just need to recombine it in new ways.

You say: Ah but here is a criticism of that, using new or different sources

They say: Those don't count we know all we need to know, everything know is already written.

I think you misinterpreted it. The intent is not to put labels on someone's forehead.

Some of these symptoms are not related to fascism, and are not problematic in themselves. But when you see more of these showing up, you need to be a bit critical and see how fascism has worked in other countries, because you might be in a position to stop its rise. It's more a warning about the need to be careful.

If someone ticks 12 of the 14 boxes, it means that person should be approached cautiously. Same way as someone believing in flat earth and fake moon landings makes them more likely to fall for QAnon.

> To the extent they someone does match the list, all that really does is note that he'd match the characteristics of a few governments in the early 20th century

There were a bunch of far-right and/or nationalists governments in the early 20th Century. It did not really end well and that is not something we should emulate.

Also, this definition does not only apply narrowly to self-professed fascists. It fits Stalinism and Maoism (and Xi-ism, Putinism, and Orbanism, if that is a thing) quite well, too. These regimes are fascist in all but name. I think if you want to swap mentally "fascism" with "totalitarianism", the essay is still instructive.

> This is a bit ironic, no?

No, I think he is right on point. This is how QAnon followers get over cognitive dissonance and how populists harness conflicting conspiracy theories and ideologies to their advantage. Not all syncretism is bad, but syncretism is a very powerful tool in the hands of an oppressor. This is how the Romans bought peace, and how the Church extended its power.

Look at how Trump (a notorious rich liar, divorced philanderer who ostensibly made fortunes in casinos and who never showed an ounce of religious belief) managed to unite Republicans, poor Whites, and Christians fundamentalists. He (said he) offered to everyone something they wanted, regardless of the consistency of it all.

> If someone hits 12 of the 14 markers, does that make him a fascist?

as with everything, depends on point of view.

If you are in a region/demographic being crushed by foreign powers, i'd say someone hitting even 1 of the 14 markers could legitimacy be considered one

Likewise, from your very comfortable point of view, even someone hitting 14 of the markers may not be considered one. I mean, you can have that one friend with the racist jokes that even have a couple black friends, right?

>If you are in a region/demographic being crushed by foreign powers, i'd say someone hitting even 1 of the 14 markers could legitimacy be considered one

I don't understand this, could you elaborate?

> you can have that one friend with the racist jokes that even have a couple black friends, right?

I don't know. I guess if a friend was exhibiting racist behavior, I'd be more interested in trying to get him to stop than trying to figure out if he's a racist, or a fascist.

> If someone hits 12 of the 14 markers, does that make him a fascist? What about six, or three, or one? Am I 1/14 fascist because I critique various aspects of modernism?

> To the extent they someone does match the list, all that really does is note that he'd match the characteristics of a few governments in the early 20th century. But that's only one kind of totalitarianism, and obsessive focus on it allows other kinds to slip through the cracks.

I think this comes down to Fascism just being a bit of an odd duck in the political discussion. Fascism seems to be an ever-present undercurrent of basically all Democratic and Republic-style societies, always there but not always apparent. There is always a subset of the population that believes their Government doesn't work, for any number of reasons, and to any given extent: Fascism plays well with a certain subset of those people. And the appeal is very easy to understand: if you perceive the systems that rule over you are fatally flawed, wouldn't it be so much better and easier to circumvent those systems and put in place people who would break the rules, but improve the nation?

But that of course alone does not constitute Fascism. I was listening to one of Robert Evan's podcasts where he and his guest (I'm sorry I forget the episode and show) were remarking that Fascism is less an ideology or even a movement, and more of just, an aesthetic that could be adopted by basically any ideology or movement, if the appropriate leader comes along, which is one of the reasons it gets thrown around so much, besides just the historical connotations to the Nazis, of course. They theorized that the values of most Fascist movements (appeals to tradition/a mythic past, hatred of weakness, hatred of the other) make them more compatible with those of a conservative bent, but leftists are not immune from it either.

People tend to forget that most of the Axis powers, save perhaps for Imperial Japan, were also extremely Fascist. Italy especially. And, prior to the United States' involvement in WWII, Hitler and Mussolini were renowned for their invigorating of their respective countries and their abilities as orators.

> This is a bit ironic, no? He's amalgamating aspects of different cultures into a generalized descriptor of a culture that's still being referenced decades later.

I mean, it keeps showing up. There are authoritarians seemingly all over the place at our particular moment of world history, many of which tick off numerous boxes on Eco's list. Does this mean they are all Fascists? I would say, yes, to a degree. I don't think one must wait for all the boxes to be checked before asking some questions. Does that mean they all merit interventions ala World War II? No. I just think it's something worth keeping in mind. And besides, America, the world police, are currently ticking far too many of those boxes ourselves to be throwing any stones out of our glass Fascist house anyway.

What makes you think Japan wasn't Fascist ? It was a military dictatorship. All the Axis powers were explicitly Fascist, as were neutral Spain and Portugal.

I dunno if I'd qualify a military dictatorship as Fascist though, since the typical hallmark of a Fascist government is the singular leader who enthralls the public. Which I guess you could say the emperor, but I dunno, it doesn't hit the same way for me.

> People tend to forget that most of the Axis powers, save perhaps for Imperial Japan, were also extremely Fascist. Italy especially.

Nobody forgets this.

99.9% of the people throwing around the word fascist today have little to no understanding of what that political ideology means.

The exact same situation happens with the word communist, excerpt with the roles reversed. Both are symptoms of falling educational levels, lack of historical knowledge, and an increasing drive to dehumanize and polarize the opposition.

If 99.9% of people missunderstand what a word means, then maybe it doesn't really mean what you think it does, or has no clear meaning at all.

Webster didn't get his dictionary from a discrete meeting with some cave spirit.

Good point. Words are means of communication.

Though there is a problem of ambiguity if word is reused (adjusted) for different meaning, while books (and people) from 1940 still continue using the old meaning.

(just pointing out that meaning of words of dead people also matter)

Then what’s the new definition? Anyone with right wing opinions I don’t like? And I can redefine communist as anyone with left wing opinions that I dislike?

Do you see why this is a dangerous path to go down?

New words appear constantly or old words are re-appropriated to fill the semantic necessities as they appear

Seeing it as a dangerous path implies some voluntarily action and that is not exactly the mechanism at hand.

I think it’s a dangerous path because it leads to dehumanizing the other. As I said, the exact same thing happens when people on the right call anyone left wing a communist. Exactly same phenomenon, just as dangerous.

What I'm saying is that it's going to happen regardless of the consequences, because of how languages evolve. Coming from a culture that likes to regulate language, I find that any effort in that vein tends to fail pretty spectacularly. At best, you can mandate spelling reforms.

If dehumanization occurs, and people then counter that phenomenon, new words and new meanings will appear naturally just like they always have. Old words will stop being employed. There will still be confusion for a while but it's never really a significant problem. Semantic differences are a symptom of fundamental disagreements rather than a cause.

Look at the word "alt-right" for instance: it filled a need, appeared quickly, was initially criticized as a euphemism but rapidly took on more specific and non-euphemistic meaning. For the younger generations, calling anyone left-wing a communist in the way you describe is already hilariously passé and associated with boomers.

People can choose what words they decide to use. They simply have to be educated enough to know the difference and concerned enough to care.

But that's the point. They don't have to do anything. They will use words in certain ways, and the meaning will change. And if enough people support that meaning, they will be eventually be correct.

Consider how the meaning of epicurean has evolved due to Christian influence over time. Now matter how much education people get on the topic of the original philosophy, it will not be sufficient to erase the alternative meaning of the word.

Well, people like to throw around the term Nazi much in the way. I think in general society does a pretty good job of containing the spread of that word so that _for the most part_, when somebody says Nazi, you can assume they are referring to a party that existed in Germany ~1935, or something very close (self-declared decsendents of Nazis etc) .. Further, I think you will often be checked if you try and mislabel something as Nazi, and rightly so..

It's certainly not the same as with Fascism and I would probably agree with the OP in this thread that the main is reason is that while people have seen plenty of movies about Hitler et al, the same can't be said for Mussolini. The Italian origins of the word seemed to have been lost largely due to historical ignorance..

Essentially, you have the answer already. Since actual Nazis are still very much a highly relevant cultural reference, there is not yet enough inertia for Nazi to become a generic term. Conversely, since few care about Italian fascism, the need is not felt.

The difference here is that this is not something that an intervention can fix, unless it could somehow compete with decades of cultural interactions and signifiers from billions of people. It's not a case of containing anything: that's essentially an anthropomorphization similar to seeing evolution as having intent. That is why the idea of wanting to educate people in the hopes of enforcing "correct" wording is fundamentally flawed because it has almost nothing to do with how words actually change or stay the same.

Well.. I think if there was a blockbuster movie that came out with Brad Pitt starring as Il Duce and it clearly articulated the origins, I think it would have a significant effect.

The prescriptive/descriptive discussion doesn't mean much to me (although DFW has a great essay on it if you are so inclined). I just wanted to throw my 2c in with the guy being downvoted, because I think he's right. I think the extent of Average Joe's historical knowledge is basically whatever Hollywood has made movies about. AverageJoe thinks that the Nazis are Nazis, and Fascism is a more generic term which contains the Nazis and other 'far right' groups.. and who knows, maybe _it is that_ now, but lets be honest how we got here - that nearly everybody, even the most vocal 'anti-facists' are historical ignoramuses. They think that by merely existing they have the necessary information to assert their opinions on historical/political movements. It's a joke

I suspect you may have meant "discreet" rather than "discrete" (although I suppose the latter could make sense). I mix them up quite often myself.

Considering that the label of fascism is usually being used with reference the the Nazis (ironically almost never to the actual Italian fascists themselves - a symptom of the historical ignorance I mentioned), I’m gonna say yes, the word has a specific meaning.

You say "actual Italian fascists" as if the Nazi party wasn't "actually fascist".

I would say it's pretty clear that you're the one with the poor understanding of fascism.

I said actual Italian fascists because... that’s where the word came from. They invented it. The Nazis copied many ideas from Mussolini, who was in power for a decade or so before the Nazis.

Apparently historical facts are downvoted now?

I don't down vote on here but if I were to guess, it's not for stating facts, but for asserting your rigid interpretation of those facts as if it were the only obvious conclusion.

I'd suggest reading the article before going 2012 era TCOT

Collected from your various comments in this subthread:

>99.9% of the people throwing around the word fascist today have little to no understanding of what that political ideology means.

The author explains in the first line of the article, that he was a member of the fascist youth wing. Do you really think he doesn't know what it is? If you think he doesn't, I'd certainly be interested in hearing why.

>I’m relying on the definition from dictionaries and historians

The author is a historian.

>Considering that the label of fascism is usually being used with reference the the Nazis (ironically almost never to the actual Italian fascists themselves - a symptom of the historical ignorance I mentioned), I’m gonna say yes, the word has a specific meaning.

The author is Italian, so again it seems strange to accuse him of conflating Nazism with Italian fascism. Especially because the article compares the two in detail.

This essay is from 25 years ago. I was referring to people today.

Then, luckily there is an essay from an Italian who saw fascism up close to explain to you how it works.

Sigh. One can’t even point out historical facts without being accused of being a Nazi. The level of discourse really has fallen here.

I merely said it was ironic that people calling others fascists don’t usually refer to the group who invented the concept.

>you seem suspiciously personally invested in this narrative...

He didn't call you a Nazi. What he said was: you're alleging the misuse of a term, but you're doing so while being very vague and giving brief, angry replies to comments all over the place, and this... pattern... is characteristic of bad-faith and/or extremist commenters on threads about anything posted almost anywhere.

If you have some information you want to talk about in detail, I suggest you do so; it is much nicer to carry out discussions when we don't have to guess what the point is.

I think words have meanings, and labeling everyone you disagree with as the most negative adjective possible is dangerous for democracy and society. It is dehumanizing, which only leads to further polarization.

Why that is controversial, I have absolutely no idea.

>labeling everyone you disagree with as the most negative adjective possible is dangerous for democracy

I generally agree, which is why I tend to have a very high bar for calling someone a Nazi.

However, "fascist" is a rung below that. I have generally taken the definition to mean "ideologically selective disrespect for [democracy/rule of law/both] motivated by both a claim of victimhood and a belief in the superiority of [some ethnic/cultural heritage], where particularly the claim of victimhood involves some kind of secret manipulation on the part of [political activists/foreigners/minorities]".

It is unfortunate that a major political party in my country has come so close to satisfying this definition ever since the Ukraine affair (confirmed extensively by John Bolton in his recent book), which I spent some time studying/developing around 2016 mostly to ensure that I would be intellectually consistent in determining whether there were actually fascists in the US government. It has never been with eagerness that I called anyone a fascist.

Just like how Facebook isn't a social media website, since MySpace Tom already "invented the concept". Do I have your logic down right?

What kind of argument is this, exactly? Nazis were Fascists in an objective, demonstrable way. That's not something that's up for debate, and it is extremely suspicious for anyone to attempt to correct the record on this.

It's like people who are "skeptical" of the holocaust. That's not skepticism, it's antisemitism, because the Holocaust isn't up for debate. There are millions of pieces of evidence that it occurred to the degree we understand it to have occurred, just as there are millions of pieces of evidence that the Nazi party was fascist.

Italians may have "invented" fascism (mostly just coined the term), but they were not historically unique, and they certainly aren't the only fascist movement ever to have occurred.

The arguments you make sound like the kind of cryptofascist politics that come out of white nationalist groups that aim to normalize modern day right-wing extremism. If you don't want to get grouped together with those people, consider not talking exactly like they do about far-right nationalism and authoritarianism

You’re reading a ton of stuff into my comment that isn’t there. The origin of the term fascist comes from the Italian Fascist party. That’s what it was called. That’s where the word comes from. This is a historical fact. That is literally all I wrote. Absolutely no where did I say the Nazis weren’t fascists or defend them in any way whatsoever.

Thank you for reminding me to never, ever discuss politics on this website. No one even reads what you wrote and instead projects their own inane political universe onto you. No thanks.

I agree, I think the word has lost it's instrumental value today, I read lately about "Thomas the Tank Engine & Friends" are fascist and that people who believe in truth "realism is a fascist" is fascist. The discourse today is a discourse of accusing people of things to exclude them from discussions

I don't understand what's controversial about your statement or why it's being downvoted.

Well, in the case of this particular piece, the very first lines are the author explaining that he was a member of the youth wing of the Italian fascist party. So it seems to me a strange context to complain about people who talk about fascism without knowing what it is.

Perhaps the parent was referring to the GP commenter's

> the list gets wielded in a way to stick the 'fascist' label on someone, and not much else.

rather than throwing shade on Eco's specific usage.

For what it's worth I agree with the sentiment that most people using the word "fascist" couldn't give you an accurate definition of the original meaning of the term. You could argue that there's a new word "fascist*" that means "authoritarian and mean", but when making specific historical reference to the original term "fascist" it's sometimes important to strictly use the original definition (inasmuch as there was a strict original definition; part of Eco's thesis I think is that Fascism has always been somewhat amorphous).

For example if you're comparing and contrasting the rise of the Nazi party in Germany to modern Trumpism, or making a claim about historical communist systems of governments leading to tyranny, then you need readers to interpret you as using "fascist" or "communist" (no *). If you're trying to get your tribe riled up on cable news then you are probably using "fascist*" or "communist*".

I think it's OK to rail against people mis-using "fascist*", but I think it's about as futile as complaining about people mis-using the words "literally" or "comprised of".

with the 99.9% of people opinions are wrong but mine it's the perfect instance of "everyone else is wrong but me"

If only 0.1% of people agree with your definition of fascism, maybe you're the one with the incorrect definition.

fascism noun

fas· cism | \ ˈfa-ˌshi-zəm also ˈfa-ˌsi- \

Definition of fascism

1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition

2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascism

Does the definition of the 99.9% not fit in with that?

As a glib riposte to your last statement: Truth may not be a matter of upvotes, but language definitely is.

Absolutely. From my reading, it’s being used to describe everyone from anti-government libertarians to rationalists, to nationalists to people who think religion is an important part of civic society. I’d like to point out the complete absurdity of describing those wanting smaller government as fascists, but alas, here we are.

As I said in another comment, it’s become a byword for “person with right wing opinions that I disagree with.”

You primarily come across as someone who hasn't read Eco's influential essay or doesn't want to talk about it and instead makes up various straw man arguments. Eco describes fascism very well, based on personal experience with it and a deep knowledge of its origins and appearances.

Language is not defined by dictionaries and historians. It's defined by how people use it.

If 99.9% of people disagree with you on the meaning of a word, you are wrong. You are the one incapable of communicating your ideas in a way that others can understand.

The opponents of Hitler in Germany during the rise of the Nazi party called Hitler and his party "Fascist". The namesake of Antifa, "Antifaschistische Aktion", was founded in Germany in 1932. To insist that Nazis were not fascists isn't commitment to linguistic accuracy, it's Nazi Apologetics and historical revisionism.

Orwell was commenting on this decades ago. Any government you like is a "democracy," any government you don't like is fascist or communist. "Politics and the English Language" is a masterpiece.

On the other hand, I do think an unsettling number of Americans would be totally fine ruling by authority and force, as long as the person in charge was from their own political party. So as far as that goes the label is appropriate.