Um, no. Fascism is forcing and/or coercion. Socialism is not.
Fascism is authoritarian control under an all-powerful ruler. A fascist ruler is basically a dictator that can tell people what they can or cannot do.
Socialism is state ownership of businesses with decentralized voting to determine outcomes (without centralized dictatorial capabilities or power), strong unions, and unlimited strike capabilities. Socialism is pretty much the opposite of political coercion.
The origins of socialism never considered rights or any other matters of actual law in practice. Its intellectual foundation was curing the economic ills of the world by any means necessary. Westerners, however--especially those spoiled rotten with English common law--presume their governments to have self-checking mechanisms to not commit unconscionable acts; an extremely stupid, ignorant, and naive presumption. Pursuit of policy to cure economic ills doesn't mean policy or government entities like police or military cannot be also coercive. The socialist presumes himself and his government ideology to be innately conscionable through the emotional basis of curing economic ills, and not by the design and actions of the laws, organizations, etc themselves. For the laws to stand, the foundation must be protected, and "foundation protection" is justified by "for the economic benefits".
Fascism is based on the beliefs of:
1. Nationalism
2. A proper social order(often racially based)
3. some messianic ruler
can cure the perceived ills of society.
But again, none of these elements behind fascism concern the government itself being able to act or being systemically prevented from acting. Thus, fascism a belief system can also only be described as "ends justify the means". Just that the means are a hodgepodge groups of things rather than one.
The messianic ruler was a matter of result in Germany and Italy, in which said politician worked the system in order end systemic deposing of the leader. Little appreciation or attention is paid to how axioms present presented an exploit or that the American system is exceptionally more robust than other "democracies" at stopping an attempt to establish a dictatorship; not because of voting, but because of the permanent rules present.
It only stands naturally, that to achieve whatever vision some -ism follower wants, power must be obtained and then maintained in perpetuity. Without a systemic chokehold on government, maintenance of power can go as heavy-handed and nosy as government wants.
Decentralized voting is an external artifact not bothered with in socialist creeds; it happens to be a feature because many societies just happen to adopt some sort voting-based system to select rulers and the revolutionary-based method is not exactly reliable or acceptable. Nor is it even relevant in matters where populace consents to permanent mono-party rule. Nor is it the primary means of rights enforcements. Laws outlive the politicians or judges that help set down the rules. It is the courts and being able to file suit that really enforces rights , not some -ism.
Welfare programs are claimed by socialists, but it only expands the cost of the government, not its legal powers over people except for the increase in tax dollars.
