Fascism is the dictatorship of the middle class.
Ur-Fascism derives from individual or social frustration. That is why one of the most
typical features of the historical fascism was the appeal to a frustrated middle class, a
class suffering from an economic crisis or feelings of political humiliation, and frightened
by the pressure of lower social groups. In our time, when the old "proletarians" are
becoming petty bourgeois (and the lumpen are largely excluded from the political scene),
the fascism of tomorrow will find its audience in this new majority.
I guess Eco beat me to it, twenty years ago.
I'm astonished at how closely Eco's ideas seem to parallel my own. (Although he articulates them so much better than I ever could). I've only read two of Eco's books, "The Name of the Rose" and "Foucalt's Pendulum", neither of which deals directly with these themes, so I am astonished how I have absorbed so much of his thought.
Could this mean that our brains are somehow "wired" similarly, or does it means we have both tapped into similar veins of modern philosophy and have been guided to many of the same places? Our backgrounds are certainly very different. Perhaps our exposure to modern philosophy and letters has proceeded on parallel paths.
I'm not claiming any comparison between my intellect and his, or any shared legitimacy in our thinking. For all I know, maybe we are both equally mistaken about everything! I'm just amazed at how familiar and comfortable I was with what he was talking about in that essay. Any feedback from those whose of you who read his pdf and are familiar with my writing on the Zone would be greatly appreciated.