Since '16 I struggled to define "fascism"... now I think I have it, in one sentence.

[paulkienitz]

Here's what I finally came up with:

Fascism is a type of political movement which seeks to enforce a reactionary vision of culture through state-sanctioned violence.

My blog post elaborating this is here, going into details like why I considered adding words like "under capitalism".

[no_hypocrisy]

1. I see fascism as a macrocosm for my dysfunctional family.

My father was an authoritarian. It wasn't enough that he wanted to control me, my siblings, and his wife/our mother.

He wanted us to think like him, accept his values imposed upon us. To relinquish thoughts of self-realization.

[JohnnyRingo]

4. I believe that's actually a dictatorship, like North Korea.

Many families are, but your dad was a compassionate dictator who would never feed his uncle to the dogs.
Many families are run like a Monarchy with the King and Queen holding sway over the subjects but allowing free thought. That was what I grew up in, with a powerful ruling king and a caring queen who kept him at bay over the subjects, us kids.

[rampartd]

2. i like it

most of the "14 points" lists are too long for a bumper sticker.

there is an evolution to the dictator playbook. hitler would wish to have the surveillance state led by trump or xi, but the basic concept, to entice 1/2 the working class to kill the other 1/2, is as sound as ever.

[JohnnyRingo]

3. That may be a byproduct of Fascism.

But I was taught long ago that it is when the corporations completely take over the government for their own benefit. Elections no longer serve a real purpose and a dictator is appointed as the nation's CEO.

It is the mirror opposite of Communism where the government takes over all the corporations for the benefit of the State. The government is a board room that decides what the noncompetitive businesses do. Both systems have flaws in that the citizens are mere tools, undeserving of attention beyond what they can do to increase production.

Before WWII Germany begat a thriving military complex that needed fed with labor and raw materials. It was seen fit to expand the empire to supply the out of control industrial base. The corporations dictated policy that led into unbridled war to feed their bottom lines, and that snowballed into an increased supply of weapons of war..

I believe our outright fear of Communism has already taken us into a Fascist regime. The last piece is merging the corporations into a singular beast that uses the government to feed itself, and nullifying the voting system that restrains that monster. And they're working on that.

[paulkienitz]

8. I went into that question in the blog post

Yes, in economic terms fascism means that kind of corporate oligarchy — as I worded it, a partnership between crony capitalism and a single-party state. But I had a very good reason for not using that as a general definition of fascism, which is that it is of no value in helping you identify a nascent fascist movement before it is in power. Mass groups of reactionary assholes don't riot in the streets to increase the level of corporate plutocracy, they do it to protect traditional lifestyles and traditional privileges. The economic system arises only after they have power, and other kinds of ideologies can end up creating the same kind of economy, as in China.

[Igel]

5. Wiki does a good job.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_fascism

Of course, it's constrained by having a furry definition of "fascism"--it is the ur-fascism of Italian Fascism? The slightly blurred definition that includes Naziism? Peruvian?

Note that Hitler lated capitalism. So did Mussolini. Both failed to establish sufficient control over industry and the means of production--but both were utterly of the "leave it in private hands, as long as the politicians control it." I've noted before, that control can be regulation and "enticements" or just threats--both accomplish the same control over what others do. Some eras seem to breed that kind of desire on the part of the commoners people to want leaders to just plain tell others what to do, often in the name of 'freedom' or 'the common good'.

[crud]

6. My definition is:

Fascism is not a political ideology. It is just the process by which a person or group achieve and hold power by any means necessary. The politics or ideology of a fascist dictatorship don't matter as long as it serves the ultimate goal of gaining and keeping in power.

[paulkienitz]

10. lots of systems are just someone clinging to power

Monarchists and communists and so on can fall into that mode of just perpetuating power for the sake of power. I don't think that distinguishes things like why fascist movements rise, or why they are always bitter enemies with communists who may be equally totalitarian.

I agree that fascism is not an ideology. In fact, I don't think conservatism is ideological either. They are both just driven by an emotional aversion to progress and change, and the wrong people having too much equality. The ideologies and philosophies are invented by pundits to justify and focus the emotions into debating points, but nobody cares about the integrity of the ideological points, they will cheerfully add and drop eternal principles as needed. Nobody is fascist or conservative because of a deep belief in some abstract principle, as is shown by the constant hypocrisy they indulge in when using their avowed principles to debate policy.

To me, the only difference between a mainstream conservative and a fascist is whether they still respect the rule of law and basic rights. Other than that, the motives and principles are the same.

[LastDemocratInSC]

7. Mussolini defined fascism as a merger of government and corporate interests.

But that's just the starting point. All the dysfunction that follows is what's required to sustain the merger.

[paulkienitz]

9. Mussolini first defined it as just the opposition to socialism and pacifism and other progressive ideas.

He left all the philosophical parsing to others — to hirelings and converts and whoever could do a convincing job as a pundit. He didn't care personally about putting any fine points on definitions.