Other than that either your witness to even recent, well-publicized events is quite spotty or your understanding of fascism is quite broken, I'm not sure what one is supposed to take from this statement.
* dictatorial power
* totalitarian one party state
* embrace of political violence as a means to silence opposition
* strong opposition to Marxism, liberalism, conservatism
* radical nationalism
* nationalist economic policy through protectionist schemes
What about a group of employees collectively organizing and protesting non-violently against an internal board at a privatized company is exactly fascist?
eg for the Nazis, "Fascist" still meant the Italian party despite their own party having quite a large overlap in philosophy. Every political movement seems to care more about internal differences far more than outsiders do (see People's Front of Judea).
It was always hard to pin down and never really ever had a strict definition - just an incomplete collection of possible tendencies (see the Wikipedia article above).
But yeah, usage has always been loose/overused.
* dictatorial power
* totalitarian one party state
* embrace of political violence as a means to silence opposition
* strong opposition to Marxism, liberalism, conservatism
* radical nationalism
* nationalist economic policy through protectionist schemes
National Socialism and Fascism are identified as "right," but this is primarily through the application of nationalism, conquest, and opposition to communism. Look under those fig leafs, and you find something very different.
National Socialism and Fascists consistently implemented socialist policies. Under National Socialism, control by the state was so complete, the private ownership meant nothing. Property owners were called Betriebsfurhrer -- basically shop managers enacting state policy. What was made, who it was sold to, how much was charged, and how much the workers were paid were largely determined by the government. National Socialism was strongly against liberal democracy. (Liberalism in the 19th century Classical Liberal sense, which in 2019 is labeled "conservatism" in the US.) They were also openly against free markets, multi-party democratic government, freedom of speech, and other individual human rights. Mussolini started out as a Socialist, and at one point, he literally styled himself, "The Lenin of Italy." Also, many of the essentially socialist policies of National Socialist Germany in the 1930's garnered praise from American progressives.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNJzqqh-jRw
What about a group of employees collectively organizing and protesting non-violently against an internal board at a privatized company is exactly fascist?
The collectivism is a shared attribute of Fascism. Also, as observed in a different comment, if they are suppressing dissent and speech in their own ranks and using pressure tactics to keep their own ranks in line, then this is another shared attribute.
Sure, state control is a hallmark of fascism/totalitarianism. However, the USSR did not have a socialist mode of production essentially because of the lack of worker control of the state (and therefor the means of production).
I would argue that if the state owns the means of production, then the state must necessariy have some kind form of democratic control by the citizens in order to be considered socialist. The USSR may have had this very early on, but as Stalin rose to power it slipped away and became what is known as state capialism.
There needs to be a distinction between a "socialist country" (as in, a country with a socialist mode of production where the workers control the means of production) and "country rules by socialists" (USSR, China, Cuba, etc) where the means of production is centrally controlled by a government not representative of the population.
As far as I'm concerned, no socialist countries have ever existed for more than a handful of years.
In other words, Marxism, at its core, is at odds with fascism in a fundamental way, and Marxist-Leninists (and by extension Stalinists and Maoists) are fundamentally at odds with Marxism.
I think you can draw a parallel between "people who think they support Marxism" and fascism, but drawing a parallel between Marxism and fascism is a stretch.
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/faq/europe#wiki_...
(Answer: no).
It's a mistake to interpret diction literally. Yes, it would be lovely if people used the word "fascism" to refer to right-wing, ultra-nationalist, authoritarian political movements. But that's not how people use words and the ship has long since sailed on that particular word. According to George Orwell "fascism" has a been a synonym for "bully" since 1944 - http://orwell.ru/library/articles/As_I_Please/english/efasc
"Google employees protesting the makeup of the AI Ethics council appeared like the closest thing to bullying in the USA that I have ever witnessed"
I'm sorry if it sounds like I'm splitting hairs, but I genuinely don't understand what the OP is trying to stay in that statement. Is he saying Google employee's protesting of the AI board is the worst example of bullying they have seen?
It's certainly authoritarian.
Do you see Orwell literally taking up arms in the Spanish Civil War against his ideological opponents instead of debating them—especially when he wasn't even Spanish himself—as having elements of fascism, too?
"Google employees protesting the makeup of the AI Ethics council is disgraceful"