Is anyone interested in debating what the truest definition of Fascism is...I am curious to nail down the true definition of the idea. I feel that too often, these days, that word get thrown out there at anyone who ignites the ire of social media, and I have the feeling that people are merely using that term to defame another without really understanding the definition. Please be civil, no dart throwing 😜
My definition of fascism is an authoritarian, collectivist rule with little political freedom but more economic freedom. Usually (but not necessarily) coupled with nationalist or romantic ideals.
So fascism is in a sense halfway between democracy and communist - the latter being authoritarian, collectivist, with neither political nor economic freedom. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think there are any examples of nations with political freedom but no economic freedom.
While I think this would be a useful definition, the term is quite loaded, and I don't think it is possible to discuss it in any meaningful way. For instance, China would be an example of a modern fascist nation, but expressing that would likely lead to very heated responses.
Here's another, more detailed take:
https://heterodoxacademy.org/podcast-hhh-33-jason-stanley/
@Urmothersbtt
Happy to oblige :-) I agree the term (fascism) is mostly useless as a description of anything, like so many other -isms, its primary function is tribalistic signaling. Calling somebody fascist firmly establishes them as the bad guys, and you as the good guys.
I'm no expert on fascism, but I think Mussolini's corporatistic state shows the collectivist core of fascism - corporations, just like individuals, are allowed to exist, but only so far as they are useful to the state. This is one step short of communism, where corporations don't exist at all, and the state controls all production of goods.