Stop making stuff up, it’s time to bring the receipts. Where exactly does “Eco’s version assumes Stalin’s regime is one of primary fascist regimes in the first place”?

Eco treated Stalinism as a seperate, parallel example of totalitarianism, explicitedly not labeling it fascist.

You gotta leave your confused reactionary, red fascism narrative and anti-communism stance behind, if you actually want to understand the world. Maybe start by not being so dishonest.

---

Some passages from Umberto Eco’s Ur-Fascism:

If by totalitarianism one means a regime that subordinates every act of the individual to the state and to its ideology, then both Nazism and Stalinism were true totalitarian regimes.

It was Italian fascism that convinced many European liberal leaders that the new regime was carrying out interesting social reform, and that it was providing a mildly revolutionary alternative to the Communist threat.

Nevertheless, historical priority does not seem to me a sufficient reason to explain why the word fascism became a synecdoche, that is, a word that could be used for different totalitarian movements. This is not because fascism contained in itself, so to speak in their quintessential state, all the elements of any later form of totalitarianism. On the contrary, fascism had no quintessence. Fascism was a fuzzy totalitarianism, a collage of different philosophical and political ideas, a beehive of contradictions.