Eco’s list seemed the best as an introduction to the subject. No framework is perfect. But how one writes a survey is different than how one might attempt to definitively answer the question.

The criticism that Eco’s list is rather generalized is a valid one but really only in the way it’s sometimes used. The entire point of it was to note traits fascist movements share. When approaching it, that must always be kept in mind.

I’ve only recently written a piece on this very topic here on Medium that covers it in more detail and does draw conclusions.

I would suggest that Hitler’s list is far too contextual to contemporary issues within post-WWI Germany to be useful for our purposes.

Not only that, it’s a propaganda document from the earliest days of Nazism. There’s a lot of real Nazism in it, to be sure, but once the fascists seized power, the more radical planks in it were ignored. They’re only indicative of a fascist movement in that they illustrate how fascists will make entirely false promises in order to try to weasel their way into power.

There is no necessary connection between fascism and economics.

There is, in fact, no connection at all. Fascism isn’t an economic doctrine and had no economic doctrine. “Economic policy” under fascism is ad hoc — whatever needs to be done to serve the perceived interests of the day. Fascists are pro-capitalist, meaning they’re with the money-men, but that’s a manifestation of fascism’s partnership with traditional conservative elites, not something born of any commitment to capitalism itself. Some writers have argued the alliance makes it a form of capitalism. I don’t necessarily disagree; I just think that’s a more ideological than historical conclusion that comes loaded with some assumptions that haven’t proven sound.