It aims to describe the semiotics of fascism, it exclusively deals with which believes fascists like to virtue signal about and how they do that. It does that really well, and it doesn't need to go into the material causes of fascism, because bolsheviks already got that covered decades before Eco. I'd stick with Dimitroff personally, i think he is pretty spot-on in that regard. He describes why fascism is, Eco describes how it is. These theories are complementary, like base and superstructure. Both should be used where they apply.
ofc both the semiotics and the material causes 100% apply to Amerikan "conservatism". That does not mean that everything Eco and Dimitroff and me don't like is fascism, it means that the GOP is genuinely fascist, decidedly moreso than any other conservative party in the west, to the point where i expect them to try and pull off the next openly conducted domestic Amerikan genocide within this decade.
It aims to describe the semiotics of fascism, it exclusively deals with which believes fascists like to virtue signal about and how they do that. It does that really well, and it doesn't need to go into the material causes of fascism, because bolsheviks already got that covered decades before Eco. I'd stick with Dimitroff personally, i think he is pretty spot-on in that regard. He describes why fascism is, Eco describes how it is. These theories are complementary, like base and superstructure. Both should be used where they apply.
ofc both the semiotics and the material causes 100% apply to Amerikan "conservatism". That does not mean that everything Eco and Dimitroff and me don't like is fascism, it means that the GOP is genuinely fascist, decidedly moreso than any other conservative party in the west, to the point where i expect them to try and pull off the next openly conducted domestic Amerikan genocide within this decade.