Varoufakis argues global elites are following a “blueprint for the revival of fascism”, one he imagines dictators Mussolini, Hitler and Franco might have written “had [they] gotten together in 1945”.
He told the audience the modern “manual” starts by attacking crony capitalism, big business and financial elite — views traditionally associated with the political left – before turning against democratic institutions such as public broadcasters and universities.
https://thepoint.com.au/news/260312-varoufakis-fascism-is-darkening-our-doorsteps
Fascism is a broader tent than, say, Italian Fascism or Nazism. But lets take an extreme example to first illustrate that the term 'fascism' is relevant today - there are organisations on our streets (e.g. the NSN) loudly and proudly attempting to revive the core aspects of those movements - so we should be calling these people neo-fascists (or, more loosely, fascists) even if conditions and tactics have changed significantly.
Fascism, even before WWII, was a nebulous term, even among themselves, and for various reasons it always will be, but some scholars have made useful characterisations, a notable one being Umberto Eco's "Ur-Fascism" listing general properties of fascism. And as we see neoliberalism, which is what's happening today and has been happening for decades, falling further and further into crisis, we've seen a consistent rise of movements resembling fascism, which co-mingle with self-proclaimed fascists. Look at One Nation and their links to the upper owning class (notably Gina Rinehart) and their heavy presence in the speaking list of the neo-Nazi "March for Australia" rallies. Whether or not we wish to nitpick about what exact moment such things become 'fascism', it's perfectly valid to look at this trend, its many shared characteristics, and say yes, fascism is on our doorstep.
What about, say, the present USA, do you think is important enough of a difference that we shouldn't group it together with early 1930s fascist movements?