In defense of somebody’s perception that ‘fascism doesn’t have a definition’:

You’ll find that for many casual observers, looking for a consensus on fascism is about as easy as handling a wet bar of soap. Even George Orwell said that “the word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless.” This slipperiness was very much by design:

In 1922 [Benito Mussolini] declared ‘Fascism is not a of dogmas and principles.’ Indeed, this was probably a real advantage, for it permitted an easy shifting with the political winds and finally enabled the Fascists to recruit followers all social classes.

None of this is to say that we shouldn’t even bother trying to define fascism, just that it is nowhere nearly as straightforward as the average liberal believes. The tactic of forcibly suppressing opposition, for example, is a phenomenon that predates Fascism by centuries (Marx hisself was a victim of it), and it was not necessarily as common during the Fascist era as you may think. Should we call ‘oppressing opposition’ a ‘fascist tactic’ or not? So while I agree that saying that ‘fascism doesn’t have a definition’ is an overreaction, I am not entirely unsympathetic to it either. Likewise, while Umberto Eco did correctly identify some themes associated with Fascism, I cannot in good faith treat his criteria as gospel.

I know what fascism truly is (it’s when I FEEL it’s fascism)

Way to miss the point. Read it again: ‘I will easily use actual history to tear them into pieces’. Funnily enough, few of Eco’s criteria cite examples from history. On the other hand, I did when answering questions on capitalism.

Tankies are just fascists who employ the visual aesthetics of the left.

I can’t really say that I’ve met many petty bourgeois communists, or even communists interested in collaborating with the petty bourgeoisie (with the possible exception of business owners who purely work alone). Likewise, the bourgeois state treated communists (including those who liked Stalin) much more harshly than fascists, and this trend persists today.

Now, I could end this commentary here, but just to prove that the liberal has an inadequate comprehension of fascism I would like to comment on this reply from another topic:

Voting is an IMPORTANT part of this picture, and the key to stop fascism from taking over in the next six months.

Sigh… no, PugJesus, it isn’t. Voting did not stop the Fascists in 1924, it did not stop them in 1932, it did not stop them in ’33, and it did not stop them in ’35. You know why? Because the upper classes designed all of these so‐called ‘democracies’, not us. They rigged the game in their favour. Hence why they entered into a backroom deal with the Fascists back in ’33.

I could go into a lengthy rant about liberals shaming adults for refusing to participate in what is effectively an overglorified public opinion poll, but I’d be veering off‐topic. Suffice to say that the perception that neofascism can be defeated at polling booths fundamentally misunderstands its nature and ignores the class society in which it exists. The tide of history is nowhere nearly this easy to bend.