Those are good quotes. The meaning of the word has become a source of torment to me. It seems that the accurate historical and substantive definition would tends towards "a concentration of private power in the affairs of national government," while the other matters of "patriotism," etc. (even oppression, perhaps) are the wrapping, or possible symptoms. The forties, however, seem to have changed the meaning of the term so greatly as to render it almost useless for communication. The word is used for shock and awe, not to convey the above. (So perhaps we should just drop it from our vocabularies?)

http://www.dissentmagazine.org/menutest/articles/wi04/berman.htm :

"But isn't George Bush himself a fascist, more or less? I mean-admit it!"

My own eyes widened. "You haven't the foggiest idea what fascism is," I said. "I always figured that a keen awareness of extreme oppression was the deepest trait of a left-wing heart. Mass graves, three hundred thousand missing Iraqis, a population crushed by thirty-five years of Baathist boots stomping on their faces-that is what fascism means! And you think that a few corrupt insider contracts with Bush's cronies at Halliburton and a bit of retrograde Bible-thumping and Bush's ridiculous tax cuts and his bonanzas for the super-rich are indistinguishable from that?-indistinguishable from fascism? From a politics of slaughter? Leftism is supposed to be a reality principle. Leftism is supposed to embody an ability to take in the big picture. The traitor to the left is you, my friend . . ."

But this made not the slightest sense to him, and there was nothing left to do but to hit each other over the head with our respective drinks.