[The New Republic] Does American Fascism Exist?

No. Fascism at its core is an ideology about maintaining the established hierarchies at all cost.

Literally self labeled fascists in America like George Lincoln Rockwell thought things like collectivism were evil and that lazier faire economics is the path forward. Same with people like JP Morgan, Ford etc. Charles Lindbergh also waxed lyrical about free markets and the evil of communism and collectivism.

Again, fascism has no rigid economic system. Whatever economic system maintains the hierarchy is all that matters. For fascists in America when the market supported their cultural standards were fine with market forces drowning out things like LGBTQ media. Today fascists think tech companies should be extremely regulated to make sure people can say the n wors without being suspended.

 

Also the fact that this definition of yours has no distinction between the term communism and fascism, two bitter rivals shows how ineffective your definition is.

With that definition of yours there is no distinction between two opposing ideologies. That's how you know it's farcical.

And it's not like you can't say "fascism is collectivism and state control of economy just like communism but with nationalism and racism attached". Because that also describes Soviet communism. You think Soviets were "woke" caring about the Jews and LGBTQ community?
****, before the Holocaust Jews were getting slaughtered more in Russia than in Europe.

 

Self-labelled socialists in America talk about the free market and how we should follow the capitalist Scandanavian model. That doesn't mean that socialism doesn't have an economic system, or that it includes capitalism. People will adopt labels without being adherents of the ideology. Actual real life fascist dictator Benito Mussolini says fascism is state control. Charles Lindbergh spoke rather extensively about his love of freedom and democracy, though he was quite racist. Would you say freedom and democracy are part of fascism or that fascism has no stance on personal freedoms or selection of leaders/implementation of legislation? Henry Ford was an anti-war pacifist, including participating in the Peace Ship to try to end World War I. He also turned his production to help the allies defeat the fascist Axis powers in WWII once the US entered the war, despite opposition to entering the war in the first place (because he is a pacifist). Does fascism support pacifism and anti-war stances, not to mention opposition to fascism? Ford was certainly anti-Semitic, but he wasn't a fascist by any reasonable definition of fascism. Rockwell seemed mostly concerned with racism, less so with economics. He was a big fan of Malcolm X.

Regardless of what any of these people had to say, I would posit that Mussolini is a far better authority on what fascism is than they are, being that he was the founder of the fascist party and was the dictator of a fascist country.

There isn't much difference in the definition because they are quite similar. They have different stated enemies (the capitalists vs the opponents of the state) and stated end goals (a classless, stateless society vs an empire with state control of everything), but in practice were quite similar. Remember that Stalin and Hitler were allied before Hitler betrayed the USSR. Had the USSR reached a stateless, classless society, it would have looked much different than fascist Italy, but the Stalinist USSR was quite similar to the fascists. Communism is notably not in favor of state control of the economy, by the way. It is in favor of worker control of the economy. This should be obvious when you realize that communism calls for the abolition of the state.

 

They can't. They wouldn't want to go WOKE.

 

Jonathan Rauch weighs in.

 

Fascism is and has always been a leftist ideology. Fascism, communism, and socialism ALL exclude a free-market economy in favor of one managed by the state. Under socialism the means of production are owned by the workers, by the state under communism, by private owners under fascism although fascist regimes have often nationalized industries.

Additionally, fascism entails state control of the nation's education, healthcare, media, and every other facet of society.

All of that is the antithesis of right-wing ideology. The modern, American, right wants free markets with as little government intervention as possible. The right supports keeping education in the hands of the states rather than the federal government. The right is opposed to government-managed healthcare.

Nationalism has been attributed as a "fascist" ideal, but I don't think that's necessarily true. To me, nationalism is simply the desire of self-sovereignty by a people. Benjamin Franklin was a nationalist. So was Abraham Lincoln. So was Ho Chi Minh. So was Mahatma Gandhi. The desire to be sovereign over one's own state is nationalist, but it's not fascist.

Keep in mind that leftist ideologues and academics from the 1920's and 30's were very supportive of fascism. FDR's support and admiration of Benito Mussolini are well documented. However, the term "fascist" became radioactive once the allies began discovering Hitler's death camps. Western leftists immediately began distancing themselves from that ideology and tried to rebrand fascism as a "far-right" ideology but, of course, it clearly is not.

In summary, fascism is an economic and political ideology of monolithic government wherein the state controls everything.

 

Yeah no. Liberal is derived from the word Liberty. Meaning someone who strives for more liberty, freedoms, and self determination.

Authoritarian is the antithesis of that where there is comfort in those who support it that daddy will take care of you. It’s a consolation of power to one head.
So the economic construct really doesn’t matter regardless if you have a more capitalist structure vs more socialist or communist.

What matters in the end is how the people approve of a more centralized authority vs demand for decentralized leadership with self determination and civil liberties that follow.

You obviously are an authoritarian as are most Trump supporters and that’s not meant to be an insult because throughout history mankind has mostly sunken back into this social construct rather than do the hard thing and actually strive to self determination.

But your post here is nothing more than you finding a way to justify your political position by weaving some incorrect connections about historical leaders and what you thought they did or did not support. FDR’s government structure was one that was definitely still a free market capitalist system but coming out of the Great Depression which was brought on by greed and wealth inequality, FDR’s reforms brought in some socialist programs to balance the system. Those programs still exist today and even Trump has seen programs like social security as a third rail.

So sorry but you don’t know what you are talking about and you are just trying to weave your way to a narrative to believe you and your cleric Trump are fighting some great evil that doesn’t really exist. The people you are telling yourself are evil nazis are just f-ing regular people asking for a little bit of liberty and self determination.

 

Hilarious.

 

From Grok on FDR, Mussolini, and fascism.

The historical record shows a nuanced picture regarding Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR)'s views on Benito Mussolini and fascism. In the early 1930s, amid the Great Depression, FDR expressed personal admiration for Mussolini as a leader and showed interest in some aspects of Italian fascist economic policies, which contemporaries noted as sharing surface-level similarities with elements of the New Deal. However, FDR did not endorse fascism as an ideology, and his administration's policies remained within a democratic framework. By the mid-1930s, as Mussolini's aggression escalated, FDR shifted to open opposition, condemning fascism and aligning against Italy during World War II.

Early Admiration and Mutual Praise
In private correspondence and statements during his first term, FDR spoke positively of Mussolini. For instance, in 1933, FDR told a White House correspondent, "I don’t mind telling you in confidence that I am keeping in fairly close touch with that admirable Italian gentleman." He also wrote to U.S. Ambassador Breckinridge Long that he was "much interested and deeply impressed by what [Mussolini] has accomplished and by his evidenced honest purpose of restoring Italy." This reflected a broader American fascination with Mussolini in the 1920s and early 1930s, where many elites saw him as a modernizer who had stabilized Italy through strong leadership, public works, and corporatism (a system integrating business, labor, and government under state oversight).

Mussolini reciprocated the sentiment. He wrote a glowing review of FDR's 1933 book Looking Forward, stating that it was "reminiscent of Fascism" in its assertion that "the state no longer leaves the economy to its own devices" and that the accompanying mood "resembles that of Fascism." Mussolini also praised FDR's Secretary of Agriculture Henry Wallace's book New Frontiers for echoing his own corporatist ideas. Even Nazi outlets like Völkischer Beobachter lauded FDR's policies for adopting "National Socialist strains of thought" and moving toward an "authoritarian state" prioritizing collective good over individual self-interest.
Key advisers around FDR echoed this intrigue. Rexford Tugwell, a prominent New Deal architect, wrote in his diary that Mussolini had done "many of the things which seem to me necessary" and described Italy's fascist system as "the cleanest… most efficiently operating piece of social machinery I’ve ever seen. It makes me envious." Lorena Hickok, a close confidante of Eleanor Roosevelt, expressed approval of dictatorial efficiency and mused about leading a "Fascist Movement in the United States."

Comparisons Between the New Deal and Fascist Policies
Critics and supporters alike drew parallels between FDR's New Deal and fascist economic experiments in Italy and Germany, viewing them as responses to the global economic crisis that rejected laissez-faire liberalism in favor of state intervention, planning, and public mobilization. For example:
The National Recovery Administration (NRA), which set industry codes for prices, wages, and competition, was seen as akin to Italian corporatism. An internal NRA report noted that "The Fascist Principles are very similar to those we have been evolving here in America."
Public works projects like the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) were compared to Mussolini's reclamation of the Pontine Marshes or Hitler's autobahns, symbolizing state-led modernization.

The Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) shared organizational similarities with fascist youth labor programs, though it was voluntary and civilian-focused.
FDR's rhetoric, such as calling the nation a "trained and loyal army" in his 1933 inaugural address and seeking "broad executive power to wage a war against the emergency," evoked military metaphors common in fascist propaganda.
Progressive writer Roger Shaw described the New Deal as "Fascist means to gain liberal ends," while journalist Anne O’Hare McCormick noted the atmosphere in Washington resembled Rome after Mussolini's 1922 March on Rome. Historians like John P. Diggins and Kiran Klaus Patel later substantiated these convergences, attributing them to shared challenges like unemployment, but emphasized that the New Deal expanded democratic participation rather than suppressing it.

Conservatives like Herbert Hoover criticized the New Deal as "Fascist regimentation," while leftists, including the Communist Party USA and Norman Thomas, accused FDR of fascist tendencies or state capitalism. However, scholars stress that comparisons do not equate the systems: The U.S. avoided one-party rule, secret police, concentration camps, or constitutional abolition, and institutions like the Supreme Court (which struck down the NRA in 1935) checked executive overreach.8bd3d165abc4
Shift to Opposition
FDR's positive views soured as Mussolini's regime turned aggressive. After Italy's 1935 invasion of Ethiopia, FDR condemned the action and supported League of Nations sanctions.425533 By 1938, FDR warned in speeches that fascism threatened American democracy, equating it with communism as extremist dangers if the U.S. failed to address economic woes peacefully.a3e443 When Mussolini allied with Hitler and entered World War II in 1940, FDR fully opposed him, leading to Italy's defeat by Allied forces (including the U.S.) in 1945.876550ef34ba In a 1933 letter to FDR, Mussolini expressed hopes for cordial U.S.-Italy relations, but by war's end, FDR viewed fascism as antithetical to American values.4bbf98
In summary, while FDR admired Mussolini personally and drew pragmatic inspiration from some fascist economic tactics in the early New Deal era, he did not support fascism as a political system. His stance evolved into firm opposition as geopolitical tensions mounted, aligning with broader U.S. anti-fascist efforts in World War II.

 

Yes, it absolutely is. Right, the same thing Obama and Hilary ran on in 2008.

Oh wait, where were the "NO KINGS" protest...

LOL



What we are seeing is that people on one side of the token are getting radicalized while the other is sitting on their hands.

Three options:

• Eventually the democrat party dies completely and they never win another election as they continue to lose democrat voters.
• They move back to the middle and win elections
• Or they keep pushing left and the minority becomes so radicalized that it comes to a head.

Trends back this up.

 

That study is some heavy reading and I unfortunately cannot invest the time into digesting what the authors are actually concluding. But, from lived experience, it is plainly true that liberals have moved further left since 1990. That tracks. But, the idea that conservatives have remained steady is laughable. If they carefully measured and came to that result, they measured the wrong things. From what I've seen of the paper, they'd probably have a more nuanced and impenetrable explanation of what that graph really means though, knowing academics.

 

Republicans have shifted more towards the middle in this timeframe for whatever that is worth.

 

In some ways, but more radical in others. It's also hard to really characterize how the republicans have shifted on a very simple-minded left-right axis. Since Trump, Republicans have gotten far more nativist with many more conservatives thinking immigration was a big problem when they didn't before. Seems like a rightward shift in one way, but in another its a big government move that doesn't value individual rights and in that way not so conservative. They've grown more authoritarian too and allow the president great latitude in making policy. But authoritarianism isn't really a left-right move; both left and right have had authoritarians. So, how do you show how radically they've changed when all you have is a dumb left-right spectrum? Liberalism was a long-term slow march leftward, but Trumpism is a revolution that changes the whole paradigm. Maybe trying to measure political change with this cluster approach is a sensible way to track ideology through the swirl or politics, but it must be missing something because Trumpism doesn't show a blip in their data despite overturning the whole world order.

 

Possibly relevant (?) in terms of the central import of semantic arguments.

Historians: Quibbling Over Exact Definition of Concentration Camp Sign of Healthy Society

 

Here’s the article https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/2026/01/america-fascism-trump-maga-ice/685751/

I’ve been semi-joking for years now on this board “can we call them fascist yet?” It’s been obvious from near the beginning that MAGA is a fascist movement. Hey, but now a former republican has blessed the use of the word , so I guess it’s okay.

 

If it can open up a healthy line of discourse, better late than never.

 

Not really. Leftists are too dishonest to accept that, by definition, fascism is a left-wing ideology.

 

The hypocrisy here is terribly blatant. You have been posting that everybody on the left is evil, godless, supports child murder and rape and what not for months now, and then you turn around and post memes like this which is dunking on yourself in a mirror.

Replying to your posts remind me SO MUCH of trying to have a discussion with ATW, that it's almost hard to believe it's not the same person im talking to, and honestly the scariest thing is to imagine it's not the same person.

I don't agree that it's by definition left wing. Economic policy can be all over the place and I'm not sure it's anywhere close to being the most important part of defining the word here, I do get the point your trying to make on it though.

What do you think of Trumps tariff situation, would you call that right wing/free market economics?