I should preface this that it took me six hours over my shift to write this it may be a bit inconsistent.

Not entirely, but to argue that the US state doesn’t engage in terrorism against segments of the American population is laughable.

So the answer is that no, finance capital, through a favored political party conduit not represented by the tired old bourgeoisie parties of today, has not battered aside parliamentarism and bourgeoise democracy in favor of adopting an openly terroristic home policy in order to continue administrating the heartlands.

Political repression against sections of a nation's population is as old as the agricultural revolution.

Yes? I’m kind of astonished you’d argue this is untrue. Is it because the US doesn’t annex its conquests directly? Vietnam and Korea especially were open genocides. And in both cases puppet states were erected, as with Vichy France.

Although communists understand that it was initiated as a liberation war by Korean communists that intended to free their homeland from the Korean bourgeoisie compradores, the war evolved into a war between spheres of influences of the great powers - that is to say a war to open new markets for finance capital to expand into on the doorstep of the powers that wished to keep them out

A similar story emerges from Vietnam, where Vietnamese communists fought a decolonization war against their victorious allied coalition member French republican colonizers immediately after ww2 and nominally achieved this goal by 54 with the creation of the South Vietnamese bougeoise comporador state. And much like the Korean War, the Vietnam War was fought initially as a war of Liberation by Vietnamese communists intent on freeing their homeland from the compradores in the south and in order to maintain their toehold market that they wished to expand into economically and martially, the war evolved into a war between spheres of power.

Were the wars so absolutely blood-drenched that they are rightfully concidered genocidal, most definitely.

Is genocide the preeminent domain of fascism? Most definitely not.

Moving onto puppet states; in regards to Vichy France, the French puppet state was created for the purpose of utilizing the colonial holdings and Mediterranean navy of France in order to have a solid shield against the allied coalitions own colonial states. This is to say the Vichy puppet state existed primarily not as a sort of puppet government to manage the Annexed French heartlands as demonstrated by the fact that Germany governed northern and western France but as a meat shield against western coalition encroachment. And when the Vichy French armed forces lost control across north-west Africa due to Operation Torch, the Vichy puppet state lost its purpose and was shortly thereafter invaded and annexed by Germany.

In examination of the three nations you chose to name, its historically evident that South Korea was created with the emplacement of initially self-elected bourgeoise compradores who were then 'legitimately elected' by a national assembly composed of elements of the aristocratic, landholder, and bourgeoise groups that relied on their military to maintain their power. Quite obviously not a popular election but elected nonetheless, which is why they are a comporador state.

South Vietnam on the other hand was more directly a French puppet state as the Provisional Government was the King of Vietnam chosen by foreign powers as the legitimate leader of the country. A puppet-king who was thrown out in a sham democratic election to empower the bourgeoisie compradores, who failed to solidify their power due to their religious despotism, were in turn thrown out by their own military in a CIA funded coup to establish a junta for the purpose of getting South Vietnam's act together in combating the North - something the junta still failed to do until LBJ decided to directly intervene with american ground forces. Very fun to read how much of a shitshow the south Vietnam government was between its first republic, junta, junta 2, junta 3 united, and second republic, and how all of that occured over like 12-13 years.

In summary, south Vietnam would be less described as a puppet state but more as a proxy conflict state akin to contemporary Ukraine, but with the caveat that it's state would change masks to suit the circumstances it found itself in over the course of existence.

Finally, Vichy France is the result of the French government pursuing an Armistice with Germany where the prime minister chose to resign in protest instead of supporting the motion to sue for peace lead to the appointment of the crusty old French bastard Philippe Pétain who signed France out of the war, lead it to being a "neutral" state, and became Dictator after the majority of the remnants of the French parliament voted to give him total power and control over the unoccupied part of the country where he proceeded to wipe his ass with the old constitution and make his own new constitution unilaterally. Like I mentioned above, Vichy France's entire existence was predicated on using it as a meatshield against the allied coalition initially through international legalism and later on martially through the Armistice Army maintaining the Mediterranean colonial holdings.

Vichy France, due to the events that lead to Pétain being appointed prime Minister by the flailing French government in order to seek an Armistice, in addition to the fact that their cooperation with Germany was secured through the use of hostages and wide-spread occupation of the French lands, it isn't quite accurate to call them a puppet state but a collaborationist regime.

You'd have an easier time calling the first Slovak Republic a puppet state.

Yes! All of this has and still does occur!

:citations-needed:

You cannot become an American citizen if you’re a Communist!

Hate to say this, but does it make logical sense for a State to allow the immigration and naturalization of foreign subversives who's goal is to pursue the overthrowing of the State they are entering? Capitalist America letting communists immigrate into America makes about as much sense as it would be for Socialist China letting CIA agents immigrate into the country. This point is entirely moot and is moving the goalpost.goalposts.

If you had argued that - the US tries to suppress the Communist and labor movement through actions of their secret police in the shadows and in the sunlight the American state legally stops the labor movement from flexing its muscles and still wields the legal sword of damocles over the head of the Communist movement in the form of the Communist Control Act of 1954 stating that even though it isn't enforced it's still registered as the law of the land. - I'd say you actually had a probable case to argue that the United States is indeed fascist, but you didn't argue any of that as that's all from me and in the most narcissistic form possible I shall argue against myself by getting mad at myself over points I made to try and sink my own point of view.

Keeping it simple, on the secret police disappearing people bit; such a thing isn't the eminent domain of fascism, the concept and execution of the secret police also isn’t remotely new as we can simply point at the life of Marx and how he was dogged by German, French, and English secret police.

In relation to the legal side with the State commonly arbitrating in favor of corporations over unions I also point to how even during Marx's lifetime, before fascism emerged into the world, the State as the arbitrator in settling contradictions between the working class and the owning class would more often than not side with the owning class as the class composition of the State skews heavily in their favor.

Now if you, God forbid, one day bring in news that the entire teamsters union leadership was arrested for subversion against the state for bringing the motion to strike as a collective bargaining unit to a vote, or the Amazon unionization leadership are, God forbid, publicly hung for threatening the general welfare of the American people, then I'd say there's a pretty clear-cut case for the u.s.a finally reaching the bottom of the fascism waterside.

Finally in regards to the Communist Control Act, this one's a bit more tricky as it's a legal gray zone. It exists but it'd not enforced. I've heard some people say it acts as a legal threat to dissuade anyone from getting serious about becoming a communist, and I've also heard that it is unenforceable as it would get probably get shredded in a serious legal battle as it contains such poor writing that making a ruling on it would be too difficult.