The idea of generic fascism is commonplace, as evidenced by a couple of empirical tests via Google and Bing. Type “generic fascism” into Google and 13,000 results appear. For Bing, an astounding 2, 950, 000. (I wonder about my naiveté of the search methods in Bing, however, as an unquoted “generic fascism” returns far fewer findings.)

A search for “generic communism,” in contrast, delivers a mere 379 results in Google and a paltry 23 in Bing. (Unquote “generic communism” and, as expected this time, the number rises to 315,000.)

It would seem that unlike generic fascism, the idea of generic communism has little currency. The first result for “generic fascism” is a scholarly article entitled Fascism: The Origins of Generic Fascism.  The first result for “generic communism” is an article by Marxist philosopher Alain Badiou, wherein he reads into Marx and Engels’ Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts an idea of “generic communism” that could be termed such, as a kind of mental exercise.  

Enter “list of fascist parties” into Wikipedia and a convoluted set of lists of nominally fascist parties – actually, described as “movements” – by country appear.  Nominally because a disclaimer at the top of main page warns that there is no “single, universally accepted definition of fascism,” making most of the entries “bound to be highly controversial.” Said movements are without political power but likely on the FBI’s watch list,  e.g. the Aryan Brotherhood. Note the word “fascist” appears very infrequently in these listings. By my quick count, 230 entries total.

In contrast, type “list of communist parties” into Wikipedia and a one-stop shop for a worldwide listing of parties is presented. Unlike the above listings, movements are not included, omitting some number of “antifa” squads no doubt.  Note the word “communist” appears in almost every entry. 182 entries total.

Given the global dissemination of communist ideas, one would think the concept of generic communism would have gained some adherence by now. I suspect that the generic part – the egalitarianism, the populist conception of capitalists vis-à-vis the working folk – is undermining the recognition of such a concept as something deserving of a category all its own. It’s essentially the default condition of the modal western intellectual, not something to be observed or “on the lookout” for.