Umberto Eco says in number nine of his characteristics of Ur-Fascism that "since enemies have to be defeated, there must be a final battle, after which the movement will have control of the world. But such a 'final solution' implies a further era of peace, a Golden Age, which contradicts the principle of permanent war. No fascist leader has ever succeeded in solving this predicament."
Of course, we know Orwell's society in 1984 solved the predicament by faking permanent war. (Or were they faking?)
But what struck me was the phrase "since enemies have to be defeated."
Is this a fascist way of thinking, that enemies have to be defeated?
If so, how can we get out of it? While still admitting that we have enemies in the world?
If enemies are defeated, will we be safer or in more peril?
Were we all safer during the Cold War than we are now?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
In my head I'm working on an idea, which I will post soon on my Obama blog. The idea is a response to a US News and World Report headline, something to the effect of: Which Candidate Will Make America Safer. Me, I don't want America to be Safe. Enough already. My tax dollars are being eaten up stripping 80 year old paraplegics at airports.
Sure, there are moments when enemies take off their masks and raise their dukes in open threat. Unavoidable conflict is part of global living I suppose. But the reality is enemies don't have to be defeated. Or to say it another way, diversity is good.
Therefore, if I make myself too safe, I miss diversity. How that translates into airport security, I'm not completely sure, but I think it includes letting the elderly woman from Madras on the plane without frisking her sari.
If enemies are understood, will we be safer or in more peril? Now that would be a question worth thinking about.
Post a Comment