January 11, 2025

A Look at Fascism

In recent years, corporate media and political rhetoric have increasingly distorted the meaning of fascism, often conflating it with the “radical left” or using it as a catch-all insult for people and parties that don’t agree with Right-wing talking points. This confusion is no accident—it serves to muddy public understanding and redirect criticism away from movements and ideologies that more closely align with fascism’s historical and ideological characteristics. When we examine fascism as a political system and philosophy, it becomes clear that it is not rooted in the goals of socialism or communism, but rather in ultranationalism, the glorification of hierarchy, the subordination of democracy, and the use of violence to maintain power and suppress dissent.

Clarifying the meaning of fascism is especially urgent today, as the United States grapples with political movements that exhibit strikingly fascistic tendencies. While some commentators and politicians have attempted to brand the left as “fascist” for advocating government intervention in economic systems or progressive social policies, these accusations collapse under scrutiny. Fascism, in its historical context and practical manifestations, aligns far more closely with the far-right movements of the present—particularly in their rejection of democratic norms, their reliance on scapegoating vulnerable populations, and their embrace of authoritarian leadership.

In this context, it is worth asking: which political movements in the U.S. most resemble fascism in their operation and tactics? Movements such as MAGA, centered around Donald Trump’s cult of personality, reveal alarming parallels. The glorification of the leader, the demonization of immigrants and marginalized groups, the rejection of election results, and the use of state-backed violence to suppress dissent are all hallmarks of fascist regimes.

I wanted to be sure I understood what fascism is. I took a modern political thought course as an undergrad, and we read Nietzsche, Arendt, and others who not only considered the active examples and practices of Naziism, but examined the historical and philosophical reasons for its rise in the twentieth century. That said, I’ve been reading some more lately, and I wanted to share what I’ve (re)discovered. Below, I hope to clarify the meaning of fascism by examining its core principles, its historical manifestations, and its connections to capitalism and imperialism. By contrasting fascism with socialism and communism, we can also dispel the false equivalencies propagated in contemporary discourse. More importantly, this discussion will explore how the dynamics of fascism remain relevant today, warning against their resurgence in modern political movements and practices.

The Bipartisan Alignment with Capital and Imperialism

Before I get into it, I want to acknowledge that both dominant political parties in the United States—the Democrats and the Republicans—are deeply enmeshed in systems of oligarchic control and capitalist interests. The influence of corporate donors, lobbying groups, and financial elites ensures that policies from both parties often prioritize profit and power over the well-being of the people. The Biden administration, for instance, is not immune to the imperialist tendencies of capital. Its unwavering support for Israel, even amid documented atrocities against Palestinians, reflects the alignment of U.S. foreign policy with the interests of global capital and military-industrial power. Similarly, bipartisan complicity in military interventions, corporate bailouts, and economic policies that exacerbate inequality highlights the extent to which capitalist imperatives drive governance across the political spectrum.

However, while both parties operate within and sustain a capitalist framework, the MAGA movement and Donald Trump represent a unique and existential threat to democratic norms and institutions in the U.S. MAGA explicitly mirrors the characteristics of historical fascism: the cult of personality surrounding Trump, the scapegoating of marginalized groups such as immigrants and racial minorities, the rejection of democratic election results, and the normalization of political violence. These traits align with fascism’s disdain for democracy, its glorification of hierarchy and nationalism, and its reliance on militarism and exclusionary policies to maintain power. While the Biden administration and the Democratic Party may perpetuate imperialist and oligarchic systems, MAGA’s fascistic tendencies pose a far greater danger to the fragile democratic institutions and norms that remain in the U.S. today. Recognizing this distinction is critical for understanding the varying threats these political movements represent.

Historical and Theoretical Perspectives

Fascism first appeared in the early 20th century, with Benito Mussolini’s Italy and Adolf Hitler’s Nazi Germany as its most famous examples. Mussolini himself called fascism the “complete opposite of Marxian socialism” and emphasized the absolute power of the state, saying, “For fascism, the state is absolute; individuals and groups are relative.” Essentially, fascism rejects the idea of individual rights or class conflict and instead puts the nation at the center of everything.

Roger Griffin, a key scholar on fascism, gets to the heart of the ideology with his concept of “palingenetic ultranationalism.” This means fascism is all about creating a myth of national rebirth—restoring some imagined golden age through radical political and cultural change. Fascists often frame their movements as revolutionary, promising to sweep away what they see as the decadence of democracy or socialism.

Robert Paxton adds another layer in The Anatomy of Fascism. He outlines how fascism starts as a movement built on grievances—economic crises, national humiliation, or social instability—and gains power by exploiting fear and dissatisfaction. Once in power, fascist regimes erode democratic institutions, suppress dissent, and consolidate authority in a single leader or party. Scholars have identified a few consistent features of fascism:

Authoritarian Leadership

One of the defining features of fascism is its reliance on authoritarian leadership, where power is centralized in a single figure or party. This leader is often portrayed as infallible, embodying the will of the nation and positioned above critique or challenge. Fascist regimes thrive on the cult of personality, using propaganda, ritual, and symbolism to deify the leader and legitimize their authority.

Fascist leaders are often portrayed as the living embodiment of the nation’s identity and destiny. Mussolini exemplified this in Italy, adopting the title Il Duce (The Leader) and presenting himself as the savior of the Italian people. He famously declared, “Everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.” aligning his leadership with the absolute power of the state. In doing so, Mussolini fused his personal authority with the national identity, positioning dissent as both unpatriotic and treasonous.

Similarly, Adolf Hitler’s role as Führer (Leader) in Nazi Germany was central to the regime’s ideology. Hitler was portrayed as a near-mythical figure, the only person capable of restoring Germany’s greatness after the humiliation of World War I and the Treaty of Versailles. The Nazi propaganda machine, under Joseph Goebbels, elevated Hitler’s image through carefully crafted speeches, mass rallies, and the use of visual media. As historian Ian Kershaw notes in Hitler: A Biography, Hitler’s charismatic authority was pivotal in uniting disparate factions of German society under the banner of National Socialism.

Fascist regimes use propaganda to build and sustain the leader’s cult of personality, ensuring that the population views them as infallible and indispensable. In addition to public spectacles like rallies and parades, fascist states control media and education to reinforce the leader’s image. Children are taught loyalty to the leader from an early age, and all forms of art, literature, and culture are harnessed to glorify their achievements. A striking example is the way Hitler’s regime utilized Leni Riefenstahl’s film Triumph of the Will (1935) to showcase the power and unity of the Nazi Party. The film’s sweeping visuals and choreographed displays of military precision portrayed Hitler as a messianic figure, symbolizing the strength and order of the German Reich.

Authoritarian leadership in fascist regimes also depends on the complete suppression of political opposition. Once in power, fascist leaders quickly dismantle democratic institutions, outlaw competing political parties, and neutralize dissent. For example, in Italy, Mussolini banned all opposition parties in 1926, effectively transforming the country into a one-party state. Similarly, after the Reichstag Fire of 1933, Hitler used the incident to pass the Reichstag Fire Decree, which suspended civil liberties and allowed for the arrest of political opponents, including Communists and Socialists. As Paxton explains, authoritarian leadership requires a system of fear and loyalty, where citizens are compelled to support the regime either through genuine belief or fear of retribution. Fascist leaders often use secret police forces—such as Hitler’s Gestapo or Mussolini’s OVRA—to root out opposition and create a climate of constant surveillance.

Fascist leaders often rely on charisma and emotional appeal to connect with the masses, bypassing rational argument in favor of stirring rhetoric and dramatic gestures. They frame themselves as protectors of the nation against perceived enemies, whether internal or external. Hannah Arendt observed that this emotional connection between leader and follower is a hallmark of totalitarian regimes, where individuals find identity and purpose through their devotion to the leader.

George Orwell’s 1984 offers a portrayal of authoritarian leadership through the figure of Big Brother. Although Big Brother may not physically exist, he functions as the regime’s symbolic leader, embodying the Party’s omnipotence and omniscience. The slogan “Big Brother is Watching You” reinforces the idea that loyalty to the leader is both a duty and an inescapable reality. The worship of Big Brother mirrors the dynamics of real-world fascist regimes, where leaders are elevated to god-like status to solidify their control.

Authoritarian leadership is not just a feature of fascism—it is its cornerstone. By centralizing power in a single figure or party, fascist regimes eliminate dissent, stifle democracy, and create a system where the leader’s authority is absolute. This dynamic, combined with the propaganda-driven cult of personality, allows fascist leaders to present themselves as indispensable saviors while using fear and violence to maintain their rule. Understanding this aspect of fascism is essential for recognizing its warning signs in modern political systems, where the deification of leaders and suppression of opposition remain potent threats to democratic values.

Militarism and Violence

Militarism and violence are central to fascism, not only as tools of enforcement but also as ideological principles. Fascist regimes glorify war, portraying it as a means of achieving national greatness, and institutionalize violence to maintain internal control and suppress opposition. This dual emphasis on external aggression and internal repression sets fascism apart from other authoritarian ideologies.

Fascism exalts war as a source of strength, unity, and renewal. Benito Mussolini famously declared, “War alone brings up to its highest tension all human energies and puts the stamp of nobility upon the peoples who have the courage to face it.” In fascist ideology, peace is often framed as weakness, while conflict is seen as the ultimate test of a nation’s vitality. This belief drives fascist regimes to pursue aggressive foreign policies and expansionist ambitions.

Adolf Hitler’s Nazi regime exemplified this militaristic ethos. Hitler’s vision of Lebensraum (living space) called for the conquest of Eastern Europe to secure resources and territory for the German people. In Mein Kampf, Hitler argued that war was a natural and necessary part of human history, writing, “The Aryan is greatest not in his mental qualities but in his ability to endure and to conquer.” This philosophy justified the militarization of Germany and the eventual outbreak of World War II.

Fascism is not only outwardly aggressive but also internally violent. Fascist regimes institutionalize violence as a means of maintaining control, suppressing dissent, and enforcing conformity. The state uses police forces, militias, and secret police to intimidate and eliminate opposition. In Mussolini’s Italy, the Blackshirts—a paramilitary organization loyal to Mussolini—used violence and intimidation to silence political opponents and establish fascist dominance. Similarly, Nazi Germany’s Sturmabteilung (SA), or Brownshirts, played a crucial role in Hitler’s rise to power, attacking Communists, Socialists, and other perceived enemies of the Nazi Party. Once the Nazis consolidated power, the Gestapo and SS took over as instruments of state-sponsored terror, targeting Jews, political dissidents, and other marginalized groups.

Hannah Arendt, in The Origins of Totalitarianism, notes that this kind of violence is not simply punitive but serves a psychological purpose: it creates a culture of fear that paralyzes dissent and forces compliance. By institutionalizing violence, fascist regimes ensure that opposition becomes not only dangerous but seemingly futile.

Fascist regimes glorify the military as a symbol of national pride, discipline, and strength. The military is often depicted as the highest expression of a nation’s virtues, and soldiers are celebrated as embodiments of honor and sacrifice. Public spectacles, such as parades and rallies, serve to reinforce the militaristic ethos and rally popular support for the regime’s policies. For example, the Nazi regime used massive military parades, such as those at the Nuremberg Rallies, to showcase its military power and promote national unity. These events, meticulously choreographed by propagandists like Riefenstahl, glorified the regime’s militarism and instilled a sense of awe and loyalty in the German people. In Mussolini’s Italy, similar displays, including the use of Roman imperial imagery, tied the regime’s military ambitions to a mythic vision of national rebirth.

In fascism, violence is not just a practical tool but an ideological principle. Fascists view violence as a cleansing force that eliminates weakness and purifies the nation. This belief is rooted in the fascist disdain for liberalism, which is often seen as promoting decadence and moral decay. As Griffin observes, fascist movements often frame their violence as a means of achieving a “palingenetic” rebirth—a purification that leads to national regeneration. This ideological embrace of violence is perhaps most horrifyingly illustrated in the Nazi regime’s policies during the Holocaust. The Nazis systematically exterminated six million Jews and millions of others—Roma, disabled people, political dissidents, and more—in what they framed as a necessary step toward the racial purification of Germany. This genocide was not incidental to the Nazi regime but central to its vision of creating a racially homogeneous and militarily powerful Reich.

1984 depicts of how violence operates in totalitarian regimes, which share significant overlaps with fascism. The Ministry of Love, for instance, employs torture and psychological manipulation to force citizens into absolute loyalty to Big Brother. When Winston is tortured into betraying his deepest beliefs, Orwell highlights the regime’s use of violence not merely to punish dissent but to destroy independent thought and reshape reality.

Fascist militarism is closely tied to the regime’s economic policies. Fascist states prioritize military spending, redirecting resources toward the production of arms and the maintenance of a war-ready economy. In Nazi Germany, for example, the Four Year Plan, overseen by Hermann Göring, aimed to prepare Germany for war by making the economy self-sufficient and prioritizing rearmament. The militarization of the economy also serves as a means of controlling the workforce. By directing labor and resources toward military production, fascist regimes eliminate class conflict and channel economic activity into projects that reinforce the regime’s power.

Militarism and violence are inseparable from fascist ideology. By glorifying war and institutionalizing violence, fascist regimes enforce their authority, suppress dissent, and pursue imperial ambitions. Whether through the celebration of soldiers, the systematic persecution of minorities, or the militarization of the economy, fascist states place violence at the center of their vision for society. This destructive logic not only devastates the populations subjected to fascist rule but also destabilizes entire regions, as the history of World War II tragically demonstrates. Understanding this aspect of fascism is crucial for recognizing its resurgence and resisting its violent, authoritarian impulses in the present day.

Anti-Intellectualism

Anti-intellectualism is a cornerstone of fascist ideology, as fascist regimes rely on suppressing independent thought and controlling the flow of information to maintain power. In 1984, George Orwell dramatized this in the systematic manipulation of language and truth, particularly through the invention of Newspeak and the erasure of historical records.

In 1984, the totalitarian regime of Big Brother employs Newspeak—a deliberately simplified and manipulated language designed to eliminate dissent and make independent thinking impossible. For example, words like “freedom” are redefined or erased entirely, restricting the population’s ability to even conceive of rebellion. As Orwell explains, Newspeak works by shrinking the range of thought: “The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of Ingsoc, but to make all other modes of thought impossible.” This illustrates how fascist regimes often target intellectual and cultural freedom, reducing language and education to tools of indoctrination.

Another key example is the Party’s control over history. Through the Ministry of Truth, historical records are constantly rewritten to align with the regime’s current narrative. Orwell writes, “Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.” This systematic rewriting of history prevents individuals from developing a coherent understanding of reality, making them wholly dependent on the Party’s version of events. The Ministry of Truth embodies the fascist impulse to eradicate intellectual autonomy by replacing historical complexity with propaganda.

Orwell’s fictional portrayal mirrors real-world fascist practices. For example, in Nazi Germany, intellectual freedom was targeted through the burning of books deemed “un-German,” and education was restructured to instill loyalty to the regime. Similarly, Mussolini’s government censored literature and art that criticized the state, ensuring that intellectual life served its propaganda goals. As Robert Paxton observes, fascism relies on “simplistic, often mythical narratives” to replace critical inquiry and sustain authoritarian control.

In 1984, Orwell demonstrates how anti-intellectualism under totalitarian rule destroys the capacity for critical thought, trapping citizens in a self-reinforcing system of control. The novel remains a powerful warning about how the suppression of intellectual freedom is not only a tool of fascism but one of its essential features.

Scapegoating

Scapegoating is one of the most insidious and defining features of fascism. Fascist regimes identify and demonize specific groups—whether minorities, political opponents, or foreign powers—as existential threats to the nation. By constructing an “enemy” figure, fascist leaders foster a sense of unity among their followers, channel public frustration away from systemic issues, and justify oppressive policies. This strategy serves not only to consolidate power but also to create a mythic narrative of national purity and renewal.

Umberto Eco describes scapegoating as an essential component of fascist ideology, calling it the “cult of the enemy. According to Eco, fascist regimes require the constant presence of an adversary to justify their authoritarian measures and sustain their claim to protect the nation. This enemy can be external (e.g., foreign nations) or internal (e.g., ethnic minorities, political dissidents). The dual nature of the scapegoat—both within and outside the nation’s borders—serves to generate fear and maintain the regime’s narrative of perpetual crisis.

Fascist regimes often exploit economic or social instability to identify scapegoats. By directing public anger toward marginalized groups, they unify the population under the guise of protecting the nation. For example, Adolf Hitler blamed Germany’s economic woes and its defeat in World War I on Jews, Communists, and other groups, constructing a narrative of betrayal that resonated with a disillusioned populace. In Mein Kampf, Hitler writes, “The Jew has always been a people with definite racial characteristics and never a religion. . . . He poisons the blood of others but preserves his own.” This rhetoric dehumanized Jews and laid the groundwork for the genocidal policies of the Holocaust. Paxton observes that fascists often present themselves as protectors of the nation against both internal subversion and external aggression.

Scapegoating is amplified through propaganda, which uses fear and prejudice to reinforce the regime’s narrative. Fascist propaganda dehumanizes the targeted group, portraying them as dangerous, corrupt, or morally inferior. In Nazi Germany, anti-Semitic propaganda permeated every aspect of public life, from newspapers like Der Stürmer to children’s books and films. The infamous propaganda film The Eternal Jew depicts Jews as parasitic and manipulative, spreading the Nazi regime’s anti-Semitic ideology to justify persecution and violence. Similarly, Mussolini used propaganda to frame Italy’s imperial ambitions in Africa as a “civilizing mission” while dehumanizing African populations. Fascist rhetoric often conflates racism, nationalism, and militarism to create a moral imperative for oppression and conquest. Paxton notes that propaganda not only sustains the regime’s power but also cultivates a worldview in which violence and exclusion are seen as necessary and just.

One of the most effective aspects of scapegoating is its ability to distract the public from systemic problems. Fascist regimes redirect blame for economic inequality, unemployment, and political instability away from the state or ruling elites and onto marginalized groups. This redirection deflects criticism and fosters loyalty to the regime, as citizens are made to believe that the “enemy” is the true source of their struggles. For example, during the Great Depression, Hitler blamed Germany’s economic suffering on Jewish financiers and the supposed betrayal of the Versailles Treaty by Jewish politicians. This narrative shifted focus away from structural issues, such as the failures of the Weimar Republic, and instead created a unifying external and internal enemy. As Arendt argues, scapegoating allows totalitarian regimes to exploit mass discontent while avoiding accountability for systemic failures.

Again, 1984 offers an example of how totalitarian regimes use scapegoating to maintain control. The regime in the novel perpetuates a constant state of war and fear through its constructed enemy, Emmanuel Goldstein. Goldstein, the supposed leader of an anti-Party resistance, serves as the target of the Two Minutes Hate, a daily ritual where citizens vent their anger and frustration toward a scapegoat figure. This practice not only reinforces loyalty to Big Brother but also channels discontent away from the Party itself. The Party’s use of Goldstein as a scapegoat mirrors real-world fascist tactics, where leaders manufacture or exaggerate threats to unify the population. The ritualistic nature of the Two Minutes Hate also underscores the psychological and emotional dimensions of scapegoating, as individuals are made to feel part of a collective struggle against a common enemy.

The scapegoating strategy of fascist regimes has devastating consequences. By dehumanizing certain groups, it creates a moral justification for systemic discrimination, violence, and even genocide. The Holocaust remains the most extreme example, where the Nazi regime systematically exterminated six million Jews, along with millions of others, in what it framed as a necessary step toward racial purity.

Scapegoating also erodes critical thinking and civic solidarity. By fostering an “us versus them” mentality, fascist regimes discourage empathy and suppress dissenting voices. As Eco warns, the cult of the enemy reduces complex social and political issues to simplistic narratives of good versus evil, making it easier for regimes to manipulate public opinion.

Scapegoating is not just a tool of fascist regimes—it is a cornerstone of their ideology. By constructing and demonizing an “enemy,” fascist leaders unite their base, justify oppressive policies, and divert attention from systemic issues. From Hitler’s anti-Semitic rhetoric to Orwell’s fictional Emmanuel Goldstein, the tactic reveals the dangerous power of fear and prejudice in maintaining authoritarian control. Recognizing and resisting scapegoating narratives is crucial in defending democratic values and fostering a more inclusive society.

Rejection of Democracy

Fascism fundamentally rejects democracy, not only as a form of governance but as a set of values. It opposes democratic principles such as pluralism, equality, and individual freedoms, which fascist leaders frame as sources of weakness, chaos, or decadence. Instead, fascism seeks to replace democracy with a hierarchical, authoritarian structure centered on the absolute supremacy of the state or leader. This rejection of democracy is integral to fascist ideology and manifests in the dismantling of democratic institutions, the suppression of dissent, and the glorification of authoritarian control.

Fascism views democracy as inherently flawed because it prioritizes individual rights and collective decision-making over the unity and strength of the nation. Mussolini derides democracy as a system that “equates the nation to the majority, lowering it to the level of the largest number.” Mussolini argues that democracy fosters division by allowing competing interests to vie for power, undermining the unity necessary for national greatness. Fascism, by contrast, promotes a vision of the state as a unified, organic entity, with the leader as its guiding force. Hitler expressed similar disdain for democracy, portraying it as a weak and corrupt system incapable of solving Germany’s post-World War I crises. He argues that parliamentary democracy leads to inefficiency and gridlock, writing, “A majority can never replace the man.” This belief in the superiority of centralized, autocratic leadership over democratic deliberation is central to fascist thought.

Once in power, fascist regimes move swiftly to dismantle democratic institutions. Elections are abolished or manipulated, political parties are banned, and independent legislatures are rendered powerless. This process consolidates power in the hands of the fascist leader and eliminates checks and balances that could challenge their authority. For example, after Mussolini became Prime Minister of Italy in 1922, he gradually eroded democratic norms. By 1926, all political parties except the National Fascist Party were banned, and Mussolini ruled by decree. Similarly, in Nazi Germany, the Reichstag Fire of 1933 provided Hitler with a pretext to pass the Reichstag Fire Decree, which suspended civil liberties and allowed for the arrest of political opponents. The following month, the Enabling Act granted Hitler the power to enact laws without parliamentary approval, effectively dismantling German democracy. As Paxton observes, this erosion of democratic institutions is not always immediate but occurs in stages. Fascists often exploit existing crises—economic instability, political polarization, or threats of violence—to justify measures that erode democratic norms and consolidate authoritarian power. By the time the public recognizes the loss of democracy, the regime has already entrenched its authority.

The rejection of democracy also involves the suppression of dissent and the elimination of civil liberties. Fascist regimes target freedom of speech, press, and assembly, which they view as obstacles to their control. Independent media outlets are shut down or co-opted, opposition leaders are imprisoned or exiled, and public gatherings are heavily regulated or banned altogether. In Nazi Germany, the Gestapo (secret police) and the SS enforced the regime’s ban on political dissent. Journalists, intellectuals, and artists who criticized the Nazi Party were silenced, and publications that promoted alternative viewpoints were censored or destroyed. Similarly, Mussolini’s regime used propaganda to dominate public discourse, while the OVRA (Organization for Vigilance and Repression of Anti-Fascism) monitored and suppressed opposition.

The suppression of dissent extends to the personal realm as well. Fascist regimes create a climate of fear through surveillance and informant networks, where even private conversations can lead to persecution. Arendt describes how this systematic destruction of privacy undermines individual autonomy and erases the capacity for independent thought. Without these freedoms, citizens are unable to hold the regime accountable or organize resistance.

Fascists justify their rejection of democracy by promoting the myth of authoritarian efficiency. They claim that democratic systems are too slow and fractured to address the challenges facing the nation, such as economic crises or external threats. By concentrating power in a single leader or party, fascist regimes argue, they can act decisively and swiftly to restore order and achieve greatness. While this rhetoric appeals to those frustrated by the perceived inefficiencies of democracy, the reality of fascist governance often falls short of its promises. Fascist regimes frequently prioritize loyalty over competence, leading to corruption and mismanagement. The centralized nature of power also stifles innovation and critical thinking, as decision-makers are insulated from constructive criticism.

Again, 1984 depicts a regime that has utterly rejected democracy. The Party’s slogan—“War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength”—encapsulates the inversion of democratic values under authoritarian rule.{{sfn}Orwell|1949|p=7}} The regime controls every aspect of life, from public institutions to private thoughts, eradicating the individual freedoms that underpin democracy. The Party’s manipulation of language, history, and truth eliminates the possibility of dissent or alternative political visions. For example, the concept of doublethink—holding two contradictory beliefs simultaneously—ensures that citizens cannot challenge the Party’s authority. Orwell’s fictional world illustrates how the rejection of democracy leads not only to political oppression but also to the erosion of intellectual and moral autonomy.

Fascism’s rejection of democracy highlights the fragility of democratic systems. Fascists exploit discontent with democratic processes—whether due to economic inequality, political polarization, or social change—to advocate for authoritarian alternatives. These tendencies can resurface even in societies with strong democratic traditions, often under the guise of protecting national security or restoring order.

The rejection of democracy is a defining feature of fascism, rooted in its disdain for pluralism, individual freedoms, and collective decision-making. Fascist regimes dismantle democratic institutions, suppress dissent, and centralize power, often under the pretext of achieving efficiency and unity. Understanding how fascism undermines democracy is essential for recognizing its warning signs and defending democratic values in an era where authoritarianism continues to gain traction worldwide.

How Does Fascism Compare to Socialism and Communism?

In contemporary media and political discourse, the terms fascism, socialism, and communism are often used interchangeably, muddling their distinct meanings and historical significance. Politicians and pundits routinely conflate these ideologies, weaponizing them to discredit opponents or oversimplify complex debates. For example, policies that advocate government intervention in the economy are often labeled as “socialist,” while authoritarian practices in any context are sometimes dubbed “fascist.” This conflation distorts public understanding, as it glosses over the ideological, structural, and practical differences between these systems.

The confusion partly stems from the authoritarian implementations of socialism and communism in the 20th century, such as in Stalinist Russia or Maoist China, which bore certain resemblances to fascist regimes in their centralization of power and suppression of dissent. However, equating the two obscures their vastly different goals and methods. Similarly, media often frames these ideologies as part of a simplistic left-right spectrum, ignoring the nuances that set them apart.

The ideological foundations of fascism, socialism, and communism diverge fundamentally, particularly in their views on the individual, the state, and society. Fascism centers on the primacy of the nation, rejecting the ideals of equality and democracy in favor of hierarchical order and unity. Mussolini described fascism as rejecting liberal democracy’s emphasis on individualism and class conflict in favor of the state as an “absolute” entity. For Mussolini, individuals and social classes existed only insofar as they served the collective good of the nation, an ideal enforced through authoritarian control.

By contrast, socialism and communism are rooted in a critique of inequality and exploitation, particularly as they arise from capitalism. Socialism seeks to redistribute resources and establish collective ownership of the means of production to address systemic inequities. As Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels wrote in The Communist Manifesto, socialism aims to “raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class” to dismantle systems of exploitation and establish greater economic and social equality. Communism builds on these principles, envisioning a stateless, classless society where collective welfare entirely replaces private property and individual profit.

While fascism upholds rigid hierarchies, socialism and communism strive for egalitarianism, though the latter’s realization has often been undermined by authoritarian practices in historical attempts at implementation. Vladimir Lenin, in The State and Revolution, describes communism as requiring a temporary “dictatorship of the proletariat” to suppress capitalist resistance and build a classless society. This transitional phase, however, has frequently led to entrenched authoritarian rule, as seen in Stalin’s Soviet Union. Despite these deviations, socialism and communism fundamentally reject the glorification of hierarchy and inequality that defines fascism.

The role of nationalism versus class in these ideologies offers another critical distinction. Fascism is inherently nationalist, framing the nation-state as the highest source of identity and purpose. Fascist regimes often construct narratives of national decline and rebirth, using myths of past greatness to justify aggressive expansionism and the persecution of minority groups. For instance, Hitler’s ideology of Lebensraum sought territorial expansion to secure resources for the German people while promoting racial purity. This ultranationalist vision placed the state and its interests above all else, subordinating individual and communal aspirations to the regime’s goals.

Socialism and communism, in contrast, are fundamentally internationalist. Marx and Engels declared that “working men have no country,” emphasizing the shared interests of the global proletariat over national divisions. In theory, socialism and communism aim to unite workers across borders to dismantle capitalism and establish collective governance. This internationalism clashes sharply with fascism’s focus on ethnic or cultural homogeneity and the glorification of national identity.

The state’s role in these ideologies further highlights their differences. Fascist states are authoritarian and militaristic, using the state as a vehicle for control, propaganda, and national expansion. By contrast, socialism often views the state as a means to achieve redistribution and collective welfare, though its ultimate goal may be to reduce the state’s power once economic equality is achieved. Communism envisions the eventual “withering away” of the state, where collective self-governance replaces centralized authority, though this goal has historically been unrealized in communist regimes.

The economic structures supported by these ideologies diverge sharply. Fascism retains private property and capitalist frameworks but places them under strict state control to serve national interests. This system, often described as “state capitalism,” allows private enterprise to flourish within the parameters set by the regime. In this sense, fascism preserves capitalist hierarchies while ensuring that economic activity aligns with its militaristic and nationalist agenda.

Socialism, by contrast, advocates for collective ownership of the means of production and redistribution of wealth to reduce inequality. This often involves state control of key industries, though democratic socialism seeks to balance state intervention with individual freedoms. Communism takes this further, envisioning a complete abolition of private property and a transition to a planned economy. Lenin argued that communism’s ultimate goal is to eliminate exploitation by ensuring that all resources and production are collectively owned. While both socialism and communism reject capitalism, they do so in pursuit of egalitarian ideals rather than the hierarchical control seen in fascist regimes.

Politically, fascism and communism share similarities in their authoritarian practices but diverge in their ideological justifications and outcomes. Fascism centers power in a single leader or party, rejecting democracy outright. Mussolini and Hitler both abolished political opposition and created one-party states where loyalty to the regime was mandatory. In Nazi Germany, laws like the Reichstag Fire Decree (1933) and the Enabling Act (1933) dismantled democratic institutions and concentrated power in Hitler’s hands.

Socialism, especially in its democratic forms, often incorporates participatory governance and worker representation. However, communist states have frequently mirrored fascist regimes in their centralization of power, as seen in Stalinist Russia or Maoist China. The difference lies in their goals: while fascism uses authoritarianism to maintain hierarchies, communism employs it (at least theoretically) as a transitional phase toward a stateless, classless society.

The frequent conflation of fascism, socialism, and communism in modern media stems from a lack of nuance in discussing authoritarianism. Historical communist regimes that veered into oppressive practices, such as Stalin’s USSR or Pol Pot’s Cambodia, are often labeled as “fascist” because of their brutality. Similarly, policies advocating government intervention in capitalist economies are sometimes branded as “socialist” or “communist” without regard for their democratic intent. This oversimplification not only distorts public understanding but also obscures the distinct threats posed by fascism and the potential benefits of democratic socialism.

Fascism, socialism, and communism represent fundamentally different ideologies with distinct goals and methods. While fascism glorifies hierarchy, nationalism, and authoritarian control, socialism and communism pursue equality, internationalism, and collective welfare. Understanding these differences is essential for navigating modern political discourse, which too often conflates these ideologies for rhetorical effect. By examining their unique histories and principles, we can better understand their implications and resist oversimplified narratives that obscure their true nature.

Fascism’s Relationship with Capitalism and Imperialism

Fascism’s relationship with capitalism and imperialism reveals its pragmatic approach to economics and power. Unlike socialism or communism, which seek to dismantle or radically restructure capitalism, fascism preserves capitalist structures while subordinating them to state goals. Similarly, imperialism—expansion through territorial conquest and exploitation—is not merely a byproduct of fascist ideology but a fundamental expression of its ultranationalism and militarism. Together, these economic and territorial strategies underscore how fascist regimes align with and manipulate existing systems of power to sustain their authority and pursue their vision of national greatness.

Fascism’s economic system has often been described as “state capitalism,” where private enterprise is allowed to operate but must align with the state’s priorities. Fascist regimes reject the Marxist critique of capitalism, seeing private property and market dynamics as essential tools for national strength. However, unlike laissez-faire capitalism, which prioritizes free markets and individual profit, fascist economies are centrally controlled to ensure that all economic activity serves the state.

In Nazi Germany, for instance, Hitler’s government collaborated closely with industrialists and financiers, particularly in the lead-up to and during World War II. Companies such as Krupp, IG Farben, and Volkswagen thrived under Nazi rule, as they were contracted to produce military equipment and infrastructure essential to Germany’s war efforts. These corporations, in turn, benefited from state support, including access to cheap labor, often in the form of forced labor from concentration camps. Tooze highlights how the Nazi regime “mobilized the entire economy as a war machine,” prioritizing production that aligned with its military and expansionist goals. Mussolini’s Italy followed a similar model. The Italian Fascist regime instituted a corporatist economic system, where industries were organized into state-controlled syndicates that mediated between employers and workers. In theory, corporatism was presented as a “third way” between capitalism and socialism, but in practice, it entrenched existing power structures while suppressing labor rights and opposition. Mussolini himself framed this approach as a rejection of class conflict, arguing that economic harmony could be achieved through state oversight.

Fascism’s embrace of capitalism is inseparable from its suppression of labor movements and workers’ rights. Fascist regimes view independent labor unions and strikes as threats to national unity and economic productivity. As a result, they dissolve or absorb labor organizations into state-controlled entities that eliminate collective bargaining power. In Nazi Germany, the independent labor unions were abolished shortly after Hitler came to power in 1933, replaced by the German Labor Front (Deutsche Arbeitsfront, DAF), which was controlled by the Nazi Party. Workers were subjected to strict regulations, and their wages and working conditions were determined by the state rather than through negotiation. Similarly, Mussolini’s Italy dismantled independent labor movements, integrating them into fascist-controlled syndicates. This suppression of labor not only reduced opposition to the regime but also allowed the state and private enterprises to maximize profits and production, often at the expense of workers’ well-being. Arendt notes that this subjugation of labor reflects fascism’s broader goal of erasing individuality in favor of total state control. By eliminating independent labor movements, fascist regimes ensure that workers become mere instruments of the state’s economic and military ambitions.

Imperialism is not an incidental feature of fascist regimes but a central tenet of their ideology. Fascist ultranationalism frames territorial expansion as both a moral duty and a practical necessity. The desire for conquest is justified through narratives of national superiority, racial purity, and historical destiny, which position the nation as entitled to dominate weaker states and peoples. Again, Hitler’s concept of Lebensraum exemplifies this imperialist drive. In Mein Kampf, Hitler argues that Germany needed to expand eastward into Slavic lands to secure resources and living space for the German people. This vision of territorial expansion was rooted in racist ideology, as Hitler viewed Slavic populations as inferior and expendable. The pursuit of Lebensraum directly contributed to the outbreak of World War II and the genocidal policies implemented during the Nazi occupation of Eastern Europe.

Mussolini’s imperial ambitions were similarly framed as a return to Italy’s Roman heritage. The invasion of Ethiopia in 1935 was portrayed as a civilizing mission, despite widespread condemnation and the use of brutal tactics, including chemical weapons. Fascist imperialism is often cloaked in historical or cultural justifications that mask its exploitative and violent nature. For Mussolini, imperial expansion was not only about acquiring resources but also about affirming Italy’s status as a global power.

Fascist imperialism is closely tied to economic motivations. Conquering new territories provides access to natural resources, labor, and markets that sustain the regime’s militarized economy. In Nazi Germany, the conquest of Poland and the Soviet Union was driven not only by ideological goals but also by the need for agricultural land, raw materials, and industrial capacity to support the war effort. Tooze emphasizes that the Nazi economy was designed with expansion in mind, relying on territorial gains to resolve resource shortages and maintain economic growth. Similarly, Italy’s imperial projects in Africa were intended to secure raw materials, such as oil and minerals, that Mussolini believed would bolster Italy’s self-sufficiency and global standing. These economic motivations often intersected with fascism’s ideology, as colonized populations were dehumanized and exploited to serve the regime’s goals.

While fascism preserves elements of capitalism, its relationship with liberal capitalism—marked by free markets and minimal state intervention—is fraught with tension. Fascists criticize liberal capitalism for its emphasis on individualism, which they see as undermining national unity. However, rather than rejecting capitalism outright, fascist regimes co-opt and reshape it to serve their authoritarian and militarist objectives. This dynamic is why fascism has sometimes been described as a “reactionary modernist” ideology. As Jeffrey Herf argues in Reactionary Modernism, fascism embraces the technological and industrial advancements of modernity while rejecting the liberal values often associated with them. By aligning capitalism with state control, fascism attempts to harness its productive capacity without succumbing to its perceived moral failings.

Fascism’s relationship with capitalism and imperialism reveals its pragmatic use of existing economic and political systems to achieve its nationalist and militarist goals. By preserving capitalist structures under state control, fascist regimes sustain their economies while suppressing labor rights and dissent. At the same time, their imperialist ambitions extend these economic strategies beyond their borders, using conquest and exploitation to fuel the regime’s vision of national greatness. Understanding these dynamics is essential for recognizing how fascism manipulates economic systems and global power structures to maintain its authority and pursue its destructive goals.

Final Thoughts and the U.S.A. in 2025

Fascism, as an ideology and system of governance, represents a dangerous blend of authoritarianism, ultranationalism, and militarism that manipulates existing power structures for its own ends. Its rejection of democracy, embrace of violence, exploitation of capitalism, and reliance on imperialism are not relics of the past but recurring dangers that can emerge under specific conditions of crisis and discontent. While the historical examples of fascism in Nazi Germany and Mussolini’s Italy remain central to understanding its dynamics, elements of fascist ideology persist in contemporary political movements, including those here in the United States.

The U.S. has seen the rise of what some scholars and commentators describe as fascist tendencies in recent years, particularly in the context of the MAGA movement and the cult of personality surrounding Donald Trump. The parallels to fascist practices, while not identical, are striking in certain respects.

The Cult of the Leader: Central to fascism is the elevation of a leader as the embodiment of the nation, a figure whose authority is absolute and whose personal image is inseparable from the movement. Trump has cultivated a similar dynamic, portraying himself as uniquely capable of saving the nation from perceived threats. His rhetoric often frames dissenters—whether journalists, political opponents, or entire groups like immigrants—as enemies of the people. The loyalty demanded by Trump from his followers, even in the face of legal indictments and controversial actions, underscores the quasi-religious fervor of this movement.

Scapegoating and the Cult of the Enemy: Fascist regimes thrive on identifying internal and external enemies to unify their base and justify authoritarian measures. Trump’s demonization of immigrants, Muslims, and political opponents mirrors this tactic, creating a narrative in which these groups are portrayed as existential threats to America’s greatness. The chant “Build the Wall” and policies like the Muslim ban exemplify how scapegoating functions both symbolically and materially in modern political movements.

Rejection of Democratic Norms: Trump’s repeated refusal to accept the results of the 2020 election, culminating in the January 6th attack on the Capitol, demonstrates a rejection of democratic principles. His claims of widespread voter fraud and efforts to overturn legitimate election results mirror the fascist disdain for pluralism and democratic institutions. Furthermore, his rhetoric often undermines trust in the press and judicial system, institutions crucial for holding power accountable.

Militarism and Violence: The United States has witnessed forms of institutionalized violence that bear troubling similarities to fascist practices, particularly in the suppression of dissenting movements. While the scale and systemic scope of violence differ from those of historical fascist regimes, the patterns of militarized policing, criminalization of protest, and disproportionate use of force against marginalized communities and political activists suggest an authoritarian impulse that warrants serious concern. For example, U.S. state-sponsored or sanctioned violence often echo fascist strategies of suppressing dissent. While the mechanisms and contexts differ from those of 20th-century fascist regimes, the use of force to stifle political activism, particularly when it challenges systemic inequality, is a consistent theme. Consider the following examples:

1. Repression of the “Free Palestine” Demonstrations in 2024: Protests in solidarity with Palestine have been met with a heavy-handed police response. Reports of excessive force, mass arrests, and surveillance of demonstrators suggest an attempt to intimidate and silence a movement that challenges U.S. foreign policy and its alliances. This suppression mirrors fascist tactics of framing dissenting voices as threats to national security, using state violence to protect entrenched interests.
2. Police Response to the Black Lives Matter Protests of 2020: The summer of 2020 saw a national reckoning with racial injustice, yet the state’s response to the overwhelmingly peaceful Black Lives Matter demonstrations was often marked by militarized violence. Tear gas, rubber bullets, and mass arrests were used against protesters, while images of armored vehicles and heavily armed police patrolling American streets evoked comparisons to authoritarian regimes. This disproportionate response highlights how the state can weaponize violence to preserve existing hierarchies and suppress demands for systemic change.
3. State Violence Against the Occupy Wall Street Movement: During the early 2010s, the Occupy Wall Street movement sought to challenge economic inequality and corporate influence in American politics. The state’s response, including coordinated police crackdowns, the destruction of encampments, and widespread arrests, reflected a broader pattern of suppressing dissent that threatens the economic and political status quo. The movement’s emphasis on class dynamics and critique of capitalism may have been particularly threatening in a political climate resistant to systemic reform.

These instances of state violence resonate with several key features of fascism. Fascist regimes view political opposition as an existential threat to the state, using violence to eliminate dissenting voices. In the U.S., the targeting of protest movements—whether for racial justice, economic equality, or international solidarity—reveals a similar impulse to suppress challenges to entrenched power structures.

Efforts to criminalize certain forms of dissent, such as laws restricting the right to assemble or enhanced penalties for protesters, mirror fascist tactics of curtailing freedoms under the guise of maintaining order. In recent years, laws targeting environmental activists, Black Lives Matter organizers, and anti-Zionist demonstrators have sought to delegitimize their causes and portray them as threats to public safety. The use of military-grade equipment and tactics by police forces in the U.S. reflects the militaristic ethos of fascism. The normalization of heavily armed police patrolling civilian protests blurs the line between domestic law enforcement and military suppression, fostering an environment where violence becomes a routine response to dissent.

Along these lines, the rhetoric of the MAGA movement has always incited violence. The normalization of political violence, from threats against election officials to the events of January 6th, reflects the dangerous potential of militaristic and exclusionary ideologies. Trump’s infamous statement, “Stand back and stand by,” addressed to the Proud Boys, is an example of how modern political leaders can embolden paramilitary behavior.

These tendencies in the United States underscore how the dynamics of fascism can resurface in new forms. While the historical context of 20th-century fascism differs significantly from today, the underlying strategies—cultivating fear, glorifying a leader, undermining democracy, and scapegoating vulnerable groups—remain alarmingly relevant. It is critical to recognize these patterns and resist their normalization in political discourse.

By understanding the characteristics of fascism—its rejection of democracy, embrace of violence, manipulation of capitalism, and drive for imperialism—we can better identify and counter its resurgence. While the conditions for full-blown fascism may not yet exist in the United States, the persistence of fascistic tendencies in political rhetoric and practices serves as a warning. Upholding democratic values, fostering critical dialogue, and resisting authoritarian impulses are essential to preventing the slide into authoritarianism and ensuring that the lessons of history are not forgotten.

---

references & note