Anti-communist tries to define the USSR as fascist without violating Umberto Eco’s 14 signs of fascism or twisting them through mental gymnastics or making up ahistorical facts to prove their point challenge: impossible
The cult of tradition. “One has only to look at the syllabus of every fascist movement to find the major traditionalist thinkers. The Nazi gnosis was nourished by traditionalist, syncretistic, occult elements.”
Check.
The rejection of modernism. “The Enlightenment, the Age of Reason, is seen as the beginning of modern depravity. In this sense Ur-Fascism can be defined as irrationalism.”
Check.
The cult of action for action’s sake. “Action being beautiful in itself, it must be taken before, or without, any previous reflection. Thinking is a form of emasculation.”
Check.
Disagreement is treason. “The critical spirit makes distinctions, and to distinguish is a sign of modernism. In modern culture the scientific community praises disagreement as a way to improve knowledge.”
Definite check.
Fear of difference. “The first appeal of a fascist or prematurely fascist movement is an appeal against the intruders. Thus Ur-Fascism is racist by definition.”
Check.
Appeal to social frustration. “One of the most typical features of the historical fascism was the appeal to a frustrated middle class, a class suffering from an economic crisis or feelings of political humiliation, and frightened by the pressure of lower social groups.”
One of the few unambiguous 'no’s.
The obsession with a plot. “Thus at the root of the Ur-Fascist psychology there is the obsession with a plot, possibly an international one. The followers must feel besieged.”
Definite check.
The enemy is both strong and weak. “By a continuous shifting of rhetorical focus, the enemies are at the same time too strong and too weak.”
Definite check.
Pacifism is trafficking with the enemy. “For Ur-Fascism there is no struggle for life but, rather, life is lived for struggle.”
Definite check.
Contempt for the weak. “Elitism is a typical aspect of any reactionary ideology.”
Questionable. I could make some arguments here, but we’ll be generous and say no.
Everybody is educated to become a hero. “In Ur-Fascist ideology, heroism is the norm. This cult of heroism is strictly linked with the cult of death.”
Definite check.
Machismo and weaponry. “Machismo implies both disdain for women and intolerance and condemnation of nonstandard sexual habits, from chastity to homosexuality.”
Check.
Selective populism. “There is in our future a TV or Internet populism, in which the emotional response of a selected group of citizens can be presented and accepted as the Voice of the People.”
Definite check.
Ur-Fascism speaks Newspeak. “All the Nazi or Fascist schoolbooks made use of an impoverished vocabulary, and an elementary syntax, in order to limit the instruments for complex and critical reasoning.”
Definite check.
But hey, why take my word for it? Why not ask Umberto Eco about Stalinism?
Mein Kampf is a manifesto of a complete political program. Nazism had a theory of racism and of the Aryan chosen people, a precise notion of degenerate art, entartete Kunst, a philosophy of the will to power and of the Ubermensch. Nazism was decidedly anti-Christian and neo-pagan, while Stalin’s Diamat (the official version of Soviet Marxism) was blatantly materialistic and atheistic. If by totalitarianism one means a regime that subordinates every act of the individual to the state and to its ideology, then both Nazism and Stalinism were true totalitarian regimes.
There was only a single Nazi architecture and a single Nazi art. If the Nazi architect was Albert Speer, there was no more room for Mies van der Rohe. Similarly, under Stalin’s rule, if Lamarck was right there was no room for Darwin. In Italy there were certainly fascist architects but close to their pseudo-Coliseums were many new buildings inspired by the modern rationalism of Gropius.
A couple criticisms. The cult of tradition and The USSR rejecting modernity? That’s clearly not true. From art to science, Soviet principles were about not just rejecting the old ways but completely wiping them away. Mao took it to the extent of having the youth go around and cut the hair of elders who sported traditional fashion.
Secondly, Nazi as anti Christian was a post war invention to hide Christian complicity in Nazism and the Holocaust. Christians ran the Nazi schools. Hitler’s speech’s were straight from Martin Luther’s book, “On the Jews and their Lies.” In the private Table Talk interviews, Hitler talked about his dream of creating a German Christian church exactly like England has the Church of England. He didn’t want to destroy Christianity. He believed he was saving it just like England had done. That private interview was intentionally edited and mistranslated after the war to portray Hitler as anti Christian.
A couple criticisms. The cult of tradition and The USSR rejecting modernity? That’s clearly not true. From art to science, Soviet principles were about not just rejecting the old ways but completely wiping them away. Mao took it to the extent of having the youth go around and cut the hair of elders who sported traditional fashion.
Soviets made a big show of being modern, but were positively moribund in traditional artistic mediums, and rejected many modern scientific ideas as bourgeois regardless of evidence. The realms in which the Sovs were most anti-traditionalist were that of new artistic mediums (with Soviets being pioneers in film, a medium that only barely and technically predates the Soviet Union in a serious sense) and in traditions that were rooted to institutions of society they didn’t control, as all totalitarian states.
Secondly, Nazi as anti Christian was a post war invention to hide Christian complicity in Nazism and the Holocaust. Christians ran the Nazi schools. Hitler’s speech’s were straight from Martin Luther’s book, “On the Jews and their Lies.” In the private Table Talk interviews, Hitler talked about his dream of creating a German Christian church exactly like England has the church of England. He didn’t want to destroy Christianity. He believes he was saving it just like England had done. That private interview was intentionally edited and mistranslated after the war to portray Hitler as anti Christian.
Anti-traditional Christian, if you prefer. Nazism’s position on Christianity was markedly different than, say, fascist Italy, or the clericalist fascist regimes Germany allied itself with, and the strong neo-pagan current in Nazism is not something that you would find prominent in other contemporary major fascist movements. It’s fair for Umberto Eco to single it out.
There is a huge difference between Nazis putting Christian ministers in positions of power and Hitler calling himself a Christian warrior and Soviets wiping religion out except for a short period when Stalin reopened the church during WW2. Eco stated the discredited idea that Nazis weren’t Christians.
“it’s not sectionalism when I don’t like that flavour of leftism”
“Leftism is when you play apologist for a fascist regime because it painted itself red.”
10/10, no notes
Anti-communist tries to define the USSR as fascist without violating Umberto Eco’s 14 signs of fascism or twisting them through mental gymnastics or making up ahistorical facts to prove their point challenge: impossible
spoiler
Check.
Check.
Check.
Definite check.
Check.
One of the few unambiguous 'no’s.
Definite check.
Definite check.
Definite check.
Questionable. I could make some arguments here, but we’ll be generous and say no.
Definite check.
Check.
Definite check.
Definite check.
But hey, why take my word for it? Why not ask Umberto Eco about Stalinism?
A couple criticisms. The cult of tradition and The USSR rejecting modernity? That’s clearly not true. From art to science, Soviet principles were about not just rejecting the old ways but completely wiping them away. Mao took it to the extent of having the youth go around and cut the hair of elders who sported traditional fashion.
Secondly, Nazi as anti Christian was a post war invention to hide Christian complicity in Nazism and the Holocaust. Christians ran the Nazi schools. Hitler’s speech’s were straight from Martin Luther’s book, “On the Jews and their Lies.” In the private Table Talk interviews, Hitler talked about his dream of creating a German Christian church exactly like England has the Church of England. He didn’t want to destroy Christianity. He believed he was saving it just like England had done. That private interview was intentionally edited and mistranslated after the war to portray Hitler as anti Christian.
Soviets made a big show of being modern, but were positively moribund in traditional artistic mediums, and rejected many modern scientific ideas as bourgeois regardless of evidence. The realms in which the Sovs were most anti-traditionalist were that of new artistic mediums (with Soviets being pioneers in film, a medium that only barely and technically predates the Soviet Union in a serious sense) and in traditions that were rooted to institutions of society they didn’t control, as all totalitarian states.
Anti-traditional Christian, if you prefer. Nazism’s position on Christianity was markedly different than, say, fascist Italy, or the clericalist fascist regimes Germany allied itself with, and the strong neo-pagan current in Nazism is not something that you would find prominent in other contemporary major fascist movements. It’s fair for Umberto Eco to single it out.
There is a huge difference between Nazis putting Christian ministers in positions of power and Hitler calling himself a Christian warrior and Soviets wiping religion out except for a short period when Stalin reopened the church during WW2. Eco stated the discredited idea that Nazis weren’t Christians.
https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/the-german-churches-and-the-nazi-state