Answering the question requires a definition of the word. I wanted to extract the essence of the term from the voluminous texts which have appeared on the subject since the end of second world war but have been defeated by the sheer number of relevant texts, of which I mention a few in Recommended Reading at the end. Paxton’s book ends with a bibliographical essay of almost 30 pages!
The
sociologist Michael Mann has presented a useful definition
of
fascism, in which he identifies
three fundamentals: key values, actions, and power organizations. He
sees it as ‘the pursuit of a transcendent and cleansing
nation-statism through paramilitarism’.He
suggests five
essential aspects, some of which
have internal tensions:
Nationalism:
the ‘deep and populist commitment to an “organic” or
“integral” nation’.
Statism:
the goals and organizational forms that are involved when the
organic conception imposes an authoritarian state ‘embodying a
singular, cohesive will [as] expressed by a party elite adhering to
the “leadership principle”.’
Transcendence:
the typical neither/nor of fascism as a third way – that is, as
something transcending the conventional structures of left and
right. Mann stresses that the core constituency of fascist support
can be understood only by taking its aspirations to transcendence
seriously. ‘Nation and state comprised their centre of gravity:
not class.’
Cleansing:
‘Most fascisms entwined both ethnic and political cleansing,
though to varying
degrees.’
Paramilitarism:
as a key element both in values and in organizational form. Like
previous analysts, Mann notes that ‘what essentially
distinguishes fascists from many military and monarchical
dictatorships of the world is [the] “bottom-up” and violent
quality of its paramilitarism. It could
bring popularity, both electorally and among elites.
Recommended Reading
Articles are perhaps the easiest way in
Ur-fascism Umberto Eco (1997)
Fascism Anyone? Lawrence Britt (2003) which identifies 14 common features of fascism -
1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism. From the
prominent displays of flags and bunting to the ubiquitous lapel pins,
the fervor to show patriotic nationalism, both on the part of the
regime itself and of citizens caught up in its frenzy, was always
obvious. Catchy slogans, pride in the military, and demands for unity
were common themes in expressing this nationalism. It was usually
coupled with a suspicion of things foreign that often bordered on
xenophobia.
2. Disdain for the importance of human rights. The regimes themselves
viewed human rights as of little value and a hindrance to realizing
the objectives of the ruling elite. Through clever use of propaganda,
the population was brought to accept these human rights abuses by
marginalizing, even demonizing, those being targeted. When abuse was
egregious, the tactic was to use secrecy, denial, and disinformation.
3. Identification of enemies/scape-goats as a unifying cause. The most
significant common thread among these regimes was the use of
scapegoating as a means to divert the people’s attention from other
problems, to shift blame for failures, and to channel frustration in
controlled directions. The methods of choice—relentless propaganda
and0 disinformation—were usually effective. Often the regimes would
incite “spontaneous” acts against the target scapegoats, usually
communists, socialists, liberals, Jews, ethnic and racial minorities,
traditional national enemies, members of other religions,
secularists, homosexuals, and “terrorists.” Active opponents of
these regimes were inevitably labeled as terrorists and dealt with
accordingly.
4. The supremacy of the military/ avid militarism. Ruling
elites always identified closely with the military and the industrial
infrastructure that supported it. A disproportionate share of
national resources was allocated to the military, even when domestic
needs were acute. The military was seen as an expression of
nationalism, and was used whenever possible to assert national goals,
intimidate other nations, and increase the power and prestige of the
ruling elite.
5. Rampant sexism. Beyond the simple fact that the political elite and
the national culture were male-dominated, these regimes inevitably
viewed women as second-class citizens. They were adamantly
anti-abortion and also homophobic. These attitudes were usually
codified in Draconian laws that enjoyed strong support by the
orthodox religion of the country, thus lending the regime cover for
its abuses.
6.A controlled mass media. Under some of the regimes, the mass media
were under strict direct control and could be relied upon never to
stray from the party line. Other regimes exercised more subtle power
to ensure media orthodoxy. Methods included the control of licensing
and access to resources, economic pressure, appeals to patriotism,
and implied threats. The leaders of the mass media were often
politically compatible with the power elite. The result was usually
success in keeping the general public unaware of the regimes’
excesses.
7. Obsession with national security. Inevitably, a national security
apparatus was under direct control of the ruling elite. It was
usually an instrument of oppression, operating in secret and beyond
any constraints. Its actions were justified under the rubric of
protecting “national security,” and questioning its activities
was portrayed as unpatriotic or even treasonous.
8. Religion and ruling elite tied together. Unlike communist regimes,
the fascist and protofascist regimes were never proclaimed as godless
by their opponents. In fact, most of the regimes attached themselves
to the predominant religion of the country and chose to portray
themselves as militant defenders of that religion. The fact that the
ruling elite’s behavior was incompatible with the precepts of the
religion was generally swept under the rug. Propaganda kept up the
illusion that the ruling elites were defenders of the faith and
opponents of the “godless.” A perception was manufactured that
opposing the power elite was tantamount to an attack on religion.
9. Power of corporations protected. Although the personal life of
ordinary citizens was under strict control, the ability of large
corporations to operate in relative freedom was not compromised. The
ruling elite saw the corporate structure as a way to not only ensure
military production (in developed states), but also as an additional
means of social control. Members of the economic elite were often
pampered by the political elite to ensure a continued mutuality of
interests, especially in the repression of “have-not” citizens.
10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated. Since organized labor was
seen as the one power center that could challenge the political
hegemony of the ruling elite and its corporate allies, it was
inevitably crushed or made powerless. The poor formed an underclass,
viewed with suspicion or outright contempt. Under some regimes, being
poor was considered akin to a vice.
11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts. Intellectuals
and the inherent freedom of ideas and expression associated with them
were anathema to these regimes. Intellectual and academic freedom were
considered subversive to national security and the patriotic ideal.
Universities were tightly controlled; politically unreliable faculty harassed
or eliminated. Unorthodox ideas or expressions of dissent were strongly attacked,
silenced, or crushed. To these regimes, art and literature should serve the
national interest or they had no right to exist.
12. Obsession with crime and punishment. Most of these regimes maintained
Draconian systems of criminal justice with huge prison populations.
The police were often glorified and had almost unchecked power, leading to
rampant abuse. “Normal” and political crime were often merged into trumped-up
criminal charges and sometimes used against political opponents of the regime.
Fear, and hatred, of criminals or “traitors” was often promoted among the
population as an excuse for more police power.
13. Rampant cronyism and corruption. Those in business circles and close to
the power elite often used their position to enrich themselves. This corruption
worked both ways; the power elite would receive financial gifts and property
from the economic elite, who in turn would gain the benefit of government
favoritism. Members of the power elite were in a position to obtain vast
wealth from other sources as well: for example, by stealing national resources.
With the national security apparatus under control and the media muzzled,
this corruption was largely unconstrained and not well understood by the
general population.
14. Fraudulent elections. Elections in the form of plebiscites or public opinion
polls were usually bogus. When actual elections with candidates were held,
they would usually be perverted by the power elite to get the desired result.
Common methods included maintaining control of the election machinery,
intimidating and disenfranchising opposition voters, destroying or disallowing
legal votes, and, as a last resort, turning to a judiciary beholden to the
power elite.
Ur-fascism and Neo-fascism Andrew Johnson (2020)
Adorno
write of such a danger - “National Socialism lives on, and even
today we still do not know whether it is merely the ghost of what was
so monstrous that it lingers on after its own death, or whether it
has not yet died at all, whether the willingness to commit the
unspeakable survives in people as well as in the conditions that
enclose them.”
On
Tyranny – reading guide Dave Forrest (2021)
How to Spot a Fascist Terry Trowbridge (2022)
Fascism - a comprehensive reading list (2025) contains some interesting and unusual reads
Is It Fascism? Dan Garner (2025)
When Trump first ran for office in 2016, Paxton and other scholars were asked if
Trump was a fascist. Some said yes. Some said no. Paxton was among those who said no.
But the January 6th insurrection changed his mind. Immediately afterward,
he published a short essay explaining why. An excerpt:
Trump's incitement of the invasion of the Capitol on January 6, 2021
removes my objection to the fascist label. His open encouragement of
civic violence to overturn an election crosses a red line. The label
now seems not just acceptable but necessary. It is made even more plausible
by comparison with a milestone on Europe's road to fascism—an openly
fascist demonstration in Paris during the night of February 6, 1934.
On that evening thousands of French veterans of World War I, bitter at
rumors of corruption in a parliament already discredited by its inefficacy
against the Great Depression, attempted to invade the French parliament
chamber, just as the deputies were voting yet another shaky government into
power. The veterans had been summoned by right-wing organizations.
They made no secret of their wish to replace what they saw as a weak
parliamentary government with a fascist dictatorship on the model of Hitler
or Mussolini.
…
In the United States, after the ignominious failure of a shocking fascist
attempt to undo Biden's election, the new American President can begin his
work of healing on January 20. Despite encouraging early signs and the
relative robustness of American institutions, it's too soon for a responsible
historian to say whether he'll be more successful in sustaining our Republic
than European leaders were in defending theirs.
That last sentence makes for painful reading today.
Last October, after Donald Trump was called a fascist by the man who had been
his longest-serving chief of staff — the four-star Marine Corps general John
Kelly — The York Times ran a lengthy profile of Paxton and his changed view
about Trump and fascism. From the Times:
"This summer I asked Paxton if, nearly four years later, he stood by his
pronouncement. Cautious but forthright, he told me that he doesn’t believe
using the word is politically helpful in any way, but he confirmed the diagnosis.
“It’s bubbling up from below in very worrisome ways, and that’s very much like
the original fascisms,” Paxton said. “It’s the real thing. It really is.”
I agree with Robert Paxton that Trump and his movement are fascist. I also
agree that it is not politically helpful to say so (thanks largely to
generations of leftists who turned the word into a lazy insult.) That’s why
I generally avoid calling them fascist. Generally. But not always.
As Paxton noted in The Anatomy of Fascism, a “radical instrumentalization of
truth” is a routine feature of fascism. To the fascist, truth is contingent.
What is good for the fascist is true; what is not, is not. Does that remind
you of anyone?
This “radical instrumentalization of truth” makes standing and stating a truth
regardless of political expedience an anti-fascist act.
And that is why, despite believing it is not politically useful to call Trump
fascist, I sometimes do. It is my small way of insisting the fascists will
not win.
Ray Dalio wrote an interesting book in 2021 (listed at the end) about which
he posted today (I don't understand how he can put such a long post on X!!)
Books
Three Faces of Fascism Ernst Nolte (1969) the renowned German historian offers a 700 page
analysis
Fascism – a readers guide ed Walter Laqueur (1976) the longest read at 488 pages
Fascism Michael Mann (2004) 436 pages
The Anatomy of Fascism Robert Paxton (2006) 335 pages summarised here
The Nature of Fascism Revisited Antonio Pinto (2012)
Chapters
three and four provide a critical overview of new interpretations
based on two review articles in
which some major works on fascism are debated: Michael Mann’s
“Fascists” and R. O. Paxton’s "Anatomy
of Fascism. The
first
book asks the classic questions: Who were the fascists? How did they
grow? Who supported them? And what are the conditions most conducive
to their taking power? Mann attempts to construct a dynamic model
that is not merely a taxonomy of fascism. Like Mann’s study, "The
Anatomy
of Fascism
is also a critical reaction to some aspects of the ideological
centrism of recent years. Because it was written by a historian,
criticism of culturalism is more present in Paxton’s book, with the
author more marked than Mann by the historiographical debates. By
claiming ‘what fascists did tells us at least as much as what they
said’ (a stance criticised by historians such as Sternhell and
Roger Griffin), Paxton attempts to locate the ideas in their rightful
place. If Mann’s
research concentrates on the conditions leading to the growth of
fascist movements, Paxton’s studies the processes involved in their
seizure of power and the nature of the resulting regimes.
Global Capitalism and the Crisis of Humanity Bill Robinson (2014)
OK no mention of fascism in the title but, in 256 pages, he discusses the nature of the new
global capitalism, the rise of a globalized production and financial system, a transnational
capitalist class, and a transnational state and warns of the rise of a global police state to contain
the explosive contradictions of a global capitalist system that is crisis-ridden and out of control.
Robinson concludes with an exploration of how diverse social and political forces are responding
to the crisis and alternative scenarios for the future.
Fascism
– the career of a concept Paul Gottfried (2016)
The author reveals in his
intro his “paleoconservative” leanings – in
236 pages.
How Fascism Works – the politics of us and them Jason Stanley (2017 book) Probably the
best read on the subject (and mercifully brief – at 145 pages)
Principles for Dealing with the Changing World Order Ray Dalio (2021)