Lavader making another response video after almost a year since the Viki1999 one is honestly based. Hopefully in the future you make more response type videos towards bad essays videos.
I gotta say it, I actually looked it up to see if it became true. Gotta give it a day or more before saying anything. One of these "philosophers" doing it wouldn't be unexpected, I will wait and see if an accusation appears.
Heckin’ basedino, I hope all those maga hat wearing Cuban refugees will vote Dee Jay Israel now that they saw the consequences of communism in their old Country
The word Ur in Ur-Fascism is not pronounced "You are" , but "Ur" (like ''ou"" as in "tour", without the "t").it is a German word meanig "proto" "original", "ancient", such as "Ursprache" (proto-language).
Umberto Eco is wrong just wrong in practice or historical speaking, but he's also wrong when it comes to political theory: the only argument against Fascist political writings being representative of Fascism itself is """It's just a pretext""", and the only responses i got when i proved them wrong were filled with insults and mocking (especially on RUclips)
Any time I tried to talk about Fascism and its creation and philosophy, I would get screamed at, and not just by lefties but righties who want Fascism to represent their personal power fantasy The worst is when people (like The Distributist) ardently deny its socialist economics. When I final found actual Fascists proudly proclaiming their socialist beliefs it was vindicating
@@BigBl0ck-r9y main difference is that fascism is basically national vitalistic socialism while marxism is international materialistic socialism, Fascism is actually very much anti-tradition but not anti-family. Germany's national socialism is kinda like fascism but with a heavy heavy emphasis on the racial component of the nation.
Pilgrims Pass has a great video on this topic called It's (Not) Fascism. Would love to see you two have a discussion. 👍 A little spoiler: He mentions that Eco due to be traumatized from living under Fascism was unable to be nuanced and less biased in the discussion. P.S. Lavader. Can you do a video on Baron Ungern Von Sternberg?
Eco uses the word "ur" in the german sense of "coming out of [time]", or more simply as "ancient". Ur-fascism becomes an evil version of the world spirit if you take the concept to its absurd logical end--point. Eco is a good author, but he really should have left social science and philosophical history to the experts.
He is not a good author. Except for some apparently significat contributions to semiotics (which I cannot judge), he is mediocre -- mediocre writer, mediocre intellectual, mediocre man.
ur was for a long time the oldest city discovered in the world, older ones have since been found but that is why the name ur refers to something prehistoric, at the beginning of human civilization
When you give a vague definition to something concrete, you make it easily abusable. I have almost never heard the word "fascism" used to describe something current nowadays. Most of the time, I heard it for its main current function: defamation.
It's honestly impressive that they can immediately recognize something without a clear definition, and with such accuracy! They have _never_ called somebody a "fascist" by mistake!
One, Eco's Ur-Fascism and the specific political regimes of the 1920s, 30s and 40s aren't the same thing. Eco explains why in the essay you've at best skimmed over. Secondly, it's not a definition. Eco doesn't claim it's a definition. Blah blah blah, abc and def. Thirdly, fascism isn't concrete. Eco describes that excellently. To demonstrate this myself, because you'll never actually read the essay, let me compare not two different fascist regimes, not the same regime at different times, but merely point out, that at the exact same time, in the exact same Italy, Italian fascism simultaneously derived its ideology from the Catholic church, its teachings and Integral nationalism, while at the same time conflicting with it politically and Mussolini being a public atheist. It's internally contradictory, let alone incompatible with different versions of itself across time and space. Definitions of it, therefore, will have to be somewhat vague.
@@perfectlyfine1675Ecco was still entirely wrong about his assertion that Mussolini did not have a doctrine but only rhetoric. I’ve read much better material on the subject than Ecco.
And it's good to remember that defamation (specifcally defamation to justify authoritarianism) was the core use of that phrase by the soviets. And pretty much all communist movements since the 40s.
Oh , Lavader is Evolving! Congratulations on stopping your stuttering , I personally prefer such laid-back and more personal videos , compared to the other ones .
Thank you for this video. I never knew where the idea of “14 pillars of fascism” stemmed from. in my own experiences, I’ve heard people bring them up in order to easily identify something as fascist(anything) That is very bad faith and dishonest intellectually, if I was to surmise the essence of Marxism based on a summary from a critic of Marx, people likely would not be happy. in order to combat or even promote healthy criticism of certain topics, we must look at the origins and practices of the subjects as intended.
@@perfectlyfine1675Christian democracy is obviously an attempt to return to the Christian traditions of a previous era parking back to a mythological pass but never actually existed. In fitting at least two of the categories to be found in ecos essay it's obvious that fascism is coagulating around these ideas in the Christian democratic government. All Bs but people will believe it just fine then call you a fascist apologist for demonstrating that it is BS
The funniest thing about Umberto Eco’s Ur-Fascism is that apparently the enemies of an ideology can be the trustworthy source of its definition It’s like citing 12 Rules for Life for communism’s definition
Yes, the enemies of an ideology can accurately define it. Jordan Peterson can't define communism correctly because he's stupid, but it's not impossible to correctly define something... And then still be opposed to it.
Leftists wrongly define their enemies constantly for political gain, while never providing these definable lists to communist or pre-communist societies, because then they can't weasel their way out of it.
Yes, Ur-Fascism must be the stupidest description of Fascism I've ever encountered. 11:48 Oh my God, that's my exact objection to Eco. Well, I phrased it differently.
Having Umberto Eco tell you what Fascism is is like having Jordan Peterson tell you what Marxism is. Why listen to the opinions of antagonistic third parties when you can just read what Mussolini or Marx said in their own words?
Man, this video-essay is *embarassing*. You did read only the 14 points and forgot about the rest, didn't you? I mean, I might be wrong, but otherwise it is completely unexplicable how a person that actually read and understood the whole essay would claim that Eco presents the fourteen points as "core (fascist) doctrines". I am not a big fan of the Ur-Fascism (which is definitely not pronounced u-r, as in "you are", I hope you didn't draw any conclusion from this misunderstanding), but In my opinion this analysis is pretty bad. The 14 points are just a possible conclusion to a rather long argument, from which it is pretty clear that a) UE's analysis *stems* fro the pre-existing fact that people are already using "fascist" pretty far from its historical origin (a trend whose beginning you make coincide, very naively, with this text), and that b) according to UE, fascism is a language game the way Wittgenstein meant it, meaning that it's a word describing things that don't share a common set of features, (like even numbers being all divisible by two), but that are simply connected by a red thread of features. Therefore, "fascist" is a word putting below the same umbrella things that have very little in common. He makes even an example with letters (You have a group with abc, bcd, cde, def: abc and def have no letters in common, but fall under the same cathegory). This is maybe the most important paragraph on the whole essay, and from this it is impossible to conclude that any of the 14 points is a "core doctrine" of fascism. But that's even written immediately above the list. I have the italian text in front of me, and right before the list, it says that many features are mutually contraddicting and will never be all present in just one regime. I can agree that the text might encourage you to play fast and loose with the word "fascist", but that's not really its aim. What Eco was trying to do was to investigate what's behind the word fascism, *since* its use is very confused and detached from the historical origin. Also, your critique of the first of the fourteen points is flawed by the fact that you talk as if Eco said that fascism is reactionary, while this word is not even present in the fragment that you considered. The paragraph (that you cut without putting anything notifying it) says that the cult of tradition is one of the possible elements of the "fascist nebula" (which is true, if you consider the recurring symbolism to the Roman age in Mussolini's communication). Eco did not say that fascism is reactionary. You say "The say that they want to go back in time is outright wrong, and "calling fascism reactionary is completely wrong", despite the fact that Eco does not call fascism "reactionary" even once in the essay. So... what the hell are you talking about? The critique of the third point is poorly explained, but what Gentile said does not refute the fact that common people fascists are in general anti-intellectuals, and that this kind of behavior, along with considering intllectual thought they don't like as simple mental wanking, is generally encouraged in fascism. Also, again, at ~ 9:10 you say "this isn't something unique to fascism", despite the fact that Eco *clearly* said that none of the points is exclusive of fascist regimes. Jesus Christ, you even reported this very paragraph in the video at 12:23 ("These features cannot be organized into a system; many of them contradict each other, and are also typical of other kinds of despotism and fanaticism"). Eco works on these "mobilizing passions", as you call them, ON PURPOSE. That's the whole point of the essay, and it's overtly stated! Again, the text is definitely worth being criticized, but you misunderstood its thesis and its purposes from the beginning to the end. Umberto Eco is not a superhero and he can obviously be wrong, but if there was anything in which he was clearly exceptional, it was his huge culture. In invite you to check the video on RUclips of him walking across his personal biblioteque at his place. It sounds very naive to assume that Eco was the kind of dude that started talking about fascism out of the blue and giving lectures at Columbia university about the topic (which is the occasion for which the essay was prepared) without having even read fascist literature. This is even a more absurd assumption, given the fact that (as he writes at the very beginning of The Ethernal Fascism), he was a kid during fascism, and that he won a price for an essey he wrote glorifying the regime. He learned how to read in a time in which fascist literature was something you HAD TO read (even my grandfather remembers that kids in school had som hours dedicated to the subject of "fascist education"). Again. This video-essay is embarassing and painful to listen. I invite anyone here to go and read Eco's essay (which is pretty short, not even a book), come back here, listen, and tell me whether you think that this guy read the essay or not.
@@Svevsky I'm not a leftist. If you don't write a reasoning that refers to what I wrote, it's just as if you didn't write anything If Lavader didn't read Eco's (brief) essay before making a video about it, it's not my fault. Can I assume at least that you read my comment, before replying?
This is such a level-headed, knowledgeable critique. I was re-listening to Ur-Fascism and this video popped up in my recommendations. I don’t understand why as there was very little substance to this video essay, and, quite frankly, a lot of strawmanning that borders on deliberately misunderstanding Eco. I’m astounded how this RUclipsr managed to butcher an analysis on such a short essay.
I’ve read the essay. Ecco contradicts himself plainly and ironically resorts to empty rhetoric in places within the very same essay in which he writes that “freedom of speech means freedom from rhetoric”. I mean point 12 of his analysis (on machismo) is literally empty rhetoric. I just read Paxton’s book on the subject, and even after seven pages he outstrips Ecco’s entire presentation.
I read some of his books in Italian, being a native. In a way, his takes on Fascism are really shallow, because he (willingly or inadvertently) conflates any form of nationalism, patriotism, and devotion to something above/more than the individual as 'F@scist'. Which is insane and myopic at best, and a terrible lie at worst.
I don't know why anyone ever viewed Eco as a credible source on this... he was mostly famous for writing a smutty murder-mystery in a monastery novel ("In the Name of the Rose"). Thanks for debunking him.
Umberto Eco was a member of the “Partigiani” who will go on to become PCU (Partito Comunista Italiano, or Italian Communist Party), don’t attribute To ignorance, what you can attribute to malice
This is a very accurate takedown. Fascism WAS and IS an ideology with doctrines and theories that enjoyed broad support from many classes. Eco (foolishly) attempts to reduce it to mere propaganda and anti-intellectualism, which does not help us fight it. I suspect that Eco’s essay reflects his own left-wing perspective where he simply imagines that, as Marxism is a (supposedly) free-thinking, “proletarian,” and “scientific” movement, Fascism must simply be the opposite of all those things.
Both Fascism and Marxism were attempts to create a better system out of the industrial revolution, and both failed. So naturally the Marxists would distance themselves from the Fascists, in order to say, "At least we are better than them." These are not the same ideologies, yes, but they do have similarities, and to say one is the opposite of the other is blatantly wrong.
There was never an attempt by Eco and Marxist sympathetic academics to properly identify fascist ideas only to foist this negative label on thier ideological opposition by any means necessary and that process continues to this day.
Have you ever read A Traditionalist Confronts Fascism & Fascism Viewed From The Right by Julius Evola? These are some of the few honest critiques of the Italian fascist movement that i have read and i enjoy them quite a bit every time i read them.
Given that it would be best to replace the Ur-Fascism 14 points with something more accurate, I would love to see you or someone else from this community create a better, more accurate version of the 14 points. It can be however many points you'd like it to be, I would just prefer to have a nifty little essay and handbook on fascism to read in the same way Ur-Fascism has been for me for many years until watching this video.
The funny thing is, Gentile was a Hegelian and a Marxist way beyond most Marxists, and yet he is the creator of ideology behind the word they hate the most.
The author's consistent mispronunciation of "ur" (correctly pronounced as "oor" as in "moor") makes it seem as if he is not familiar with the word or its meaning.
The middle class has always supported Fascism because the middle class man is spiritually fascistic. He is the intelect and the worker. A warrior philosopher of economics.
"The middle class has always supported Fascism" because they didn't want to be killed by a bunch of reds because "muh class enemy". I suspect it's a reaction, not a pro-active choice.
Elements at one’s best to be sure. Not necessarily fully fascist unless explicitly so by adopting all of it in full, as well as by actually participating in it within the political framework.
@@longiusaescius2537No, he was very much an ideologue, who transitioned a stock standard military regime to a civilian dictatorship most concerned with social justice; the ideology is even called Justicialismo.
I also like how Umberto (is quite ironically at that) inadvertantly; one of *thee* best prime exemplars here. To prove that the fascist stance on Anti-intellectualism is infact 100% correct.
Thank you so much for this! you do a great job of explaining these core ideas. Helps me a lot. His list has very much annoyed me for quite a while. Change a few words and framing for a few of the points, and it pretty much can be opportunistically applied to almost any ideology, or even structure depending on how far one attempts to stretch and forcefully apply them. “You’re a nationalist/conservative/monarchist/patriotic liberal/Catholic/Communist or socialist I don’t like and call revisionist? Fascist!!! End of conversation! Or just more mockery and bad faith insults.” Poisoned discourse indeed.
While modern middle class will never support fascist ideology, we have to remember during the 1930s situation was different. In nations like Germany and Italy middle class were more nationalistic, German and Italians belived that communism was responsible for their nation poor performance in ww1. They also didn't had much faith in the democratic institutions which have proven to be easily corruptible by external and internal forces
No, italian middle class doesn't believe that comunism is the reason of their poor performance. Remember,they are on the winning side during ww2. The problem was The Entente gave territory that Italy wanted to Serbia. So despite huge sacrifices, Italy didn't get everything they wanted.
I am an Carlist-style Reactionary who’s only mildly sympathetic to the Falangist Third Position due to its loyalty to Catholicism, and I agree with you on this, works on ideas or viewpoints that don’t rely on works or descriptions from the idealists that are part of such idea are mistaken and slandering
I think it's mistaken to call fascism a modernist ideology since it's the product of the crisis of modernity and that a lot, if not, all fascists hated modernity
I think the disconnect is the term “modernist” in the philosophical sense and “modernity” as used by most meaning the current state of affairs. When fascism was made, it was made as a response to the then modern state of affairs, hence why it’s considered a “modernist” philosophy.
See I disagree with you a bit on those anxiety comies. As someone with anxiety that fear can be turned to anger very easily, and if an authoritarian is reasonably intelligent he can take advantage of that.
"Ur" is pronounced similar to the "er" in "stronger" or "smaller", it's a prefix used to denote the original or basest form of something, like the linguistic concept of "urheimat"
10:00 This is where I HEAVILY disagree with you, just look at WHO the rich vote for, if "small government" was in their interest, why do so few of them vote libertarian? Some of them even run as dems or republicans over trying to be libertarian. And thats because its just not true that small government= big business wins, most of the policies that help the rich ARE big government policies that ensure control and regulation of economy, making the economy more centralised over few businesses that lobbies for it over the desentralised model real small governments propose.
I've always heard it pronounced "Oour Fascism" or "Eir Fascism" but "You're Fascism" is much more accurate to the spirit of what the author was trying to get at.
It's not. Gaza will be Israeli land within this year. So go cry a river. We will make it a sea of tears. So you will get both your river and sea. Effingbidiot
They're hardcore ethno-nationalists They use "Jewish Zionism" as their populist mobilizing force They seek to rebuild the 3rd Temple and usher in an all powerful Jewish state ....I think it's self explanatory really...
It is a fascist state from its very beginning, corporate economic model, totalized democracy, nationalists, socialists narrative spirit, vitalistic, and anti traditional social mores (lgbtq, sexually immorality, etc) though tbf, alot of great states in modernity follow a similar model anyways It is just not so good if you are against the nation in a fascist state.
I’ll tell you right now, it absolutely does not. From economics, to political structure, to inclusion in electoral decisions, it’s mission statement for existing, etc.
Clearly not one person in this comment section, or even the person making the video, has read the actual essay beyond the fourteen points themselves, or actually truly understands what each individual point means. Admittedly, eco could have gotten a lot more in-depth on them... And probably had written a whole book. The essay instead is thankfully very short, although I do wonder if it matters, because, short as it is, again, none of you people have read it. If you have, here a question for you, highschool test style. "1. abc 2.bcd. 3.cde. 4.def." What was Umberto Eco trying to say with that in the essay?
I remember we went over a little piece he wrote about phone usage in primary school I was just as confused by it back then as I am now the man just spews a continous stream of nonsense like no other
2:15 the best example of this I've ever seen in Marxism. It's just that the only thing in Marxist tradition is Marxism itself. I can't overstate how literally that stupidity plays out. Marxism "identifies as" the only thing that isn't a mystifying political ideology, and treats its interpretation/place-in-the-narrative of every given thing is the "Platonic Form" of that thing.
@@bruhian_gacha_fnaf If you don't mind me asking, why exactly would you advocate for that? I can't imagine the quality of life would be very great under a feudal system. Is your justification purely religious reasons?
And yes, I do think a Feudal Monarchy is a bad thing. As there is a lot of bad things about the Feudal System. My ideology is a Semi-Constitutional Monarchy.
When are you going to do a video on the Japanese monarchy and the Imperial Family. You claim to be a “monarchist” but you haven’t once discussed the oldest monarchy that exists.
@@hofnarrtheclown it is still called the Imperial Family officially, remember, imperial can mean relating to or of an emperor, not just related to or of an empire
@@hofnarrtheclown also, if you know anything about Japanese history, Japan is still a civilization and empire, they conquered the Ryukuans, the Ainu of Hokkaido, the ancient Hayato clan from Austronesia, not to mention the Yamato dynasty which originated in Nara Prefecture in ancient times conquered or united the cheifdoms to form the Yamato confederation or Yamato kingship
@@hofnarrtheclown there have ancient inscriptions on swords in Japan showing warriors celebrating conquering many “Kuni” (small countries or tribes or cheifdoms) for the Yamato rulers, also the Yamato subjugated the Epi-Jômon or “Emishi” of northern Honshu
@@lincolnhaldorsen5649 Nah! It would be More Preferable to Call Them the Constitutional Dynasty and the Monarch as Constitutional Grand Duke...the Imperial Family could be Known as the Cultural Family, These Titles in Ways are Far More Accurate than "Emperor/Empress" "Imperial Family" and "Imperial Dynasty".
Reactionarism is an ideology, not a political behaviour, it's about bringing back tradițional values and nationalist pride. Like reacting against modern society
For a definition to be functional it must be narrow enough in scope that the average person can reasonably think of a sizable portion of the available examples. Umberto's definition is so broad it's a shorter list of nation states that don't meet the 14 points outlined. The fliping US marine corp. meets his useless definition.
The idea of fascism being reactionary is utterly absurd. Adolf Hitler despised the monarchy of old and by by no means wanted to go back to it; Benito Mussolini wanted to bring Italy into the future; Oswald Mosley sought to set Britain on a new path; Francisco Franco established a new order instead of replacing the Republic with the monarchy of old.
Mussolini wanted to bring back the Roman Empire, took back women's rights to the Middle Ages, same with workers rights, did nothing at all for progress in Italy. He kept my country back and finally broke it with WWII. Neo fascists are even worse.
Oh and I forgot he signed a deal with the Vatican instead of getting rid of it like Italians wanted to do. Part of that deal is STILL law today, even thou most italians are not religious at all. That's definitely NOT progress. Same with Franco in Spain. Kept the country culturally back for decades. Good for them to be so progressive today.
The deadbeat author of this video shamelessly slanders a dead intellectual as a "moron", then goes on to pronounce the letters of "Ur" as if it were an initialism. That's funny.
I don't know , fascism was definitely anti-intellectual as well as anti-rationalist , anti-materialist and anti-positivist. Gentile speaks of this in his writings: _"Fascism is war against intellectualism. The Fascist spirit is will. It is not intellect. I hope that I will not be misunderstood. Fascist intellectuals should not be intellectuals. Fascism combats, and must combat, without respite or pity, not intelligence, but intellectualism-which is, as I have indicated, a sickness of the intellect."_ ( "The Origins and Doctrine of Fascism" , page 66 ). 💯
Hilaire belloc talks about how intellectuals and intellectualism is a narcissism of the mind and the art of merchandizing of reason. Being a smart person doesn't mean being an intellectual.
It depends on the period of Fascism, early on, it had it's own intellectual wing, a Manifesto of Fascist Intellectuals, and allied with the Futurists and Actual Idealists
Did you ever wonder why he didn't use just "Fascism" but added the "Ur" particle? Because he was talking about a concept that was else from the historycal Fascism you kept talking about
"Anyone left of Mao is fascist" wdym Mao is fascist too. Bro literally made up Marx/Lenin quotes to legitimise his nonsense while he was closer to Mussolini than anyone else
5:22 1. its not an " entirelly new society" tho. To put very simply, Its just a way of blending capitalism and monarchy. Besides this, most conservatism today isnt about conserving the present, but about going back to some great past. If we take conservatism as " the ideology which aims to conserve" then todays conservatism wouldnt be about conserving, but about changing back to what things were, of course, with some amount of conservation. My point is fundamentally this- the reason why traditionalism is a part of faschism is because almost, if not all of the elements of society that they want to bring about through revolotionary action, were a reality through a large portion of human history. Practically speaking they want to institute a kind of ethnically homogenous industrialised feudalism through revolution, so i dont see how this negates Umberto Ecos point even slightly. Besides this, there are different varients of faschism, so it can easly be thecase that some of them are more traditionalist, whille others arent.
8:30 2. Faschism is anti-impericist, therefore it is anti intellectual by its very nature. It is largely fueled by unfounded conspiracy theories with loose basis in material reality. And also, they are always going against science and philosophy, so in practise this is a fact. The only part which im iffy about is " action for actions sake", and even that, is very much encouraged within faschist movements. If youve read about what motivated nazi soldiers for example, it was more about the action of war then anything else, this is why faschism it can be said, has no end goal, because doing the act of war is the point. (Not sure if i worded this point sufficiently well, but thats the best that i can atm)
8:55 2. Learning about idiology IS NOT intelectualism. Comunist china isnt even comunist in anything except for name. "Comunist" China is faschist, so yes, thats why all thease points also apply to it 😂 Comunism is by definition democratic, and " comunist china" is autoritarian- whats the confusion?
9:37 3. Finally, here, we can aguree. There is no political movement that doesnt appeal to the middle class. The destinction i personally would make, if i were to revise this point is this " they appeal to the frustrated middle class, but instead of trying to fix the social problems of society, they want to blame a marginalised minority based on superficial caracteristics, and this minority is then dehumanised, and made out to be the cause of all the middle classes problems" Key point, they appeal to the missle class that some group is out to get them, and that group is always based on superficial caracteristics- like how they blame all jewish people for example just because of their religion and/or ethnicity. Again, this is how i would define this point if i were to revise it, because i dont aguree with it as it is.
What are you even talking about? Monarchy + capitalism? A better example for that is Saudi Arabia not the Reich lol. And seriously, feudalism? Fascism is by nature an ideology that advocates for centralized authority and totalitarianism. Feudalism, while authoritarian, is decentralized by nature. Fact of the matter, many fascist like ideologies were at odds with feudalism. I could also make the point that fascism is just incompatible with capitalism (at least it's laissez faire form).
short answer: this video "essay" is outright wrong, lavader didn't read ur-fascism in its entirety, they tunnel visioned themselves into believing something umberto eco didn't say. long answer: read ur-fascism yourself and see if you think he was a paid disinformant
I now I am late but he clearly said it which we who regularly or sometimes (me) debate politics see the left use Eco as their reference alot. And I today lost a debate Because I didn’t knew all of eco's 14 points.
He He He , calling Eco Moron ……..😂 . Unfortunately he is telling the truth. And you are also telling the truth. Eco is a brilliant writer. But…….. he was a mason , and like Zachariah Sitchin someone pay him to write something specific. You don’t even have an idea who is Eco . Probably seen his books . Nothing wrong here . Everyone says his opinion. Nothing personal. Take care. May god bless you.
I really like this channel. Mainly because of the host, but I find it hard to watch because it fills my recommendations with political videos from honestly mediocre channels, which I hate. Does anyone know a solution to this?
To be honest, I think that Umberto Eco is right in his analysis, thinking that fascism has been a contradictory and poorly structured movement. Lavander is wrong to consider fascism as a formal philosophy with a characteristic base. Fascism has always been just another movement. dynamic linked to the Italian elites and adapt to their national interests.
It's kind of related , fascism evolved from National Syndicalism which was the combination of Sorelian Revolutionary Syndicalism and Integral Nationalism which was initially an attempt to adapt syndicalism to monarchism to generate a working class following for monarchy. I just read a good book on this, _"The Cult of Violence: Sorel and the Sorelians"_ If you want to know about fascism , read about Sorel , Nietzsche , Mazzini , Le Bon and others....💯
@@sliftyy The only other monarchist channel, is the Aristocratic Utensil. But the guy literally just makes culture war content and only has a few videos on the ideology.
Calling Eco a moron speaks volumes about the author of the video. He can be wrong about some topics but he is a great author. Eco was not a philosopher btw, but a philologist. But you are american , so you ignore the difference .It is not your fault.
![Seungmin "그렇게, 천천히, 우리(As we are)" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kAzmhLHePqU/mqdefault.jpg)
Lavader making another response video after almost a year since the Viki1999 one is honestly based. Hopefully in the future you make more response type videos towards bad essays videos.
It wasn't Actually really a Response Video tho but More Like a Response to Eco's Poisoned Work
inb4 some evidence surfaces that proves umberto was a "minor enjoyer" (this is lavader's curse)
I gotta say it, I actually looked it up to see if it became true. Gotta give it a day or more before saying anything. One of these "philosophers" doing it wouldn't be unexpected, I will wait and see if an accusation appears.
@@arxiadelam204he is not French so I doubt he was a pedo
I usualy just show leftist how Cuba follows most of the 14 points making it fascist under this definition.
ehh I dont think it fits all of them but that country clearly isnt socialist lol
@@bobrze If you see how it is often described, they consider a countrry fascist for only meeting some.
Heckin’ basedino, I hope all those maga hat wearing Cuban refugees will vote Dee Jay Israel now that they saw the consequences of communism in their old Country
... No?
Heck, modern leftism itself also fits most of the points.
The word Ur in Ur-Fascism is not pronounced "You are" , but "Ur" (like ''ou"" as in "tour", without the "t").it is a German word meanig "proto" "original", "ancient", such as "Ursprache" (proto-language).
Ur, like the historical city of Ur in Mesopotamia. The first city. The Ur-city, one might say.
I thought it was like the Sumerian city of Ur
Came to comment this 😂
wow almost like he didnt even read eco
@@poland5606 Hahahahahahaha
Umberto Eco is wrong just wrong in practice or historical speaking, but he's also wrong when it comes to political theory: the only argument against Fascist political writings being representative of Fascism itself is """It's just a pretext""", and the only responses i got when i proved them wrong were filled with insults and mocking (especially on RUclips)
Any time I tried to talk about Fascism and its creation and philosophy, I would get screamed at, and not just by lefties but righties who want Fascism to represent their personal power fantasy
The worst is when people (like The Distributist) ardently deny its socialist economics. When I final found actual Fascists proudly proclaiming their socialist beliefs it was vindicating
@@ant-i6g I've tried explaining that, and some people just don't get it
@@ant-i6gfacism is socialism. But not anti famly and tradition. Futurism inspired facism and comunism.
@@ant-i6g fascism is basically Protestant version of socialism & Mussolini is the Martin Luther of socialism
@@BigBl0ck-r9y main difference is that fascism is basically national vitalistic socialism while marxism is international materialistic socialism, Fascism is actually very much anti-tradition but not anti-family.
Germany's national socialism is kinda like fascism but with a heavy heavy emphasis on the racial component of the nation.
Pilgrims Pass has a great video on this topic called It's (Not) Fascism. Would love to see you two have a discussion. 👍
A little spoiler:
He mentions that Eco due to be traumatized from living under Fascism was unable to be nuanced and less biased in the discussion.
P.S. Lavader. Can you do a video on Baron Ungern Von Sternberg?
Link?
@@longiusaescius2537 ruclips.net/video/qYBM7cO-D4M/видео.htmlsi=zaiMicbjR65GM9ns
ruclips.net/video/qYBM7cO-D4M/видео.htmlsi=VbLuSzFhjUOQ86LL
@@hastyhawkeye Hey, thanks for leaving the link. I didn't leave it, because sometimes RUclips doesn't like links.
Eco uses the word "ur" in the german sense of "coming out of [time]", or more simply as "ancient". Ur-fascism becomes an evil version of the world spirit if you take the concept to its absurd logical end--point. Eco is a good author, but he really should have left social science and philosophical history to the experts.
He is not a good author. Except for some apparently significat contributions to semiotics (which I cannot judge), he is mediocre -- mediocre writer, mediocre intellectual, mediocre man.
ur was for a long time the oldest city discovered in the world, older ones have since been found but that is why the name ur refers to something prehistoric, at the beginning of human civilization
@@doltBmB ur- is simply a german prefix
@@desmondesluce6758 no.
Native speaker here
Ur in German means the original
🤔🤔
cool dude
Minsieur Dean?! Dean?! Is this some Mandela effect?! What happened to the Z?
@@MegrelMambaMaybe cause Russia Z
When you give a vague definition to something concrete, you make it easily abusable. I have almost never heard the word "fascism" used to describe something current nowadays. Most of the time, I heard it for its main current function: defamation.
That's also why I think Mencius Moldberg's pronomian/antinomian dichotomy is useless
It's honestly impressive that they can immediately recognize something without a clear definition, and with such accuracy! They have _never_ called somebody a "fascist" by mistake!
One, Eco's Ur-Fascism and the specific political regimes of the 1920s, 30s and 40s aren't the same thing. Eco explains why in the essay you've at best skimmed over.
Secondly, it's not a definition. Eco doesn't claim it's a definition. Blah blah blah, abc and def.
Thirdly, fascism isn't concrete. Eco describes that excellently.
To demonstrate this myself, because you'll never actually read the essay, let me compare not two different fascist regimes, not the same regime at different times, but merely point out, that at the exact same time, in the exact same Italy, Italian fascism simultaneously derived its ideology from the Catholic church, its teachings and Integral nationalism, while at the same time conflicting with it politically and Mussolini being a public atheist.
It's internally contradictory, let alone incompatible with different versions of itself across time and space. Definitions of it, therefore, will have to be somewhat vague.
@@perfectlyfine1675Ecco was still entirely wrong about his assertion that Mussolini did not have a doctrine but only rhetoric. I’ve read much better material on the subject than Ecco.
And it's good to remember that defamation (specifcally defamation to justify authoritarianism) was the core use of that phrase by the soviets. And pretty much all communist movements since the 40s.
Oh , Lavader is Evolving! Congratulations on stopping your stuttering , I personally prefer such laid-back and more personal videos , compared to the other ones .
Thank you for this video. I never knew where the idea of “14 pillars of fascism” stemmed from. in my own experiences, I’ve heard people bring them up in order to easily identify something as fascist(anything) That is very bad faith and dishonest intellectually, if I was to surmise the essence of Marxism based on a summary from a critic of Marx, people likely would not be happy. in order to combat or even promote healthy criticism of certain topics, we must look at the origins and practices of the subjects as intended.
Yep.
Ur-fascism’s points could literally be applied to any ideology
No, they couldn't. Come on, try to apply it to Georgism. Christian democracy? Free market anarcho socialism! Come on!
@@perfectlyfine1675 you’ve never talked with someone desperate to prove that anything that they disagree with is fascist, have you?
@@perfectlyfine1675 Christian democracy is a contradiction of terms.
@@perfectlyfine1675Christian democracy is obviously an attempt to return to the Christian traditions of a previous era parking back to a mythological pass but never actually existed. In fitting at least two of the categories to be found in ecos essay it's obvious that fascism is coagulating around these ideas in the Christian democratic government.
All Bs but people will believe it just fine then call you a fascist apologist for demonstrating that it is BS
@@johnisaacfelipe6357 kind of like free market anarcho socialism
The funniest thing about Umberto Eco’s Ur-Fascism is that apparently the enemies of an ideology can be the trustworthy source of its definition
It’s like citing 12 Rules for Life for communism’s definition
Imagine asking a Taliban operative for what makes an American rather than an actual American
Yes, the enemies of an ideology can accurately define it. Jordan Peterson can't define communism correctly because he's stupid, but it's not impossible to correctly define something... And then still be opposed to it.
@@perfectlyfine1675 Umberto failed in many respects, so he's stupid.
A leftist historian is a much better perspective than a fascist rando.
Leftists wrongly define their enemies constantly for political gain, while never providing these definable lists to communist or pre-communist societies, because then they can't weasel their way out of it.
Yes, Ur-Fascism must be the stupidest description of Fascism I've ever encountered.
11:48 Oh my God, that's my exact objection to Eco. Well, I phrased it differently.
Having Umberto Eco tell you what Fascism is is like having Jordan Peterson tell you what Marxism is. Why listen to the opinions of antagonistic third parties when you can just read what Mussolini or Marx said in their own words?
Well firstly reading is hard.
Secondly reading Marxist/Fascist theology is harder.
Man, this video-essay is *embarassing*. You did read only the 14 points and forgot about the rest, didn't you? I mean, I might be wrong, but otherwise it is completely unexplicable how a person that actually read and understood the whole essay would claim that Eco presents the fourteen points as "core (fascist) doctrines".
I am not a big fan of the Ur-Fascism (which is definitely not pronounced u-r, as in "you are", I hope you didn't draw any conclusion from this misunderstanding), but In my opinion this analysis is pretty bad.
The 14 points are just a possible conclusion to a rather long argument, from which it is pretty clear that a) UE's analysis *stems* fro the pre-existing fact that people are already using "fascist" pretty far from its historical origin (a trend whose beginning you make coincide, very naively, with this text), and that b) according to UE, fascism is a language game the way Wittgenstein meant it, meaning that it's a word describing things that don't share a common set of features, (like even numbers being all divisible by two), but that are simply connected by a red thread of features. Therefore, "fascist" is a word putting below the same umbrella things that have very little in common.
He makes even an example with letters (You have a group with abc, bcd, cde, def: abc and def have no letters in common, but fall under the same cathegory).
This is maybe the most important paragraph on the whole essay, and from this it is impossible to conclude that any of the 14 points is a "core doctrine" of fascism. But that's even written immediately above the list. I have the italian text in front of me, and right before the list, it says that many features are mutually contraddicting and will never be all present in just one regime.
I can agree that the text might encourage you to play fast and loose with the word "fascist", but that's not really its aim. What Eco was trying to do was to investigate what's behind the word fascism, *since* its use is very confused and detached from the historical origin.
Also, your critique of the first of the fourteen points is flawed by the fact that you talk as if Eco said that fascism is reactionary, while this word is not even present in the fragment that you considered. The paragraph (that you cut without putting anything notifying it) says that the cult of tradition is one of the possible elements of the "fascist nebula" (which is true, if you consider the recurring symbolism to the Roman age in Mussolini's communication). Eco did not say that fascism is reactionary. You say "The say that they want to go back in time is outright wrong, and "calling fascism reactionary is completely wrong", despite the fact that Eco does not call fascism "reactionary" even once in the essay. So... what the hell are you talking about?
The critique of the third point is poorly explained, but what Gentile said does not refute the fact that common people fascists are in general anti-intellectuals, and that this kind of behavior, along with considering intllectual thought they don't like as simple mental wanking, is generally encouraged in fascism. Also, again, at ~ 9:10 you say "this isn't something unique to fascism", despite the fact that Eco *clearly* said that none of the points is exclusive of fascist regimes.
Jesus Christ, you even reported this very paragraph in the video at 12:23 ("These features cannot be organized into a system; many of them contradict each other, and are also typical of other kinds of despotism and fanaticism").
Eco works on these "mobilizing passions", as you call them, ON PURPOSE. That's the whole point of the essay, and it's overtly stated!
Again, the text is definitely worth being criticized, but you misunderstood its thesis and its purposes from the beginning to the end.
Umberto Eco is not a superhero and he can obviously be wrong, but if there was anything in which he was clearly exceptional, it was his huge culture. In invite you to check the video on RUclips of him walking across his personal biblioteque at his place. It sounds very naive to assume that Eco was the kind of dude that started talking about fascism out of the blue and giving lectures at Columbia university about the topic (which is the occasion for which the essay was prepared) without having even read fascist literature. This is even a more absurd assumption, given the fact that (as he writes at the very beginning of The Ethernal Fascism), he was a kid during fascism, and that he won a price for an essey he wrote glorifying the regime.
He learned how to read in a time in which fascist literature was something you HAD TO read (even my grandfather remembers that kids in school had som hours dedicated to the subject of "fascist education").
Again. This video-essay is embarassing and painful to listen.
I invite anyone here to go and read Eco's essay (which is pretty short, not even a book), come back here, listen, and tell me whether you think that this guy read the essay or not.
You know an ideology is culturally bankrupt when a youtube comment defending the leftist strawman is more verbose than the video dunking on it
@@Svevsky I'm not a leftist.
If you don't write a reasoning that refers to what I wrote, it's just as if you didn't write anything
If Lavader didn't read Eco's (brief) essay before making a video about it, it's not my fault. Can I assume at least that you read my comment, before replying?
This is such a level-headed, knowledgeable critique. I was re-listening to Ur-Fascism and this video popped up in my recommendations. I don’t understand why as there was very little substance to this video essay, and, quite frankly, a lot of strawmanning that borders on deliberately misunderstanding Eco.
I’m astounded how this RUclipsr managed to butcher an analysis on such a short essay.
@@TheTm9090 thank you for appreciating my comment
I’ve read the essay. Ecco contradicts himself plainly and ironically resorts to empty rhetoric in places within the very same essay in which he writes that “freedom of speech means freedom from rhetoric”. I mean point 12 of his analysis (on machismo) is literally empty rhetoric. I just read Paxton’s book on the subject, and even after seven pages he outstrips Ecco’s entire presentation.
I read some of his books in Italian, being a native. In a way, his takes on Fascism are really shallow, because he (willingly or inadvertently) conflates any form of nationalism, patriotism, and devotion to something above/more than the individual as 'F@scist'. Which is insane and myopic at best, and a terrible lie at worst.
Nothing but shallow, all the points you mentioned were a threat to his ideology, and thanks to funding from America, he managed to become important
@@MennydorgesERArchive alas, he had a good deal of talent but sold himself to the best bidder to a degree or another.
Anybody you don't like is a fascist
One thing about ideology is that it is made by the conditions on the state itself aswell as its surroundings
I don't know why anyone ever viewed Eco as a credible source on this... he was mostly famous for writing a smutty murder-mystery in a monastery novel ("In the Name of the Rose"). Thanks for debunking him.
No, that is only what YOU know of his work. Look into Foucault's Pendulum.
@@CaesarWarringtonwho's pendulum? Doubt nany know this as well as a work of mister eco.
@@ncrvako "Foucault's Pendulum" is novel by Umberto Eco. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foucault%27s_Pendulum
@@CaesarWarrington and how many truly know it?
@@ncrvako Everybody who looks at this exchange between us now know it.
Umberto Eco was a member of the “Partigiani” who will go on to become PCU (Partito Comunista Italiano, or Italian Communist Party), don’t attribute To ignorance, what you can attribute to malice
Where did you read that? He was 13 by the end of the War, so I strongly doubt that is true
The figurehead for the current fucked up discourse arround politics
This is a very accurate takedown. Fascism WAS and IS an ideology with doctrines and theories that enjoyed broad support from many classes. Eco (foolishly) attempts to reduce it to mere propaganda and anti-intellectualism, which does not help us fight it. I suspect that Eco’s essay reflects his own left-wing perspective where he simply imagines that, as Marxism is a (supposedly) free-thinking, “proletarian,” and “scientific” movement, Fascism must simply be the opposite of all those things.
Both Fascism and Marxism were attempts to create a better system out of the industrial revolution, and both failed. So naturally the Marxists would distance themselves from the Fascists, in order to say, "At least we are better than them."
These are not the same ideologies, yes, but they do have similarities, and to say one is the opposite of the other is blatantly wrong.
More Like a Lacking-Ideology with a Minor Doctrine to It
There was never an attempt by Eco and Marxist sympathetic academics to properly identify fascist ideas only to foist this negative label on thier ideological opposition by any means necessary and that process continues to this day.
Of course not because people would spot the similarities between fascism and marxism
Have you ever read A Traditionalist Confronts Fascism & Fascism Viewed From The Right by Julius Evola? These are some of the few honest critiques of the Italian fascist movement that i have read and i enjoy them quite a bit every time i read them.
Who wrote the first?
@@longiusaescius2537 Its the same author
Finally I've been waiting for this..
Given that it would be best to replace the Ur-Fascism 14 points with something more accurate, I would love to see you or someone else from this community create a better, more accurate version of the 14 points. It can be however many points you'd like it to be, I would just prefer to have a nifty little essay and handbook on fascism to read in the same way Ur-Fascism has been for me for many years until watching this video.
Umberto Eco. the man who single-handedly ruined any analysis about Fascism and created so much misconceptions that still plagues politics to this day.
He was paid from America through “I Partigiani” organization, can’t lay the blame on a single man
The funny thing is, Gentile was a Hegelian and a Marxist way beyond most Marxists, and yet he is the creator of ideology behind the word they hate the most.
The author's consistent mispronunciation of "ur" (correctly pronounced as "oor" as in "moor") makes it seem as if he is not familiar with the word or its meaning.
Many people mispronounce words they only know from writing. Especially people who are not speaking in their native language.
this reminds me of how lefties criticize how Jordan Peterson uses the term Marxist, but flipped
Umbertard's Echo's Ur durs Fascismo
The middle class has always supported Fascism because the middle class man is spiritually fascistic. He is the intelect and the worker. A warrior philosopher of economics.
"The middle class has always supported Fascism" because they didn't want to be killed by a bunch of reds because "muh class enemy". I suspect it's a reaction, not a pro-active choice.
Elements at one’s best to be sure. Not necessarily fully fascist unless explicitly so by adopting all of it in full, as well as by actually participating in it within the political framework.
I mean, the middle class often supported Socialism as well, and most Marxist leaders were upper middle class.
Most of the management corporate class in the US and Europe are ideologically woke and neo-marxist.
Could you talk about Juan Domingo Perón's Argentina and Xi's China. Could they be considered as a form of fascism?
I think he's just a military man no?
@@longiusaescius2537No, he was very much an ideologue, who transitioned a stock standard military regime to a civilian dictatorship most concerned with social justice; the ideology is even called Justicialismo.
Umberto Eco's approach to fascism is anti-intelectual
I also like how Umberto (is quite ironically at that) inadvertantly; one of *thee* best prime exemplars here. To prove that the fascist stance on Anti-intellectualism is infact 100% correct.
Very good video! Finally someone topples Ecos Essay and lays out its flaws. 👍🏻
Thank you so much for this! you do a great job of explaining these core ideas. Helps me a lot.
His list has very much annoyed me for quite a while. Change a few words and framing for a few of the points, and it pretty much can be opportunistically applied to almost any ideology, or even structure depending on how far one attempts to stretch and forcefully apply them. “You’re a nationalist/conservative/monarchist/patriotic liberal/Catholic/Communist or socialist I don’t like and call revisionist? Fascist!!! End of conversation! Or just more mockery and bad faith insults.” Poisoned discourse indeed.
Umberto is intellectually inept
While modern middle class will never support fascist ideology, we have to remember during the 1930s situation was different. In nations like Germany and Italy middle class were more nationalistic, German and Italians belived that communism was responsible for their nation poor performance in ww1. They also didn't had much faith in the democratic institutions which have proven to be easily corruptible by external and internal forces
No, italian middle class doesn't believe that comunism is the reason of their poor performance.
Remember,they are on the winning side during ww2. The problem was The Entente gave territory that Italy wanted to Serbia. So despite huge sacrifices, Italy didn't get everything they wanted.
Fascism is not anti democracy, infact, it sees itself as the great fulfillment of democracy realized.
They were all also (rightfully) terrified of the communists and the red terror that would result from them ever taking power
@@Pancasilaist8752They bareley got any of what they wanted
@@Pancasilaist8752to Yugolsavia, more precisely.
The based Lavader saves my day again.
Thank you! I'm sympathetic to the third-position and this is very relieving to your intellectual honesty.
I am an Carlist-style Reactionary who’s only mildly sympathetic to the Falangist Third Position due to its loyalty to Catholicism, and I agree with you on this, works on ideas or viewpoints that don’t rely on works or descriptions from the idealists that are part of such idea are mistaken and slandering
I think it's mistaken to call fascism a modernist ideology since it's the product of the crisis of modernity and that a lot, if not, all fascists hated modernity
I think the disconnect is the term “modernist” in the philosophical sense and “modernity” as used by most meaning the current state of affairs. When fascism was made, it was made as a response to the then modern state of affairs, hence why it’s considered a “modernist” philosophy.
See I disagree with you a bit on those anxiety comies. As someone with anxiety that fear can be turned to anger very easily, and if an authoritarian is reasonably intelligent he can take advantage of that.
ur... like the city ur, like "hur" without the h, or "err", not U R like "you are", it's a name not an acronym
Point 4 applies to literally all power systems.
"Ur" is pronounced similar to the "er" in "stronger" or "smaller", it's a prefix used to denote the original or basest form of something, like the linguistic concept of "urheimat"
Thanks for doing the thinking for me.
I tend to subscribe to Roger Griffins work on the subject of fascism. There are valid criticisms of ur-fascism but this video is so dishonest.
10:00 This is where I HEAVILY disagree with you, just look at WHO the rich vote for, if "small government" was in their interest, why do so few of them vote libertarian? Some of them even run as dems or republicans over trying to be libertarian. And thats because its just not true that small government= big business wins, most of the policies that help the rich ARE big government policies that ensure control and regulation of economy, making the economy more centralised over few businesses that lobbies for it over the desentralised model real small governments propose.
I've always heard it pronounced "Oour Fascism" or "Eir Fascism" but "You're Fascism" is much more accurate to the spirit of what the author was trying to get at.
On top of that, Eco was a mediocre novelist. He would cover a slip of an idea with pages and pages of erudition.
Ur-Fascism is not as good as my Fascism
My-Fascism
Finally ! My moment has come.
Could you make a video on whether or not the modern day state of Israel fits the framework of Fascism ?
It's not. Gaza will be Israeli land within this year. So go cry a river. We will make it a sea of tears. So you will get both your river and sea.
Effingbidiot
They're hardcore ethno-nationalists
They use "Jewish Zionism" as their populist mobilizing force
They seek to rebuild the 3rd Temple and usher in an all powerful Jewish state
....I think it's self explanatory really...
It is a fascist state from its very beginning, corporate economic model, totalized democracy, nationalists, socialists narrative spirit, vitalistic, and anti traditional social mores (lgbtq, sexually immorality, etc)
though tbf, alot of great states in modernity follow a similar model anyways It is just not so good if you are against the nation in a fascist state.
I’ll tell you right now, it absolutely does not.
From economics, to political structure, to inclusion in electoral decisions, it’s mission statement for existing, etc.
@@robertortiz-wilson1588 Ethno-ultra-nationalism, Zionist populism, the literal rebirth of the Jewish state...
thank you
I think you just described the catholic church 🤣
it's so satisfying listening to this video
Generally when you see the word "Ur" stupidity and sophistry is about to commence.
Clearly not one person in this comment section, or even the person making the video, has read the actual essay beyond the fourteen points themselves, or actually truly understands what each individual point means. Admittedly, eco could have gotten a lot more in-depth on them... And probably had written a whole book. The essay instead is thankfully very short, although I do wonder if it matters, because, short as it is, again, none of you people have read it.
If you have, here a question for you, highschool test style.
"1. abc 2.bcd. 3.cde. 4.def."
What was Umberto Eco trying to say with that in the essay?
You are lavender from twitter? What happened to your old account?
I remember we went over a little piece he wrote about phone usage in primary school I was just as confused by it back then as I am now the man just spews a continous stream of nonsense like no other
2:15 the best example of this I've ever seen in Marxism. It's just that the only thing in Marxist tradition is Marxism itself.
I can't overstate how literally that stupidity plays out. Marxism "identifies as" the only thing that isn't a mystifying political ideology, and treats its interpretation/place-in-the-narrative of every given thing is the "Platonic Form" of that thing.
Well, there are also a lot of leftists who would call Mao a Fascist, just saying
That’s because anything they don’t like is fascist/revisionist/reactionary/EVIL/etc.
What is your thoughts on Feudalist Monarchism? Though, it isn’t my ideology, (That is Semi-Consintutional Monarchism.)
You mean going back to a Feudal system?
No, What peoples thoughts are about the feudal system is what I meant sorry
@@bruhian_gacha_fnaf If you don't mind me asking, why exactly would you advocate for that? I can't imagine the quality of life would be very great under a feudal system. Is your justification purely religious reasons?
A feudal system is not my ideology I apologise for making it sound that way
And yes, I do think a Feudal Monarchy is a bad thing. As there is a lot of bad things about the Feudal System. My ideology is a Semi-Constitutional Monarchy.
When are you going to do a video on the Japanese monarchy and the Imperial Family. You claim to be a “monarchist” but you haven’t once discussed the oldest monarchy that exists.
Calling the Dynasty even Imperial doesn't Fit thier Empire have Been so Long Gone making It very Pointless to Call them Emperors and Empresses
@@hofnarrtheclown it is still called the Imperial Family officially, remember, imperial can mean relating to or of an emperor, not just related to or of an empire
@@hofnarrtheclown also, if you know anything about Japanese history, Japan is still a civilization and empire, they conquered the Ryukuans, the Ainu of Hokkaido, the ancient Hayato clan from Austronesia, not to mention the Yamato dynasty which originated in Nara Prefecture in ancient times conquered or united the cheifdoms to form the Yamato confederation or Yamato kingship
@@hofnarrtheclown there have ancient inscriptions on swords in Japan showing warriors celebrating conquering many “Kuni” (small countries or tribes or cheifdoms) for the Yamato rulers, also the Yamato subjugated the Epi-Jômon or “Emishi” of northern Honshu
@@lincolnhaldorsen5649 Nah! It would be More Preferable to Call Them the Constitutional Dynasty and the Monarch as Constitutional Grand Duke...the Imperial Family could be Known as the Cultural Family, These Titles in Ways are Far More Accurate than "Emperor/Empress" "Imperial Family" and "Imperial Dynasty".
Reactionarism is an ideology, not a political behaviour, it's about bringing back tradițional values and nationalist pride. Like reacting against modern society
For a definition to be functional it must be narrow enough in scope that the average person can reasonably think of a sizable portion of the available examples.
Umberto's definition is so broad it's a shorter list of nation states that don't meet the 14 points outlined.
The fliping US marine corp. meets his useless definition.
My deffinition of fascism is : Strong social hierarchy imposed through creating a scapegoat or common goal that unifies the nation.
So normal democracies in practice?
And Socialist state
The idea of fascism being reactionary is utterly absurd. Adolf Hitler despised the monarchy of old and by by no means wanted to go back to it; Benito Mussolini wanted to bring Italy into the future; Oswald Mosley sought to set Britain on a new path; Francisco Franco established a new order instead of replacing the Republic with the monarchy of old.
Mussolini wanted to bring back the Roman Empire, took back women's rights to the Middle Ages, same with workers rights, did nothing at all for progress in Italy. He kept my country back and finally broke it with WWII. Neo fascists are even worse.
Oh and I forgot he signed a deal with the Vatican instead of getting rid of it like Italians wanted to do. Part of that deal is STILL law today, even thou most italians are not religious at all. That's definitely NOT progress. Same with Franco in Spain. Kept the country culturally back for decades. Good for them to be so progressive today.
@PatriotMapper Franco wasn't fascist LMAO, He was a strongman who forced the Falange to merge with liberal and absolutist monarchists
My comment was deleted because I explained how wrong you are about Mussolini. Cant even take facts. Shame on you.
@@longiusaescius2537 Franco was absolutely a fascist. Education has failed your generation.
The deadbeat author of this video shamelessly slanders a dead intellectual as a "moron", then goes on to pronounce the letters of "Ur" as if it were an initialism. That's funny.
He is already dead, so what's the problem.
It's just like criticized against Jimmy Carter and Plato
I don't know , fascism was definitely anti-intellectual as well as anti-rationalist , anti-materialist and anti-positivist. Gentile speaks of this in his writings:
_"Fascism is war against intellectualism. The Fascist spirit is will. It is not intellect. I hope that I will not be misunderstood. Fascist intellectuals should not be intellectuals. Fascism combats, and must combat, without respite or pity, not intelligence, but intellectualism-which is, as I have indicated, a sickness of the intellect."_ ( "The Origins and Doctrine of Fascism" , page 66 ). 💯
Hilaire belloc talks about how intellectuals and intellectualism is a narcissism of the mind and the art of merchandizing of reason. Being a smart person doesn't mean being an intellectual.
It depends on the period of Fascism, early on, it had it's own intellectual wing, a Manifesto of Fascist Intellectuals, and allied with the Futurists and Actual Idealists
Could you please point me to Hilaire Belloc’s work where he discusses intellectuals?
5:48 Look up Reactionary Modernism.
"Modernism" is a Bias Name-Add it's more Accurate in Calling It "Reactionary Reformism"
The Mussolini majoras moon isn’t real it can’t hurt you….
Mussolini Majoras Moon
Did you ever wonder why he didn't use just "Fascism" but added the "Ur" particle? Because he was talking about a concept that was else from the historycal Fascism you kept talking about
i doubt u read comments, but do u have an email? i would LOVE to sit down and have a discussion about this. You seemed to have some misunderstandings.
"Anyone left of Mao is fascist" wdym Mao is fascist too. Bro literally made up Marx/Lenin quotes to legitimise his nonsense while he was closer to Mussolini than anyone else
🤡🤡🤡🤡
Could have won a debate today if I had watched this video earlier 😢
The video “Hitler was Liberal” covers this topic really well
Thank you for this video, it's very good
5:22
1. its not an " entirelly new society" tho.
To put very simply, Its just a way of blending capitalism and monarchy.
Besides this, most conservatism today isnt about conserving the present, but about going back to some great past.
If we take conservatism as " the ideology which aims to conserve" then todays conservatism wouldnt be about conserving, but about changing back to what things were, of course, with some amount of conservation.
My point is fundamentally this- the reason why traditionalism is a part of faschism is because almost, if not all of the elements of society that they want to bring about through revolotionary action, were a reality through a large portion of human history.
Practically speaking they want to institute a kind of ethnically homogenous industrialised feudalism through revolution, so i dont see how this negates Umberto Ecos point even slightly.
Besides this, there are different varients of faschism, so it can easly be thecase that some of them are more traditionalist, whille others arent.
8:30
2. Faschism is anti-impericist, therefore it is anti intellectual by its very nature.
It is largely fueled by unfounded conspiracy theories with loose basis in material reality.
And also, they are always going against science and philosophy, so in practise this is a fact.
The only part which im iffy about is " action for actions sake", and even that, is very much encouraged within faschist movements.
If youve read about what motivated nazi soldiers for example, it was more about the action of war then anything else, this is why faschism it can be said, has no end goal, because doing the act of war is the point. (Not sure if i worded this point sufficiently well, but thats the best that i can atm)
8:55
2. Learning about idiology IS NOT intelectualism.
Comunist china isnt even comunist in anything except for name.
"Comunist" China is faschist, so yes, thats why all thease points also apply to it 😂
Comunism is by definition democratic, and " comunist china" is autoritarian- whats the confusion?
9:37
3. Finally, here, we can aguree.
There is no political movement that doesnt appeal to the middle class.
The destinction i personally would make, if i were to revise this point is this
" they appeal to the frustrated middle class, but instead of trying to fix the social problems of society, they want to blame a marginalised minority based on superficial caracteristics, and this minority is then dehumanised, and made out to be the cause of all the middle classes problems"
Key point, they appeal to the missle class that some group is out to get them, and that group is always based on superficial caracteristics- like how they blame all jewish people for example just because of their religion and/or ethnicity.
Again, this is how i would define this point if i were to revise it, because i dont aguree with it as it is.
What are you even talking about? Monarchy + capitalism? A better example for that is Saudi Arabia not the Reich lol. And seriously, feudalism? Fascism is by nature an ideology that advocates for centralized authority and totalitarianism. Feudalism, while authoritarian, is decentralized by nature. Fact of the matter, many fascist like ideologies were at odds with feudalism. I could also make the point that fascism is just incompatible with capitalism (at least it's laissez faire form).
In conclusion it's just gossip. "Oh I totally heard that x believes in x."
Lavader you earned a subscriber.
didn't he also think authoritarianism was only on the right?
btw, chimera is not pronounced "shimera" but "khaimera"
Can we get an early life check on this guy?
Umberto Eco is too smart to have been this ignorant. So I’m wondering if he was some kind of paid disinformant?
short answer: this video "essay" is outright wrong, lavader didn't read ur-fascism in its entirety, they tunnel visioned themselves into believing something umberto eco didn't say.
long answer: read ur-fascism yourself and see if you think he was a paid disinformant
why do you have the need to call him a moron in the yt thumbnail?
I now I am late but he clearly said it which we who regularly or sometimes (me) debate politics see the left use Eco as their reference alot. And I today lost a debate Because I didn’t knew all of eco's 14 points.
Yes, Eco was a moron. We can agree on that. But wait untill you discover dario Fo.
Moron too
and you have written many books and had an academic career the same as Umberto I hope.
If an expert tells you the sun is purple would you believe them? You can be wrong and an expert. You engage in a logical fallacy.
I think you skipped Point 2.
I like this video
Writes some good novels though!
SLIVER
2 Vids a Month RAMDAN MIRCALE
He He He , calling Eco Moron ……..😂 . Unfortunately he is telling the truth. And you are also telling the truth. Eco is a brilliant writer. But…….. he was a mason , and like Zachariah Sitchin someone pay him to write something specific. You don’t even have an idea who is Eco . Probably seen his books .
Nothing wrong here . Everyone says his opinion. Nothing personal.
Take care. May god bless you.
I dunno if you can even criticise this essay when you call it “U,R” fascism lol
You need to read Ivan Ilyin
I really like this channel. Mainly because of the host, but I find it hard to watch because it fills my recommendations with political videos from honestly mediocre channels, which I hate. Does anyone know a solution to this?
To be honest, I think that Umberto Eco is right in his analysis, thinking that fascism has been a contradictory and poorly structured movement. Lavander is wrong to consider fascism as a formal philosophy with a characteristic base. Fascism has always been just another movement. dynamic linked to the Italian elites and adapt to their national interests.
"U R fascism"
Nuh uh!
To much Fascist videos man. Where is monarchism? :(
It's kind of related , fascism evolved from National Syndicalism which was the combination of Sorelian Revolutionary Syndicalism and Integral Nationalism which was initially an attempt to adapt syndicalism to monarchism to generate a working class following for monarchy. I just read a good book on this, _"The Cult of Violence: Sorel and the Sorelians"_ If you want to know about fascism , read about Sorel , Nietzsche , Mazzini , Le Bon and others....💯
@@ant-i6g Do you know any other monarchist youtubers?
@@Tyranical-Supreme-Court Monarchism and fascism are not comparable
Fair, but these videos are very important as well.
@@sliftyy The only other monarchist channel, is the Aristocratic Utensil. But the guy literally just makes culture war content and only has a few videos on the ideology.
Umberto is just some propagandist jew
WELL WELL WELL
LOOK AT WHAT WE HAVE HERE
Rare Ibmn W
Calling Eco a moron speaks volumes about the author of the video. He can be wrong about some topics but he is a great author. Eco was not a philosopher btw, but a philologist. But you are american , so you ignore the difference .It is not your fault.
Yankees being Yankee
This guy definitely isn’t American
He's Bosnian. But you can't tell the difference, so it's not your fault.
@@TheGuyInTheCheapSeats americanised european. It is even worst
@@antoniotorcoli5740 He's a monarchist. Not many Americans are monarchists. Do you even think before you comment, or is that possible?