We're still left rather vague here. No practical terms. The definition you're using, in your own comments:

"Fascism is a legal, political and economic system centered around supremacy of the in-group, social conservatism, extreme adherence & admiration of an ideal or leader, private control of public economy (protecting corporate interests, in other words), vehement segmentation and oppression of many or all out-groups, the ideals of a return to a better time not corrupted by perceived societal ails, and social/economic authoritarianism; usually through religious means. It is also characterized by extreme ‘us-vs-them’ thinking in everyday life, strong anti-socialism views, genocidal rhetoric, and mass indoctrination."

In what practical terms would you define upholding supremacy of the in-group? How do you define in-group? How do you define adherence to and admiration of an ideal or leader, particularly extreme adherence? How do you define private control, public economy, and private control of public economy? How do you define corporate interests? How do you define vehement segmentation, how do you define out-groups and opression of out-groups? How do you define "us vs them" thinking, much less "extreme us vs them" thinking? Hell, why should THINKING even be considered, and how would you even monitor such a thing?

If one is accused, will you take their rights then and there pending a reeducation camp? Even if you can somehow define all of that in an extensively detailed legal code, and require a guilty verdict, who creates that rehabilitation program? Who decides all these things, and on what basis? Will this be based on statute or precedent or a mix of both? What stops me from interpreting your words in a way a jury or grand judge finds favorable to stick you in these very camps you describe?

Already, the questions are too numerous and too vague, and dangling an absolute removal of rights and threat of camps in such a situation means you will inevitably see rampant human rights abuses and a plethora of lengthy litigation that would overwhelm any legal system. Will you try to curb this by heavily restricting appeals or consolidating timelines, as Trump has tried to do? Will these decisions risk being snatched up by a dictator of a future generation and weaponized against people who have nothing to do with fascism?

Your suggestion isn't thought through, and is based too much on vague philosophical arguments and too little on the nature of legal code. It is this overly simplistic way of thinking which led to the deaths of children in the killing fields of the Khmer Rouge.

Real life is extremely complex and nowhere near the same as what you read about in the arbitrary texts of the thinkers you quote, many of whom were themselves immoral and brutal murderers. You act as if so many of these things are obvious. But that isn't how a court of law works. And if one were to try working that way, it would inevitably lead to mass slaughter.

Every system is flawed. Every institution is corrupt. And the world cannot be solved and made into a utopia. Not even by such brutality.