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?

  • Awoo [she/her]
    ·
    2 years ago

    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.

    • Opposition [none/use name]
      ·
      2 years ago

      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.

      • Awoo [she/her]
        ·
        2 years ago

        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?

          • Awoo [she/her]
            ·
            2 years ago

            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.

            • Opposition [none/use name]
              ·
              2 years ago

              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.

              • Awoo [she/her]
                ·
                2 years ago

                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:

                Among the most disturbing political phenomena of our times is the emergence in the newly created state of Israel of the “Freedom Party” (Tnuat Haherut), a political party closely akin in its organization, methods, political philosophy and social appeal to the Nazi and Fascist parties. It was formed out of the membership and following of the former Irgun Zvai Leumi, a terrorist, right-wing, chauvinist organization in Palestine.

                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.