Isn’t this when the leader (or group) demands “we must do something!” against something, anything they dislike, even if it’s not wise?
What’s happening in Florida is a good example. The state, which is dominated by the right, called a special legislative session to dissolve a management district overseen by Disney because the company spoke up against the state’s “don’t say gay” bill.
From the state’s standpoint, it doesn’t make sense, though; this action wiped out a tax revenue stream of hundreds of millions and dropped $1B to $2B in debt on the counties Disney property straddles.
Disney has been “punished” in the eyes of the far-right, but residents now have concerns about the long-term impacts of what this decision has wrought.
Short version: Florida’s legislature passed a bill (later signed into law by its governor) which prohibits discussion of “sexual orientation and gender identity” in (presumably only) public school classrooms.
More details: Disney is one of the largest employers in the state and big contributor in taxes to it’s tourism-driven economy. Disney also oversaw its own land management district (the 27k acres which make up Walt Disney World property was, in essence, its own city with a tiny government to boot).
When the bill passed, Disney didn’t speak up. It was criticized by gay employees and fans (of which there are many!). Disney eventually expressed its opposition to the law.
Florida’s state government has a significant GOP majority and didn’t like this. A special session was called by the legislature to eliminate the laws which gave Disney ability to oversee its land management district. (Other districts were caught up in this as well.)
The problem is, this district has $1B to $2B in bonds that Disney was responsible for. Florida law requires the bonds to be assumed by counties when special districts are disbanded. Unless something else changes, the two counties Disney properties straddles are on the hook for this. It’s estimated it would increase the tax burden to over $2,000 for every resident in those counties.
To give you a sense of how quickly this moved, Disney’s CEO publicly came out against the law on March 9. Florida eliminated Disney’s special district this past week.
Note: Disney is a major sponsor of politicians in Florida (duh), so they were seen as approving of the bill ( because they were continuing to pay Florida politicians while they had significant leverage over them).
I'm going to echo another comment and recommend reading the whole essay if possible to get a full picture.
In my opinion, point 3 is closely related to points 2, 4, and 11. Point 3 specifically notes that in fascism, thinking itself is emasculation - hence action taken without thinking, for its own sake. At least in Germany, we can see this rejection of thinking as a rejection of the intelligentsia and a perceived "elite" (which feeds into point 6). We can get a more full picture looking at points 2 and 4, which discusses the rejection of modernity to see that this rejection of thinking also derives from a fear that thinking can lead to criticism, and that this rational process leads to modernity and away from the traditionalist values often espoused by fascist leaders. The idea here is that to think isn't to improve action, it is to undermine society itself, and to identify the inherent contradictions and pointlessness within fascism. In a different direction, point 3's identification that thinking is _emasculating_ links to point 11's identification of fascism's cult of heroism and machismo. The aesthetic judgment thus becomes that the citizens of fascism do not need to think, and that there is only beauty in rushing into struggle.
In short, the cult of action for action's sake expresses Eco's identification of fascism as necessarily irrational, and thinking before acting would undermine this. Fascism also turns action outwards, at its many perceived enemies, glorifying violence as a means of self-perpetuation, and creating both a cult of action, and the citizens who take action.
Bruce Schneier I think captured the sentiment (without linking it directly to fascism) when commenting on what he calls security theater, especially in the wake of 9/11.
To paraphrase my recollection: "This is horrible but we don't know what to do! But we have to do something, and $X is something, therefore we have to do $X!"
> Action being beautiful in itself, it must be taken before, or without, any previous reflection. Thinking is a form of emasculation. Therefore culture is suspect insofar as it is identified with critical attitudes. Distrust of the intellectual world has always been a symptom of Ur-Fascism, from Goering's alleged statement ("When I hear talk of culture I reach for my gun") to the frequent use of such expressions as "degenerate intellectuals," "eggheads," "effete snobs," "universities are a nest of reds." The official Fascist intellectuals were mainly engaged in attacking modern culture and the liberal intelligentsia for having betrayed traditional values.
> "The cult of action for action's sake", which dictates that action is of value in itself and should be taken without intellectual reflection. This, says Eco, is connected with anti-intellectualism and irrationalism, and often manifests in attacks on modern culture and science.
As I understand it (AIUI), don't bother thinking of the consequences or long-term effects, just get shit done. If one thinks Trump was an Ur-Fascist, it would be him ordering the border wall built—which turned out to be fairly useless.
Direct action is an anarchist/autonomist idea of changing things directly rather than petitioning the government (see Graeber, Direct Action: an ethnography). It has literally nothing to do with fascist (particularly Nazi -- see Klemperer, Lingua Tertii Imperii) ideals of anti-intellectualism or action for action's sake beyond the word "action".
That's nice. I don't think that has anything to do with the actual definition of fascism, but I'm sure you feel like you have made a good point, and that's really special.
What’s happening in Florida is a good example. The state, which is dominated by the right, called a special legislative session to dissolve a management district overseen by Disney because the company spoke up against the state’s “don’t say gay” bill.
From the state’s standpoint, it doesn’t make sense, though; this action wiped out a tax revenue stream of hundreds of millions and dropped $1B to $2B in debt on the counties Disney property straddles.
Disney has been “punished” in the eyes of the far-right, but residents now have concerns about the long-term impacts of what this decision has wrought.