I refer to Umberto Eco as the (snigger) "Authority"
It doesn't take much to understand fascism. 9 pages and 14 ways of
looking at a Blackshirt is plenty.
http://www.pegc.us/archive/Articles/eco_ur-fascism.pdf
z9wahqvh:
a more reasonable right-wing definition of fascism is one offered by the
guy who invented it, Benito Mussolini (actually mostly by his court
philosopher Giovanni Gentile). Here's just one important part (more here:
http://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/mod/mussolini-fascism.asp):
For Fascism, the growth of empire, that is to say the expansion of the
nation, is an essential manifestation of vitality, and its opposite a sign
of decadence. Peoples which are rising, or rising again after a period of
decadence, are always imperialist; and renunciation is a sign of decay and
of death. Fascism is the doctrine best adapted to represent the tendencies
and the aspirations of a people, like the people of Italy, who are rising
again after many centuries of abasement and foreign servitude. But empire
demands discipline, the coordination of all forces and a deeply felt sense
of duty and sacrifice: this fact explains many aspects of the practical
working of the regime, the character of many forces in the State, and the
necessarily severe measures which must be taken against those who would
oppose this spontaneous and inevitable movement of Italy in the twentieth
century, and would oppose it by recalling the outworn ideology
of the
nineteenth century - repudiated wheresoever there has been the courage to
undertake great experiments of social and political transformation; for
never before has the nation stood more in need of authority, of direction
and order. If every age has its own characteristic doctrine, there are a
thousand signs which point to Fascism as the characteristic doctrine of our
time. For if a doctrine must be a living thing, this is proved by the fact
that Fascism has created a living faith; and that this faith is very
powerful in the minds of men is demonstrated by those who have suffered and
died for it.
notice all that emphasis on "decadence," on the expansion of Empire, on the
"strength" of "the nation," on militarism? it's pretty hard to make that
work with the creation of social security and welfare programs (aka The New
Deal), or FDR's patent lack of interest in the kind of
militaristic
nationalism that -- oh, he eventually went to war against, but only after
being dragged kicking and screaming, mostly through the US being attacked
directly.
but what did Mussolini know about fascism (despite being the leader of the
actual movement that gave us the word)?
On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 8:26 PM, z9wahqvh <z9wahqvh@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 2:37 PM, juan <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote:
I wonder what an 'updated' new deal is considering that the
Original New Deal was chemically pure fascism...
in which
Juan-who-swears-he's-not-an-authoritarian-right-winger
demonstrates that he gets his analysis of fundamental political categories
from authoritarian right wingers (the only people--especially Hayek himself
and National Review editor Jonah Goldberg--who describe the New Deal as
having anything whatsoever to do with fascism, which it did not).