It is illogical to criticise “Il fascismo eterno” simply because it deals only with fascism

Politics on television – and television that believes it is doing politics a favour – has spread a virus: the idea that, in order to report things accurately, one must always adhere to the principle of equal access; if you give airtime to a voice from the right, you must also give airtime to a voice from the left.Whilst ‘equal access’ may apply to television, it cannot apply to thought; I regret having to point this out to those who, institutionally, are supposed to safeguard it. Indeed, solely on the basis of a principle of conceptual par condicio, a book devoted to fascism ("Il fascismo eterno" by Umberto Eco, published by La nave di Teseo), which draws on the author’s personal experience of growing up under the fascist regime, would – in order to be ‘fair’ – also have to discuss communism: a voice on Evil on the right, a voice on Evil on the left.

Eco’s book begins like this, and I wish to recall it to clarify in what sense "Il Fascismo Eterno" is a book that draws on a personal experience, before going on to define the characteristics of an ideological model: “In 1942, at the age of ten, I won first prize at the "Ludi Juveniles" (a competition open to all young Italian fascists – that is to say, to all young Italians). I had written a piece of rhetorical brilliance on the theme: ‘Must we die for the glory of Mussolini and the immortal destiny of Italy?’ My answer had been ‘yes’. I was a bright young lad.”

One might be tempted to say… if Eco had lived in Moscow, perhaps he would have written a book on eternal communism… I wouldn’t rule out this possibility, just to reassure the critics. Certainly, however, beyond all these ‘ifs’, the conceptual degeneration of the principle of equal treatment generates a homogenising effect: fascism is like communism, red terrorism is like black terrorism, and so the massacre of 2 August in Bologna is like the kidnapping of Aldo Moro, and so on. Everything becomes similar, because everything is tainted by injustice. The specific details, history, contexts and dynamics count for little…

I spoke of ‘injustice’, because this is the pretext that justifies critical aggression, but it is clear that the issue is not an ethical one: no one is defending the justice or justification of crimes that have shaped history, whether from the right or the left. Minister Valditara is right to point out that communism was anti-democratic. That is how it was. But that is not the point. The point is one of argumentation, and therefore logical and rhetorical: it is a matter of saying things that are justified and sensible (not by association of ideas but from a logical point of view). Eco’s book is about fascism. And not about the roots of fascism (assuming, as the Minister states, that it shares common roots with communism… Words can be misleading: Mussolini’s socialism had nothing to do with pro-Soviet communism.) "Eternal Fascism" is not even about the worst form of totalitarianism: it is simply the book of a semiotician (not a historian) who reflects, drawing on his own personal experience, on how the word ‘fascism’ brings together traits in varying combinations, which, when combined, give rise to anti-democratic forms.

Eco himself, in many parts of his work (which, as a semiologist who studied with Eco, I have read and listened to extensively), does not hold back on the criticisms of communism that Minister Valditara would like to see (in the book on fascism…). He does so by denouncing, for example in the "Bustine di Minerva", the censorial attitude ‘of Marxism’. I am not referring to the Soviet variety, where one was not allowed to read anything except "The Quiet Don"; but even here at home, everyone was a herald of capitalism, except Pratolini; in cinema, the neorealists were acceptable, but after "Senso" even Visconti had sold out; and one need only think of Lukács, ever ready to remind us that Flaubert, Joyce, Kafka – practically everyone except Balzac – were filthy decadents”. (p. 139, La nave di Teseo edition). He has been doing so since the 1960s with articles in "Rinascita" that have harshly criticised the Italian Communist Party’s (PCI) attitude towards the cultural world and its new developments (such as structuralism), accusing it of narrow-mindedness and Crocean traditionalism (on this controversy, see "Umberto Eco and the Cultural Policy of the Left", edited by Claudio and Giandomenico Crapis, La nave di Teseo, 2022). He does so, with his characteristic flair for paradox, when he recalls in "A passo di gambero" that Berlusconi’s political marketing (so hated and derided by the Left) actually revealed many similarities with the undemocratic methods of Soviet propaganda (see the chapter "La campagna del 2001 e le tecniche vetero-comuniste"). In short, although Eco has always positioned himself on the left, it would be wrong to accuse him of any form of apologism for communism.

For this reason, what emerges from the Minister’s reflection on Umberto Eco’s "Eternal Fascism" bears the hallmarks of a genuine ideological discourse, at least in the terms in which Eco explained what an ideological discourse is (see the penultimate chapter of "A Treatise on General Semiotics"). According to this theory, ideology does not lie in upholding a worldview or a partial stance (we all do this and, hopefully, can continue to do so, because this is what democracy must guarantee); ideology lies in treating a stance as absolute whilst concealing the elements that might contradict it.

Eco discusses fascism, drawing on his own life experience to define the characteristics of the ‘fascist nebula’ – a ramshackle nebula, as he puts it, which lacks the cohesion and consistency of an ideology but is made up of traits that are at times even contradictory yet capable of forming effective combinations. He does not deny that other forms of totalitarianism exist; quite the contrary. He does not claim to have exhausted the body of knowledge on fascism. He does not adopt any universalist or absolutist stance. For this reason, his position is not ideological. It is his interpretation of fascism and, as such, it enters the public debate: to be discussed.

Conversely, when one reads that thesis with the ulterior motive of defending the Left in mind, then one is engaging in an ideological argument, because one is asking a detailed thesis to be universal (which it has never claimed to be), one is asking a book on one subject not to have mentioned another subject (which it had never even claimed to touch upon), in short, one is generalising an interpretation in order to accuse it, ad hoc, of being limited. It is a bit like saying that a vegetarian restaurant does not even have a fillet steak on the menu, or that a book on Lenin does not even mention the Pope (who could, in some ways, be seen as his opponent).

If, moreover, important elements of the text are omitted (such as the biographical background) and positions that went exactly in the required direction are overlooked (such as all the times Eco publicly criticised communism), well, then Eco’s theory on how ideological discourse works is perfectly confirmed. Let’s go back and read it again; I assure you it’s worthwhile. In my view, we should teach it in schools… (if I may be so bold as to make a suggestion to the Minister).

 

Anna Maria Lorusso is a full professor of Philosophy and Theory of Language at the University of Bologna