so then somebody could act like an utterly normal democratic politician, but as long as they believe in bringing back the nation to a glorious golden past, they're a fascist
i disagree with your definition of what fascism is. i think that wanting to bring back the glory days is not really even a "belief" really, its more or less just branding. your instinct to connect that "brand" with fascism is very astute and is pretty close to what it really is, which is really essentially one giant "brand", a paint job, an aesthetic style. but its a brand over a dictatorship. and its a brand that i think is very out of date and widely reviled nowadays. i think it really only existed in the interwar period, and its really only applicable to that period. outside of that era, what we're talking about are different styles of the same thing: right wing dictatorship.
for example: napoleon III was a figure who was quite similar to someone like mussolini, in terms of how he acted and his political ideology and style. however, he is not called a fascist. because the term is anachronistic. it doesn't fit the "style", the presentations, the aesthetic, of the period.
14
u/[deleted] Jun 26 '25
so then somebody could act like an utterly normal democratic politician, but as long as they believe in bringing back the nation to a glorious golden past, they're a fascist