Of course, there will be many interpretations, but what are the defining Marxist ideas on the definition?
I ask, because you see a lot of libs and liblefts calling America fascist, but then being asked how, and not being able to respond. It makes them (and us, because we always get lumped in with them) look bad. I'd like to be able to step in if I ever witness such a thing.
Yeah, there are a million lib essays on fascism that don't understand that there is a material root to fascism and it's contradictions. They get so caught up on 'authoritarianism' usually though, and get into comparing Mussolini, Stalin and Hitler, which gets them way off course.
The real key as well, imo, is to study the rise of Japanese fascism, because it mirrors the rise of fascism in Italy and Germany, but it does it without having a singular massive 'authoritarian' leader (because that is not how the histories of Asian people are written in the West). It's a little different because it was a continuation of the Imperial system, but you will notice that, for the most part, the Emperor himself was not a singular driving force, but that it was a collective emerging capitalist/noble class decision. It really drives home the idea that fascism is just when you are on the pointy end of capitalism.