Umberto Eco On Fascism

I pointed Michael McElroy to Umberto Eco regarding Fascism, and Michael located this excellent article written by Eco on Italian Fascism, which he experienced firsthand. Eco has tried to boil down the definition of Fascism to specific points, many of which Trump shares, and which Michael sees also in the Sanders campaign (and which I think are transient phenomena). Here's Eco:

Fascism became an all-purpose term because one can eliminate from a fascist regime one or more features, and it will still be recognizable as fascist. Take away imperialism from fascism and you still have Franco and Salazar. Take away colonialism and you still have the Balkan fascism of the Ustashes. Add to the Italian fascism a radical anti-capitalism (which never much fascinated Mussolini) and you have Ezra Pound. Add a cult of Celtic mythology and the Grail mysticism (completely alien to official fascism) and you have one of the most respected fascist gurus, Julius Evola.

But in spite of this fuzziness, I think it is possible to outline a list of features that are typical of what I would like to call Ur-Fascism, or Eternal Fascism. 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. But it is enough that one of them be present to allow fascism to coagulate around it.

Michael McElroy writes:

After reading and re-reading "Ur-Fascism", by Umberto Eco (which you pointed me towards the other day, thank you), I began thinking further about its points and what it has to say, and I have started to think that while certainly the comparisons line up most favorably with DT, there's actually some disturbing parallels with BS as well, and if indeed "Our duty is to uncover it and to point our finger at any of its new instances", it deserves consideration as well.

Consider, in particular, points #6, 7, 8, and 13. Some arguments can be made for certain of our fellow supporters exhibiting #4 as well ("disagreement is treason").

I reply:

There are some parallels, but many modern political movements share some of the same attributes. Fascism is more of a syndrome of attributes. Bernie's campaign necessarily has a short time horizon, and so some these effects are temporary. I don't think that Bernie folks worry about treason by Clinton folks (#4). Eco worries about fascism in the petty bourgeois (typically small merchants) but Bernie folks tend to be academic folks, or recently passed through (#6). Bernie folks worry about plots (#7), but because there is a contest underway, many of these fears are justified. Attributing both weakness and strength to the opponent (#8) has emerged as a problem within the last 2 months, but I think it's temporary. I'll grant point #13, but it's a point widely-shared among many modern movements, not just Bernie. I detected a disturbing zeal among Bernie fans, and it bothers me a little bit, but I think it's a feature of the instant, and will quickly become a memory.

Maybe I grant portions of #4 too, but the treason of interest is of the Clinton folks, and the legacy of the DLC, from the broader interests of the Democratic Party. These concerns have been of note since the late 80's, and a primary motivator of the left blogosphere since 2001. Bernie inherits these concerns, but others share them as well, like Black Lives Matter, or Occupy Wall Street.