mcintyre1
Footballguy
Agreed - Fascism, but it's definition, refers to dictatorial power (nope, he doesn't have that), forcible suppression of opposition (nope, not there, either), and control of the means of production (not even close). So, while people argue about what he may want, he doesn't, nor will ever have these things.
If we shift this conversation to a guy like Maduro, then all of those can be checked 'yes'.
Eh, on this point I get what he's saying here. This isn't a condemnation of all free press in and of itself, just the ones that he sees as so biased that they're no longer news sources but political actors.
While I agree that (at present) the US has enough safeguards in place to prevent a "traditional" fascist from existing in our system, I do have a couple of issues with your argument.
Firstly, I think the "control the means of production" part is too strict a definition of fascism. Not all fascist governments had that and I think the core concepts of fascism can exist without this condition (or with other means in place of this condition, ie. control of trade, tax incentives, etc.).
Secondly, I think it is worth pointing out that many fascist governments arose from countries that had similarly structured governments to our own. The mere presence of institutions to check these powers does not mean they cannot be eventually given.
I guess that would lead to another question of (for example) was Hitler a fascist before he became the Fuhrer, or only afterward? I would argue that he should be labeled as such before he actually had the power, as his goals were clear.
This also ties in a bit to my belief that fascism, while it relies on strong leadership, is not automatically a cult of personality. The goals of the movement don't necessarily derive from a single person ("Great Person"), and thus the death of said person shouldn't be the death of the fascist movement. Of course, we have many counter examples to that in reality, so maybe I'm wrong.