Austria passes controversial new asylum law.

we are still waiting for a viable definition of "fascists" in present times

Fascism is a pretty well defined ideology. It implies:

1. a society where the citizen is monitored from "cradle to grave". So education is replaced by a system of youth organisations; jobs are allocated according to state examination results rather than open applications; unions are controlled by the state; leisure, through sports, vacations, media, etc. is organised by the Government; etc. Only a very centralised, top-bottom administration can enforce such a system, and local powers are therefore only appointed.
2. a single party that is merged with the administration. Public servants must be member of the party. The rank in the party determines the rank in the administration.
3. (thus) that the highest member of the party is also the head of the state. The leader is charismatic -- he organises a personality cult around him -- and almighty.
4. that fascists' goal is to recover the country's former glory through an aggressive foreign policy and an exclusive nationalism ("the country has been corrupted by traitors" ).

Very few political movements match this description, and no country in the world is fascist.

Very few political movements match this description, and no country in the world is fascist.

you do realise that your definition (except, arguably, for point 4) also applies to most Soviet-type communist States ?

so, what is the point of using a specific ideological category, "fascism" ?

fascism, in my view, should be put in its historical context : in particular between the two wars, as an extreme reaction to the "red scare", based on a mix of nationalism, anti-democratic militarism, but also "traditional" values : all this, helped by the Great Depressionone can also speak of "fascism" in present days if he really wants to (as one can use other historical concepts such as "oligarchy", or "radicalism' etc) but one should be very careful in throwing around such labels, and should clearly explain his definition : to use it simply as an ideological hammer to hit on the head people someone doesn't like is stupid

No, because Soviet dictatorships advocated a complete control of the economy and the abolition of private property, whilst fascists only wanted to control the economy - without owning it.

I think people - especially left wingers - have said fascism so much - an ideology that is very narrowly defined - as a way to absolve Communism from its crimes.
I prefer to use the words dictatorship or totalitarianism as they have broader definitions. The differences between the three main totalitarian regimes are indeed small.

you're probably not a troll, just a cuckold