"The accession to power of fascism is not an ordinary succession of one bourgeois government by another, but a substitution of one state form of class domination of the bourgeoisie -- bourgeois democracy -- by another form -- open terrorist dictatorship. It would be a serious mistake to ignore this distinction, a mistake liable to prevent the revolutionary proletariat from mobilizing the widest strata of the working people of town and country for the struggle against the menace of the seizure of power by the fascists, and from taking advantage of the contradictions which exist in the camp of the bourgeoisie itself. But it is a mistake, no less serious and dangerous, to underrate the importance, for the establishment of fascist dictatorship, of the reactionary measures of the bourgeoisie at present increasingly developing in bourgeois-democratic countries -- measures which suppress the democratic liberties of the working people, falsify and curtail the rights of parliament and intensify the repression of the revolutionary movement."
So there is a qualitative difference says Dimitrov.
"Fascism is not a form of state power 'standing above both classes -- the proletariat and the bourgeoisie,' as Otto Bauer, for instance, has asserted. It is not "the revolt of the petty bourgeoisie which has captured the machinery of the state," as the British Socialist Brailsford declares. No, fascism is not a power standing above class, nor government of the petty bourgeoisie or the lumpen-proletariat over finance capital. Fascism is the power of finance capital itself."
This is correct because fascism can only occur in imperialist countries. It is not correct if Dimitrov meant to deny the agency and independent interests of the labor aristocracy. The labor aristocracy in the oppressed nations is pro-Liberal in its outlook and seeks to grow by hooking a ride with the Western imperialists with cushy jobs in multinational corporations. The labor aristocracy in the declining imperialist countries heads inevitably to fascism to provoke a change in imperialist treatment of migrant workers.
Third World dictators can only be fascist as puppets. There is no genuine Third World fascism question, because there is no dominance of finance capital.
So we can say finance capital dominates the system, the petri dish in which fascism grows. Middle classes cannot accomplish authentic fascism in the Third World.
It is only the finance-capital dominated petri dish where fascism grows. Today, the labor aristocracy of ONLY the imperialist countries is the "main force" of fascism, as Mao said the peasants were the "main force" of proletarian revolution guided by proletarian thought in China through the CCP.
The thought of finance capital guides fascism and the labor aristocracy as a wing of parasitism. It was never finance capital marching in the streets for fascism. It was once deluded proletarians and labor aristocracy. Today, fascism has a relative handful of deluded proletarian followers in the Third World who want to be imperialist puppets and who have never succeeded in liberating a country. However, the real social force for fascism in this world is First World labor aristocracy and it deserves even more focus than the Third World puppets doing imperialist bidding.
Fascism imposed by an oppressor nation on another oppressor nation is possible even if both are majority-exploiter.