[fusion event]The appeal and weaknesses of Fascism

We live in an era where several democracies have been internally replaced by popular leftist or rightist movements. This is not a new phenomenon, and today we will discuss the rightist version. Fascism, or fascist-leaning governments, have repeatedly succeeded in acquiring broad popular support, and this was particularly true in the 1930s, and now again today.
First, what is Fascism
I will take fascism to have the following traits:

1. Centralization and streamlining of decision-making. A single ruler, generally backed by a party ideologically committed to the ruler's agenda, and a minimal review/appeal process for government policy.
2. Hostility to opposition/questioning of the government. Fascists generally shut down opposing parties and a free press.
3. Identification of Us/Them within the society, where "us" is a working class majority, and "them" are religious, ethnic, sexual, and ideological minorities, the extreme poor, much of the intellectual class, and many oligarchs. "Them" are persecuted. Foreigners are also lumped in with "them". A dismissive summary I have heard is "turn the Little Man against the Littler Man".
4. Economically, Fascism generally implements "guided free markets" -- businesses remain privately owned, but many of their major decisions need to be approved by the state.

>> Questions -- Does this list capture Fascism?
>> Does war/brutality/alpha need to be added? The original Fascist movement in Italy emphasized Macho bullying, brutality, and both internal violence and warfare as moral goods. I left these as secondary features, because I don't think Franco, Hitler, Modi, Trump, or even Putin come across as prototypical alpha males, and excess warfare has only been a property of about half of these regimes.
What makes Fascism Popular
The popularity of Fascism is in response to flaws of Liberal Democracy.
Under liberalism, the focus on individuality has lead to increasing loss of shared cultural and national values -- such that the sense of belonging and community is often lost.
Also under democratic systems, with complex checks and balances, and rule of law -- decisions take a long time to be made, and are sometimes never implemented. For example, infrastructure building, which destroys neighborhoods, family farms, religious shrines, etc. always motivates local opposition. And democratic systems respond to the interests of this small faction of highly motivated people rather than the less strongly held interests of a majority. Democracies are also well known not to respond to a crisis until it becomes a disaster, because DEALING with a crisis requires somebody, or worse MANY somebodies, to make sacrifices.
In contrast, a centralized decision system, in which a far-sighted leader can ignore the complaints of the NIMBYs to build bridges and railroads and airports, and overrule the delays of the special interests and actually deal with things like a climate crisis, or a budget deficit -- looks very attractive. Deng Xiaoping, who led China's transformation from a Communist to a Fascist economy, and turned China into a budding superpower, is an ideal that many who advocate for Fascism think it can provide.
Additionally, free markets tend to be dominated by oligarchs, who then use their $ to buy favorable treatment by legislatures, and also use their $ to block government initiatives that are detrimental to their own personal asset valuation. Democracies tend to represent the oligarchs rather than the working people.
A free press is intrinsically critical/negative. Therefore it is excellent at helping fascists gain support, as it will complain about the failures of democracy. BUT, then it will be an obstacle to Fascist rule, as there will be mistakes and corruption by Fascists which will then generate increasing press criticism. Banning a free press, and opposition parties (who advocate for their alternative agendas, leading to less cohesion/support for the clear Fascist programme), and only maintaining the forms of democracy, therefore is standard in Fascist governance.
The demonizing of intellectuals is based on the same rationale as the shutting down of a free press. Too much discussion of alternatives to how the Leader is governing causes societal dissention, and breaks the Social Consensus that fascists are trying to recreate.
The demonizing of marginal minorities is one of the ways that groups establish unanimity, and paper over internal disagreements. Extending the demonization to foreigners helps in this process as well. Demonizing intellectuals comes along with the marginal group demonization, because intellectuals generally question societal norms, so defense of the national culture involves the suppression of non-normative thinking.

Fascism has repeatedly proven popular against liberal democracy. The effectiveness of rule by a competent Caesar was more popular than the corruption of the oligarchic Senate. Napoleon, the classic "Man on a White Horse" would have won elections in France when he abolished the Republic, and his nephew was eventually elected Emperor as well. Peron was and is a beloved figure whose followers won election after election in Argentina. Mussolini, Hitler, and Putin all came to power democratically.
>> Have I captured the appeal?
Why is Fascism a failure long-term?
One basic problem with Fascism is its inability to learn from and respond to failures. This is the core argument that Karl Popper made for democracy, a free press, and a non-ideological government. Governing is SO difficult that there will be multiple policies that are developed under what seems like a valid theory, that end up being catastrophically bad because of some neglected side-effect. So even a WISE "Dear Leader", who does not have an open and honest information gathering system to report problems from a policy, and an open discussion of policy alternatives, will end up presiding over an increasingly dysfunctional government.
Additionally, most "Dear Leaders" are NOT wise, nor incorruptible. The leaders, their friends, family, and party flunkies, increasingly over time become the beneficiaries of government policy decisions, rather than the working class people. This will tend to become standard after several generations of Fascist rule -- Fascism may start out pro-worker, but it will eventually become a variant of Aristocracy, where party insiders become the Aristocratic elite.
Additionally, the suppression of non-normative thinking will destroy economic and scientific innovation in a Fascist society, and it will stagnate economically and technologically.
These long-term trends toward ineffectiveness have often not had sufficient time to manifest, as for many Fascist societies their intrinsic violence and fanning of hatreds of "others" have led them to self-destruct in unwinnable wars before economic stagnation became a crisis.

>> Further thoughts and comments on what is wrong with Fascism, and whether it is doomed over the long-term?

We meet in person and online. In person will be . Online will be: https://teams.live.com/meet/93583191724730?p=hY3jxVvnOciVl2aRn5
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------