On Eco on Fascism
What an intellect! Eco is amazing. Some comments:
Initially, one would bristle at the suggestion that traditionalism is a facet of Fascism, but when you read Eco's explanation, nothing could be more abundantly clear. What he terms as traditionalism is also sometimes called an obsession with occult knowledge. Exposing syncretic tendencies in such an obsession as a congealing point for fascism is just brilliant. Talk to any devoted new-ager and you will soon become well aware that you are talking to a Fascist.
Of course, as Eco disclaimed, this is a facet of any despotic system: Bolshevism, Nazism, and European Fascism. While this could indeed be a germ for any neo-Fascist event, it could as well be the germ for any other totalitarian formation, be it National Socialism or Bolshevist Communism. This applies, as well, to the fear of diversity attribute. The first thing the Nazis did, even before taking on the Jews and Gypsies, was to lock down the academy. Before them, the Bolsheviks did the same.
I think the point Eco makes about the Fascists' appeal to a frustrated middle class is essential. Communism appeals to intellectuals and their guilt reflex with regard to the poor. This is probably an important difference between how the neocons operate and how the American Left operates. It's also what I meant when I was saying that Bush and the neocons exhibit some aspects of Fascism, but their intended goal is National Socialism.
Communism and Fascism are polar extremes and mutually exclusive. National Socialism (a.k.a. Nazism), it seems, is a progression along the line of those extremes, but is not far removed from Communism. The Nazis (and the neocons), use methods common to Fascism, as illustrated by Eco, to further their aim, but socialism under a pseudo-democracy is the desired end state. And implicit in what I just wrote is a rejection of the common notion, mostly promoted by the public schools and the leftist media, that National Socialism and Fascism are the same thing.
Initially, one would bristle at the suggestion that traditionalism is a facet of Fascism, but when you read Eco's explanation, nothing could be more abundantly clear. What he terms as traditionalism is also sometimes called an obsession with occult knowledge. Exposing syncretic tendencies in such an obsession as a congealing point for fascism is just brilliant. Talk to any devoted new-ager and you will soon become well aware that you are talking to a Fascist.
For Ur-Fascism, disagreement is treason.
Of course, as Eco disclaimed, this is a facet of any despotic system: Bolshevism, Nazism, and European Fascism. While this could indeed be a germ for any neo-Fascist event, it could as well be the germ for any other totalitarian formation, be it National Socialism or Bolshevist Communism. This applies, as well, to the fear of diversity attribute. The first thing the Nazis did, even before taking on the Jews and Gypsies, was to lock down the academy. Before them, the Bolsheviks did the same.
I think the point Eco makes about the Fascists' appeal to a frustrated middle class is essential. Communism appeals to intellectuals and their guilt reflex with regard to the poor. This is probably an important difference between how the neocons operate and how the American Left operates. It's also what I meant when I was saying that Bush and the neocons exhibit some aspects of Fascism, but their intended goal is National Socialism.
Communism and Fascism are polar extremes and mutually exclusive. National Socialism (a.k.a. Nazism), it seems, is a progression along the line of those extremes, but is not far removed from Communism. The Nazis (and the neocons), use methods common to Fascism, as illustrated by Eco, to further their aim, but socialism under a pseudo-democracy is the desired end state. And implicit in what I just wrote is a rejection of the common notion, mostly promoted by the public schools and the leftist media, that National Socialism and Fascism are the same thing.
posted by Anonymous | 10:37 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home