True enough, though if someone really needs an entire book to define a single word then maybe it's getting overcomplicated. "Love" has a similar problem, though I don't think it's neutered, just muddled. Evola is an odd choice for an authority because the bulk postdates the establishment of fascism itself-- it's like defining agriculture based on quotes from the Grigg brothers (Ore-Ida potatoes).
Based on Smedley Butler's warnings in the 1930s, I define it simply as "replacement of the Constitution with corporate rule". That works for my purposes, it lines up with history, and I don't know any dictionary that insists words can only have the sole definition (many have two or more).
I'm not sure "corporate rule" is exactly the same as fascism, and I'm not certain replacing the Constitution is fascism, though I'm pretty confident that replacing the Constitution with corporate rule is.
I'm doubly certain that we are witnessing it now. But I'm sympathetic to those that insist it happened earlier. They certainly tried. If you know a better word for "replacing the Constitution [and the will of The People] with corporate rule" than "fascism" go right ahead. Either way, it's treason. But that doesn't necessarily make it fascist. It was however, considered fascist I believe, at a time when corporations were plotting similar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_ ... ee_reports and when global fascism was first spreading its wings in Europe. So if people are mistaken about it being fascism, they aren't too unreasonable for it.
The McCormack–Dickstein Committee was a bit like the 9/11 Commission of its day. I'm not here to sell you any theories about 9/11, only the law that passed in the following October.
Here is how I interpret the past 87 years:
* 1933: Business plot, IBM involvement in Germany, Fascism in Italy
* Project Paperclip (went on a long time)
* 1947: Cold War begins
* 1961: Eisenhower warning
* 1970: Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 (War on Drugs begins)
* 1980s: relaxation of election regulations
* 1990-1991: Gulf War, Cold War ends, Gulf War ends, trade agreements are becoming the core of foreign policy
* 1995: Omnibus Antiterrorism Act, similar to Patriot Act written by Biden
* 1998: DMCA poses existential threat to all libraries
* 2001: Patriot Act, War on Terror
* 2007: Amazon controls your books after "purchase", circumvention is a crime. (Short story "The Right to Read" becomes a prophecy instead of a warning)
* 2016: Openly fascist leader elected (feel free to dispute, but IMO it's pretty simple)
* 2019: Police start asking people to put video doorbells on their own homes
* Police trial program to livestream video from everyone's video doorbells
* Openly corporate fascist and self-proclaimed author of most fascist (and Unconstitutional) law in history elected-- not that I expect anybody to agree.
Proof? Certainly not.
Conclusion? America has marched towards fascism for 87 years and isn't done heading there.
Debate: No it hasn't. We've made progress too.
That summary of the debate isn't at all fair, but IMO that's what I think we are basically debating.
It's not up to me, I expect others to have their own take on it. What I do know, is that Orwell and Bradbury were right about too much. And that isn't really improving.
And this ignores everything that's gone on in South America, Europe, Australia and Asia. If you throw those events in, it's even less encouraging.
Mae (in the comic) has a sentient AI and a demigod watching over, and doesn't have to worry about this. I don't blame Mae, lots of people have ways to be OK with all this. Even if it's just a comic, if we escape to Mae's world (I love reading the comic, 99% of the time and I've read the whole thing) this might all be OK. But I wish it was as reassuring as having a sentient AI and a demigod watching over us. That'd be nice.
But even in Mae's world, Tony's fairly broad apathy reflects the will of The People accurately enough. He could fight this-- but he won't except where it affects him directly.