>>2420604I'm going to read through the 1933 Plenum of the International, because it's got some interesting shit talking between theorists which seemingly gives fascism more credit than they know, but I don't think anyone here is denying that Marxist outlooks to explain fascism must be done.
I do however think the problem is you're defining a wider group of ideologies under a singular economic clause and motivations.
I didn't mention it before but "austerity" if you mean that in the governmental sense cannot apply to Nazi Germany, in fact it was an over bloat of state bureaucracy and waste of resources.
>ultraimperialism that competing monopolies would come into conflictHitler did not want this, the UK chose to do it, even with Eisner Hitler was working with a non USSR backed group, the problem is that the UK did this, not Hitler, if Hitler had the option he would suck off every single British man before going to war to compete with them.
If you however mean ww1, the problem is that this is still interlinked with creating a military class.
Again these are initially good points but the more you look into them the more unstable foundations they have.
This is why I have to put military class coming into existence as a requirement, because we haven't really seen fascism come about ever since, nor really beforehand.
It's why I'm not scared of "fascism eating America" or anything, we would need to lose a major war before that, even economic collapse without a war would not lead to it.
It's I think integral to whatever you'd like to call fascist ideologies that no matter how many of them spring up to socialist involvement in capitalist crisis, there needs to be a material class willing to answer the bourgeoisie call to stop it to begin with. It needs to be created before any amount of anti communist or pro bourgeoisie action can be taken.