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?
Fascism is anything that it needs to be in order to provide a tool of ultra-violence to whoever is in power or capable of influencing power from behind the scenes through wealth.
It provides a simple tool, extreme violence against any target in large quantities, which is a tool that is necessary when capitalism becomes in crisis. The ruling class needs this tool to kill their enemies to save capitalism and to save their ruling position.
It manifests when capitalism is in decay because capitalism in decay is capitalism that becomes in crisis.
Every other trait of fascism other than this tool is malleable. Fascism takes on whatever form it needs to take on in whatever national conditions it finds itself in. Fascism must have the ability to grow and this means it gains different traits in different national conditions and different times. German fascism is different to Italian fascism which is different to Chilean fascism and Spanish fascism and Israeli fascism, etc etc etc. They all become whatever they must become in order to succeed and provide their masters with the tool of ultraviolence.
Once it has established itself its method of absolute hierarchical organisation of society is almost always the same. Its base and superstructure is almost always the same.
In short form I usually go with -- "Fascism is whatever it needs to be to succeed so that it can provide the ruling class with the ability to kill whoever they think threatens their class rule without opposition. Fascism takes on different national characteristics and mythos wherever it emerges in order to succeed, and the ruling class funds whatever they believe can be shaped into something that will succeed."
That's probably the most helpful simple-language interpretation I've heard, and it satisfies my feeling that a lot of these idealist aspects of nationalism, others, rebirth, defense all feel downstream to the more material concerns of violently protecting capital.
Furthermore, it explains the continuity with liberalism - liberalism is what you get when overt violence is not required to protect capital.
:sankara-salute: thanks for helping me with my brainworms comrade!
The important part of this is really the understanding that fascism is always different in different national conditions, because it is forced to be different in order to succeed. The only true characteristic that exists in all forms of fascism is that it gets structured hierarchically and provides those at the top of the hierarchy with the absolute power to kill whoever they deem to be their enemies.
For a leftist this is an incomplete definition without including class analysis though, and that analysis ultimately leads to the question "So why do people fund fascists? They do not succeed until the wealthy start funding them." and the only answer to that question is that they are threatened and want mass violence to eliminate a threat to them.
I believe the final piece of understanding that it only exists as a tool of violence for the ruling class lies in realising that it eventually becomes liberalism again if it is not defeated in a massive way. Spanish fascism was not defeated. Chilean fascism was not defeated. These eventually morphed back into liberalism because the fascist method of organising society only exists as a tool to eliminate enemies. When that tool isn't required the ruling class morphs it back into liberalism because it is a more efficient at extracting labour from workers -- fascism is actually quite wasteful because it kills its workers and doesn't give a fuck. Israel continues to exist because Israeli fascism has not completed its goals yet, although we do see some signs of that liberal morph occurring there fascism it still is and probably will be until Palestine is gone.
This is good. I think specifically it is a trait of capitalist societies ; that is, you don't get fascism in a monarchy -- they don't need it.
But you have pointed out the key feature of fascism that the other definitions dance around, the ultraviolence.
Right. Liberalism lacks that tool. Liberalism can not just round up all the communists and execute us all, and if liberalism were to do that people would either deny that it is liberalism or massively reject liberalism for being so bad.
A different method of organising society is necessary in order to wield the tool of ultraviolence without caring that people do not like the ultraviolence. You need supreme central authority and hierarchy. You need a society where people are afraid of going against that, where neighbours snitch on neighbours. You design society to enable the tool of ultraviolence and make opposition to the use of ultraviolence as politically marginalised as possible.
All the rest? All the racism and all the bullshit? It's interchangeable. It literally doesn't matter whether jews or trans or indigenous peoples or ANYONE is the mythos of the whole thing. That is inconsequential to the functional tools that fascism provides that liberalism does not provide. The monetary backers don't give a fuck, what they care about is what abilities they're getting out of it.
Oh I forgot to add that fascists always seem to exist under capitalism in one form or another but it isn't until the ruling class funds them that they start to succeed, and that funding only occurs when that ruling class feels threatened, which only seems to manifest during capitalist decay. All of this comes together in a neat package.
So fascism is the mask of humanity falling from capital
Yes, the mask is a convenience that creates more efficient extraction of labour from workers because a willing exploitation relationship pays more and kills off less of the labour pool. The fascist method of extraction is very efficient at extreme violence to its own detriment because they'll kill off vast swathes of potential labour that could be effectively put to work. Fascist mines starved their jewish and soviet workers, starving people don't do good work and dead workers don't do any work. It's just a shit an inefficient method of exploitation really, a willing method with well fed workers is much better. The one that looks more humane is also just more efficient. They build the lie of liberalism and being humane around it out of convenience, they would build a completely different lie given different conditions.
I feel like whatever you're talking about should have a different name than "fascism". Fascism is the merger of state and corporate power.
I would argue that there are states where that merger has occurred that are not considered fascism and that there are fascist states we recognise as such where that merger is not particularly cut and dry. If you can't apply the definition to everything then the definition is incomplete.
Then I argue that such a term is worthlessly vague and new vocabulary must be applied to resolve the situation.
It's not vague though. It's defined by providing the tool of extreme violence to the ruling class within capitalism to use against its enemies without the use of that tool carrying a political cost.
This applies to absolutely all variants of fascism, and I do not think it applies to anything that is not fascism.
You can then go on to discuss how there are common features that fascism often has but that aren't present in all cases, and you have the ability to explain exactly why those features are not present in all cases of fascism. Any definition must be able to adequately justify why other definitions are incorrect, I think this does that.
I get the idea that some people are just in love with the word fascism and would be disappointed if they didn't get to use it on every opportunity.
Ok let's dive into a specific example then. Which country that is widely regarded as fascist would you say is not fascist and should be defined differently because it doesn't fit Mussolini's "merger of corporate and state power" definition?
Which countries are "widely regarded" as fascist?
Well let's start with the major ones that are rarely disputed? Thoughts on Italy, Germany, Spain, Chile and Israel?
We can move onto others that get more complex and wishy washy to discuss in a bit.
The last fascist governments were Salazar in Portugal, and Franco in Spain.
Germany wasn't fascist. It was National Socialist. I know it's fashionable to dismiss them, but there are differences. They're as different as Hoxhaism and Trotskyism.
Chile wasn't even fascist under Pinochet. He had no ideology, he was just a CIA-backed thug.
And come on, Israel? The one with elections? We're done here.
Germany under the nazis, which the fascists all called fascism, and said "we are fascists" was certainly fascism.
It not meeting your incredibly narrow definition of fascism created by Mussolini is inconsequential. It was fascism in the German national conditions, and so too was fascism in Chile and Spain and so on. Different? Yes. Fascism? Also yes. Communist ideology is different in different national conditions also.
Disagreeing that Israel is fascist is a fun one because you're in disagreement with people like Albert Einstein on this one who said in a letter to the NY Times:
Herut(which became Likud) is the party that has ruled Israel for the last 50 years, and you don't think it's fascist? I don't give a fuck if they have ""elections"", the elections put the fascist party in power over and over and over and over again for a reason.
They are now (as I said in another comment here) in the process of transition from fascism to liberalism as Chile and Spain both did, but that process is unlikely to complete without the Palestinian problem being fully resolved as they must maintain the ability to exert absolute violence upon them.
Your thought-terminating "we're done here" as if I have said something incredibly preposterous would have you in disagreement with the likes of Einstein, who I have been led to believe is a rather more intelligent human than I am. You should re-investigate it, Israel has been a fascist state for the majority of its existence and I think I'm in good company calling it that.