Umberto Eco never managed to “define” fascism, Clyde.

He only provided a list of characteristics of (what he termed) “ur-fascism” - what I’d call “secondary fascism” (ie, the violent re-enforcement of the status quo in the imperial core using methods and justifications pioneered in the colonised world).

Here is what he said himself -

“These features cannot be organized into a system; many of them contradict each other, and are also typical of other kinds of despotism or fanaticism.”

Ie… no workable definition of fascism.

Okay?