this might be a more accurate way to see it, but if the obscenely wealthy require the state and its trappings to maintain power, then functionally it is no different: the state is still primary, and all other institutions must be brought in line with its interests (which are to serve the obscenely wealthy).

if the shoe fits…

the Doctrine of Fascism quite literally contradicts their points.

it does not

in fact contradicts the point being made

it doesn’t

I am not intimately familiar with the institutions in every corner of the earth, but I live in the USA, and I certainly feel that the interests of the state have subsumed all other institutions.

personally, I prefer anarchism. without a state, a state cannot coopt all of society.

mussolini specifically wanted to shift away from individualism, whereas (at least in lip service) chiangs plan was to teach democracy to the Chinese. a military dictatorship does have a lot of similarity to fascism, though. I suppose I can see where, in this one case, an agrarian societies emergence from warlordism may have been fascist.

it’s not mussolini’s fascism, where the state brings all other institutions in line with its interests. fascism is a specific thing. that’s what the meme is about.

there is a cure for political illiteracy.

liberal democracies are breeding grounds for fascism. every fascist regime has emerged from them.

you can also read mussolini. he says explicitly what fascism is and why. eco is not singularly authoritative on fascism, and his definition gives liberal democracies far too much leeway. modern america, and much of the rest of the developed world, is doing exactly what mussolini would have had us do.

democrats and republicans are both fascist. they don’t need to be hitler to be protecting the interest and primacy of the state at the expense of the interests and power of all other institutions. in fact, having hitler as a foil serves well to protect them from accusations of fascism.