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?
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.