"fascism" is a term co-opted by literary professors and psycho-analysts from political science to accuse people of a fashist "psychology" which somehow leads to

"fascism" is a term co-opted by literary professors and psycho-analysts from political science to accuse people of a fashist "psychology" which somehow leads to nazism. It is pseudo-scientific mumbojumbo. Fascism was the italian response to the mass death of WW1 which confronted european socieites with a choice: either turn all of society into an offense military capbaility; or turn it into a defensive one. The demoncracies chose the latter, the dictatorships chose the former. And hence didnt merely "conscript" people, they militarised all of society. This is what "totalised" means: that there is nothing outside of the state. This was the only way to respond to WW1 offesively: the whole country had to become a war machine, as world-wars required whole-country organization and militarization. > The closest approximation is states where winners in the market are winners in politics, and fascism historically approximated that quite well. Dear me. This is just pseudoscientific literary professors with no understanding of political science repeating slurs. A free market capitalist system is a state system because its fundamental unit is the collective known as "a business" whose legal integrity is provided by state guarentees. But the whole point of that system is to entirely divorce the political mechanisms of the state from the economic mechanisms of the market. The state guarentees the integrity of private collectives and private individuals from the state. You cannot have a free market system in which "winners in the markets" are "winners in politics". You're describing the opposite of a free market system; something much more akin to the commnuism of the USSR. This is exactly the opposite of the intensions of capitalism, in which autonomy is granted to private collectives to enable them to take risks on their on behalf, benefit from their success, and pursure their own economic interests. Where this is subsubmed by the state, the entire purpose of the system is removed. This would be like saying, "the only true socialism is where the state is a business". Incoherent.