Comment on

• vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  How to detect a commie idiot without them naming themselves.

  I’m actually using Eco’s version, and he’s notably leftist.

  Please stop using the internet.

  Smart thoughts were chasing you, but you were always faster.

  source

  • doben@lemmy.wtf ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    I would have been more impressed, if you‘d actually provided argumentative content instead personal attacks.

    Not sure, what you used Umberto Eco‘s definition for, but it wasn‘t to formulate a coherent thought on the topic.

    source

    • vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      Not sure, what you used Umberto Eco‘s definition for, but it wasn‘t to formulate a coherent thought on the topic.

      Thank you for your opinion, but for classifying Stalin and Pol Pot as fascist, at the very least. If you have actually read that definition.

      You’re making shit up depending on how your tummy feels, don‘t you?

      vs

      if you‘d actually provided argumentative content instead personal attacks.

      and

      Correct in so far, as it‘s determined by economic system. Which happens to align with left/right ideology.

      , I don’t even know, “idiot” doesn’t seem a personal attack in such a situation. Commies are the only kind of people claiming that fascism has any economic alignments, as far as I have seen.

      source
  • technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    I’m actually using Eco’s version,

    No, you’re not.

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ur-Fascism#Overview

    source

    • vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      Eco’s version assumes Stalin’s regime is one of primary fascist regimes in the first place. I dunno about that overview, in the original text it’s clear from the beginning. Either you haven’t read it or you are trying to cheat.

      source

      • doben@lemmy.wtf ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        Stop making stuff up, it’s time to bring the receipts. Where exactly does “Eco’s version assumes Stalin’s regime is one of primary fascist regimes in the first place”?

        Eco treated Stalinism as a seperate, parallel example of totalitarianism, explicitedly not labeling it fascist.

        You gotta leave your confused right wing, red fascism narrative behind, if you actually want to understand the world. Maybe start by not being so dishonest.

        ---

        Some passages from Umberto Eco: Ur-Fascism:

        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.

        It was Italian fascism that convinced many European liberal leaders that the new regime was carrying out interesting social reform, and that it was providing a mildly revolutionary alternative to the Communist threat.

        Nevertheless, historical priority does not seem to me a sufficient reason to explain why the word fascism became a synecdoche, that is, a word that could be used for different totalitarian movements. This is not because fascism contained in itself, so to speak in their quintessential state, all the elements of any later form of totalitarianism. On the contrary, fascism had no quintessence. Fascism was a fuzzy totalitarianism, a collage of different philosophical and political ideas, a beehive of contradictions.

        source

        • -> View More Comments