Britt and Eco say much the same through different methods. Britt and Eco in no way contradict each other. Traditionalism and irrationality dovetail with anti-intellectualism. and the support of a monolithic culture with a single acceptable shared purpose. Both see fascism as the rejection of dissent and difference (dissent as a deed of crime and difference as a state of crime through being something intolerable). Newspeak obviously works best in a controlled mass culture and fails when people have alternatives to the official narrative. Contempt for parliamentary or congressional democracy manifests itself in a rubber-stamp legislature. Since war is the noblest expression of manliness, militarism and heterosexual chauvinism must prevail. It is hardly surprising that fascist movements are all male chauvinist in the same, with little participation by women in the formulation of social policy and diplomacy. Note well how few Axis leaders tried for crimes against humanity were women -- basically camp guards who oversaw female victims, and like Irma Grese they were completely subordinate to brutal men in the Nazi hierarchy.
Community based on membership in the dominant majority fits nationalism; that is the "national" part of "national socialism" in which the socialism is essentially a Big Government in the service of big landowners and Big Business (or should I say, "Pig Business"). A culture of martial heroism implies glorification of the soldier in principle even if the soldier is to become cannon fodder.
So what is the alternative to fascism? Its antithesis -- liberalism. The opposite of a raging fascist is not a raging Communist; the opposite of a raging fascist is a sober liberal. Liberal democracies may loathe war as much as fascist regimes relish it, but the liberal democracies have had the better record in winning wars. Liberals see shared danger as a cause for shared struggle when the struggle arises. They may not want the struggle, but they aren't looking for scapegoats when victory is the objective. Fascists win the initial battles with surprise but lose because they can never win the peace unless they annihilate their enemies.
Break the male chauvinism in a society, and one breaks fascism. Thus the victorious British and Americans imposed the right of women to vote in defeated Italy and Japan... and in France, which barely dodged fascism in the 1930s but in which the monstrous Vichy regime showed considerable support under Nazi rule. Fascism is very much a male phenomenon, and fascist parties and movements are very much male clubs. Can you imagine a fascist cause having use for an assertive woman like Rosa Parks? (Communism is also fairly good at gender equity, and that characteristic separates Communism from fascism as do internationalism and the rejection of inequality based upon ownership).
Fascists demand heroism -- but they cannot appreciate heroism from the Other Side. That happens when one sees other parts of Humanity as vermin.
Community based on membership in the dominant majority fits nationalism; that is the "national" part of "national socialism" in which the socialism is essentially a Big Government in the service of big landowners and Big Business (or should I say, "Pig Business"). A culture of martial heroism implies glorification of the soldier in principle even if the soldier is to become cannon fodder.
So what is the alternative to fascism? Its antithesis -- liberalism. The opposite of a raging fascist is not a raging Communist; the opposite of a raging fascist is a sober liberal. Liberal democracies may loathe war as much as fascist regimes relish it, but the liberal democracies have had the better record in winning wars. Liberals see shared danger as a cause for shared struggle when the struggle arises. They may not want the struggle, but they aren't looking for scapegoats when victory is the objective. Fascists win the initial battles with surprise but lose because they can never win the peace unless they annihilate their enemies.
Break the male chauvinism in a society, and one breaks fascism. Thus the victorious British and Americans imposed the right of women to vote in defeated Italy and Japan... and in France, which barely dodged fascism in the 1930s but in which the monstrous Vichy regime showed considerable support under Nazi rule. Fascism is very much a male phenomenon, and fascist parties and movements are very much male clubs. Can you imagine a fascist cause having use for an assertive woman like Rosa Parks? (Communism is also fairly good at gender equity, and that characteristic separates Communism from fascism as do internationalism and the rejection of inequality based upon ownership).
Fascists demand heroism -- but they cannot appreciate heroism from the Other Side. That happens when one sees other parts of Humanity as vermin.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.