Ian Dunt: reflecting on fascism
https://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2019/07/19/week-in-review-something-grim-rises-from-trump-s-rally
There is no fixed definition, because fascism was never a unified intellectual project.
It never really meant anything coherent. It shifted and spasmed, trying to fit the available political space.
Under early Mussolini it contained futurist intellectuals, syndicalist pro-war socialists and violent nationalists.
By the time he reached power it had dropped any left-wing pretensions and become a thug enforcement militia for large landowners.
Hitler's Nazi party also talked a good game of wanting to challenge global capitalism, but did nothing to change property arrangements in power, except for confiscating it from the groups it wanted to kill.
All the other major political ideologies come from the great intellectual traditions of the 18th and 19th Century - conservativism's Edmund Burke, liberalism's John Stuart Mill, socialism's Karl Marx.
You could have put those three men in a room together and they would have had a conversation.
Who is there for fascism? No-one.
Who the hell was going to have a debate with Mussolini or Hitler?
No-one, unless they wanted to get shot.
It was pure anti-intellectualism.
As one fascist militant from the 1920s said: "The fist is the synthesis of our theory."
....
That's why there is no fascist definition, because it is too lacking in substance to properly pin down.
There's just a collection of instincts.
Robert O.Paxton, in his brilliant Anatomy of Fascism, did his best to elaborate on them.
They include an obsession with national decline, combined with a pronounced sense of victimhood,^
the blame for which is pinned on a designated minority,
in which a party or group of activists demonstrate their purity and patriotism by rejecting standard democratic and liberal legal safeguards, in collaboration with a traditional elite.