Perhaps people have forgotten, perhaps they were not even taught, democracy is fragile. I am sorry for the long intro with some voluminous links, if you are happy with your understanding of fascism scroll on down to : My Thoughts

Fascism is a difficult term to define simply so I will start with FDR

Message to Congress on Curbing Monopolies. April 29, 1938

Unhappy events abroad have retaught us two simple truths about the liberty of a democratic people.

The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism—ownership of Government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power.

The second truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if its business system does not provide employment and produce and distribute goods in such a way as to sustain an acceptable standard of living.

THE GROWING CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER.

The Fascist Tradition – John Weiss (1967)

Fascism arises as a result of a dialectical isolation of ideologies: radical leftism on the one pole, radical rightism on the other, each drawing constituency from the interstitial less extreme progressive and conservative masses. The radical right traces its lineage back to the feudal aristocracy, reluctantly forced to accept social reform following the triumph of liberal democracy that sprang from the enlightenment and French Revolution. The classical liberals were by no means the antecedents of the modern progressives and socialists however. Firm establishment of property rights and limited suffrage would found the basis for capitalism and its rapid successes during the 18th and 19th centuries, thus it is the conservative movement that shares the values of classical liberalism. The oppressive conditions capitalism subjected upon the working class spurred the radical socialist movement, and its companion reformist movement. Demands for universal suffrage, tolerable working conditions, wealth distribution, among others, and a growing fear of socialist revolution sparked a counter-reaction among conservatives in both Italy and Germany at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century. Constituents of the conservatives included the industrialists, the aristocracy, as well as middle class shopkeepers, all of whom called upon their representatives to resist reform at any cost. Conservatives in turn resorted to commissioning radical rightist groups (e.g. blackshirts) to terrorize and violently disrupt the leftist movement. The growing necessity for reactionary measure allows for an organized fascist party to gradually gain power via traditional election (Mussolini and, to lesser extent, Hitler both seized power ultimately, though there was little to no resistance from the incumbency). The employment of deceptive, anti-semitic, racist rhetoric, the propagation of hyper-nationalist values, promise of increased welfare for the lower class, all work to turn sentiment in fascist favor. Racism, though not necessarily anti-semitism, and imperialism, are necessary conditions of fascism.

A useful book on the subject A History of Fascism, 1914–1945 Stanley G. Payne centred around Spanish Fascism.

Trotsky on Fascism

What is fascism? The name originated in Italy. Were all the forms of counter-revolutionary dictatorship fascist or not (That is to say, prior to the advent of fascism in Italy)?

The former dictatorship in Spain of Primo de Rivera, 1923-30, is called a fascist dictatorship by the Comintern. Is this correct or not? We believe that it is incorrect.

The fascist movement in Italy was a spontaneous movement of large masses, with new leaders from the rank and file. It is a plebian movement in origin, directed and financed by big capitalist powers. It issued forth from the petty bourgeoisie, the slum proletariat, and even to a certain extent from the proletarian masses; Mussolini, a former socialist, is a "self-made" man arising from this movement.

Primo de Rivera was an aristocrat. He occupied a high military and bureaucratic post and was chief governor of Catalonia. he accomplished his overthrow with the aid of state and military forces. The dictatorships of Spain and Italy are two totally different forms of dictatorship. It is necessary to distinguish between them. Mussolini had difficulty in reconciling many old military institutions with the fascist militia. This problem did not exist for Primo de Rivera.

The movement in Germany is analogous mostly to the Italian. It is a mass movement, with its leaders employing a great deal of socialist demagogy. This is necessary for the creation of the mass movement.

The genuine basis (for fascism) is the petty bourgeoisie. In italy, it has a very large base -- the petty bourgeoisie of the towns and cities, and the peasantry. In Germany, likewise, there is a large base for fascism....

It may be said, and this is true to a certain extent, that the new middle class, the functionaries of the state, the private administrators, etc., can constitute such a base. But this is a new question that must be analyzed....

In order to be capable of foreseeing anything with regard to fascism, it is necessary to have a definition of that idea. What is fascism? What are its base, its form, and its characteristics? How will its development take place? It is necessary to proceed in a scientific and Marxian manner.

My Thoughts

We live in a world we seem more willing once again to give individuals mythical status and immense powers to negate even the power of the collective elected democratic legislatures. For example Presidential executive orders. We have violent reactions by the press when these "leaders" powers are questioned e.g. the reaction in the British media when the courts repeated the law of the land with respect to parliaments powers. Trumps reactions to the media is another example of this. The Authorisation to use Military Force a perfect example of centralisation of power into the hands of one person. Democracy has not only been denied, it has been given away and congress led the way

With respect to the media the consolidation of our main source of information is tied up in mega corporations and in the hands of a few individuals, you can tell the politics of someone by merely which channels they watch. It is a 24/7 never ending drip of propaganda/disinformation for the most part, approved by its controlling boards/individuals.

In the our corner of the World [N.America and Europe] fear of the other has been ramped out not just with respect to Muslims but any immigrant i.e. fear of the other. When I hear phrases like "the whites will soon be in the minority" I cringe, as if my colour determines my racism or absence thereof. When "white privilege" is thrown in my face if I disagree, the so called left in the "US" has been pretty good at this lately I would argue that any reference to gender, race, religion or even where you live in the country as a defence/attack of a political position is worthless. You can attach any prejudice you like, it's still unjustifiable. It in effect weakens any resistance to demagoguery, in fact in my view it propagates it and allows hatreds to fester. It's a deliberate and malign means of division, its one objective to gain power.

Watch to partisans arguing, its not an argument, it's a spittle producing competition and its is never ending on any program even vaguely political. The politics of confrontation.

Meanwhile the accumulation of wealth and power into fewer and fewer hands goes on with barely a hiccup our only reaction is that we vote based on identity as if somehow we were born with a D or R brand on our asses. Somehow a mere letter after your name defines who you are [sadly with some truth to it] if you dare an "I" then you are not with us but against us and anyway a third party only helps the other side of the "D-R" duopoly. Hell, there are only so many parties the rich can afford after all.

The ease with which this concentration of power and identity politics has resurfaced since the fall from grace of the two great "isms" fascism and communism has been startling. We have gone deep into oligarchy and may well be coming out the other side back into fascism, there is in fact not much difference between them

Fascism: A form of government which is an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing.
Oligarchy: Oligarchy is a type of government controlled by a small group of people.

My opinion of the last election was that it was between Oligarchs v Facists with the oligarchs on the winning side no matter who won.

Going back to FDR

That, in its essence, is Fascism—ownership of Government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power.

We have given it them on a silver plate.

Bon appétit.