OTOH, abundant freedoms such as the right to privacy, habeas corpus, freedom of the press, etc., indicate that the US doesn't seem to be generally moving in the direction of fascism. Generally speaking, I think it fair to say that US citizens enjoy more rights and freedoms now than they did during WWII. The same is true of WWII era US citizens, they enjoyed more rights and freedoms than most US citizens during Reconstruction. Rinse. Latter. Repeat.
But to be fair, that these freedoms exist doesn't mean that there aren't those who are trying to move the US to a different place vis a vis personal freedoms.
Fascism: an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.
If the people have a say in their government, then it is not "authoritarian" enough a system to be called "fascist". Further, and I feel this is even more important, the vast majority of people who decry our government as "fascist" or "moving towards fascism" are 1) unaware of the definition of fascism, and 2) have yet to do the necessary logical footwork to persuade me that the introduction of fascism wouldn't be an improvement to what we have now.
All this whining about the loss of "personal freedoms" is typical of those who are insulated from real problems; because they have no real problems, these hypothetical problems and minor air travel inconveniences become The Biggest Problem, and Evidence of the Slippery Slope of the Erosion of Freedom. No matter how many morons claim it, it never becomes reality.
I doubt you read the rest of my comment. Please go back and do so. You seem to have taken my point about rights and freedoms to mean the exact opposite of what I wrote. Freedom in the US is probably at or close to an all time high. This indicates that the US is no where close to being a fascist state.
Pol Pot, Nikolai Ceausescu, Li Si, António Salazar, Idi Amin, Jean-Claude Duvalier, and Enver Hoxha. Of them, Salazar was almost "elected" (if you count appointment by your friends who held a coup as "election"), and all of them were actually fascist, totalitarian state leaders.
That I addressed concerns that were not yours does not indicate that I am unaware of what you were saying. It indicates that what I am arguing against (eg: the claim that America is "moving towards fascism") is incorrect, and that I am not straying from that point.
It takes an authoritarian regime to be fascist, but not every authoritarian regime is fascist. Most of the dictators you mentioned don't have the corporatism that is one of the central tenets of fascism. Others lack the collectivism. Others like the populism. Some are simply petty thugs with no real ideology.
"You can't really know something until you ruin it for everyone." -some guy who used to have an account here [ Parent ]
Granted, a state can be fascist and a kleptocracy. But it seems fairly clear to me that by the time the Duvalier's voluntarily went into exile that virtually all the fascist elements of the government had decayed into chaos. If MNS has listed Francois Duvalier, I'd probably not have crossed him off the list.