This is a continuation of my assessment of Umberto Eco's essay on the evolution of fascism from basic anthropological attributes of societies.

8. The followers must feel humiliated by the ostentatious wealth and force of their enemies
   

   As is so frequently the case with efforts like Lawrence Britt's and Eco's, lists of attributes or distinguishing traits of fascism tend to suffer from inclusion of several universal traits. It's impossible to deny that fascist movements are obsessed with redeeming the nation from some past embarrassment; however, this is true of so many societies that we are reduced to wondering if it is especially strong in fascist ones. Greece "went" fascist after winning the Balkan War and WW1 (Ioannis Metaxas); it "went fascist" again after WW2, this time dominated by military and intelligence personnel who had collaborated with the German Occupation of Greece. Uganda likewise went fascist in 1971, as the result of a coup. While one could furnish ample examples of humiliations faced by the various peoples of Uganda, there fascism succeeded because of a typical post-colonial hyper-state; in other words, the European colonial power had left an admininistration that was modest by European standards, but unaccountably huge by Ugandan standards, and wildly out of proportion to the economy.

   In order for Eco's analysis to apply even on the intuitive level, there has to be something that is not universal. Resentment and scorn for people who have been successful in the past, and now appear to be coasting, is so common it's very hard to demonstrate that's its especially severe in countries with a fascist regime.

9. For Ur-Fascism there is no struggle for life but, rather, life is lived for struggle
   

   Eco's summary of this starts off well: "Thus 'pacifism is trafficking with the enemy.' It is bad because life is permanent warfare." This does comport well with the mental reflexes of Ur-fascism or imperialism. Hence, too, the obsession of many in Congress with the Chinese "menace," the irrational assumption that China's economic flourishing is necessarily an ominous sign for the USA.¹ Or the endless dread of another war with somebody, the constant use of the slogan, "the world is a dangerous place" (Yeah, 'cause we live in it!). There have also been periods in US history where the conservative elements of society were more likely to reject militarism because of the conservative principle of limited government. This part of conservativism is now quite rare in the USA.

   However, Eco runs into trouble with the second part: the Armageddon Complex, in which the nation is expected to enter a Golden Age after the final victory over the enemy. Since this has never happened, much less ever been part the pre-fascist period, it's anyone's surmise how any fascist regime would have coped with "total victory"; my surmise is that, the longer fascist regimes remain in power, the more their administrative ineptitude infects the military and the more unlikely they are to survive the endless military challenges they set for themselves.

   As a surmise, it's quite interesting. However, it's such an implausible scenario I don't want to chase it very far.

10. Elitism is a typical aspect of any reactionary ideology, insofar as it is fundamentally aristocratic, and aristocratic and militaristic elitism cruelly implies contempt for the weak
    

    Obviously. Which is why often so many layers of deception and self-deception are piled on top. For example, often weakness—political disenfranchisement, scorn by respectable society, vulnerability to self-righteous lumpenproletariat thugs, organized abuse in prisons— can frequently lead to desperate posturing.² This, in turn, can be a lot like a fascist movement, even though it is in fact resisting fascism.

11. In such a perspective everybody is educated to become a hero
    

    Eco has lived under fascism (he was born 7 years before the beginning of the war, and was 13 when it ended), whereas I have not; yet it seems to me that the notion that everyone needs to be a hero, or ought to become a hero, or even can become a hero, is really more common than its inclusion here implies. Perhaps it is an innovation that was embraced by fascist regimes en masse, and possibly spread far afield before the War made such an association embarrassing. Today, and for the last forty years, I believe the "universal hero" theme has been so widespread it's extremely hard to tell if it appeared as a consequence of Ur-fascism, or merely as a longterm trend in education.

    The reverence for veterans as heroes, likewise, is an ostentatious mimicking of classical traditions. Since the fascist regimes, it has infected all movements for revolutionary change. Another surmise is that the routinization of heroism reflects economic growth and urbanization: as middle class life in urban areas becomes the norm, it's natural for many to develop the daydream of being larger-than-life, just as a matter of rising on the hierarchy of needs.

12. Since both permanent war and heroism are difficult games to play, the Ur-Fascist transfers his will to power to sexual matters
    

    This strikes me as imminently plausible: the achievement of heroism through violence is something a militaristic society inculcates in its male members, but the great majority will inevitably discover such heroics are too strenuous for even basic training, much less the field of battle. Moreover, fascist states are usually mediocre even in military achievements, setting aside the Nazi aberration. Hence, sexual posturing becomes a feature of Ur-fascism. Either the man associates fascism with sexual purity (hence, the Saudi Ikhwan), or else members are drawn to fascism because of the abuse of dominance. The fantasy of dominance may take the form of sexual mastery over women, leading to sexually predatory behavior; or else it may take the form of kinky sex, BDSM, or other eccentricities. Unfortunately, Eco doesn't explore this matter very much.

13. Ur-Fascism is based upon a selective populism, a qualitative populism, one might say
    

    By this, he means that the fascist leader promises to replace the "rotten" system of parliamentary politics with some "true" intermediary between the will of the people and the state. The fascist leader promises that he can, or will, allow the people a voice in the state they have lacked before. The "people" are spoken of repeatedly as if they had a common soul, and this soul is known only through the heart. But of course to actually express the will of the people requires a dictatorship, more to shut up the quibblers than for the mere sake of efficiency. Also, the party and the theatre of politics becomes a show to illustrate this endlessly; the regime coaches large gatherings to "express the will of the people," which the leader somehow knows so well. This persists until the concept of dissent becomes literally unthinkable. Ur-fascism, of course, is different fro other political trends in this respect.

14. Ur-Fascism speaks Newspeak
    

    Worthy of several books unto itself, the contortions of language that enable and inform fascism, are crucial to it. The distortion of reason, the limited vocabulary, the profusion of logically unrelated or absurd statements, and the compulsive glorification of some intentionally meaningless phrase, are definitionally Ur-fascism.

    A compelling attribute of this is the habit of fascist movements of misidentifying themselves. An example is the White Aryan Resistance (WAR) group, which often borrows the same phrases and pretensions as radical left movements. Another is fascism posing as libertarianism (only, using a very recondite notion of "liberty"). Many "Christian" movements, likewise, have ideologies that elevate imaginary doctrines, like the rapture, over everything actually found in the bible.

Eco's essay attempts to analyze fascism as a progression to a conclusion. In my next post I hope to establish how accurate or useful this analysis is.

(Part 4)

[Fascism] [Totalitarianism]