The essay considers even one of the 14 characteristics enough for fascism to coagulate around, and additionally uses a comparison of family resemblance to suggest that one or more of the characteristics can be missing yet still be fascist, including if two "families" have no overlap of traits yet are connected via transitivity.

It seems a bit too broad and abstract, and many of the 14 traits can seemingly be applied to revolutionary radical movements of socialism, communism, race (like BLM), either in the rhetoric of these movements or the practice which doesn't seem quite right or compatible with the various other definitions of fascism by Paxton/Griffin/Payne which are more concrete in how they define fascism like the ultranationalism and rebirth.

It also seems like it can easily be applied by anyone to many movements or cultures. For example, I can see a right wing reactionary applying this list to the contemporary "left". For instance:

1. The Cult of Tradition can be applied to marxists who focus on reading works of marx/engels and refine it for the current era, but still treat it as a truth that was laid out. It can also be applied to anti-colonialists who wish to reconnect to their culture that may have been taken from them and its various teachings.

2. Rejection of Modernism which includes the spirit of enlightenment that opened everything up for debate in the name of reason. In the contemporary era many reactionaries came from the pipeline of "Internet Atheists" who applied this doubt/cynicism to issues such as feminism, transgender rights, socialism, marxism to the extent many simply shut them out or ignore them as being in bad faith which they can consider a rejection of the principles of enlightenment

3. Disagreement is treason: You see various... "cannibalistic" elements to the left where even different groups like communists/anarchists see themselves as ideological enemies, and "cancellation" by public shaming can be seen as a manifestation of this/ This can also be seen as leading to 4) fear of difference in terms of ideology or intent where they may consider purity tests and those imperfect may be seen as intruders whether or not its real

4. Appeal to a frustrated middle class or social frustration: This seems pretty common to most any movement for social change.

5. Obsession with a Plot: This can be seen as a focus on the capitalistic systems, imperliastic systems, the patriarchy etc depending the movement and the various machinations of these systems to undermine the movement and the people

6. Enemies cast as too strong and too weak simultaneously: Various movements on the left consider the oppressive power structures (that i listed in 6) to be very powerful, yet weak and scared of the collective power of the people which is why they need to engage in various machinations to distract and undermine

7. pacifism is siding with the enemy and permanent warfare: Many of the power structures I listed earlier can be considered large enough enemies that it can get people involved in a life of permanent conflict/warfare. Pacifism can be considered the same as kowtowing to the status quo and many leftists consider violent revolution the only way to replace many of these structures an would see centrists or those looking for peaceful solutions as fascist enablers. This might even blend into 9) action for actions sake

8. Contempt for the weak: The concept of privilege and fragility can seemingly backdoor its way into this. Those privileged are considered soft, and thus fragile, while the less privileged are considered to have endured more and thus strong. Thus there is a contempt for those with privilege and their weakness

... and so on.

So basically I'm asking, how useful is the Ur-Fascism essay, and what context should it be applied in?