re: #82 oslogin

Problem is that the scholars of fascism is not quite in agreement with eachother. Then, on the other hand, try finding a concise definition of socialism which includes both the Norwegian Labour party and the German Rote Armee Fraktion, and maybe Pol Pot, too. I think you’ll find it somewhat problematic.

I’m using Roger Griffin’s definition here. A shorter variant:
“[F]ascism is best defined as a revolutionary form of nationalism, one that sets out to be a political, social and ethical revolution, welding the ‘people’ into a dynamic national community under new elites infused with heroic values. The core myth that inspires this project is that only a populist, trans-class movement of purifying, cathartic national rebirth (palingenesis) can stem the tide of decadence”.

I can get my head around:

Fascism is a political ideology. The word fascism is derived from Fascis. A Latin word meaning to “bundle”.

That is as far as I can take it. Beyond that it seems to be used for whatever those in power seem to want at any given time.