Fascism takes many forms and uses many rhetorics. For me, I look for the signs like hyper-capitalism, wealth gaps, and the majority of policy written by/for the wealthy. This combined with feverish nationalism, obsession with security, militarism, scapegoating, and control of media.
As Mussolini put it, fascism is just corporatism. I think modern day corporatocracy is the evolution of corporatism. So if your county is ruled by business interests, like most of the world, you probably are living in a country with fascist tendencies. Fascism is also a scale where you can see nations like the US with lots of fascism and places like Norway with much less fascism.
Fascist corporatism was the polar opposite of free-market capitalism. Corporations were not private, profit-driven companies. They were state-controlled, collective syndicates organized by industry sector. They brought together representatives of both labor unions and employers under the absolute control of the state. This was an attempt to eliminate class conflict and serve national output.
Modern American corporate influence is almost the exact opposite structure. It is driven by private, bourgeois capital influencing, lobbying, or weakening the state to maximize private profit and deregulation.
“Free Market” capitalism is just a buzzword in my opinion that does not denote anything other than the specter of regulation (or lack of) in our hyper-capitalistic world. It is used as a facade for capitalism and the resulting corportocracy to legitimatize their policies much like law and order is used to legitimatize liberalism despite equality being basically non-existent.
You analysis of Italy and Germany fascism is suspect as they both had many industries and related commerce that were not controlled directly by the state. If you accept that it is not complete control your definition could be considered very broad because most nations have some control over their industries or, in the case of the US and other nations, the industries control the government through regulatory capture.
China, of all places, would fit your definition to a T, but I highly doubt they would appreciate being called fascist, even if they are.
You speak as if Capital struggles to weaken the state to capitalize (ie often creating monopolies). This is not the case at all as seen in the policies for modern countries for the last few hundred years. Corporations, not governments, have become the dominant social structure.
How are they connected? I think you may not be able to see this because you believe fascism can only exist in a specific economic model brought by a dictator’s hand as opposed to a natural result of corporate control of government.
Essentially modern fascism is a corporatocracy regardless of how it is instituted and I would argue that this has evolved into neofascism and it’s best friend neoauthoritarianism (especially in Asia, but now the US as well) we are experiencing currently.
When I jokingly said fascism = bad I was only half joking. Obviously most people operate on this simple definition. This is the framework that prevents us from accepting that fascism is currently dominating the planet because people reject being labeled as bad. This is why I think it is important to understand modern fascism not purely as an ideology that is wrong, but a valid ideology that is the most politically powerful and economically advantageous position the wealthy can be in.
The corporazioni are not the modern corporations (società)
As Mussolini put it, fascism is just corporatism.
The core issue here is a failure to distinguish between corporate interest and Italian corporatism (corporativismo). I gave the definition of what Mussolini meant when he referred to corporatism or corporazioni. You are conflating it with corporations/companies/the firm.
You analysis of Italy and Germany fascism is suspect as they both had many industries and related commerce that were not controlled directly by the state.
Under Italian fascism, “corporations” referred to state-supervised industrial bodies rather than business firms like Fiat or Pirelli. Private companies remained profit-driven, but they operated within a corporatist system that sought to coordinate employers, workers, and the state. Private companies needed to align their production, wages, and output with the goals dictated by corporazioni.
Pretty much everything below this is secondary if you fail to note the difference between a state-run chamber (corporazione) and a private joint-stock company (società).
The definition of fascism matters
Like you said, "this combines feverish nationalism, obsession with security, militarism, scapegoating, and control of media.” We agree here. We disagree entirely on what the “this” is that drives the rest. That distinction matters because the “this” tells us who actually holds supreme power. In liberal systems, power belongs to the capitalists who capture the state. In fascism, power belongs to a totalitarian state that has captured capital.
China, of all places, would fit your definition to a T, but I highly doubt they would appreciate being called fascist, even if they are.
Both China and fascism have an economic system where the state exerts strong, direct authority over a capitalist economy. They are both dirigism. China resembles fascism in some functional economic respect and a rejection of liberalism.
But if we’re looking at Roger Griffin’s definition of fascism, he excludes communist projects from fascism despite being feverishly nationalistic with a overtones of rebirth (palingenetic ultranationalism) because fascism rejects the Enlightenment, rejects reason, and views the national rebirth as a violent, mystical awakening led by a cult of personality. The ultimate goal is the glory of the state and war for the sake of war.
Under Xi’s heavy nationalism, the state justifies its rebirth through rationalist, progressive benchmarks: eliminating poverty, advancing scientific development, building out infrastructure, and achieving economic hegemony. The military is built to defend the state from liberal encirclement and requires technological parity to do so.
While this distinction isolates China from fascism, it leaves us with the United States. The US perfectly embodies the material hypocrisy of liberalism. It preaches decentralized free markets while structurally generating massive, private command economies. Fascism was a desperate attempt to sail between these two realities, but by an entirely different mechanism. Where free-market ideology acts as the linguistic mask hiding corporate autocracy, fascism is the moment the state actively seizes the steering wheel of that corporate machine to drive it toward total war.
This distinction is critical because domestic corporate tyranny and its external project, liberal imperialism, form an entirely different criminal enterprise than fascism. Flattening these systems into the same category makes it impossible to fight either one effectively, because combating a state captured by private capital requires completely different analytical tools and strategies than fighting a totalitarian state that has devoured capital. The presence of fascist actors within American institutions is an undeniable reality of modern political drift, but that remains structurally worlds apart from a fully realized fascist regime.
Clarifications on Capital
You speak as if Capital struggles to weaken the state to capitalize
Absolutely not. What I said was modern American corporations are “driven by private, bourgeois capital influencing, lobbying, or weakening the state to maximize private profit and deregulation.” They don’t struggle to do this. But all corporations aren’t operating in the same interests and different, but very powerful sectors have competing interests. Capital is in firm control of state, but capital isn’t a unitary.
Failure to Communicate
I think you may not be able to see this because you believe fascism can only exist in a specific economic model brought by a dictator’s hand as opposed to a natural result of corporate control of government.
I don’t know why you’re presuming that I won’t be able to see it. This quickly reads as a protective element that lets you neither wrestle with my critique nor do the hard work of actually explaining your position. If in the end you believe I won’t get it, why would you waste the time in connecting them?
If you want to argue that a political concept has evolved, you have to trace its actual structural transformation. For example, applying the term imperialism to America in the 20th century is a very apt thing despite the core not having an emperor. That’s because it’s structures operate either exactly the same way or have transformed through history in very explicit ways to benefit the core by exerting less energy to control the empire. With that said, I think a Lenin imperialist model was relevant in the first half of the 20th century, but the 60s onward we saw another transformation where it is better described by World Systems theory. In the same vein, what you are describing as a ‘fascist tendency’ is better understood through a Marxist lens as Late-Stage Capitalist Hegemony—the normal, mature state of regulatory capture.
As of now, you have not been able to identify the structures that they share and how the differences in structures were in service of a fascist core. If you are able to, then we can have a discussion of two good faith interlocuters. But if the whole of your argument is “modern fascism is a corporatocracy … this has evolved into neofascism” then it’s just a merry go round with trust me bro vibes.
That was a long funny way to deny the world has descended into fascism that has been spread by the United States. I am sure you are right and lots of other scholars, including myself are wrong.
Your claim that fascism only exists in one specific economic form thus no fascism can exist unless it meets your definition is fucking bonkers. It is no surprise though, as you probably have an ideological reason to behave this way.
Neofascism and others forms can’t exist because you say so
You apparently deny neofascism exists as well since it does not meet your strict definition of Italian Fascism. As I said in the beginning, fascism is a scale not all or nothing as you are implying. I have looked up multiple definitions from multiple scholars and surprise, no one agrees with your extremely narrow definition. After reading your very pedantic argument I do not either.
Even Wolf correctly points out the scale of fascism and how the wealthy turn on fascism by controlling the government when it suits them. And now for my coup de grace.
Roger Griffin’s definition of fascism
British historian Roger Griffin defines fascism as a revolutionary form of ultranationalism centered on a myth of national rebirth, or “palingenesis”. He views it not as a rigid set of policies, but as a populist ideology seeking to overthrow liberal democracy to create a unified national community under a new, heroic elite.
Wow, just wow. At any rate, we can see you are just being disingenuous at this point by focusing on a narrow economical and political classification of fascism that no one, but you, seems to rely on. I reject your argument.
I have not argued that fascism cannot evolve, that neofascism does not exist, or that fascism is defined by a single rigid economic model. I have argued that historical fascism had specific institutions, notably corporatism, that you repeatedly conflate with modern corporate influence.
If you believe modern states are fascist, then you need to explain how those institutions and structures transformed while preserving a fascist core. Instead, you’ve repeatedly responded to positions I never took rather than the critique I actually made.
As I previously said:
As of now, you have not been able to identify the structures that they share and how the differences in structures were in service of a fascist core. If you are able to, then we can have a discussion of two good faith interlocuters.
The spread of fascism is not the same as America or the world is fascist. None of the links makes that conflation and none would claim that the “US was always fascist” as you did. The only way you can do this is by claiming every country has some fascism in it already because, you claim, “it’s a scale.”
You deny neofascism
You failed to argue for its existence and it’s dominance. You connected it to corporate influence on the state and failed to see that you made a basic error when you quoted Mussolini and how the syndicate exerted control through production goals, wage requirements, and distribution of inputs. You failed to see any connection of the current state to the liberal history.
Instead you doubled down, avoided the hard work, repeatedly argued against positions I never took, and then called me pedantic. That’s evasion dressed up as argument.
Your claim that fascism only exists in you one specific form thus no fascism can exist unless you say so is fucking bonkers.
Never made this claim. I was open to being convinced that the features I saw in fascism in the mid 20th century are present or have transformed today just like imperialism. How can you possibly misread that?
fascism is a scale
A scale you failed to describe in any detail beyond “US more” and “Norway less”. Even the article you finally provides a framework for your claim. Still, flattening a multidimension phenomena like fascism to a linear scale is analytically lazy but rhetorically convenient. It biases liberal institutions as the good side and fascism as the bad side. All other existing systems exists between these two poles. There are plenty of scholars who don’t fall into this scalar representation such as Kurt Weyland and Juan Linz noting that the “points on this line” aren’t just waystations or fascism-lite, but unique configurations with their own goals distinct from either liberalism or fascism.
Robert Paxton in The Anatomy of Fascism dismantles the linear definitions that treat fascism as a fixed ideological point or a simple endpoint on a slider. Paxton argues that fascism is a functional process that moves through distinct historical stages.
And this is what I was asking you to do with neofascism.
And now for my coup de grace. Only about 20% of Italy’s industry was actually controlled by the government.
Three-fourths of the Italian economy, industrial and agricultural, is in the hands of the state.
- Mussolini’s speech to the Chamber of Deputies on May 26, 1934.
Through the IRI, the Fascist state held direct financial control over:
100% of the steel industry
80% of shipping and shipbuilding
75% of pig iron production
Almost 50% of basic steel production
Over 80% of the country’s available bank credit and financial systems.
If this was only 20%, then it’s the most important 20% of a industrial country.
Thanks for the laugh.
You certainly wrote with confidence. But confidence isn’t evidence.
Edit: calling me disingenious after you waited 12 hours to make an edit to your coup de gras and failed to call it out is pretty rich.
As long as you back peddle to reality I think we can both agree about modern fascism existing. For a minute there, it sure felt like you where attempting a very ill thought out gaslighting escapade hence the links I gave you.
I get that you are in denial that the US is the source of neofascism in the modern world and that they have successfully exported it to every nation including China. While I don’t agree with fascism, it has been remarkably effective. I don’t come from the perspective that fascism is spreading. Fascism spread a long time ago. What we see is fascist tendencies becoming more pronounced.
It is my opinion that the US was a proto-fascist nation. The wealthy used every play from the book of fascism to take control of the US colonies long before there was a word for it. What makes the US unique was the never ending greed and resulting genocide that even a continent of resources could not satiate. A country for the wealthy by the wealthy where enough was never enough.
You have to hand it to the US for all the propaganda about democracy and liberalism they shoved down everyone’s throat which was often followed by a bullet. It’s persuasive nature has infiltrated human discourse poisoning it with so much doublethink it is like living in 1984 everyday forever. Creating a figurative monster that can’t see its own reflection.
This propaganda is not unique though as every nation has its lies often to cover up an oligarchy and create a facade of propriety for the people. While not all nations are as extreme as the US they often cite an ideology that they do not actually follow. A great example is free trade which wealthy nations use to abuse global systems to extract wealth.
Concentration of wealth has always been the devil in the room and no nation has ever compared to the US (except maybe China the last three years). The government AKA the wealthy have a significant amount of control but they obviously want eat their cake and to have it to. This is why US fascists keep so much of business out of governments hands. They can still order corporations around, but get the benefit of appearing detached plus get to take the lion’s share of the profit.
While US fascism has roots in imperialism, it went far beyond what most countries have done and is more akin to the Mongols or Roman level of continental wide destruction. This US fascism is the modern day version of conquest driven by hate and lust for power combined with technology that has allowed for massive human suffering.
Another clear example of the US spreading fascism was laying the groundwork and providing the material supports for fascism in Germany. This set the stage for the US fascist campaign of toppling governments the US continues to engage in to this day.
The US exerted its economic influence and militaristic control over the entire world long ago. They murdered countless innocent people just because they supported something like a leftist movement. Creating civil war and strife, arming both sides, and murdering with impunity was the name of the game.
All done through the most fascist like of all industries the arms industry, which has evolved into the abomination of the Industrial Military Complex. A fully integrated fascist loving system in just about every nation. With the four worst offenders being The US, France, Russia, and China in order (China beat out Germany recently for #4 arms dealer, way to go!). The big four fascist loving fucks dealing weapons to war torn nations and profiting from human death and destruction.
On a side note, this really feels like one of those conversations with a racist or sexist person where they are challenging you to prove that racism or sexist exists. It gives me kind of gross vibes to be honest. Not that I mean to imply you are either of these things, just a way to describe the bizarreness of someone who clearly believes something exists but wishes to “challenge” someone. Perhaps it is some perverse form of mansplaining with a leftist twist. Let’s call it Leninsplaining, but I digress.
Obviously the total economic output is something that is not realistic to control in regard to fascist Italy, hence why I believe you were overstating the control of the state to make your argument. Not sure what you are getting at as my point stands. Also, I went back and erased all that because I felt it was boisterous, rude, and counter productive a long time before you replied. Sorry for the confusion.
Fascism = Bad right!? J/k
Fascism takes many forms and uses many rhetorics. For me, I look for the signs like hyper-capitalism, wealth gaps, and the majority of policy written by/for the wealthy. This combined with feverish nationalism, obsession with security, militarism, scapegoating, and control of media.
As Mussolini put it, fascism is just corporatism. I think modern day corporatocracy is the evolution of corporatism. So if your county is ruled by business interests, like most of the world, you probably are living in a country with fascist tendencies. Fascism is also a scale where you can see nations like the US with lots of fascism and places like Norway with much less fascism.
Fascist corporatism was the polar opposite of free-market capitalism. Corporations were not private, profit-driven companies. They were state-controlled, collective syndicates organized by industry sector. They brought together representatives of both labor unions and employers under the absolute control of the state. This was an attempt to eliminate class conflict and serve national output.
Modern American corporate influence is almost the exact opposite structure. It is driven by private, bourgeois capital influencing, lobbying, or weakening the state to maximize private profit and deregulation.
How do you see them connected?
“Free Market” capitalism is just a buzzword in my opinion that does not denote anything other than the specter of regulation (or lack of) in our hyper-capitalistic world. It is used as a facade for capitalism and the resulting corportocracy to legitimatize their policies much like law and order is used to legitimatize liberalism despite equality being basically non-existent.
https://evonomics.com/why-free-market-ideology-is-a-double-lie/
You analysis of Italy and Germany fascism is suspect as they both had many industries and related commerce that were not controlled directly by the state. If you accept that it is not complete control your definition could be considered very broad because most nations have some control over their industries or, in the case of the US and other nations, the industries control the government through regulatory capture.
China, of all places, would fit your definition to a T, but I highly doubt they would appreciate being called fascist, even if they are.
You speak as if Capital struggles to weaken the state to capitalize (ie often creating monopolies). This is not the case at all as seen in the policies for modern countries for the last few hundred years. Corporations, not governments, have become the dominant social structure.
How are they connected? I think you may not be able to see this because you believe fascism can only exist in a specific economic model brought by a dictator’s hand as opposed to a natural result of corporate control of government.
Essentially modern fascism is a corporatocracy regardless of how it is instituted and I would argue that this has evolved into neofascism and it’s best friend neoauthoritarianism (especially in Asia, but now the US as well) we are experiencing currently.
When I jokingly said fascism = bad I was only half joking. Obviously most people operate on this simple definition. This is the framework that prevents us from accepting that fascism is currently dominating the planet because people reject being labeled as bad. This is why I think it is important to understand modern fascism not purely as an ideology that is wrong, but a valid ideology that is the most politically powerful and economically advantageous position the wealthy can be in.
https://tomorrowsaffairs.com/corporations-as-superpowerswelcome-to-the-world-of-altered-sovereignty
The corporazioni are not the modern corporations (società)
The core issue here is a failure to distinguish between corporate interest and Italian corporatism (corporativismo). I gave the definition of what Mussolini meant when he referred to corporatism or corporazioni. You are conflating it with corporations/companies/the firm.
Under Italian fascism, “corporations” referred to state-supervised industrial bodies rather than business firms like Fiat or Pirelli. Private companies remained profit-driven, but they operated within a corporatist system that sought to coordinate employers, workers, and the state. Private companies needed to align their production, wages, and output with the goals dictated by corporazioni.
Pretty much everything below this is secondary if you fail to note the difference between a state-run chamber (corporazione) and a private joint-stock company (società).
The definition of fascism matters
Like you said, "this combines feverish nationalism, obsession with security, militarism, scapegoating, and control of media.” We agree here. We disagree entirely on what the “this” is that drives the rest. That distinction matters because the “this” tells us who actually holds supreme power. In liberal systems, power belongs to the capitalists who capture the state. In fascism, power belongs to a totalitarian state that has captured capital.
Both China and fascism have an economic system where the state exerts strong, direct authority over a capitalist economy. They are both dirigism. China resembles fascism in some functional economic respect and a rejection of liberalism.
But if we’re looking at Roger Griffin’s definition of fascism, he excludes communist projects from fascism despite being feverishly nationalistic with a overtones of rebirth (palingenetic ultranationalism) because fascism rejects the Enlightenment, rejects reason, and views the national rebirth as a violent, mystical awakening led by a cult of personality. The ultimate goal is the glory of the state and war for the sake of war.
Under Xi’s heavy nationalism, the state justifies its rebirth through rationalist, progressive benchmarks: eliminating poverty, advancing scientific development, building out infrastructure, and achieving economic hegemony. The military is built to defend the state from liberal encirclement and requires technological parity to do so.
While this distinction isolates China from fascism, it leaves us with the United States. The US perfectly embodies the material hypocrisy of liberalism. It preaches decentralized free markets while structurally generating massive, private command economies. Fascism was a desperate attempt to sail between these two realities, but by an entirely different mechanism. Where free-market ideology acts as the linguistic mask hiding corporate autocracy, fascism is the moment the state actively seizes the steering wheel of that corporate machine to drive it toward total war.
This distinction is critical because domestic corporate tyranny and its external project, liberal imperialism, form an entirely different criminal enterprise than fascism. Flattening these systems into the same category makes it impossible to fight either one effectively, because combating a state captured by private capital requires completely different analytical tools and strategies than fighting a totalitarian state that has devoured capital. The presence of fascist actors within American institutions is an undeniable reality of modern political drift, but that remains structurally worlds apart from a fully realized fascist regime.
Clarifications on Capital
Absolutely not. What I said was modern American corporations are “driven by private, bourgeois capital influencing, lobbying, or weakening the state to maximize private profit and deregulation.” They don’t struggle to do this. But all corporations aren’t operating in the same interests and different, but very powerful sectors have competing interests. Capital is in firm control of state, but capital isn’t a unitary.
Failure to Communicate
I don’t know why you’re presuming that I won’t be able to see it. This quickly reads as a protective element that lets you neither wrestle with my critique nor do the hard work of actually explaining your position. If in the end you believe I won’t get it, why would you waste the time in connecting them?
If you want to argue that a political concept has evolved, you have to trace its actual structural transformation. For example, applying the term imperialism to America in the 20th century is a very apt thing despite the core not having an emperor. That’s because it’s structures operate either exactly the same way or have transformed through history in very explicit ways to benefit the core by exerting less energy to control the empire. With that said, I think a Lenin imperialist model was relevant in the first half of the 20th century, but the 60s onward we saw another transformation where it is better described by World Systems theory. In the same vein, what you are describing as a ‘fascist tendency’ is better understood through a Marxist lens as Late-Stage Capitalist Hegemony—the normal, mature state of regulatory capture.
As of now, you have not been able to identify the structures that they share and how the differences in structures were in service of a fascist core. If you are able to, then we can have a discussion of two good faith interlocuters. But if the whole of your argument is “modern fascism is a corporatocracy … this has evolved into neofascism” then it’s just a merry go round with trust me bro vibes.
The Denial of fascist elements in current society
That was a long funny way to deny the world has descended into fascism that has been spread by the United States. I am sure you are right and lots of other scholars, including myself are wrong.
https://thewalrus.ca/americas-fascist-playbook-is-wreaking-havoc-around-the-world/
https://www.tni.org/en/mapping-fascism
https://libguides.lmu.edu/fascismamerica
Inability to accept other defintions
Your claim that fascism only exists in one specific economic form thus no fascism can exist unless it meets your definition is fucking bonkers. It is no surprise though, as you probably have an ideological reason to behave this way.
Neofascism and others forms can’t exist because you say so
You apparently deny neofascism exists as well since it does not meet your strict definition of Italian Fascism. As I said in the beginning, fascism is a scale not all or nothing as you are implying. I have looked up multiple definitions from multiple scholars and surprise, no one agrees with your extremely narrow definition. After reading your very pedantic argument I do not either.
https://youtu.be/HqVQUZyIfeA?is=3mifQSyJyWOlnYgD
No expert would agree with you
Even Wolf correctly points out the scale of fascism and how the wealthy turn on fascism by controlling the government when it suits them. And now for my coup de grace.
Roger Griffin’s definition of fascism
British historian Roger Griffin defines fascism as a revolutionary form of ultranationalism centered on a myth of national rebirth, or “palingenesis”. He views it not as a rigid set of policies, but as a populist ideology seeking to overthrow liberal democracy to create a unified national community under a new, heroic elite.
Wow, just wow. At any rate, we can see you are just being disingenuous at this point by focusing on a narrow economical and political classification of fascism that no one, but you, seems to rely on. I reject your argument.
I have not argued that fascism cannot evolve, that neofascism does not exist, or that fascism is defined by a single rigid economic model. I have argued that historical fascism had specific institutions, notably corporatism, that you repeatedly conflate with modern corporate influence.
If you believe modern states are fascist, then you need to explain how those institutions and structures transformed while preserving a fascist core. Instead, you’ve repeatedly responded to positions I never took rather than the critique I actually made.
As I previously said:
The spread of fascism is not the same as America or the world is fascist. None of the links makes that conflation and none would claim that the “US was always fascist” as you did. The only way you can do this is by claiming every country has some fascism in it already because, you claim, “it’s a scale.”
You failed to argue for its existence and it’s dominance. You connected it to corporate influence on the state and failed to see that you made a basic error when you quoted Mussolini and how the syndicate exerted control through production goals, wage requirements, and distribution of inputs. You failed to see any connection of the current state to the liberal history.
Instead you doubled down, avoided the hard work, repeatedly argued against positions I never took, and then called me pedantic. That’s evasion dressed up as argument.
Never made this claim. I was open to being convinced that the features I saw in fascism in the mid 20th century are present or have transformed today just like imperialism. How can you possibly misread that?
A scale you failed to describe in any detail beyond “US more” and “Norway less”. Even the article you finally provides a framework for your claim. Still, flattening a multidimension phenomena like fascism to a linear scale is analytically lazy but rhetorically convenient. It biases liberal institutions as the good side and fascism as the bad side. All other existing systems exists between these two poles. There are plenty of scholars who don’t fall into this scalar representation such as Kurt Weyland and Juan Linz noting that the “points on this line” aren’t just waystations or fascism-lite, but unique configurations with their own goals distinct from either liberalism or fascism.
Robert Paxton in The Anatomy of Fascism dismantles the linear definitions that treat fascism as a fixed ideological point or a simple endpoint on a slider. Paxton argues that fascism is a functional process that moves through distinct historical stages.
And this is what I was asking you to do with neofascism.
Through the IRI, the Fascist state held direct financial control over:
If this was only 20%, then it’s the most important 20% of a industrial country.
You certainly wrote with confidence. But confidence isn’t evidence.
Edit: calling me disingenious after you waited 12 hours to make an edit to your coup de gras and failed to call it out is pretty rich.
As long as you back peddle to reality I think we can both agree about modern fascism existing. For a minute there, it sure felt like you where attempting a very ill thought out gaslighting escapade hence the links I gave you.
I get that you are in denial that the US is the source of neofascism in the modern world and that they have successfully exported it to every nation including China. While I don’t agree with fascism, it has been remarkably effective. I don’t come from the perspective that fascism is spreading. Fascism spread a long time ago. What we see is fascist tendencies becoming more pronounced.
It is my opinion that the US was a proto-fascist nation. The wealthy used every play from the book of fascism to take control of the US colonies long before there was a word for it. What makes the US unique was the never ending greed and resulting genocide that even a continent of resources could not satiate. A country for the wealthy by the wealthy where enough was never enough.
You have to hand it to the US for all the propaganda about democracy and liberalism they shoved down everyone’s throat which was often followed by a bullet. It’s persuasive nature has infiltrated human discourse poisoning it with so much doublethink it is like living in 1984 everyday forever. Creating a figurative monster that can’t see its own reflection.
This propaganda is not unique though as every nation has its lies often to cover up an oligarchy and create a facade of propriety for the people. While not all nations are as extreme as the US they often cite an ideology that they do not actually follow. A great example is free trade which wealthy nations use to abuse global systems to extract wealth.
Concentration of wealth has always been the devil in the room and no nation has ever compared to the US (except maybe China the last three years). The government AKA the wealthy have a significant amount of control but they obviously want eat their cake and to have it to. This is why US fascists keep so much of business out of governments hands. They can still order corporations around, but get the benefit of appearing detached plus get to take the lion’s share of the profit.
While US fascism has roots in imperialism, it went far beyond what most countries have done and is more akin to the Mongols or Roman level of continental wide destruction. This US fascism is the modern day version of conquest driven by hate and lust for power combined with technology that has allowed for massive human suffering.
Another clear example of the US spreading fascism was laying the groundwork and providing the material supports for fascism in Germany. This set the stage for the US fascist campaign of toppling governments the US continues to engage in to this day.
The US exerted its economic influence and militaristic control over the entire world long ago. They murdered countless innocent people just because they supported something like a leftist movement. Creating civil war and strife, arming both sides, and murdering with impunity was the name of the game.
All done through the most fascist like of all industries the arms industry, which has evolved into the abomination of the Industrial Military Complex. A fully integrated fascist loving system in just about every nation. With the four worst offenders being The US, France, Russia, and China in order (China beat out Germany recently for #4 arms dealer, way to go!). The big four fascist loving fucks dealing weapons to war torn nations and profiting from human death and destruction.
On a side note, this really feels like one of those conversations with a racist or sexist person where they are challenging you to prove that racism or sexist exists. It gives me kind of gross vibes to be honest. Not that I mean to imply you are either of these things, just a way to describe the bizarreness of someone who clearly believes something exists but wishes to “challenge” someone. Perhaps it is some perverse form of mansplaining with a leftist twist. Let’s call it Leninsplaining, but I digress.
Obviously the total economic output is something that is not realistic to control in regard to fascist Italy, hence why I believe you were overstating the control of the state to make your argument. Not sure what you are getting at as my point stands. Also, I went back and erased all that because I felt it was boisterous, rude, and counter productive a long time before you replied. Sorry for the confusion.