Umberto Eco’s description of ur-Fascism is widely accepted as the most complete and accurate definition that exists.
There are plenty of bad things in the world that aren’t fascism. But if you want a detailed description of this one specific bad thing, how it operates and why it’s dangerous, this is it.
This is like someone saying Noam Chomsky wrote about a convoluted and non-standard version of western imperialism.
Laurence Britt also has a fantastic writeup mirroring Umbertl Eco’s writing, diving a bit more into the tactics of fascism than Umberto’s breakdown of the fascist mindset.
ur-fascism is a text about semiotics, not politics.
while it can be useful in decoding political stuff, it’s not a tool intended for that use, like scraping paint with a flathead screwdriver.
while i don’t think it’s out of the ordinary to reference the fourteen points, ur-fascism is absolutely convoluted and not considered a standard interpretation of the politics of fascist movements. in ecos defense, most semioticians are incapable of writing without convolution for obvious reasons.
i’m not saying this to be pedantic, but to maybe help someone reading along to understand why anyone would reference ecos fourteen points. they make a lot more sense when theyre taken as an outline of fascism’s semiotic content, not a checklist of actions some regime needs to meet before it’s officially fascist or else be considered merely sparkling corporatism.
Umberto Eco’s description of ur-Fascism is widely accepted as the most complete and accurate definition that exists.
There are plenty of bad things in the world that aren’t fascism. But if you want a detailed description of this one specific bad thing, how it operates and why it’s dangerous, this is it.
This is like someone saying Noam Chomsky wrote about a convoluted and non-standard version of western imperialism.
Laurence Britt also has a fantastic writeup mirroring Umbertl Eco’s writing, diving a bit more into the tactics of fascism than Umberto’s breakdown of the fascist mindset.
ur-fascism is a text about semiotics, not politics.
while it can be useful in decoding political stuff, it’s not a tool intended for that use, like scraping paint with a flathead screwdriver.
while i don’t think it’s out of the ordinary to reference the fourteen points, ur-fascism is absolutely convoluted and not considered a standard interpretation of the politics of fascist movements. in ecos defense, most semioticians are incapable of writing without convolution for obvious reasons.
i’m not saying this to be pedantic, but to maybe help someone reading along to understand why anyone would reference ecos fourteen points. they make a lot more sense when theyre taken as an outline of fascism’s semiotic content, not a checklist of actions some regime needs to meet before it’s officially fascist or else be considered merely sparkling corporatism.