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?
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.