On 01/15/2014 11:39 AM, Robert J. Cordingley wrote: > In 1944 George Orwell wrote "What is Fascism" > <http://orwell.ru/library/articles/As_I_Please/english/efasc> . Has > anything really changed - tho' the bit about Catholics seems a tad harsh?
I don't know if anything's changed. But I like Eco's concept of ur-fascism. It seems to do a much better job than Orwell's minimal effort. http://www.pegc.us/archive/Articles/eco_ur-fascism.pdf 1) Cult of tradition 2) Rejection of modernism 3) Action for action's sake 4) Intolerant of dissent 5) Xenophobia (homogeneity) 6) Appeal to a frustrated middle class 7) Besiegement - obsession with a "plot" or conspiracy 8) Hate the (apparent) rich 9) Permanent warfare 10) populist elitism - pride in being one of the masses 11) Hero worship 12) Misogyny 13) "Selective populism" - official "Voice of the People" 14) Newspeak (Some of those are my titles, reworded so they make sense to me.) I kinda like making "bully" a synonym of fascist. But it worries me a bit. With the diaspora of meanings for "bully", including the recent sense in the commons thread, it's becoming as useless and abused as "fascist". Plus, "bully" could only achieve some of the characteristics Eco calls out (like 7) if we engage in serious psychoanalytic gymnastics. Mostly, though, I don't think a single person can be a fascist. Fascism seems to require some sort of collection of individuals. Maybe we could use the term "systemic bullying" as opposed to "bully"? -- ⇒⇐ glen ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
