This can happen to anyone. Why is there no widespread concern or consternation about what the 1998 movie ‘enemy of the state’ predicted to happen?
tialaramex · 10h ago
"Ooh you should be concerned" made sense in October 2024. Since January 2020 when Americans accepted "OK, we're making the fascist leader the head of our army" there's no value in "consternation" the thing you want is a plan to leave.
At first this can be quite structured and casual like, I should look for life opportunities abroad. Ooh, I quite like France and this outfit in Brittany are hiring in my field, I will apply and see what happens.
Gradually leaving becomes more urgent, and eventually you should focus just on getting over the border even if you don't have specific plans for where you'll go or what you'll do after that. Countries immediately bordering a fascist state often don't have a lot of patience for refugees, but, hey, at least you're out.
Fleeing makes sense for people at most risk of persecution (e.g. trans people, Jews, those who speak out), but many people are prevented from fleeing by their consciences. They have to stay and fight. See e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Resistance#Factions
tialaramex · 8h ago
I certainly don't want to condemn the choice to stay and fight. What I can tell you is that many people aren't brave enough to fight, but fleeing is much more possible. If you feel you must fight, you should absolutely do that, but if you can't summon that bravery you should flee, don't allow yourself to become a victim.
If your home is on fire, some people will bravely stay and fight the fire, but the instruction we give everybody is to flee, you can get another home, but if you die there's nothing to be done about it, so better flee.
yehbuttzlivin · 2h ago
Fleeing elsewhere is not a general option. We can’t just create a humanitarian crisis for another country by showing up on their doorstep step.
If that’s a persons preference I’d suggest they were just mooching off the culture and not there to contribute. They probably should fuck off.
Don’t worry. I “died” on the operating table once. It all just goes dark. It’s living struggle and torture you want to avoid not death.
senordevnyc · 51m ago
I have kids. When it’s time to flee, we’ll flee, and I could give two dry fucks what some rando thinks about whether I’m going to “contribute to the culture” of whatever country will have us.
Not to mention... why don't they want to bring him back? It took awhile for them to come out with a reason so is that the real reason, or is that an excuse because he's no longer alive? Very scary either way.
chneu · 6h ago
This administration is petrified of admitting a mistake. No matter how small.
pstuart · 11h ago
> why don't they want to bring him back
Because that would demonstrate weakness and accountability. This is a trial run and they have big plans for this.
Note that the courts have blocked this and thus far been ignored.
wizzwizz4 · 11h ago
There is widespread concern. It's just not reported, because that's not a news story. If you're in the US, get together with your local community and do something about this (e.g. establish / repurpose a neighbourhood watch), before it's too late.
bborud · 11h ago
Then the press is not doing its job. It is the job of all of us to tell them that. Then again, everyone wants someone else to speak up because they think their voice can make no difference.
When I cancelled my Washington Post subscription I wrote a letter to the editor. The important part of that letter was under what set of circumstances I might start trusting the Washington Post again. I never got a response. Not that I expected one. I’m sure they were inundated with angry letters at the time.
From time to time I write letters. To journalists, to leaders, I even wrote our prime minister once - and got a reply. Sometimes they are letters of support when someone has stuck their neck out and deserves a pat on the back. Or when someone has done good work. Too often they are letters telling people to do their job properly or to behave like adults. A lot of politicians and members of the press need a reminder to behave like adults and do their job these days. To do the demanding part of their job. Not just the part that is easy or that brings in campaign contributions or easy sales.
I never expect people to respond. But sometimes they do. This means I’ve reached people.
mystified5016 · 1h ago
Yes, the press is fundamentally broken. It has been for decades.
01HNNWZ0MV43FF · 1h ago
I think we (people who care, that is) should look at organizing our own news. Rich people do it, must be something to it.
The purpose of most news companies is to make money by selling ads. Real news would have to come from something that doesn't run ads and makes their money another way
dragonwriter · 11h ago
> There is widespread concern. It's just not reported, because that's not a news story.
No, it is annews story, and widepsread concerns are often reported on; its not widely reported on because the media is a mix of institutiins which tend to be either in support of the Administration doing it or in fear of being targeted in retaliation for reporting on topics like that.
> Notably, 69% of the global population expresses a willingness to contribute 1% of their personal income, 86% endorse pro-climate social norms and 89% demand intensified political action. […] Despite these encouraging statistics, we document that the world is in a state of pluralistic ignorance, wherein individuals around the globe systematically underestimate the willingness of their fellow citizens to act.
The situation is similar in the US: the majority of people don't think the government should be kidnapping citizens from their homes and shipping them off to foreign prisons without trial, but they also think everyone else is okay with it.
"It's a widespread concern" is not a news story, unless and until someone does the research and confirms it. Otherwise, how do the journalists know it's the case? And investigative journalists aren't usually running large-scale population studies.
EnPissant · 11h ago
> its not widely reported on because the media is a mix of institutiins which tend to be either in support of the Administration doing it or in fear of being targeted in retaliation for reporting on topics like that.
Here is a list of major news media outlets from Wikipedia[1].
Which of the following do you think either supports the current administration or fears being targeted by it?
ABC News, CBS News, CNN, Fox News Channel, MSNBC, NBC News, The New York Times, USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, Politico, Bloomberg, Vice News, HBO, HuffPost, TMZ, CNET, NPR, The Hollywood Reporter, Newsweek, The New Yorker, Time , U.S. News & World Report
If anyone's wondering whether this list of news companies is larger than the list of owners of those outlets: yes.
sorcerer-mar · 11h ago
Fox News supports and many of the others fear being targeted by it, some are a bit in between like Washington Post and LA Times (billionaire owners sucking up to the dictator, as is tradition when such regimes rise to power)
Unless you think threats of DOJ investigation, pulling broadcast licenses, or extremely expensive lawsuits don't produce fear? In that case you should let authoritarians know their playbook is out of date. Of course it's not, which is why authoritarians follow such a distinct pattern.
I suspect people will say they are critical of him, but "not enough" or cherry-pick 1 or 2 neutral headlines in a sea of critical ones.
sorcerer-mar · 11h ago
No no, for WaPo one need only know that Bezos spiked the Editorial Board's endorsement of Harris and then Blue Origin executives met with the Trump campaign literally hours later.
Oh yeah and that they wouldn't publish a cartoon poking fun at the kleptocracy. The artist resigned in protest and went on to win a Pulitzer, which WaPo had no problem taking credit for.
Is it fair to say that Navalny didn't fear Putin because he was actually quite vocal against Putin?
EnPissant · 7h ago
I see. So "not enough" then.
sorcerer-mar · 6h ago
Nope, that's actually not what I said. Nice try though!
EnPissant · 5h ago
So the Washington Post is extremely anti-Trump but once or twice the owner stepped in and forced them to remain neutral _maybe_ so as not to jeopardize government contracts for one of his other companies. But also there was a big backlash, and he probably could never do this again or the very least extremely infrequently?
sorcerer-mar · 4h ago
> So the Washington Post… owner stepped in… so as not to jeopardize government contracts for one of his other companies
I see. So “in fear of being targeted in retaliation” then?
_DeadFred_ · 8h ago
Our system works because it doesn't have friction. I wouldn't think it would take too much to make things prohibitively expensive for the government by the people adding legal, simple friction at every possible pain point.
The government has forgotten it can only do what it does with the consent of the people, and that a small minority could really frustrate things if they truly wanted to.
anigbrowl · 11h ago
~30-35% of people like this sort of thing because it makes them feel powerful by proxy.
~20% are fatalists who think there's nothing you can do about it and just want to keep their head down and out of trouble.
Maybe 20% are naive people who don't get it and another 20% are hand-wringers who don't know what to do about it.
Fewer than 20% are able to comprehend, speak out, and organize against it and it's hard for them to make their voices heard enough to build a coalition that outnumbers the first group.
dataflow · 11h ago
> This can happen to anyone. Why is there no widespread concern or consternation
I don't actually think the majority of the population believes this could happen to them. Furthermore, a huge portion of the population is very deliberately tuning out what they find to be depressing news. Though I'm not sure you're correct about the lack of widespread concern regardless.
potato3732842 · 3h ago
Where was this concern 4, 9, 14, 30yr ago when the groundwork was laid?
I mean they made a f-ing hollywood movie about it in 1998, it's not like the potential wasn't foreseen.
mvdtnz · 10h ago
I mean Americans are writing angry comments on internet forums. What more do you want?
_DeadFred_ · 8h ago
A list of minor legal frictions that the average person can introduce to slow down the system/increase expenses to the point the government has to go back to caring about larger social consensus on policies.
EnPissant · 11h ago
> Why is there no widespread concern or consternation about what the 1998 movie ‘enemy of the state’ predicted to happen?
It's more accurate to get your worldview from actual history than Hollywood movies.
tombert · 11h ago
Ok, well historically when people have been disappeared by governments, it's considered "bad". Stalin painting out pictures of Trotsky is generally frowned upon.
Movies are a cultural shorthand.
Yeul · 11h ago
Anyone who spent an hour reading US history learns about the racism, xenophobia and jingoism that has been part of American society since the first pilgrims got off the ship.
The only difference is that the American elite is now in on it too. For whatever reasons I do not know.
No comments yet
realo · 11h ago
Absolutely! That is why I look at the Trump regime while keeping in mind Umberto Eco's 14 features... and weep ...
They all seem to be commonalities with Socialism as well.
energywut · 11h ago
This is categorically untrue, even on a quick reading.
Take "Fear of difference" -- socialists tend to be (perhaps even annoyingly) anti-racist and "woke" types who are largely cool with everyone being different.
Or "Pacifism is trafficking with the enemy" ... the number of non-violent socialists I know is really high. (Though Karl Marx was pro gun, and many leftists are as well.)
"Everybody is educated to become a hero" -- socialism tends to oppose the idea of a "great man", favoring instead a collective drive towards improvement.
So no, I don't think all of these are commonalities of socialism in any way. (And besides, what type of socialism? Communism? Anarchism? Democratic socialism? Syndicalism? Socialism encompases a MUCH wider space than Fascism does...)
fifilura · 9h ago
The problem as I see it is that Americans define socialists as "anyone that is not MAGA". A lot thanks to a successful campaign by the orange man.
Socialism as in Soviet, East Europe and 20th century China was most things bad. Including racists and whatever.
Socialists as you define them are mostly just like a big chunk of regular europeans.
DeepSeaTortoise · 9h ago
> socialists tend to be (perhaps even annoyingly) anti-racist and "woke" types who are largely cool with everyone being different.
That's why close to 100% of the POC walking away from these communities describe them as racist hell holes full of backstabbing and enjoy the "don't tell, don't care" approach of the opposition.
And good luck to you if the diversity you enjoy isn't genetic in nature, but a matter of non-approved opinion.
> the number of non-violent socialists I know is really high.
The problem is the number of violent ones being high, too. E.g. I don't see cars made by Jack Dorsey burning in the streets.
Also where is all the praise for Trump for being the only President since the 70s to not have started any new armed conflicts during his first term?
> And besides, what type of socialism? Communism? Anarchism? Democratic socialism? Syndicalism? Socialism encompases a MUCH wider space than Fascism does
Fun fact: Fascism is just Syndicalism combined with Engel's nationalist approach to Socialism. This includes Italian Fascism, Francoist Spain and Nazi Germany (who also slapped novel occultism on top).
I'd say "Socialism" are all of the ideologies spawned from the first two Internationals. Comintern didn't really allow for any divers thinking.
Also Anarchism isn't Socialism or left wing at all. Enforcing a Dictatorship of the Proletariat is impossible without a functioning state. Many of the self-declared "Anarchists" are but confused lazy Communists thinking they're going to be part of the Intelligenzia class.
Genuine Anarchism is the right most end of right wing extremism: A complete collapse of any organized society.
robertlagrant · 9h ago
> Take "Fear of difference" -- socialists tend to be (perhaps even annoyingly) anti-racist and "woke" types who are largely cool with everyone being different.
Socialists tend to be big on class warfare and killing people by the millions in the name of levelling the playing field.
> Or "Pacifism is trafficking with the enemy" ... the number of non-violent socialists I know is really high. (Though Karl Marx was pro gun, and many leftists are as well.)
Almost all of the most violent things happening in the 20th Century were in Socialist regimes. USSR / China under Communism / the Khmer Rouge.
And "pro gun" isn't "pro violence".
> "Everybody is educated to become a hero" -- socialism tends to oppose the idea of a "great man", favoring instead a collective drive towards improvement.
There's endless Soviet propaganda showing strong, heroic depictions of comrades.
soco · 11h ago
Socialism gave you 5 days working week, 8 hours working day, no child labor and I don't see you refusing those.
robertlagrant · 9h ago
No it didn't.
pstuart · 11h ago
I beg to differ.
And Socialism presents zero threat to the republic these days, while fascism is unfolding daily
DeepSeaTortoise · 10h ago
These 14 points are ridiculous. For some reason I always expect to see things like:
- Restricting freedom of assembly
- Restricting freedom of speech
- Depriving people of political representation
- Disarming the citizens
But I get:
- 1. People like Christmas
- 2. Not adopting the radical ideology of a self-declared intelligenzia
- 5. Not celebrating an entrenched political elite mass importing people sharing their ideology
- 6. Being upset when politicians actively work on making people's live a living hell
- 7. Paying attention to the fact that it's a big club and you're not part of it
- 8. Stop mentioning the people ruining your lives also have weaknesses
- 9. Stop resisting, you barely staying alive is perfectly normal. Expecting success in return for your efforts is absurd.
- 10. Weakness is strength. How dare you support people seeking to improve themselves?
- 12. How dare you trying to figure out what is happening on our private islands? All of you hate women! And having sex. And not having sex. And those having sex, but not with you.
- 13. Do not question our narrative of who is the only valid Voice of the People. Those voicing their concerns in spaces escaping our control so far are just a few selected Russian trolls.
- 14. Stop expressing your thoughts in ways people actually understand. Using words with definitions older than 2 weeks is strictly forbidden
dttze · 10h ago
So ridiculous you had to respond with reductive absurd takes, and skipped a whole bunch cause they are too hard to dismiss.
Oh, and your given list also applies to this government too.
DeepSeaTortoise · 9h ago
Not really. Umberto Enco's original 14 points were alreay quite questionable, but the author of this hot take altered them beyond recognition.
I skipped over some points, not because they're hard to dismiss per se, but because them being intellectually honest makes them hard to dismiss.
cauch · 10h ago
But what the list gives are the particularities of fascism.
Your first list is way too broad and does not capture the particularities that makes fascism different from other kinds of dictatorship.
The second list is obviously a ridiculous take, and it is also a good illustration of the hypocrisy that we find too often in these discussion. "Nowadays, all the wokes are saying that everything is racist" followed that "someone pointed that usually in fascist movements, we find appeals to a cult of tradition, so this person is a bad person that says that everyone who like Christmas is a fascist". There is a big big spectrum of possibilities between "liking Christmas" and "appeal to a cult of tradition". Plenty of people like Christmas and yet it is impossible to find in their ideology an appeal to a cult of tradition.
DeepSeaTortoise · 9h ago
> Your first list is way too broad and does not capture the particularities that makes fascism different from other kinds of dictatorship.
Fair, but tbh, I'd categorize fascism mostly by the combination of Syndicalism and the nationalist approach to overthrowing capitalism.
> The second list is obviously a ridiculous take
Yes, because this author's points were ridiculous, cut up beyond recognition to fit the author's political agenda. SmolLM-135M would have done a more decent job summing up the original 14 points speech. And even some of the points in the original speech were ridiculous. Like:
"Since even sex is a difficult game to play, the Ur-Fascist hero tends to play with weapons, doing so becomes an ersatz phallic exercise."
cauch · 8h ago
> Fair, but tbh, I'd categorize fascism mostly by the combination of Syndicalism and the nationalist approach to overthrowing capitalism.
Oh, so your two first points are 1. people don't like to work, 2. not adopting the radical ideology of self-declared chiefs of industry.
(Don't take it seriously, it is just to show that everyone can do the same lame argumentation than you have done with everything, and that therefore it has no weight at all)
> Yes, because this author's points were ridiculous
Not sure who you are referring to as "author". Eco? The author of the OpenCulture article? Someone in HN comments? 404media?
But it does not really matter, does it?
Imagine someone says "all the dogs are purple". Then I say "what they said is ridiculous because the fact that people like Christmas is obvious and not particular". We are BOTH stupid. The first person has said something ridiculous. And me, instead of just using a non-stupid argument to point that it is ridiculous, I made uselessly a fool of myself by talking about people who like Christmas as if I'm too stupid to notice that this argument does not have any grip on the initial sentence. Either I thought it had grip, and in this case I'm an idiot, or I know it had no grip, and in this case I'm an idiot for uselessly choosing to look like one instead of saying the hundreds of other things that could have been constructive.
They bother to spell out his full name, but don't bother explaining who he is.
zzrrt · 10h ago
Maybe they don't because any further detail is irrelevant. Those opposed to this, such as myself, believe he doesn't deserve this at the hands of a supposedly free country, whoever he is. The ones who support it need nothing more than the fact this Administration did it to believe he deserves it.
brendoelfrendo · 10h ago
"Ricardo Prada Vásquez was not on a government list of people sent to a mega prison in El Salvador. But hacked data shows he was booked on a flight to the country.
Ricardo Prada Vásquez, a Venezuelan man whose family says he was “disappeared” and who wasn’t included on a previously leaked government list of people sent to a notorious mega prison in El Salvador, was included on a private airline’s flight manifest to the country, according to hacked airline data obtained and analyzed by 404 Media."
Those are the first two paragraphs of the story, what do you think is missing that would help your comprehension of the situation?
akomtu · 39m ago
These two paragraphs say nothing about who he is.
daheza · 11h ago
404media has done some really good reporting recently. In the past few months its become one of my go to sources.
dakr · 10h ago
Agree. I've been trying to be more proactive in supporting companies and institutions that are doing important work. That includes news organizations that I was previously using archive.ph to read.
Vote with your dollars (and of course vote with your vote!).
linuxguy2 · 11h ago
Agreed. They're one of the few media sources I go out of my way to support with a membership.
sitkack · 11h ago
I can't think of a better org to support with dollars.
ianhawes · 10h ago
I subscribed the day they launched and haven’t regretted it. They have the best tech reporting and your subscription directly supports the journalists.
Meh…I trust nothing. Not the government, not the media, and definitely not activist hackers.
If you are unscrupulous enough to hack someone else’s data, you are not trustworthy enough for me to trust that you haven’t manipulated the data you claim you have hacked.
explodes · 3h ago
How are you supposed to trust anyone fighting for good?
kcplate · 2h ago
Just what exactly is “good”? People on both sides of this think they are doing good by their actions (even justifying the bad they do because of their “virtues”). Also, both sides have lots of people agreeing with them so I really don’t think there is some underlying universal common human “good” that establishes one side as right and another wrong excusing the bad actions of one side in the fight of the other on this topic.
At first this can be quite structured and casual like, I should look for life opportunities abroad. Ooh, I quite like France and this outfit in Brittany are hiring in my field, I will apply and see what happens.
Gradually leaving becomes more urgent, and eventually you should focus just on getting over the border even if you don't have specific plans for where you'll go or what you'll do after that. Countries immediately bordering a fascist state often don't have a lot of patience for refugees, but, hey, at least you're out.
Fleeing makes sense for people at most risk of persecution (e.g. trans people, Jews, those who speak out), but many people are prevented from fleeing by their consciences. They have to stay and fight. See e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Resistance#Factions
If your home is on fire, some people will bravely stay and fight the fire, but the instruction we give everybody is to flee, you can get another home, but if you die there's nothing to be done about it, so better flee.
If that’s a persons preference I’d suggest they were just mooching off the culture and not there to contribute. They probably should fuck off.
Don’t worry. I “died” on the operating table once. It all just goes dark. It’s living struggle and torture you want to avoid not death.
No comments yet
Because that would demonstrate weakness and accountability. This is a trial run and they have big plans for this.
Note that the courts have blocked this and thus far been ignored.
When I cancelled my Washington Post subscription I wrote a letter to the editor. The important part of that letter was under what set of circumstances I might start trusting the Washington Post again. I never got a response. Not that I expected one. I’m sure they were inundated with angry letters at the time.
From time to time I write letters. To journalists, to leaders, I even wrote our prime minister once - and got a reply. Sometimes they are letters of support when someone has stuck their neck out and deserves a pat on the back. Or when someone has done good work. Too often they are letters telling people to do their job properly or to behave like adults. A lot of politicians and members of the press need a reminder to behave like adults and do their job these days. To do the demanding part of their job. Not just the part that is easy or that brings in campaign contributions or easy sales.
I never expect people to respond. But sometimes they do. This means I’ve reached people.
The purpose of most news companies is to make money by selling ads. Real news would have to come from something that doesn't run ads and makes their money another way
No, it is annews story, and widepsread concerns are often reported on; its not widely reported on because the media is a mix of institutiins which tend to be either in support of the Administration doing it or in fear of being targeted in retaliation for reporting on topics like that.
> Notably, 69% of the global population expresses a willingness to contribute 1% of their personal income, 86% endorse pro-climate social norms and 89% demand intensified political action. […] Despite these encouraging statistics, we document that the world is in a state of pluralistic ignorance, wherein individuals around the globe systematically underestimate the willingness of their fellow citizens to act.
The situation is similar in the US: the majority of people don't think the government should be kidnapping citizens from their homes and shipping them off to foreign prisons without trial, but they also think everyone else is okay with it.
"It's a widespread concern" is not a news story, unless and until someone does the research and confirms it. Otherwise, how do the journalists know it's the case? And investigative journalists aren't usually running large-scale population studies.
Here is a list of major news media outlets from Wikipedia[1].
Which of the following do you think either supports the current administration or fears being targeted by it?
ABC News, CBS News, CNN, Fox News Channel, MSNBC, NBC News, The New York Times, USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, Politico, Bloomberg, Vice News, HBO, HuffPost, TMZ, CNET, NPR, The Hollywood Reporter, Newsweek, The New Yorker, Time , U.S. News & World Report
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_media_in_the_United_State...
Unless you think threats of DOJ investigation, pulling broadcast licenses, or extremely expensive lawsuits don't produce fear? In that case you should let authoritarians know their playbook is out of date. Of course it's not, which is why authoritarians follow such a distinct pattern.
I suspect people will say they are critical of him, but "not enough" or cherry-pick 1 or 2 neutral headlines in a sea of critical ones.
Oh yeah and that they wouldn't publish a cartoon poking fun at the kleptocracy. The artist resigned in protest and went on to win a Pulitzer, which WaPo had no problem taking credit for.
Is it fair to say that Navalny didn't fear Putin because he was actually quite vocal against Putin?
I see. So “in fear of being targeted in retaliation” then?
The government has forgotten it can only do what it does with the consent of the people, and that a small minority could really frustrate things if they truly wanted to.
~20% are fatalists who think there's nothing you can do about it and just want to keep their head down and out of trouble.
Maybe 20% are naive people who don't get it and another 20% are hand-wringers who don't know what to do about it.
Fewer than 20% are able to comprehend, speak out, and organize against it and it's hard for them to make their voices heard enough to build a coalition that outnumbers the first group.
I don't actually think the majority of the population believes this could happen to them. Furthermore, a huge portion of the population is very deliberately tuning out what they find to be depressing news. Though I'm not sure you're correct about the lack of widespread concern regardless.
I mean they made a f-ing hollywood movie about it in 1998, it's not like the potential wasn't foreseen.
It's more accurate to get your worldview from actual history than Hollywood movies.
Movies are a cultural shorthand.
The only difference is that the American elite is now in on it too. For whatever reasons I do not know.
No comments yet
https://www.openculture.com/2024/11/umberto-ecos-list-of-the...
Take "Fear of difference" -- socialists tend to be (perhaps even annoyingly) anti-racist and "woke" types who are largely cool with everyone being different.
Or "Pacifism is trafficking with the enemy" ... the number of non-violent socialists I know is really high. (Though Karl Marx was pro gun, and many leftists are as well.)
"Everybody is educated to become a hero" -- socialism tends to oppose the idea of a "great man", favoring instead a collective drive towards improvement.
So no, I don't think all of these are commonalities of socialism in any way. (And besides, what type of socialism? Communism? Anarchism? Democratic socialism? Syndicalism? Socialism encompases a MUCH wider space than Fascism does...)
Socialism as in Soviet, East Europe and 20th century China was most things bad. Including racists and whatever.
Socialists as you define them are mostly just like a big chunk of regular europeans.
That's why close to 100% of the POC walking away from these communities describe them as racist hell holes full of backstabbing and enjoy the "don't tell, don't care" approach of the opposition.
And good luck to you if the diversity you enjoy isn't genetic in nature, but a matter of non-approved opinion.
> the number of non-violent socialists I know is really high.
The problem is the number of violent ones being high, too. E.g. I don't see cars made by Jack Dorsey burning in the streets.
Also where is all the praise for Trump for being the only President since the 70s to not have started any new armed conflicts during his first term?
> And besides, what type of socialism? Communism? Anarchism? Democratic socialism? Syndicalism? Socialism encompases a MUCH wider space than Fascism does
Fun fact: Fascism is just Syndicalism combined with Engel's nationalist approach to Socialism. This includes Italian Fascism, Francoist Spain and Nazi Germany (who also slapped novel occultism on top).
I'd say "Socialism" are all of the ideologies spawned from the first two Internationals. Comintern didn't really allow for any divers thinking.
Also Anarchism isn't Socialism or left wing at all. Enforcing a Dictatorship of the Proletariat is impossible without a functioning state. Many of the self-declared "Anarchists" are but confused lazy Communists thinking they're going to be part of the Intelligenzia class.
Genuine Anarchism is the right most end of right wing extremism: A complete collapse of any organized society.
Socialists tend to be big on class warfare and killing people by the millions in the name of levelling the playing field.
> Or "Pacifism is trafficking with the enemy" ... the number of non-violent socialists I know is really high. (Though Karl Marx was pro gun, and many leftists are as well.)
Almost all of the most violent things happening in the 20th Century were in Socialist regimes. USSR / China under Communism / the Khmer Rouge.
And "pro gun" isn't "pro violence".
> "Everybody is educated to become a hero" -- socialism tends to oppose the idea of a "great man", favoring instead a collective drive towards improvement.
There's endless Soviet propaganda showing strong, heroic depictions of comrades.
And Socialism presents zero threat to the republic these days, while fascism is unfolding daily
- Restricting freedom of assembly
- Restricting freedom of speech
- Depriving people of political representation
- Disarming the citizens
But I get:
- 1. People like Christmas
- 2. Not adopting the radical ideology of a self-declared intelligenzia
- 5. Not celebrating an entrenched political elite mass importing people sharing their ideology
- 6. Being upset when politicians actively work on making people's live a living hell
- 7. Paying attention to the fact that it's a big club and you're not part of it
- 8. Stop mentioning the people ruining your lives also have weaknesses
- 9. Stop resisting, you barely staying alive is perfectly normal. Expecting success in return for your efforts is absurd.
- 10. Weakness is strength. How dare you support people seeking to improve themselves?
- 12. How dare you trying to figure out what is happening on our private islands? All of you hate women! And having sex. And not having sex. And those having sex, but not with you.
- 13. Do not question our narrative of who is the only valid Voice of the People. Those voicing their concerns in spaces escaping our control so far are just a few selected Russian trolls.
- 14. Stop expressing your thoughts in ways people actually understand. Using words with definitions older than 2 weeks is strictly forbidden
Oh, and your given list also applies to this government too.
There is a reason the author linked to a paywall instead of a freely available copy. Just read it yourself: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/umberto-eco-ur-fasci...
I skipped over some points, not because they're hard to dismiss per se, but because them being intellectually honest makes them hard to dismiss.
Your first list is way too broad and does not capture the particularities that makes fascism different from other kinds of dictatorship.
The second list is obviously a ridiculous take, and it is also a good illustration of the hypocrisy that we find too often in these discussion. "Nowadays, all the wokes are saying that everything is racist" followed that "someone pointed that usually in fascist movements, we find appeals to a cult of tradition, so this person is a bad person that says that everyone who like Christmas is a fascist". There is a big big spectrum of possibilities between "liking Christmas" and "appeal to a cult of tradition". Plenty of people like Christmas and yet it is impossible to find in their ideology an appeal to a cult of tradition.
Fair, but tbh, I'd categorize fascism mostly by the combination of Syndicalism and the nationalist approach to overthrowing capitalism.
> The second list is obviously a ridiculous take
Yes, because this author's points were ridiculous, cut up beyond recognition to fit the author's political agenda. SmolLM-135M would have done a more decent job summing up the original 14 points speech. And even some of the points in the original speech were ridiculous. Like:
"Since even sex is a difficult game to play, the Ur-Fascist hero tends to play with weapons, doing so becomes an ersatz phallic exercise."
Oh, so your two first points are 1. people don't like to work, 2. not adopting the radical ideology of self-declared chiefs of industry.
(Don't take it seriously, it is just to show that everyone can do the same lame argumentation than you have done with everything, and that therefore it has no weight at all)
> Yes, because this author's points were ridiculous
Not sure who you are referring to as "author". Eco? The author of the OpenCulture article? Someone in HN comments? 404media?
But it does not really matter, does it? Imagine someone says "all the dogs are purple". Then I say "what they said is ridiculous because the fact that people like Christmas is obvious and not particular". We are BOTH stupid. The first person has said something ridiculous. And me, instead of just using a non-stupid argument to point that it is ridiculous, I made uselessly a fool of myself by talking about people who like Christmas as if I'm too stupid to notice that this argument does not have any grip on the initial sentence. Either I thought it had grip, and in this case I'm an idiot, or I know it had no grip, and in this case I'm an idiot for uselessly choosing to look like one instead of saying the hundreds of other things that could have been constructive.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_flights
Ricardo Prada Vásquez, a Venezuelan man whose family says he was “disappeared” and who wasn’t included on a previously leaked government list of people sent to a notorious mega prison in El Salvador, was included on a private airline’s flight manifest to the country, according to hacked airline data obtained and analyzed by 404 Media."
Those are the first two paragraphs of the story, what do you think is missing that would help your comprehension of the situation?
Vote with your dollars (and of course vote with your vote!).
It's also wild to me that some of the best reporting on this administration has been coming from Verge and Wired.
Perhaps that should change.
If you are unscrupulous enough to hack someone else’s data, you are not trustworthy enough for me to trust that you haven’t manipulated the data you claim you have hacked.
Seems to me bad actions are just “bad”.