Umberto Eco never managed to “define” fascism, Clyde.
He only provided a list of characteristics of (what he termed) “ur-fascism” - what I’d call “secondary fascism” (ie, the violent re-enforcement of the status quo in the imperial core using methods and justifications pioneered in the colonised world).
Here is what he said himself -
“These features cannot be organized into a system; many of them contradict each other, and are also typical of other kinds of despotism or fanaticism.”
I find it interesting that you touched on the contradictory compartmentalization trait of authoritarians without actually grasping the meaning of what you were trying to quote.
Your own arguments are full of such contradictory compartmentalism, which is quite telling.
It has been described and defined in great detail.
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/umberto-eco-ur-fascism
Umberto Eco never managed to “define” fascism, Clyde.
He only provided a list of characteristics of (what he termed) “ur-fascism” - what I’d call “secondary fascism” (ie, the violent re-enforcement of the status quo in the imperial core using methods and justifications pioneered in the colonised world).
Here is what he said himself -
Ie… no workable definition of fascism.
Okay?
I find it interesting that you touched on the contradictory compartmentalization trait of authoritarians without actually grasping the meaning of what you were trying to quote.
Your own arguments are full of such contradictory compartmentalism, which is quite telling.
Which part of…
…didn’t you get the first time around, Clyde?