Mussolini himself said fascism can be anything convenient for the state in the moment, that’s why when it comes down to a hard definition they’re either descriptions of the actions of fascist states, vague listings of terms like xenophobia and authoritarianism, or pointing to things like Umberto Eco’s description.
That is a good enough description paradoxically. It’s what’s convenient for the center of violent power, ideologically untied from any moral principle and consistency, and connected to strength and self-sacrifice and, of course, interests of that center.
To be honest, I’m sometimes thinking that for a political ideology he had a point, and mixing in morality there is just misguided. Like mixing in LGBTQ rights into military strategy as a criterion of its own (and not to have more manpower).
That is a good enough description paradoxically. It’s what’s convenient for the center of violent power, ideologically untied from any moral principle and consistency, and connected to strength and self-sacrifice and, of course, interests of that center.
To be honest, I’m sometimes thinking that for a political ideology he had a point, and mixing in morality there is just misguided. Like mixing in LGBTQ rights into military strategy as a criterion of its own (and not to have more manpower).