I remember reading, in better times about a decade ago, the fascism article in a philosophy encyclopedia. It summarily introduced the main ideas, and then dismissed them as utterly invalidated by their actual existence etc.
Was there ever any doubt that fascism was not an attractive political philosophy?
If not, then why: i.e. what can be pointed to in fascist political philosophy which cannot or just should not work?
Emmanuel Levinas took Nazism seriously enough to pen a very astute rebuttal. See his 1934 essay Reflections on the Philosophy of Hitlerism (reprinted in Unforeseen History).
Some argue that the vast majority of Heidegger's political writings are little more than regurgitated Nazism. Certainly German and Italian intellectuals at the time drew deeply on Heidegger's writings. The literature on whether or not one can separate Heidegger's Nazism from his philosophy is a vast and deep pool.
Lastly, "state of exception" theorists like Carl Schmitt and Giorgio Agamben argue for something very similar to Mussolini's Fascism.
Yes, Machiavelli urged that the monarch must rule using fascist authority because it was the responsibility by birthright. He goes on to explain that it is a necessity that benefits the people, as they are meant to be ruled, given the dialectical relationship between ruler and vassals. Hegel describes a similar relationship which he identifies as the "Master and Slave" relationship (though Hegel discusses it metaphysically, while Machiavelli believes its Divine Ascription and therefore a literal application).
