Caudillo, Duce & Führer

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Corrupt

Corrupt (pronounced kuh-ruhpt)

(1) Guilty of dishonest practices, as bribery; lacking integrity; crooked; willing to act dishonestly for personal gain; willing to make or take bribes; morally degenerate.

(2) Debased in character; depraved; perverted; wicked; evil.

(3) Of a text, made inferior by errors or alterations.

(4) Something infected or tainted; decayed; putrid; contaminated.

(5) In digital storage (1) stored data that contains errors related to the format or file integrity; a storage device with such errors.

(6) To destroy the integrity of; cause to be dishonest, disloyal, etc, especially by coercion, bribery or other forms of inducement.

(7) Morally to lower in standard; to debase or pervert.

(8) To alter a language, text, etc for the worse (depending on context either by the tone of the content or to render it non-original); to debase.

To mar or spoil something; to infect, contaminate or taint.

To make putrid or putrescent (technically an archaic use but there’s much overlap of meaning in the way terms are used).

(11) In digital storage, introduce errors in stored data when saving, transmitting, or retrieving (technically possible also in dynamic data such as memory).

(12) In English Law, to subject (an attainted person) to corruption of blood (historic use only).

(13) In law (in some jurisdictions) a finding which courts or tribunals can hand down describing certain conduct.

1300–1350: From the Middle English verb corrupten (debased in character), from the Middle French corrupt, from the Old French corropt (unhealthy, corrupt; uncouth (of language)) from the Latin corruptus (rotten, spoiled, decayed, corrupted (and the past participle of corrumpō & corrumpere (to destroy, ruin, injure, spoil (figuratively “corrupt, seduce, bribe” (and literally “break to pieces”)), the construct being cor- (assimilated here as an intensive prefix) + rup- (a variant stem of rumpere (to break into pieces), from a nasalized form of the primitive Indo-European runp- (to break), source also of the Sanskrit rupya- (to suffer from a stomach-ache) and the Old English reofan (to break, tear)) + -tus (the past participle suffix).  The alternative spellings corrumpt, corrump & corroupt are effectively all extinct although dictionaries sometimes list them variously as obsolete, archaic or rare.  Corrupt and corrupted are verbs & adjectives (both used informally by IT nerds as a noun, sometimes with a choice adjective), corruptedness, corruption, corruptible, corruptness, corrupter & corruptor are nouns, corruptest is a verb & adjective, corruptive is an adjective, corrupting is a verb and corruptedly, corruptively & corruptly are adverbs; the most common noun plural is corruptions.  Forms (hyphenated and not) such as incorruptible, non-corrupt, over-corrupt, non-corrupt, pre-corrupt & un-corrupt etc are created as needed.

The verb corrupt in the mid-fourteenth century existed in the sense of “deprave morally, pervert from good to bad which later in the 1300s extended to “contaminate, impair the purity of; seduce or violate (a woman); debase or render impure (a language) by alterations or innovations; influence by a bribe or other wrong motive", reflecting generally the senses of the Latin corruptus.  The meanings “decomposing, putrid, spoiled”, “changed for the worse, debased by admixture or alteration (of texts, language etc) and “guilty of dishonesty involving bribery" all emerged in the late fourteenth century.  The noun corruption was from the mid-fourteenth century corrupcioun which was used of material things, especially dead bodies (human & animal) to convey “act of becoming putrid, dissolution; decay”.  It was applied also to matter of the soul and morality, it being an era when the Church was much concerned with “spiritual contamination, depravity & wickedness”.  The form was from the Latin corruptionem (nominative corruptio) (a corruption, spoiling, seducing; a corrupt condition), the noun of action from the past-participle stem of corrumpere (to destroy; spoil (and figuratively “corrupt, seduce, bribe”.  The use as a synonym for “putrid matter” dates from the late 1300s while as applied to those holding public office being tainted by “bribery or other depraving influence” it was first noted in the early 1400.  The specific technical definition of “a corrupt form of a word” came into use in the 1690s.  The adjective corruptible (subject to decay or putrefaction, perishable) was from either the Old French corroptible or directly from Late Latin corruptibilis (liable to decay, corruptible), from the past-participle stem of corrumpere (to destroy; spoil (and figuratively “corrupt, seduce, bribe”.  In fourteenth century English, it applied first to objects and by the mid fifteenth to those “susceptible of being changed for the worse, tending to moral corruption.  The more blatant sense of “open to bribery” appears in the 1670s.

Boris Johnson, hair by Ms Kelly Jo Dodge MBE.

Corruption is probably a permanent part of politics although it does ebb and flow and exists in different forms in different places.  In the UK, the honors system with its intricate hierarchy and consequent determination on one’s place in the pecking order on the Order of Precedence has real world consequences such as determining whether one sits at dinners with the eldest son of a duke or finds one’s self relegated to a table with the surviving wife of a deceased baronet.  Under some prime-ministers the system was famously corrupt and while things improved in the nineteenth century, under David Lloyd George (1863–1945; UK prime-minister 1916-1922) honors were effectively for sale in a truly scandalous way.  None of his successors were anywhere near as bad although Harold Wilson’s (1916–1995; UK prime minister 1964-1970 & 1974-1976) resignation honors list attracted much comment and did his reputation no good but in recent years it’s been relatively quiet on the honors front.  That was until the resignation list of Boris Johnson (b 1964; UK prime-minister 2019-2022) was published.  It included some names which were unknown to all but a handful of political insiders and many others which were controversial for their own reasons but at the bottom of the list was one entry which all agreed was well deserved: Ms Kelly Jo Dodge, for 27 years the parliamentary hairdresser, was created a Member of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire (MBE) for parliamentary service.  In those decades, she can have faced few challenges more onerous than Boris Johnson’s hair yet never once failed to make it an extraordinary example in the (actually technically difficult) “not one hair in place” style.

A corrupted fattie

Corrupt, a drug addict and a failure: The Führer and the Reichsmarschall at Carinhall, next to a stature of a beast of the field.  Hitler once told a visitor; “You should visit Göring at Carinhall, a sight worth seeing.”

Hermann Göring (1893–1946; leading Nazi 1922-1945 and Reichsmarschall 1940-1945) was under few illusions about the sentence he would receive from the International Military Tribunal (IMT) at the first Nuremberg Trial (1945-1946) and resented only the method of execution prescribed was to be "hanged by the neck until dead".  Göring thought that fit only for common criminals and as Germany's highest ranked soldier, he deserved the honor of a firing squad; the death of a gentleman.  In the end, he found his own way to elude the noose but history has anyway judged him harshly as richly deserving the gallows.  He heard many bad things said of him at the trial, most of it true and much of it said by his fellow defendants but the statement which most disappointed him was that Adolf Hitler (1889-1945; Führer (leader) and German head of government 1933-1945 & head of state 1934-1945) had condemned him as “corrupt, a drug addict and a failure”.  Once that was publicized, he knew there would be no romantic legend to grow after his execution and his hope that in fifty years there would be statutes of him all over Germany was futile.  In fairness, even in that he’d been a realist, telling the prison psychologist the statutes might be “…small ones maybe, but one in every home”.  Hitler had of course been right; Göring was corrupt, a drug addict and a failure but that could have been said of many of his paladins and countless others in the lower layers of what was essentially a corrupted, gangster-run state.

Corruption is of course though something bad and corrosive to the state but other people's corruption in other states can be helpful.  In 1940, after the fall of France, the British were genuinely alarmed Spain might enter the war on the side of the Axis, tempted by the return of the Rock of Gibraltar and the acquisition of colonial territory in North Africa.  London was right to be concerned because the loss of Gibraltar would have threatened not only the Royal Navy's ability to operate in the Mediterranean but also the very presence of the British in North African and even the supply of oil from the Middle East, vital to the conduct of the war.  Indeed, the "Mediterranean strategy" was supported strongly by German naval strategists and had it successfully been executed, it would have become much more difficult for the British to continue the war.  Contrary to the assertions of some, Adolf Hitler (1889-1945; Führer (leader) and German head of government 1933-1945 & head of state 1934-1945) did understand the enormous strategic advantage which would be achieved by the taking of Gibraltar which would have been a relatively simple undertaking but to do so was possible only with Spanish cooperation, the Germans lacking the naval forces to effect a seaborne invasion.  Hitler did in 1940 meet with the Spanish leader Generalissimo Francisco Franco (1892-1975; Caudillo of Spain 1939-1975) in an attempt to entice his entry into the conflict and even after the Battle of Britain, Hitler would still have preferred peace with the British rather than their defeat, the ongoing existence of the British Empire better suited to his post-war (ie after victory over the USSR) visions. 

The Führer and the Caudillo at the French railway station in Hendaye, near the Spanish–French border, 23 October 1940.

Franco however was a professional soldier and knew Britain remained an undefeated, dangerous foe and one able to draw on the resources both of her empire and (increasingly) assistance from the US and regarded a victory by the Axis as by no means guaranteed.  Additionally, after a bloody civil war which had waged for four years, the Spanish economy was in no state to wage war and better than most, Franco knew his military was antiquated and unable to sustain operations against a well equipped enemy for even days.  Like many with combat experience, the generalissimo also thought war a ghastly, hateful business best avoided and Hitler left the long meeting after being unable to meet the extraordinary list of conditions demanded to secure Spanish support, declaring he'd "sooner have three teeth pulled than go through that again".  Franco was a practical man who had kept his options open and probably, like the Duce (Benito Mussolini (1883-1945; Duce (leader) & prime-minister of Italy 1922-1943)) would have committed Spain to the cause had a German victory seemed assured.  British spies in Madrid and Lisbon soon understood that and to be sure, the diplomatic arsenal of the UK's ambassador to Madrid, Sir Samuel Hoare (1880-1959), was strengthened with money, the exchequer's investment applied to bribing Spanish generals, admirals and other notables to ensure the forces of peace prevailed.  Surprising neither his friends or enemies, "slippery Sam" proved adept at the dark arts of disinformation, bribery and back-channel deals required to corrupt and although his engaging (if unreliable) memoirs were vague about the details, documents provided by his staff suggest he made payments in the millions at a time a million sterling was a lot of money.  By 1944, the state of the war made it obvious any threat of Spanish belligerency was gone and he returned to London.

The dreaded corrupted FAT

Dating from the mid-1970s, the file allocation table (FAT) is a data structure used by a number of file systems to index and manage the files on storage devices.  First associated with 8 inch (200 mm) floppy diskettes, it became familiar to users when introduced by Microsoft in the early days of PC (personal computer) operating systems (OS) and was used on the precursors to the PC-DOS & MS-DOS OSs which dominated the market during the 1980s.  Over the years there have been a number of implementations, the best known of which are FAT12, FAT16 & FAT32, the evolution essentially to handle the increasing storage capacity of media and the need to interact with enhancements to OSs to accommodate increasing complexities such as longer file names, additional file attributes and special files like sub-directories (now familiar as folders which technically are files which can store other files).

A FAT is almost always stored on the host device itself and is an index in the form of a database which consists of a table with records of information about each file and directory in the file system.  What a FAT does is provide a mapping between the logical file system and the physical location of data on the storage medium so it can be thought of as an address book.  Technically, the FAT keeps track of which clusters (the mechanism by which the data is stored) on the device are linked to each file and directory and this includes unused clusters so a user can determine what free space remains available.  Ultimately, it’s the FAT which maintains a record of the links between the clusters which form a file's data chain and the metadata associated with each file, such as its attributes, creation & modification timestamps, file size etc.  In the same way that when reading a database a user is actually interacting primarily with the index, it’s the FAT which locates the clusters associated with a request to load (or view, delete etc) a file and determine their sequence, enabling efficient read and write operations.  The size, structure and complexity of FATs grew as the capacity of floppy diskettes and then hard disks expanded but the limitations of the approach were well-understood and modern operating systems have increasingly adopted more advanced file systems like NTFS (New Technology File System) or exFAT (Extended File Allocation Table) although FAT remains widely used especially on lower capacity and removable devices (USB drives, memory cards et al), the main attraction being the wide cross-platform compatibility.

A corrupted image (JPEG) of Lindsay Lohan.  Files can be corrupted yet appear as correct entries in the FAT and conversely, a corrupted fat will usually contain may uncorrupted files; the files are content and the FAT an index.

The ominous sounding corrupted FAT is a generalized term which references errors in a FAT’s data structure.  There are DBAs (database administrators) who insist all databases are in a constant state of corruption to some degree and when a FAT becomes corrupted, it means that the data has become inconsistent or damaged and this can be induced by system crashes, improper shutdowns, power failures, malware or physical damage to the media.  The consequences can be minor and quickly rectified with no loss of data or varying degrees of the catastrophic (a highly nuanced word among IT nerds) which may result in the loss of one or more files or folders or be indicative of the unrecoverable failure of the storage media.  Modern OSs include tools which can be used to attempt to fix corrupted FATs and when these prove ineffective, there are more intricate third-party products which can operate at a lower level but where the reported corruption is a symptom of hardware failure, such errors often prove terminal, thus the importance of data (and system) backups.

The grey area between corruption and "just politics"

As an adjective, corrupt is used somewhat casually to refer to individuals or institutions thought to have engaged in practices leading to personal gain of some sort (not necessarily financial) which are either morally dubious or actually unlawful and a corrupt politician is the usual example, a corrupted politician presumably one who was once honest but tempted.  The synonyms of corrupt are notoriously difficult to isolate within set parameters, perhaps because politicians have been so involved in framing the definitions in a way which seems rarely to encompass anything they do, however corrupt it may to many appear.  The word dishonest for example obviously includes those who steal stuff but is also used of those who merely lie and there are circumstances in which both might be unlawful but wouldn’t generally to thought corrupt conduct except by the most morally fastidious.  The way politicians have structured the boundaries of acceptable conduct is that it’s possible to be venal in the sense of selling patronage as long as the consideration doesn’t literally end up as the equivalent of cash in the pocket although such benefits can be gained as long as there’s some degree of abstraction between the steps.

Once were happy: Gladys Berejiklian and Daryl Maguire, smiling.

In Australia, news the New South Wales (NSW) Independent Commission against Corruption (ICAC) had handed down a finding that former premier Gladys Berejiklian (b 1970; NSW Premier (Liberal) 2017-2021) had acted corruptly was of course interesting but mystifying to many was that despite that, the commission made no recommendation that criminal charges be considered.  It transpired that was because the evidence Ms Berejiklian was required to provide to the ICAC wouldn’t be admissible in a court because there, the rules of evidence are different and a defendant can’t be compelled to provide an answer which might be self-incriminating.  In other words a politician can be forced to tell the truth when before the ICAC but not before a court when charged.  That’s an aspect of the common law’s adversarial system which has been much criticized but it’s one of the doctrines which underpins Western law where there is a presumption of innocence and the onus of proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt lies with the prosecution.  Still, what unfolded before the ICAC revealed that Ms Berejiklian seems at the least to have engaged in acts of Billigung (looking the other way to establish a defense of “plausible deniability”).  How corrupt that will be regarded by people will depend on this and that and the reaction of many politicians was to focus on the ICAC’s statement that criminal charges would not be pursed because of a lack of admissible evidence as proof that if there’s no conviction, then there’s no corruption.  Politicians have little interest in the bar being raised.  They were less forgiving of her former boyfriend (with whom she may or not have been in a "relationship" and if one did exist it may or may not have been "serious"), former fellow parliamentarian Daryl Maguire (b 1959, MLA (Liberal) for Wagga Wagga 1999-2018).  Despite legal proceedings against Mr Maguire being afoot, none of his former colleagues seemed reluctant to suggest he was anything but guilty as sin so for those who note such things the comparative is “more corrupt” and the superlative “most corrupt”, both preferable to the clumsy alternatives “corrupter” & “corruptest”.

The release of the ICAC’s findings came a couple of days before the newly created federal equivalent (the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC)) commenced operation.  Although the need for such a body had be discussed for decades, it was during the time the government was headed by Scott Morrison (b 1968; Australian prime-minister 2018-2022) that even many doubters were persuaded one would be a good idea.  Mr Morrison’s background was in marketing, three word slogans and other vulgarities so it surprised few a vulgarian government emerged but what was so shocking was that the pork-barreling and partisan allocation of resources became so blatant with only the most perfunctory attempts to hide the trail.  Such conduct was of course not new but it’s doubtful if before it had been attempted at such scale and within Mr Morrison’s world-view the internal logic was perfect.  His intellectual horizons defined by fundamentalist Christianity and mercantilism, his view appeared to be that only those who voted (or might be induced to vote) for the Liberal & National Parties were those who deserved to be part of the customer loyalty scheme that was government spending.  This tied in nicely with the idea those who accept Jesus Christ as the savior getting to go to Heaven, all others condemned to an eternity in Hell.  Not all simplicities are elegant.

As things stand, such an attitude to public finance (ie treating as much spending as possible as party re-election funds) is not unlawful and to most politicians (at least any with some reasonable prospect of sitting on the treasury benches) should not be thought “corrupt”; it’s just “politics” and in NSW, in 1992 it was confirmed that what is “just politics” has quite a vista.  Then the ICAC handed down findings against then premier Nick Greiner (b 1947; NSW (Liberal) premier 1988-1992) over the matter of him using the offer of a taxpayer funded position to an independent member of parliament as an inducement to resign, the advantage being the seat might be won by the Liberal party in the consequent by-election.  As the ICAC noted, Mr Greiner had not acted unlawfully nor considered himself to be acting corruptly but that had been the result.  Indeed, none doubted it would never have occurred to Mr Greiner that doing something that was “just politics” and had been thus for centuries could be considered corrupt although remarkably, he did subsequently concede he was “technically corrupt” (not an admission which seems to have appealed to Ms Berejiklian).  The ICAC’s finding against Mr Greiner was subsequently overturned by the NSW Court of Appeal.

So the essence of the problem is just what corruption is.  What the public see as corrupt, politicians regard as “just politics” which, in a practical sense, can be reduced to “what you can get away with” and was rationalized by Ms Berejiklian in an answer to a question by the ICAC about pork-barrelling: "Everybody does it".  Of course that's correct and the differences between politicians are of extent and the ability to conceal but her tu quoque (translated literally as "thou also" and latterly as "you also"; translation in the vernacular is something like "you did it too") defense could be cited by all.  The mechanism of a NACC has potential and already both sides of politics are indicating they intend to use it against their political enemies so it should be amusing for those who enjoy politics as theatre although, unfortunately, the politicians who framed the legislation made sure public hearings would be rare.  One might suspect they want it to be successful but not too successful.  Still, the revelations of the last ten years have provided some scope for the NACC to try to make the accepted understanding of corruption something more aligned with the public’s perception.  Anomalies like a minister’s “partner” being a “partner” for purposes of qualifying for free overseas travel (business class air travel, luxury hotels, lavish dinners etc) yet not be defined a “partner” for purposes of disclosing things which might give rise to a possible conflict of interest for the minister is an example of the sort of thing where standardization might improve confidence.  It probably should be conceded that corruption can’t be codified in the way the speed limits for a nation’s highways can but it’s one of those things that one knows when one sees it and if the NACC can nudge the politicians’ behavior a bit in the direction of public expectation, it’ll be a worthy institution.  On a happier note, Mr Greiner went on to enjoy a lucrative corporate career and Ms Berejiklian (currently with telco Optus) is predicted to follow in his tracks although suggestions posted on social media she'd been offered a partnership at PwC (PricewaterhouseCoopers International Limited) on the basis of her experience making her a "perfect fit for the company" are thought mischievous rather than malicious.

Fascism

Fascism (pronounced fash-iz-uhm)

(1) A system of government led by a dictator (nominally with total power), forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting (to various degrees) industry, commerce, the arts etc and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism, often with an overtly racist emphasis (often used with an initial capital letter).

(2) The philosophy, principles or methods of fascism.

(3) A political movement that employs the principles and methods of fascism (based at least nominally on the model established in Italy in 1922 but the variations within implementations were numerous (often used with an initial capital letter).

(4) A now generalized term used to describe certain regimes based on their behavior rather that the labels formerly adopted.

(5) A general term of disparagement nominally based on alleged political or other behavior but now very loosely applied.

(6) As a slang modifier, (grammar-fascism, eco-fascism, fashion-fascism et al), a term of derision aimed at those thought excessively focused on rules and regulations.

1915–1920: From the Italian fascismo, the construct being fasc(io) (bundle of sticks; political group) + -ismo (the noun-forming suffix (the plural –ismi)) from the Latin -ismus.  The significance of the connection between what came to be known as political fascism and fascio (bundle of sticks) was the use of the symbol in ancient Rome where it was part of the standard (flag) of the magistracy, symbolizing the authority of the state.  Certain political organizations in modern Italy thus came to be known as fasci and the fasces was adopted as the symbol of the Italian Fascist party which took power in 1922).  Fasces dates from 1590–1600 and was from the Latin fasces (bundle of rods containing an axe with the blade projecting), the plural of fascis (bundle or pack of wood), from the Proto-Italic faski- (bundle) possibly from the primitive Indo-European bhasko- (band, bundle), (the source also of the Middle Irish basc (neckband), the Welsh baich (load, burden) and possibly the Old English bæst (inner bark of the linden tree)).  In Ancient Rome, the bundle was carried by a functionary before a lictor (a senior Roman magistrate) as a symbol of the judiciary’s power over life and limb (the sticks symbolized the use of corporal punishment (by whipping or thrashing with sticks) while the axe-head represented execution by beheading.  From this specific symbolism, in Latin the word came to be used figuratively of “high office, supreme power”.  Fasces is a noun (usually used with a singular verb); the noun plural is fascis but fasces is used as both a singular & plural.  For this reason, some in the field of structural linguistics suggest fascis remains Latin while fasces has been borrowed by English.  Fascism is a noun, fascistic is an adjective and fascist is a noun & adjective; the noun plural fascists is in much more frequent use then fascisms.

Fascism as a label has been so over-used in casual political discourse that it has become devalued.  However forms like anti-fascism and pro-fascism (with many variations) remain in use and the US left-wing collective “antifa” (pronounced an-tee-fah) is a non-hyphenated clipping of anti-fascism (or anti-fascist).  In some cases where actual fascism is in more recent living memory, the word is more established in political “discussions” and in post-Franco Spain, some such “debates” can probably be reduced to “You’re a fascist!” vs “No, you’re a fascist!”.  It can be quite entertaining.

Le Serment des Horaces (Oath of the Horatii (1784-1785)), oil on canvas by Jacques-Louis David (1748–1825), the Louvre, Paris.  Le Serment des Horaces is a work often used as a case-study in the teaching of art theory because it so exemplifies the techniques of those painting in the Neoclassical style, both in the use of classical motifs and the way in which it represents the reaction against the Rococo.  As a tool of academic study, it’s useful too because its large size (3298 mm × 4248 mm (129.8 in × 167.2 inches) permits close examination of detail.

The scene it depicts is based on the Roman legend of an episode (dated usually to the reign of Tullus Hostilius (third King of Rome between 672–642 BC) in the wars between the cities Rome and Alba Longa in which the decision was taken to select three men from each to fight to the death, the victorious survivor(s) determining which city would be declared the winner.  The advantage was it was an alternative to each sending their whole armies, thereby avoiding mass slaughter, the drawback from a military point of view being the result would not necessarily reflect how a full scale battle would have been resolved.  The way the curious dual of the triumvirates unfolded is of interest to students of battlefield tactics but the political implications cast a longer shadow, providing some of the underpinnings of twentieth century fascism will all of its bloody consequences. In Le Serment des Horaces, a father is shown offering three swords to his sons who eagerly reach to take them, signifying their willingness to fight and, if need be, die for their city.  To reinforce the message, at the conclusion of the battle, a sister of the sole surviving victor (shown in the painting to the right), was killed by him for the sin of mourning the death of one of the slain opponents to whom she’d been betrothed.  Not only must one be loyal in body and ted to the state but also in mind and soul and although pre-dating the French Revolution (1789) by half a decade, such sentiments were common in many circles at the time as the idea gaining currency that “being French” should mean being loyal to the nation rather than the church or some sectional identification.  It was this notion of the supremacy of the state and the subordination of the individual to it that formed the basis of twentieth century fascism.

It was fashionable for much of the late twentieth century to dismiss the idea that Fascism had no intellectual or philosophical underpinnings and it was a thing based wholly on personalities and spectacle which captured the imagination of political scientists and others only because it genuinely did seem new, something of a novelty in a field where everything else had a literature dating back hundreds or thousands of years.  However, even if there was nothing like the wealth of work associated with doctrines like liberalism, conservatism or Marxism and while attempts to construct something like a “theory of fascism” have never been wholly convincing, much work has been done distilling the experience of fascism to a list or recognizable characteristics.  Independent commentator Laurence Britt published a number of pieces exploring the nature of the experience of fascism in power and provided one widely shared list of 14 fundamental characteristics:

Powerful and Continuing Nationalism: Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.

Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights: Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.

Identification of Enemies & Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause: The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial, ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.

Supremacy of the Military: Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.

Rampant Sexism: The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Opposition to abortion is high, as is homophobia and anti-gay legislation and national policy.

Controlled Mass Media: Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.

Obsession with National Security: Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.

Religion and Government are Intertwined: Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.

Corporate Power is Protected: The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.

Labor Power is Suppressed: Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely or severely suppressed .

Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts: Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts is openly attacked, and governments often refuse to fund the arts.

Obsession with Crime and Punishment: Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.

Rampant Cronyism and Corruption: Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.

Fraudulent Elections: Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.

It’s a helpful list and what many noted was the extend of the overlap of those characteristics into countries in which the governments are inclined to self identify as “liberal” or “democratic” but then the prime imperative in politics is always regime survival so some duplication of tactics should not be unexpected.  That does emphasize how the labels of political science are useful only to an extent.  World War II (1939-1945) has often been called the great conflict between democracy and fascism but its bloodiest theatre was Europe’s eastern front where in what Moscow styled the “Great Patriotic War” (1941-1945), the battle was between communism and fascism yet even if one finds Laurence Britt’s list of 14 in some way flawed, there’s an extraordinary degree to which it can be mapped onto both comrade Stalin’s (1878-1953; Soviet leader 1924-1953) “communist” system and Adolf Hitler’s (1889-1945; Führer (leader) and German head of government 1933-1945 & head of state 1934-1945) fascist regime.  To synthesize the factors for the list, assessed not on the constructs of Hitler and Benito Mussolini (1883-1945; Duce (leader) & prime-minister of Italy 1922-1943) but also those built by General "Muhammad" Suharto (or Soeharto) (1921-2008; president of Indonesia 1967-1998), Generalissimo Francisco Franco (1892-1975; Caudillo of Spain 1939-1975) and General Augusto Pinochet (1915-2006; dictator of Chile 1973-1990).

Another obvious mapping now is probably the People’s Republic of China (PRC), run since 1949 by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).  Early in September 2023, it was reported the CCP intended to ban clothes which “hurt national feelings” and a draft law outlawing speech and dressing “detrimental to the spirit of Chinese people” is already under consideration.  It has been confirmed that under the proposed statute, people found guilty could be fined or jailed and the move to crack down on subversive clothing is one of a number of proposed changes to public security laws, the first substantive reform in decades.  No details have yet been released beyond it being said those who wear or force others to wear clothing and symbols which “undermine the spirit or hurt the feelings of the Chinese nation” could be detained for up to 15 days and fined up to 5,000 yuan (US$680).  In parallel, anyone who creates or disseminate articles or speech with the same effect would face the same punishment and in that aspect the CCP was more specific, indicating the proposed laws will prohibit “insulting, slandering or otherwise infringing upon the names of local heroes and martyrs” as well as vandalism of the memorials of their lives.

How to "hurt national feelings": Lindsay Lohan in costume as Suicide Squad’s Harley Quinn (a comic book character created by DC Comics), “Halloween bash”, Albert's Club, South Kensington, London, October 2016.  Any young Chinese lady wearing this might risk being accused of being dressed in a manner “detrimental to the spirit of Chinese people” and be fined or sent to “re-education” camp. 

On the vibrant, if by Western standards still respectful, Chinese social media, concerns were expressed that the notion of “detrimental to the spirit of Chinese people” was so vague and allow police officers and others a broad scope of personal interpretation about what the words meant that it would be impossible for people to be certain if they were complying.  One commentator cited the example of a Chinese woman who had been detained (even before any such law was passed) at a music concert because she was wearing a kimono, a classic style of Japanese attire.  Given that, it was asked whether wearing a suit & tie, a style which originated in the capitalist West would on the same basis be thought likely to “hurt national feelings”.  Given it’s the apparently compulsory uniform for the upper echelons of the CCP (including the Central Committee), that seems unlikely but does indicate how difficult it would be to codify such a rule.  One UK cartoonist once invented the imaginary offence “Being dressed in a manner likely to cause a breach of the peace” to illustrate how UK police might take advantage of such a law.  The woman in the kimono has actually been told exactly that she was dressed in a manner likely to cause a breach of the peace, the authorities in Suzhou accusing her of “picking quarrels and provoking trouble”.  Good, hard crackdowns of displays of individuality are a hallmark of fascist regimes and of late there’s been much attention paid to those wear rainbow colors and other symbols of “Western decadence and depravity” and in his decade at the top, Xi Jinping (b 1953; general secretary of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and paramount leader of the People's Republic of China (PRC) since 2013) has paid much attention to social engineering, re-defining what makes the model Chinese citizen and sartorial matters are the latest to be added to the “morality guidelines” the CCP issued in 2019 which included making compulsory “politeness”, “lowering one’s carbon footprint” and “having faith in Mr Xi and the CCP”.