I don’t like this definition, have your own, but this feels wrong on multiple points. I didn’t want just to down-vote but explain myself even if I feel this is not “smart” of me.

• I doubt we should define an ideology from the politician(s) claiming it : especially from far-right people, they could use socialism or any other concept for or against (yes I am referring the Nazi being national-socialist too). This is debatable of course but first I wanted to point this.
• Trying to anchor the definition of an idea in a specific era-people is wrong : I don’t mind explaining that “our” concept or racism isn’t the same as 10, 20, 50 or 100 years ago, same should by our concept of fascism. At the time Mussolini coined the term in reference of antique Rome the concept actually pre-existed and was already in full power in the previous century. If we have a word for it now, nice, but its definition shouldn’t be that fixed (and from a right-wing politician) because it will, and I’d argue it already is, disconnected from current reality.
• This last point goes in-hands with my previous one. Materialism should be the analysis of things in their movements not in a perceived static “state” : this was fundamental to Marx and Engels and all the communist movements so far. We should, we have to evolve and adapt our concept to reality, not only “update” to current day but analyze the fascism as a process and not a state.

Lastly because all of this is kind of semantic discourse (talking about word definition), I strongly think that giving a definition alone isn’t that great but we need to see the consequence of the definition of the concept itself in/for our actions (here I am thinking of the concept of dialectic materialsm).

This 10-points definition not only could be attributed to other ideology (not all the points obviously) but misses what to do with that. Let me try to be clear : I’d argue that fascism is the process of the bourgeoisie taking power over societies. From here a lot of western country are fascist countries, with fascist political leaders and fascist constitution. The whole system is made for money/private property to be the real power, the corner-stone of all rights and it seems that what is happening systematically in all of those countries is not a failure but it is done by design. Also that means that we should fight, not only the parties, but the constitutions and rules of anything that “protect” private property and money.

I don’t mind discussing definition, and even not agreeing, I want to argue that we should look at the consequences of any definition, like if you define “fascism” in any way then what/who is fascist and what to do.

Very nice overview. I particularly liked the 10th point because it matches the very fine description of fascism given by Robert Paxton in “The Anatomy of Fascism”: the cult of violence. I think most right-wing parties match your descriptions; we just call them populist rather than by their true name. To note also that, if Mussolini introduced fascism in the 1920s, Berlusconi introduced populism (or shall we say “fascism for the new millennium”) in the 1990s. F*, an Italian tradition alongside pizza & mandolin.

Seems like a good channel. I’ve watched a few videos now and see that this is a collection someone has put together. It would be nice if the videos had links to the creators so I could view more of their stuff.

“Capitalism doesn’t even work in theory” is one I could see sharing with people who likely think poorly of communism.

looks like it’s not public!