| That's a little difficult given that he died in 2016. There are not so many people left alive who remember the hard end of WW2-era fascism. The one I always refer people to, written in 1995 but applicable to any time, is Umberto Eco's "Ur-Fascism". http://www.pegc.us/archive/Articles/eco_ur-fascism.pdf - written from his personal experience as a young boy in fascist Italy at the time of its liberation. The full essay is long and detailed, and interestingly contrasts Italian fascism with Nazism; Eco's view was that Nazism was a specific philosophy and programme that was capable of clearly delineating what it was about, while fascism was much less intellectually coherent. > Fascism became an all-purpose term because one can eliminate from a fascist regime one
or more features, and it will still be recognizable as fascist. Take away imperialism from
fascism and you still have Franco and Salazar. Take away colonialism and you still have
the Balkan fascism of the Ustashes. Add to the Italian fascism a radical anti-capitalism
(which never much fascinated Mussolini) and you have Ezra Pound. Add a cult of Celtic
mythology and the Grail mysticism (completely alien to official fascism) and you have
one of the most respected fascist gurus, Julius Evola. But he ultimately distils it down to fourteen characteristic points. It is up to the reader to apply them to modern movements and see how well the resemblance holds. (cult of tradition; rejection of modernism; irrationalism; disagreement is treason; appeal against intruders; appeal to middle class; obsession with a plot against the nation; feel humiliated by the ostentatious wealth and force of their enemies; life is permanent warfare; popular elitism; heroism as death cult; machismo; selective populism & anti-parliamentarianism; and "newspeak") |