Benito Mussolini divided the history of capitalism from 1830 to at least 1933 into "heroic capitalism" (1830-1870), "static capitalism" (1870-1914) and "supercapitalism" (1914-?). Are this division, similar ones or ones derived from it used by modern scholars?
Short answer: No.
Long answer: Fascism never really developed into a coherent intellectual paradigm like Marxism did, in large part due to fascist states starting and losing WWII. While Marxism has suffered similar reputational costs due to the end of the Cold War, it was around long enough, and was politically popular enough—although never truly popular outside of the Communist bloc—that some of its ideas percolated into more mainstream typographies. It helps that Sociology in its earliests phases was heavily influenced by Marx, and there is no similar discipline in the social sciences where fascism played a major role.
Consequently, once fascism was no longer a significant political force at the conclusion of WWII, there was no longer an intellectual reason to continue to use Mussolini's typology. The typology was further harmed by being, fundamentally analytically useless, which is what you get when you let an under-educated, pseudo-intellectual buffoon develop your historiography.