I've said this before: if someone would nail a term down hard enough so it holds still, I'll be glad to use it. You can even make one up. I've noticed that a major tactic of the political debate in this country is to neutralize the language to the point where you can no longer point to something and say "that's what it is." It's the fundamental idea of "newspeak."

There are many people in this country who think a centralized authority should control every aspect of how business is done, and for that matter, almost every aspect of how everything is done. Great and small. After all, if things are left up to local authorities and the individual, they'll just make the "wrong" decisions. A system where a centralized authority controls everything can be named in several ways, but doing that just falls into the trap. I'm assuming people can hold an abstract concept in their heads without labeling it.

Note that both communist and fascist societies fall comfortably into this larger category. People who have lived under fascist and communist societies have noticed very little difference between their secret police, barbed wire, economic misery, controls over the individual and economic system, corrupt leadership, aggressive militarism, and prison camps. It's like being told that the Crips and the Bloods are on opposite ends of an ideological spectrum because they wear different colors and are trying to kill each other. Hitler and Stalin were actually allies for a while (oddly timed with a large anti-war movement in the American left). They became enemies because they were rivals for power over Europe and western Asia. Mussolini hated communists because the communists wanted to run things instead of him. Ideology had damn little to do with it.

"Dictatorship of the middle class" has no meaning, unless you have redefined both "dictatorship" and "middle class."