yeah i mean, we can definitely give a rational reconstruction of it; i think if anything is fundamentally characteristic of it its a rejection of liberal pluralism. all i mean to say is that, when we try to dig underneath those characteristics, at bottom, they rest on kneejerk revulsion, not argument. like, theres no rawls of fascism. paxton describes it as an appeal to the passions at the expense of reason, and i think thats borne out when we look at who could possibly qualify as the rawls of fascism: schmitt and gentile are pretty clear that their whole shtick is legitimizing -under certain conditions, some more, some less extensive- the suspension of reciprocal respect for persons in order to assert raw, naked will to power. that is intellectually interesting but its not really intellectually defensible. its more like an admission that your interlocutor doesnt give a shit about engaging you in good faith.
