I feel like it's a very ill-defined term in the imperial core, but also there seems to be no coherent agreement on the left. Many thinkers have different definitions that often overlap.

Lenin called fascism "capitalism in decay"

Fanon called it "colonialism at home"

Umberto Eco offers his own incoherent mess of a definition

Roger Griffin defines it as a "palingenetic ultranationalism" that imagine a mythical "rebirth" of some previous glory (Rome, the volk, MAGA), and in doing so seek the "dominance of the insiders of the ultra-nation over those outside of it."

Parenti states that fascism "offers a beguiling mix of revolutionary-sounding mass appeals and reactionary class politics", adding that if fascism means anything "it means all-out government support for business and severe repression of anti-business, pro- labour forces."

Andreas Malm adapts Griffin's definition in White Skin, Black Fuel to a "palindefenIve, palingenetic ultranationalism", etc, adding that in addition to the sense of rebirth to some mythical glory time, there is also a mythical defense of the ultra-nation from those who are defined as foreign, be they Muslims, central American refugees, judeo-bolsheviks, etc.

I find the most functionally useful definition of fascism is Parenti's: the violent oppression of the left to maintain the dominance of the ownership class. However I feel like it lacks the element of violent chauvinism against arbitrarily defined others in society. That is to say I suppose I also lack a coherent definition.

What say you comrades?

  • UlyssesT [he/him]
    ·
    2 years ago

    Lenin called fascism “capitalism in decay”

    Fanon called it “colonialism at home”

    Umberto Eco offers his own incoherent mess of a definition

    Roger Griffin defines it as a “palingenetic ultranationalism” that imagine a mythical “rebirth” of some previous glory (Rome, the volk, MAGA), and in doing so seek the “dominance of the insiders of the ultra-nation over those outside of it.”

    Parenti states that fascism “offers a beguiling mix of revolutionary-sounding mass appeals and reactionary class politics”, adding that if fascism means anything “it means all-out government support for business and severe repression of anti-business, pro- labour forces.”

    Andreas Malm adapts Griffin’s definition in White Skin, Black Fuel to a “palindefenIve, palingenetic ultranationalism”, etc, adding that in addition to the sense of rebirth to some mythical glory time, there is also a mythical defense of the ultra-nation from those who are defined as foreign, be they Muslims, central American refugees, judeo-bolsheviks, etc.

    I find the most functionally useful definition of fascism is Parenti’s: the violent oppression of the left to maintain the dominance of the ownership class. However I feel like it lacks the element of violent chauvinism against arbitrarily defined others in society. That is to say I suppose I also lack a coherent definition.

    Because fascists dodge ideological labels whenever they can and lack consistency in their own values except power for power's sake and cruelty for the sake of cruelty, I think "all of the above" is a fine answer.

    • ElGosso [he/him]
      ·
      2 years ago

      I think most of these are coherent together. Capitalism in decay/colonialism at home seem pretty synonymous if your understanding of colonialism is capitalist exploitation of the periphery. Parenti ties the economic base to the culturally fascist superstructure, which Malm and Griffin further describe.

    • CheGueBeara [he/him]
      ·
      2 years ago

      I think the problem is that defining fascism requires 5-6 sentences and at that point people stop paying attention and think that you didn't even give them a definition. Like others here are saying, those are all (except maybe Eco's) informative. Fascism is a reaction to the left. It marries the government to business in order to do so, trying to distinguish a form of good capitalism from bad capitalism and saying that the left is the bad capitalism that must be destroyed. It plays off of a false class consciousness that takes contradictions that could lead to left radicalization and redirects them at "others", which chiefly means a set of scapegoats aligning with a concept of traditional values or restoration. Fundamentally, all of this happens opportunistically, it's another face of capitalism: capitalism under threat by the just, i.e. capitalism in decay.

      • UlyssesT [he/him]
        ·
        2 years ago

        Chuds don't have to correctly identify communists, socialists, or even leftist in general and they can still rally in hate against them. :jordan-eboy-peterson: :solidarity: :frothingfash:

        • CheGueBeara [he/him]
          ·
          2 years ago

          The common chud only needs to be told that everything that's wrong is the left's fault and they're gonna destroy your family and culture if you don't stop terrorizing anyone that falls outside of normative patriarchical capitalism. This is enough for them.

    • axont [she/her, comrade/them]
      ·
      2 years ago

      Parenti's definition is pretty similar to Robert Paxton's, which is "Dictatorship against the Left amidst popular enthusiasm." Paxton's a bit of a liberal though, so he doesn't put it in class terms, but I think he observes the same phenomena.

    • Thomas_Dankara [any,comrade/them]
      ·
      2 years ago

      Lenin called fascism “capitalism in decay”

      He did? Surprised he had time to remark on the rise of fascism since he died in 1924.

      • UlyssesT [he/him]
        ·
        2 years ago

        I was sloppily quoting most of the OP. :shrug-outta-hecks:

        • Thomas_Dankara [any,comrade/them]
          ·
          2 years ago

          right I know lenin would have had a 2 year window to comment on fascism in italy before dying, I'm just surprised that he did. it was kinda out of his way and he was really busy with governing the newborn USSR lol