I’m saying that saying that something needs to exist before it can be a thing in history.
You can argue that according to this definition, fascism did exist before 20th century, but that definition means that basically entirety of human history is fascism. Hell, even communism is fascism according to this definition:
- Communists wanted to get power,
- They did not tolerate other parties nor a certain class (bourgeousie),
- They were ruthless, used deceit and violence.
Do you now see why this definition is not useful?
fascism emerges as any result to stifle the mobilization of worker movements to secure the state
That definition is too broad. Not every opposition to communism/state socialism is fascism. Social democracy is not fascism. Anarchism is not fascism. Conservatism (in its actual meaning, not American meaning) is not fascism.
Eco’s points still fall into much the same problem
I don’t think so. Eco is right that fascism does not need all of the traits he described. He doesn’t say that a single trait is enough to identify fascism, only that one is enough to allow other traits to grow around it, potentially eventually leading to fascism. I’d say that fascism requires a majority of these traits. If it only has few of them, it’s not fascism. It might be proto-fascism, quasi-fascism, but it’s not fascism.
Fascism is explicitly opposed to conservatism, even though it tries to draw in conservatists through syncretism and fetish-like appeals to tradition. And conservatism is opposed to fascism, as fascism requires change, action and submission of institutions to the Leader, while conservatism resists change and tries to preserve traditional structures.
BTW syncretism can result in really silly situations, such as fascists or quasi-fascists using socialist symbols - just look at what Putin is doing.