I feel like it's a very ill-defined term in the imperial core, but also there seems to be no coherent agreement on the left. Many thinkers have different definitions that often overlap.
Lenin called fascism "capitalism in decay"
Fanon called it "colonialism at home"
Umberto Eco offers his own incoherent mess of a definition
Roger Griffin defines it as a "palingenetic ultranationalism" that imagine a mythical "rebirth" of some previous glory (Rome, the volk, MAGA), and in doing so seek the "dominance of the insiders of the ultra-nation over those outside of it."
Parenti states that fascism "offers a beguiling mix of revolutionary-sounding mass appeals and reactionary class politics", adding that if fascism means anything "it means all-out government support for business and severe repression of anti-business, pro- labour forces."
Andreas Malm adapts Griffin's definition in White Skin, Black Fuel to a "palindefenIve, palingenetic ultranationalism", etc, adding that in addition to the sense of rebirth to some mythical glory time, there is also a mythical defense of the ultra-nation from those who are defined as foreign, be they Muslims, central American refugees, judeo-bolsheviks, etc.
I find the most functionally useful definition of fascism is Parenti's: the violent oppression of the left to maintain the dominance of the ownership class. However I feel like it lacks the element of violent chauvinism against arbitrarily defined others in society. That is to say I suppose I also lack a coherent definition.
What say you comrades?
The best description of it is found in Trotskys pamphlet: Fascism what it is and how to fight it. (Actually a collection of what he wrote about fascism in other places). Because he describes the class character of it by examining how it emerged in say Germany and Italy.
Ultimately as the contradictions of capitalism come to a head the proletariat begins agitating (labor Union movements, communist or labor parties, strikes, mass protests, insurrection and revolution) to overthrow the bourgeoisie, but as they fail to do so and the contradictions heighten further, the petit bourgeoisie (which has no independent destiny) gets armed and organized under the supervision of the bourgeoisie to put an end to the proletarian agitation. That’s who the soldiers of fascism are, petit bougs who go into the street to put down the proles, typically working hand in hand with the armed bodies of the state. It’s a form of false consciousness whereby the “middle class” blames the proletarian hooligans for their problems instead of blaming the big bourgeoisie and sets out to eliminate them, beginning with whichever group is an easy scapegoat , Jews, communists, sexual minorities. Once this ideology takes state power (because the libs will hand the reins over to them, however uncouth they are, to do away with the threat of real proletarian uprising) they continue this madness of finding and eliminating scapegoats because without a willingness to end the real problem (private property relations) that’s all they can do to keep the whole thing going a bit longer.
Slight :trot-shining: correction: by directing anger at “others”, they attract lumpen proles and squeezed labor “aristocracy” (or just high paid ones). Like if you look at configuration of america: petit bougie local boat sellers, former army soldiers with shitty benefits and shitty jobs (lumpenized/freikorp config), skilled manual labor which got shipped off - rust belt (proles). Big bourgeoisie (if they think treat of proletariat is credible enough) will finance them.