Here is something to consider from Portland folksinger David Rovics:

This David Rovics rant has content people today ought to absorb. But I do have some critical thoughts:

1) Should we really call the Trump, Bolsonaro etc. faithful "neofascists"? At one point in the video, Rovics calls them "wingnuts," and that seems more appropriate. The Fascists were far more ideologically organized than the authoritarian fools of today, who are often ideologically incoherent. The Fascists had a forward-looking authoritarianism: Hitler, for instance, anticipated a "thousand-year empire." Hitler's idea of utopia was the most ferocious Hell, but it was a utopia nonetheless. Today all mainstream political positions are based on nostalgic visions of various imagined pasts, as sold by historical drama on film and its fantasy equivalents, Star Trek and Star Wars. "Fascism" today seems more like von Papenism without Hitler than it does Hitlerism. Fascism existed in an era of expanding capitalism; today capitalism is in decline, and the fascism of our era is cosplay, accompanied by neoliberal Hell.

1a) Is there really anything to be said for the idea of "ideology" anymore, except that ideology is something the powerful say so that the less-powerful will like them? With Hitler you knew where he stood -- kill the Jews, ethnic-cleanse eastern Europe. It was coherently evil. He said he would do all that in 1925 and was granted an opportunity to conquer the world simply because the public face of the elites, bad then as now, was that they weren't taking this guy seriously. But now? The primary lesson of four years of Trump might be that ideology doesn't have to be coherent, as cult leader Trump is basically a rich lazy guy who mouths horrible nonsense and goes off to play golf. For that matter, leadership doesn't have to be mentally healthy even under so-called democracy, as Trump was an obvious narcissist. But, yeah, go up to some Trumpies and ask them what they think they're getting by trying to put a narcissist in the White House (when they got damned little of anything when they did it the last time). Don't expect a coherent response.

2) Aren't the "neofascists" also neoliberals? It seems to me that the primary difference between (D) and (R) neoliberalism is the especially rancid and authoritarian flavor to (R) neoliberalism. Neoliberalism is still neoliberalism; the general principle behind it is that the great mass of people are to be made impotent through mandatory participation in "markets" (in which they don't have the money to buy anything and in which their labor-power fetches no adequately-paying customers).

3) So what about the closest approximation to actual, pre-World War II Fascism we've seen in our lifetimes -- which is to say, the regime of George W. Bush? Perhaps one reason why ideology is now incoherent and economy is a free-for-all for powerful buzzards in human form is that discussing history is not allowed?