> [@Violet Rose in The Rain](/forums/generals/topics/tartarus?post_id=5263345#post_5263345)
> Not really. The definition from that image would make various past rulers and other powerful people fascist. But they weren't. Fascism was an invention of the 20th century.
>
> I believe that Umberto Eco's 14 points are much better. Wikipedia also quotes some good descriptions.
No, Eco's points still fall into much the same problem since even in Ur-Fascism itself he writes that a fascist does not need all the qualifiers and may even lack most of them to be helpful. Which is even less helpful. As good a novelist as Umberto Eco is he makes a terrible political scholar and philosopher because he is wholly Anglicized in that regard.
The better study on fascism and definition of fascism is from the world of the PCI/ICP where fascism emerges as any result to stifle the mobilization of worker movements to secure the state. It's a radical mobilization of the middle class to crush the working class for conservative or reactionary means. The rise of Mussolini and the Italian Fascist Party - the ur-fascist party - arose from the conflict of the Beinnio Rosso to quash the union and communist activity in Italy. The German NSDAP emerged to in the end the civil war and fought alongside the German Social Democrats to massacre workers before securing the bag.