The quest to understand fascism never ends, and it seems even more relevant nowadays than it has been for quite some time. This was a great addition to my understanding.
IMO, the proverbial elephant in the room is contempt for weakness. Not in the brutal Nazi, criminal, bully sense but in our society's very attitudes. Harald Ofstad wrote a whole book about it: "Our Contempt For Weakness: Nazi Norms and Values - and Our Own". Very illuminating.
@@rajarshibanerjee5460 Your bigotry against the weak is simply shallow, petty, and counterproductive from the start. That attitude of yours creates more problems than it solves (i.e., destroyed talent, and less security for even the strongest among us). This is the 21st century, not the Stone Age.
His ability to look beyond his time, and see that despite the often contradictory nature of the various fascist dictatorships, see them all as one of the same. And see what it is, and to try and tell the world.
The essay is a treasure, especialy for a romanian. In romania history we saw the mistic fascism of Codreanu, the royal fascism of Carol II, the military fascism of Antonescu and finally the comunist fascism of Ceaușecu, unfortunatly.
You brainwashed idiots think that anything to the right of Stalinism is fascism. It's comforting to know that most of you won't survive the coming collapse.
@@dominicdoherty7208 my brother in Christ the video of the audio book you are intentionally commenting under literally explains why it's not the same thing It doesn't main they aren't both bad, just means they are different due to fundamental different qualities Just use your brain for 4 seconds
Reading the "14 points" in page 5 of the text linked above gives insight into Trump/Pence use of the pandemic, with the anti-science, death cult, contradictions, etc. "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."
I recommend "The Origins of Totalitarianism" by Hannah Arendt. It's a comprehensive analysis of the Third Reich - and it's chilling. "When evil is allowed to compete with good, evil has an emotional populist appeal that wins out unless good men and women stand as a vanguard against abuse." Hannah Arendt
Beyond ur-fascism, and in terms of historical fascism proper, one could add some other defining features: - One of the most central factors is ethnonationalist and patriotic political religion, with all its chauvinistic, militaristic, jingoistic, ultra-nationalistic, and often imperialistic and colonial pomp, official symbolism, public ritual, demonstrations of shared identity (i.e., authoritarian conformity), displays of power, and celebrations of greatness (e.g., military parades) that requires the scapegoating, sacrifice, and elimination (e.g., eugenics) of those who don't match the ideal citizen and insider (i.e., redemptive and palingenetic violence). This relates to the rejection of diversity, selective (pseudo-)populism, popular elitism, hero worship, and the cult of (pseudo-)tradition (revisionist history, nostalgic fantasies); but extends beyond them. It places the bureaucratic nation-state, represented and controlled by a strongman personality cult, at the center of this political religion; bolstered by a vague social Darwinian fantasy of 'the people' (i.e., the right kind of people; e.g., white supremacy). - Although responding to criticisms and worries about the destabilizing forces of laissez-faire market capitalism (inequality, desperate poverty, plutocracy, monopolies, capitalist realism, anti-communist, anti-Marxist, etc), the socioeconomic order is ultimately corporatist capitalism, with big biz serving big gov (from military-industrial complex to prison-industrial complex) and a middle class aligned with the ruling elite (particularly opposed to leftist labor organizing), and while maintaining private ownership and a market economy; although upholding the ideal of the worker-citizen and making gestures toward improving worker conditions (e.g., German Joy, a paternalistic and patriarchal welfare state of redistribution that ensures benefits and privileges limited to the right kind of people, by stealing and plundering from the wrong kind of people). As the populism is selective so is the rejection of modernism, with only a thin veneer of pseudo-traditionalism (e.g., conservatism and fundamentalism that contradicts the Ancien Regime, as the religious scholar Karen Armstrong argues). Fascists often pushed for modernization through progressive-like reforms of economic renewal, efficiency improvements, infrastructure building, urbanization, industrialization, scientific research, and technological development. - It's primarily motivated by what Corey Robin calls the reactionary mind and it's tendency to co-opt rhetoric, fairly described as Newspeak, hence the seeming ideological inconsistencies and hypocrisy, as shows up in social science research. Principled behavior and speech is irrelevant to those who hold hierarchical power and authority over all else. In terms of social science research, this is represented by what one could call the dark political triad of traits (sociopolitical conservatism, right-wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation), the twin of the dark personality triad of traits (psychopathy, narcissism, Machiavellianism). All of these would measure higher in a fascist or any other similar kind of society. That is because the same conditions increase them. For example, where there are higher rates of infectious diseases, as happened in early 20th century urbanization (tuberculosis, neurasthenia, etc), studies show that there is an increase of all three traits of the dark political triad. So, though distinct, they are overlapping and reinforcing (e.g., most far right followers are authoritarians while most far right leaders are SDOs and Double Highs).
Can you guys make an audiobook for one of Abdullah Öcalan's books? I've been wanting to read one but sometimes have a hard time without audio Thanks to all of you who makes these
Is Venezuelan Socialist Dictator Maduros Anti Fascist Law a good explanation on how to spot a Fascist? I just want to be sure, because you know language can be used to manipulate those that lack critical thinking skills.
@@JB-lp9xr most of the libertarian I know are onboard with Trump. Family friends who were into Spot Light and Liberty Lobby called themselves libertarians. The 2025 Projects comes from a libertarian think tank. They pretty much share same economic views. Federalist Society and libertarians are both anti-government. The neoliberalism of Milton Friedman and Ron Paul are pretty much the same animal. A lot of Christian Nationalists call themselves libertarians. Don't know what Trump did or said, but they pretty much one and the same.
Eco's Ur Fascism seems to be syncretic and traditionalist based on Wittgenstein's family resemblances: a fancy name for analogies. Ur Fascism can only lead to strawman arguments. Unfortunately we can't rely on "archetypes" to explain Fascism but only history. Eco's Ur Fascism is a metaphorical description of its own metaphor and not a description of Fascism at all.
I am beginning to wonder about anarchy. I used to simply accept the word at face value, as a lack of government, which is frankly too stupid to bother about. That would be taking Libertarianism and saying, "How could we make this idea more horrifying and less practical." I wonder now if that is not how it is meant. For instance modern "Satanism" is misnamed. No one with half a brain cell would follow it because Satan was invented as a failed being incapable of winning. No one would follow Satan unless they were simply being intentionally perverse and stupid for the sake of stupid. Real satanists use the name as ironic humor, as the simplest, most succinct way of saying "Boooooo, Theocracy!!" Perhaps the people calling themselves Anarchists aren't for zero government, they are just using the title to make a joking rhetorical point. Also, I am on the Autism Spectrum, so I often don't get that kind of joke at first. When people say something with a clear literal meaning I tend to take their word for it unless there is a clear contextual flag.
Anarchy=/=Anarchism. Anarchy is the chaotic, no rules, break what you want idea that follows the collapse of social order. Anarchism is an entire political ideology that is well thought out and has viable alternatives to the state apparatus. Most who call themselves anarchists today are a far cry from original thinkers like Emma Goldman, Mikhail Bakkunin, and Peter Kropotkin, but most of them have a sincere desire to see a paradigm shift in politics. I don’t think many are using the term for shock value unless they are quite young. I myself am not an anarchist, in fact I find anarchism to be too idealistic and juvenile, but I was once. And I do think it’s important to see anarchism as a legitimate political stance. Otherwise we wind up having the language shift to mean something else entirely. In the USA, “anarchism” and “libertarianism” are words that are now associated with the political right. This would not have been possible if the meaning of the terms had not been forgotten in the states.
Anarchism is not the same as what is conventionally meant by anarchy. The most anarchistic system would be direct democracy of local self-governance. An example of this is anarchosyndicalism, which is worker-owned-and-operated businesses. Two successful examples of this are the US East Wind Community and the Mondragon Corporation, both highly organized but through direct democratic processes. We have to realize how much statist societies have intentionally undermined and destroyed anarchistic communities when they arise. This is not all that different than how humans lived prior to large-scale civilizations. Many tribal societies use a form of proto-democracy with formal or informal voting, and with no enforced coercion. This wasn't a problem in the past because those who disagreed just went their separate ways. But once humans settle, it becomes more complicated. So, though there is a question of how it could apply to larger populations, it is a real and viable way of organizing and operating a society.
If it's fascist or rather ur-fascist, there will always be an out-group or out-groups. In the case of Brazillian integralism, I bet non-Brazillian non-integralists are less welcomed. And to the degree that the Brazillian integralists gain power will be to the degree that such xenophobia will become apparent. But it's true that during more peaceful and prosperous times, xenophobia can be temporarily tamped down such that it's not as apparent. Just keep in mind that it's just below the surface. If such xenophobia is entirely lacking, even under stressful conditions, then arguably it's not fascism or ur-fascism at all.
The one thing that really confuses me is his insistence that the Nazis were Neo-Pagan despite the fact that they were self-described as Christian and they were all but entirely Christian in population.
The Reich's relationship to religion was kind of like their relationship to socialism - they would appropriate the parts of it they found useful to gain power, and discard or actively demonize the rest. Sure, they'd pay lip-service to treating the German people well, but in practice they completely disavowed class conflict and literally invented the term privatization as they sold off state enterprises to the wealthy. They absolutely hated Catholicism and sent many Catholic priests to concentration camps. They freely twisted Martin Luther's works into justifications for the glorification of the Nazi German State, yes. But their relationship to religion seemed to be simply through the lens of nationalist power. The Kircehnkampf and the Gottläubig movement were part of a plan to destroy the power of both Catholicism and Protestantism and form a unified Reich Church. Theological divisions would be swept away under a single church which was absolutely subordinate to the state. Germany viewed Christianity as good only insomuch as it was a representation of the values of the Nordic people. It did not believe in the church having any kind of entrenched power - indeed, it believed that religion should essentially be another arm of the state, a tool for social unification, and a symbol of German moral superiority. It was religion viewed entirely through the ever-dominating lens of ultranationalism.
Hitler was an avid Protestant. All SS belt buckles were embossed with "Gott Mitt Uns" (god is with us). Many of Hitler's speeches promoted a "Protestant Reich Church" and "Good German Christianity". To claim that Hitler's Nazism (National Socialism, commonly reduced to "Nazi", short for Ignatius, a pre-Hitler, German insult directed at Bavarian peasants aka "hicks") is to dismiss a very crucial foundation of Hitler's Nazism.
@@Brewskin78 except it wasn't the SS that carried that motto, but the regular army that did so long before Hitler. The actual SS motto was "My honor is loyalty". As far as Hitler public spechees they do not tell the whole picture and private quotes and reports from people who knew him closely paint a different picture. I recommend Tim O'Neill posts on Hitler's religious views on his blog "History for Atheists", as he collects and articulates the relevant evidence there. Though it must be said, as O'Neill points out, Hitler was neither a neo-pagan, a christian or even an atheist and his views would be more effectively classified as some sort of deism.
This is a terrible introduction to Fascism and her complex inner workings An actual good read on Fascism would be Mussolini’s autobiography or “Essay’s On Fascism” both found easily on Amazon. These delve deep into Fascism straight from the source of the founders of the ideology, “Essays on Fascism” especially due to it being a collection of writings from various Fascist thinkers rather than solely Mussolini. These 14 points are either wrong or surface level nonsense that don’t tell you anything about the ideology. When reading about an ideology that is extreme like Fascism or Communism you should always read books directly from the ideology’s leaders, not some third party that interjects their own opinions. The fact that the 14 points completely ignore the economic side of Fascism should tell you enough about the slanted nature of the author’s writing.
That's not really a good idea since fascist will portray fascism as something good, if read Mussolini and Hitler all day you are probably gonna end up being a fascist rather than understanding fascism and why it is bad. Also what is an extreme ideology? Fascism is extreme because it lead to genocide? Communism is extreme because it leads to authoritarianism and failed economic policies that cause famines? Capitalism is not extreme? Does it not force poverty on the majority of the planet who is victim to imperialism? 70% of workers earn under 10$ per day. Millions starve each year and millions more die from preventable diseases. Is that not extreme? Painting some ideologies as extreme only leads to equaly bad ideologies like Capitalism to avoid the same criticism.
As a 10-year old boy Eco wrote an article that supported the current system back then. Many years later as an old man he holds a speech in New York about Fascism and once again he supports the current system. Maybe as a kid he didn't know any better, but as a old man he is definitely smart enough to act in his own interest. His 14 points only describe the symptoms of Fascism, not the concept. His real point comes at the end: Fascism appears in many forms, but it won't every say "I am Fascism" again. Fascism is the radical application of ONE simple rule: The interest of the collective is more important than the interest of the individual! Everything in Fascism - EVERYTHING - can be explained with that simple rule. That's why the current left is trying to establish a worldwide system that has obvious similarities to Fasicsm. They just don't realize it, because they don't understand what Fascism really means. They do understand though that Trump is their archenemy, because he is the archetypical egoist.
The collective Fascists have in mind is an abstraction from the people that constitute it, i. e. the state. Not the interests of the individual constituents are pursued but that of this abstraction. On the other hand, the collective Communists have in mind is nothing but the web of relations between you and every other individual. If you account for your relations to other people, egoism cannot be harmful. If it was, you all would merely strive to annihilate each other. And even if each of you pursues their own selfish interest for themselves, under circumstances such as ours you will stand against each other and the result is some thing unwanted by most. So the only way out is willful cooperation to serve every one's interests eventually.
@@xCorvus7x Fascists and communists both believe in the state as the ultimate regulator of individual interests. That is why both systems are totalitarian. The big difference between fascists and communists is the question of equality. Fascists believe that everyone is born with different abilities and therefore hierarchies are good (asset). Communist believe that all people are born equal and that hierarchies are bad (liability). Fascists believe that the strong have to carry the weak (e.g. progressive income tax). Communists are favoring the weak and handicapping the strong in order to provide everyone with "equal" starting conditions. If that doesn't lead to equal outcomes, they simply adjust the result. Other than that, the fascist and the communist states are surprisingly similar.
@@Markus-Domanski While Fascists do believe so, Communists don't. In fact, they seek to abolish the state (eventually). So no, they are not similar at all.
@@xCorvus7x You have to make a difference between theory and practice. In theory communist want to abolish the state, but so far they never did. Both systems create a totalitarian state without any opposition.
The quest to understand fascism never ends, and it seems even more relevant nowadays than it has been for quite some time.
This was a great addition to my understanding.
We're glad you liked it :)
And right now we need it, because many on the right or center thinks that fascism i only 1930s Nazis etc
IMO, the proverbial elephant in the room is contempt for weakness. Not in the brutal Nazi, criminal, bully sense but in our society's very attitudes. Harald Ofstad wrote a whole book about it: "Our Contempt For Weakness: Nazi Norms and Values - and Our Own". Very illuminating.
@@thelonestarpelican9343 The word you are looking for is Darwinism, and weakness quite frankly is disgusting
@@rajarshibanerjee5460 Your bigotry against the weak is simply shallow, petty, and counterproductive from the start. That attitude of yours creates more problems than it solves (i.e., destroyed talent, and less security for even the strongest among us). This is the 21st century, not the Stone Age.
His ability to look beyond his time, and see that despite the often contradictory nature of the various fascist dictatorships, see them all as one of the same. And see what it is, and to try and tell the world.
This should be required reading in schools
Yes.
100%
@@jacoblenox6933
432440000%
Maybe if the 14 points section wasn't trash then yes
That's CRT somehow
A classic essay, thanks for making and uploading it.
What timing, I just finished reading this. I should have waited a bit more :(
18:10 is where Eco’s parameters for fascism begins. Brilliant essay and well read.
The essay is a treasure, especialy for a romanian. In romania history we saw the mistic fascism of Codreanu, the royal fascism of Carol II, the military fascism of Antonescu and finally the comunist fascism of Ceaușecu, unfortunatly.
Wild to be living through this in the US right now
We are not.
Enjoyed the audio. We are literally witnessing fascism all over the world once again and especially in the Empire of the Yankees.
You brainwashed idiots think that anything to the right of Stalinism is fascism. It's comforting to know that most of you won't survive the coming collapse.
@@slappy8941Stalinism is Fascism 😊
@@dominicdoherty7208 book literally says it is not
@@vintheguy actions speak louder than words
@@dominicdoherty7208 my brother in Christ the video of the audio book you are intentionally commenting under literally explains why it's not the same thing
It doesn't main they aren't both bad, just means they are different due to fundamental different qualities
Just use your brain for 4 seconds
This is one of my favourite essays. It was a true eye opener.
Reading the "14 points" in page 5 of the text linked above gives insight into Trump/Pence use of the pandemic, with the anti-science, death cult, contradictions, etc. "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."
thank you. and FYI gramsci is pronounced gram-SHE not gram-SKI
I recommend "The Origins of Totalitarianism" by Hannah Arendt. It's a comprehensive analysis of the Third Reich - and it's chilling.
"When evil is allowed to compete with good, evil has an emotional populist appeal that wins out unless good men and women stand as a vanguard against abuse." Hannah Arendt
These methods are broader than fascism but common to many ideologies seeking power.
Beyond ur-fascism, and in terms of historical fascism proper, one could add some other defining features:
- One of the most central factors is ethnonationalist and patriotic political religion, with all its chauvinistic, militaristic, jingoistic, ultra-nationalistic, and often imperialistic and colonial pomp, official symbolism, public ritual, demonstrations of shared identity (i.e., authoritarian conformity), displays of power, and celebrations of greatness (e.g., military parades) that requires the scapegoating, sacrifice, and elimination (e.g., eugenics) of those who don't match the ideal citizen and insider (i.e., redemptive and palingenetic violence). This relates to the rejection of diversity, selective (pseudo-)populism, popular elitism, hero worship, and the cult of (pseudo-)tradition (revisionist history, nostalgic fantasies); but extends beyond them. It places the bureaucratic nation-state, represented and controlled by a strongman personality cult, at the center of this political religion; bolstered by a vague social Darwinian fantasy of 'the people' (i.e., the right kind of people; e.g., white supremacy).
- Although responding to criticisms and worries about the destabilizing forces of laissez-faire market capitalism (inequality, desperate poverty, plutocracy, monopolies, capitalist realism, anti-communist, anti-Marxist, etc), the socioeconomic order is ultimately corporatist capitalism, with big biz serving big gov (from military-industrial complex to prison-industrial complex) and a middle class aligned with the ruling elite (particularly opposed to leftist labor organizing), and while maintaining private ownership and a market economy; although upholding the ideal of the worker-citizen and making gestures toward improving worker conditions (e.g., German Joy, a paternalistic and patriarchal welfare state of redistribution that ensures benefits and privileges limited to the right kind of people, by stealing and plundering from the wrong kind of people). As the populism is selective so is the rejection of modernism, with only a thin veneer of pseudo-traditionalism (e.g., conservatism and fundamentalism that contradicts the Ancien Regime, as the religious scholar Karen Armstrong argues). Fascists often pushed for modernization through progressive-like reforms of economic renewal, efficiency improvements, infrastructure building, urbanization, industrialization, scientific research, and technological development.
- It's primarily motivated by what Corey Robin calls the reactionary mind and it's tendency to co-opt rhetoric, fairly described as Newspeak, hence the seeming ideological inconsistencies and hypocrisy, as shows up in social science research. Principled behavior and speech is irrelevant to those who hold hierarchical power and authority over all else. In terms of social science research, this is represented by what one could call the dark political triad of traits (sociopolitical conservatism, right-wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation), the twin of the dark personality triad of traits (psychopathy, narcissism, Machiavellianism). All of these would measure higher in a fascist or any other similar kind of society. That is because the same conditions increase them. For example, where there are higher rates of infectious diseases, as happened in early 20th century urbanization (tuberculosis, neurasthenia, etc), studies show that there is an increase of all three traits of the dark political triad. So, though distinct, they are overlapping and reinforcing (e.g., most far right followers are authoritarians while most far right leaders are SDOs and Double Highs).
Wow this could have been written yesterday. Excellent and essential. Well read.
On a polisci timescale, it was.
Eco is simplistic in his analysis - there are very fine people on both sides......VERY FINE PEOPLE.
Lol took me a moment to get the reference
@@jbdbibbaerman8071 it was starting with the polysyllabic words at the start that slipped it under the radar
Living in Putin's Russia, I can see it going this way more and more every day for years already
Shit. I'm so sorry.
Umberto Eco is my favourite semiotician, ever.
You have a list?
Mine’s Halliday
Insightful, is the only I can use to describe this
Thanks, Audible Anarchist
Can you guys make an audiobook for one of Abdullah Öcalan's books? I've been wanting to read one but sometimes have a hard time without audio
Thanks to all of you who makes these
I'm pretty sure that HRTGarden and some others have already made a channel for communalist audiobooks including Apos.
The contradiction between struggle and the golden age was resovled in a very simple way in Schroedinger's "What is life"
This is so relevant right now, !
25:52 "... In every mythology the Hero is an exceptional being, but in Ur-Fascist Ideology Heroism is the normal..."
This can be perfectly applied to trumpism
I think a better term would be anti-rationalism, rather than irrationalism.
Excellent narration! Thank you very much!
Great essay, excellent reader.
Thank you! I'm in the process of writing an essay on fascism for my history teacher, so this was really useful
Love ya like a rock. And nobody loves ya like a rock.
Glad I found this, thanks!
Excellent reading; thank you.
Is Venezuelan Socialist Dictator Maduros Anti Fascist Law a good explanation on how to spot a Fascist?
I just want to be sure, because you know language can be used to manipulate those that lack critical thinking skills.
Thank you! Really well read!
Yes! Excellent and natural feeling diction, pacing, etc- made it a really pleasant listen, and easy to focus on the material itself
17:45 "... Ur-Fascism or Eternal Fascism ..."
You provide an essential public service.
18:13 start of 14 points
Thank you
Terrifying cycle
Thank you! Wish you had put some more effort in pronouncing some of the foreign words better but other than that super nice cadence!
Why is there an affinity between American libertarians and fascist here?
Meanwhile, two years later… Fascist Donald Trump is booed off the stage at the Libertarian national convention.
@@JB-lp9xr most of the libertarian I know are onboard with Trump. Family friends who were into Spot Light and Liberty Lobby called themselves libertarians. The 2025 Projects comes from a libertarian think tank. They pretty much share same economic views. Federalist Society and libertarians are both anti-government. The neoliberalism of Milton Friedman and Ron Paul are pretty much the same animal. A lot of Christian Nationalists call themselves libertarians. Don't know what Trump did or said, but they pretty much one and the same.
@@JB-lp9xrmaybe during Obama's time. Now? They're joined MAGA and neoliberal/Reaganomics/Sowell defenders.
Also, the Mises caucus (cooption)
I'd drop the factionalist opening. But, the service is appreciated
The part where he talks about the enternet creating a fake sense of populism.
Hmmm this narrator sounds quite familiar.
Thanks.
Eco's Ur Fascism seems to be syncretic and traditionalist based on Wittgenstein's family resemblances: a fancy name for analogies. Ur Fascism can only lead to strawman arguments. Unfortunately we can't rely on "archetypes" to explain Fascism but only history. Eco's Ur Fascism is a metaphorical description of its own metaphor and not a description of Fascism at all.
Algorithm comment.
I am beginning to wonder about anarchy. I used to simply accept the word at face value, as a lack of government, which is frankly too stupid to bother about. That would be taking Libertarianism and saying, "How could we make this idea more horrifying and less practical." I wonder now if that is not how it is meant. For instance modern "Satanism" is misnamed. No one with half a brain cell would follow it because Satan was invented as a failed being incapable of winning. No one would follow Satan unless they were simply being intentionally perverse and stupid for the sake of stupid. Real satanists use the name as ironic humor, as the simplest, most succinct way of saying "Boooooo, Theocracy!!" Perhaps the people calling themselves Anarchists aren't for zero government, they are just using the title to make a joking rhetorical point. Also, I am on the Autism Spectrum, so I often don't get that kind of joke at first. When people say something with a clear literal meaning I tend to take their word for it unless there is a clear contextual flag.
;)
Just naming themselves into "Nonarchists" or "Voluntarists".
As another person in the spectrum that falls closer to "anarchism" than any other ideology, great comment.
Anarchy=/=Anarchism.
Anarchy is the chaotic, no rules, break what you want idea that follows the collapse of social order. Anarchism is an entire political ideology that is well thought out and has viable alternatives to the state apparatus. Most who call themselves anarchists today are a far cry from original thinkers like Emma Goldman, Mikhail Bakkunin, and Peter Kropotkin, but most of them have a sincere desire to see a paradigm shift in politics. I don’t think many are using the term for shock value unless they are quite young.
I myself am not an anarchist, in fact I find anarchism to be too idealistic and juvenile, but I was once. And I do think it’s important to see anarchism as a legitimate political stance. Otherwise we wind up having the language shift to mean something else entirely. In the USA, “anarchism” and “libertarianism” are words that are now associated with the political right. This would not have been possible if the meaning of the terms had not been forgotten in the states.
Anarchism is not the same as what is conventionally meant by anarchy. The most anarchistic system would be direct democracy of local self-governance. An example of this is anarchosyndicalism, which is worker-owned-and-operated businesses. Two successful examples of this are the US East Wind Community and the Mondragon Corporation, both highly organized but through direct democratic processes. We have to realize how much statist societies have intentionally undermined and destroyed anarchistic communities when they arise.
This is not all that different than how humans lived prior to large-scale civilizations. Many tribal societies use a form of proto-democracy with formal or informal voting, and with no enforced coercion. This wasn't a problem in the past because those who disagreed just went their separate ways. But once humans settle, it becomes more complicated. So, though there is a question of how it could apply to larger populations, it is a real and viable way of organizing and operating a society.
This channel is amazing
i can say that there is a type of fascism that is not really xenophobic it's called brazillian integralism
jacondo the intergalists (and integralism in general, didn’t Portugal have an integralist movemnt?) could be its own topic for another day
If it's fascist or rather ur-fascist, there will always be an out-group or out-groups. In the case of Brazillian integralism, I bet non-Brazillian non-integralists are less welcomed. And to the degree that the Brazillian integralists gain power will be to the degree that such xenophobia will become apparent. But it's true that during more peaceful and prosperous times, xenophobia can be temporarily tamped down such that it's not as apparent. Just keep in mind that it's just below the surface. If such xenophobia is entirely lacking, even under stressful conditions, then arguably it's not fascism or ur-fascism at all.
>be umberto eco
>attempt to describe fascism
>cant even define what fascism is
The one thing that really confuses me is his insistence that the Nazis were Neo-Pagan despite the fact that they were self-described as Christian and they were all but entirely Christian in population.
The Reich's relationship to religion was kind of like their relationship to socialism - they would appropriate the parts of it they found useful to gain power, and discard or actively demonize the rest. Sure, they'd pay lip-service to treating the German people well, but in practice they completely disavowed class conflict and literally invented the term privatization as they sold off state enterprises to the wealthy.
They absolutely hated Catholicism and sent many Catholic priests to concentration camps. They freely twisted Martin Luther's works into justifications for the glorification of the Nazi German State, yes. But their relationship to religion seemed to be simply through the lens of nationalist power.
The Kircehnkampf and the Gottläubig movement were part of a plan to destroy the power of both Catholicism and Protestantism and form a unified Reich Church. Theological divisions would be swept away under a single church which was absolutely subordinate to the state.
Germany viewed Christianity as good only insomuch as it was a representation of the values of the Nordic people. It did not believe in the church having any kind of entrenched power - indeed, it believed that religion should essentially be another arm of the state, a tool for social unification, and a symbol of German moral superiority.
It was religion viewed entirely through the ever-dominating lens of ultranationalism.
Hitler was an avid Protestant. All SS belt buckles were embossed with "Gott Mitt Uns" (god is with us). Many of Hitler's speeches promoted a "Protestant Reich Church" and "Good German Christianity".
To claim that Hitler's Nazism (National Socialism, commonly reduced to "Nazi", short for Ignatius, a pre-Hitler, German insult directed at Bavarian peasants aka "hicks") is to dismiss a very crucial foundation of Hitler's Nazism.
@@Brewskin78 except it wasn't the SS that carried that motto, but the regular army that did so long before Hitler. The actual SS motto was "My honor is loyalty".
As far as Hitler public spechees they do not tell the whole picture and private quotes and reports from people who knew him closely paint a different picture.
I recommend Tim O'Neill posts on Hitler's religious views on his blog "History for Atheists", as he collects and articulates the relevant evidence there.
Though it must be said, as O'Neill points out, Hitler was neither a neo-pagan, a christian or even an atheist and his views would be more effectively classified as some sort of deism.
Why go to college honestly
Because I don’t want Bubba from the tire store performing open heart surgery on me.
This essay is very poignant.
31:04 lmao
Thank you for this, but the pronunciation of Italian words is absolutely dreadful, and made my ears bleed.
🚬
This is a terrible introduction to Fascism and her complex inner workings
An actual good read on Fascism would be Mussolini’s autobiography or “Essay’s On Fascism” both found easily on Amazon. These delve deep into Fascism straight from the source of the founders of the ideology, “Essays on Fascism” especially due to it being a collection of writings from various Fascist thinkers rather than solely Mussolini.
These 14 points are either wrong or surface level nonsense that don’t tell you anything about the ideology. When reading about an ideology that is extreme like Fascism or Communism you should always read books directly from the ideology’s leaders, not some third party that interjects their own opinions. The fact that the 14 points completely ignore the economic side of Fascism should tell you enough about the slanted nature of the author’s writing.
That's not really a good idea since fascist will portray fascism as something good, if read Mussolini and Hitler all day you are probably gonna end up being a fascist rather than understanding fascism and why it is bad.
Also what is an extreme ideology? Fascism is extreme because it lead to genocide? Communism is extreme because it leads to authoritarianism and failed economic policies that cause famines? Capitalism is not extreme? Does it not force poverty on the majority of the planet who is victim to imperialism? 70% of workers earn under 10$ per day. Millions starve each year and millions more die from preventable diseases. Is that not extreme?
Painting some ideologies as extreme only leads to equaly bad ideologies like Capitalism to avoid the same criticism.
Dude who doesn't source a citation for any of his claims yet gets praise for High School level of political analysis of Fascism.
AxA
As a 10-year old boy Eco wrote an article that supported the current system back then. Many years later as an old man he holds a speech in New York about Fascism and once again he supports the current system. Maybe as a kid he didn't know any better, but as a old man he is definitely smart enough to act in his own interest. His 14 points only describe the symptoms of Fascism, not the concept. His real point comes at the end: Fascism appears in many forms, but it won't every say "I am Fascism" again.
Fascism is the radical application of ONE simple rule: The interest of the collective is more important than the interest of the individual! Everything in Fascism - EVERYTHING - can be explained with that simple rule. That's why the current left is trying to establish a worldwide system that has obvious similarities to Fasicsm. They just don't realize it, because they don't understand what Fascism really means. They do understand though that Trump is their archenemy, because he is the archetypical egoist.
The collective Fascists have in mind is an abstraction from the people that constitute it, i. e. the state.
Not the interests of the individual constituents are pursued but that of this abstraction.
On the other hand, the collective Communists have in mind is nothing but the web of relations between you and every other individual.
If you account for your relations to other people, egoism cannot be harmful.
If it was, you all would merely strive to annihilate each other.
And even if each of you pursues their own selfish interest for themselves, under circumstances such as ours you will stand against each other and the result is some thing unwanted by most.
So the only way out is willful cooperation to serve every one's interests eventually.
@@xCorvus7x Fascists and communists both believe in the state as the ultimate regulator of individual interests. That is why both systems are totalitarian. The big difference between fascists and communists is the question of equality. Fascists believe that everyone is born with different abilities and therefore hierarchies are good (asset). Communist believe that all people are born equal and that hierarchies are bad (liability). Fascists believe that the strong have to carry the weak (e.g. progressive income tax). Communists are favoring the weak and handicapping the strong in order to provide everyone with "equal" starting conditions. If that doesn't lead to equal outcomes, they simply adjust the result. Other than that, the fascist and the communist states are surprisingly similar.
@@Markus-Domanski
While Fascists do believe so, Communists don't.
In fact, they seek to abolish the state (eventually).
So no, they are not similar at all.
@@xCorvus7x You have to make a difference between theory and practice. In theory communist want to abolish the state, but so far they never did. Both systems create a totalitarian state without any opposition.