Well for one we're almost totally devoid of the type of rabid nationalism which is associated with fascist society, and even while that does exist in some sectors we are missing the violent opposition to other ideologies (ie if you don't love the state you get your face kicked in).
You saying what you're saying here is evidence enough of that.
We are also missing the absolute dedication to capitalistic gains (capitalism and fascism are hopelessly linked) which has often been the virus which brings fascism to its full fruition. What I mean by this is that we still have in place a myriad of social safety nets and these are still largely supported by the masses (social security, medicare, unemployment benefits, etc). Social programs like these are not components of fascism and in fact have often been the first things to be dismantled in fascist states.
You have offered an EXTREMELY oversimplified definition of fascism here. What you've described could just as easily be described as oligarchy or plutocracy, and these are in fact probably better approximations to the societal structure we're working under in this country.
We lack a "supreme leader" something which is 99% of the time a feature of fascism, and the person around which overnationalistic feelings rally.
Furthermore our class system is far too varied yet to be simply boiled down to bourgeoisie/proletariat. Things are certainly stacking in the favor of the rich, but even among the rich there is a lack of centralization of power.
In fact most of the power is centralized within corporations as you point out. The proper way to describe such a system is a corporatocracy, not facism. Facism doesn't require collusion with corporations but is rather much more about a centralization of power into an executive branch or (most often) a dictatorship.
Just because we have elected a bunch of asshats who can't get together and do anything doesn't mean our power is centralized in this country. Quite far from it. "Parlimentary" interests, if you will, still hold sway in this country. In fact the congress is still very much the single most powerful entity in this country and it is made up of many hundreds of elected persons.
Beyond all, fascism has most often been a movement
of the people which has sought to centralize power--often in response to extreme economic downturn. So it was with Mussolini and Hitler. The people, not corporations, overwhelmingly gave these men their power.
Today we see a different structure, where power flows from corporations downward--this was made even more pronounced by citizens united.
The structure of fascism is different, where the power flows from a centralized group of government officials (and usually from a single dictator) and they then place high priority on corporate interests. Corporations are, thus, very important and powerful--but only because the supreme leaders wish it to be so.
That paradigm is reversed in our country right now.
Like I said you can make the argument that perhaps we're setting the stage for fascism here, and that might not be way off the mark--but the reality is that we're nothing close to a true fascist state at this precise moment.
The executive branch, while it's done it's best job of grabbing power in the last 20ish years, still has quite a way to go before it can do away with congress. Marginalizing congress' power would have to be step 1 to establishing a fascist society, and even while they have neutered themselves with their own stupidity--were they able to make some decisions those decisions would be binding.
You're missing so many of the building blocks of fascism here to even begin to make a worthy case that it's what we're looking at.
What were looking at certainly is not good, but it's also not fascism.
The point I'm making is that it's better to simply call it out for what it is--which you've basically done by making your smaller points here. There's no need to overextend and call it fascism. That discredits your viewpoint because you've introduced a flawed, and essentially false, equivalency.
It's better to just say, as you have,
We tax our own citizens into poverty to pay for the largest, most destructive military machine in human history... and then of COURSE, we need to test it- and keep everyone else in line by holding them to standards we don't live up to ourselves- soooo... we go into 'limited engagements', which inevitably spiral into long, drawn out, profitable events for all the defense contractors and their shareholders. Paranoid? Nah. Go look it up yourself! Check out who has the biggest law firm in the country doing their lobbying? Lockheed Martin. Even bigger than Monsanto, and oh yeah- it's illegal for you to build anything that might be a competitive product. They really like to keep all their toys to themselves!
In America, we don't have illegal corruption- we just bribe a senator to legalize it!
We already have a privileged class in this country, and it's getting richer as the rest of the country is getting progressively poorer. This is the class with access to the ears and levers of power, so they're happy.
That's bad enough without having to errantly call it fascism, is it not?
It sounds pretty shitty to me, I don't see the need to make a further connection beyond what is the blatant truth you've stated here.
My fear is that by calling what we have now fascism (as many do) we run the risk of failing to put a stop to it before it ACTUALLY becomes fascism, and then by that time we'll have been drowned out as the "boy who cried wolf".
Wait until blatant fascism rears its head if its going to, that way when it does the attention that word gets will be deserved and it will make an impact--because there will be no mistaking that it is the right word.
As for now, there are better words to describe what is happening.
I'm not saying we need to gas people to be fascists, but we should be closer to the real thing.
If anything we've set a bunch of fascist conditions via the congress such that things like what you pointed out with Lockheed are possible. This isn't a case of some dictator coming in and paving the way for Lockheed. In precisely the opposite way that fascists would have done it, we used congress to make that happen.
If anything we've become too corporatized in that sense (ie corporatocracy).