There was a pile-on of commentators challenging my right to describe far-right politics as fascist on this blog yesterday.
This has happened before, and in March 2023, I wrote a glossary entry on what fascism might be considered as a result. I reproduce this below.
It is worth noting what I say there about the way the far-right and fascists use DARVO — deny, attack, and reverse victim and offender — as a deliberate gaslighting technique. When accused of authoritarianism, they reject the allegation and then attack those who raise the charge, and finally claim victimhood themselves. This not only confuses the public but also shifts the burden onto those trying to hold them to account. This is undoubtedly what those commenting here are seeking to do. Naming and exposing this tactic is essential if we are to resist its corrosive effect on democratic debate.
Please do, of course, feel free to use these definitions to suggest why far-right and fascist traits are now seen in UK politics. We need to record this. I will make notes on suggestions made to assemble a master list unless anyone else wishes to volunteer to do so. I find the Laurence Britt version more interesting, overall.
Defining fascism is challenging for three reasons.
The first is that, unlike, for example, communists, fascists have been very reluctant to use the term to describe themselves. That means that even agreeing on which groups are fascist is open to controversy.
Second, those groups which have been described as fascist are not all consistent in their attitudes or behaviour. This inconsistency has to be dealt with as a consequence.
The third reason is that the term is usually actively resisted by those to whom it is applied. Rather as one of the surest signs that a place is a tax haven is its vehement denial that it is a tax haven, so is it the case that a group that appears fascist in inclination is absolutely vehement in its denial of the fact. It is, in fact, commonplace for those accused of being fascist to use DARVO (deny, attack, and reverse victim and offender) gaslighting techniques on those accusing them of being so.
In this situation, definitions of fascism have either to be broadly based or describe the common characteristics of the groups that are suggested to be fascist in orientation.
One broadly based definition is that fascism is a genus of political ideology whose mythic core in its various permutations is a palingenetic form of populist ultra-nationalism, where palingenetic refers to the revival or rebirth of a national spirit, culture and religion in society. The essence is clear: the idea of national superiority to the exclusion of others is promoted by populist means.
The Cambridge Dictionary defines fascism as ‘a political system based on a very powerful leader, state control, and being extremely proud of country and race, and in which political opposition is not allowed'.
McGill University, in its Wikispeedia, has defined fascism as ‘a radical political ideology that combines elements of corporatism, authoritarianism, nationalism, militarism, anti-liberalism and anti-communism'. Doing so, it moves from being broadly based towards listing characteristics.
The most commonly quoted of these lists of characteristics was developed by Umberto Eco in an article entitled Ur-Fascism for the New York Review of Books in 1995. This list has been summarised in various ways, this being one of them:
- The cult of tradition. One has only to look at the syllabus of every fascist movement to find the major traditionalist thinkers. The Nazi gnosis was nourished by traditionalist, syncretistic, occult elements.
- The rejection of modernism. The Enlightenment, the Age of Reason, is seen as the beginning of modern depravity. In this sense, Ur-Fascism can be defined as irrationalism.
- The cult of action for action's sake. Action being beautiful in itself, it must be taken before, or without, any previous reflection. Thinking is a form of emasculation.
- Disagreement is treason. The critical spirit makes distinctions, and to distinguish is a sign of modernism. In modern culture, the scientific community praises disagreement as a way to improve knowledge.
- Fear of difference. The first appeal of a fascist or prematurely fascist movement is an appeal against the intruders. Thus, Ur-Fascism is racist by definition.
- Appeal to social frustration. One of the most typical features of historical fascism was the appeal to a frustrated middle class, a class suffering from an economic crisis or feelings of political humiliation, and frightened by the pressure of lower social groups.
- The obsession with a plot. Thus, at the root of the Ur-Fascist psychology, there is the obsession with a plot, possibly an international one. The followers must feel besieged.
- The enemy is both strong and weak. By a continuous shifting of rhetorical focus, the enemies are at the same time too strong and too weak.
- Pacifism is trafficking with the enemy. For Ur-Fascism, there is no struggle for life but, rather, life is lived for struggle.
- Contempt for the weak. Elitism is a typical aspect of any reactionary ideology.
- Everybody is educated to become a hero. In Ur-Fascist ideology, heroism is the norm. This cult of heroism is strictly linked with the cult of death.
- Machismo and weaponry. Machismo implies both disdain for women and intolerance and condemnation of nonstandard sexual habits, from chastity to homosexuality.
- Selective populism. There is in our future a TV or Internet populism, in which the emotional response of a selected group of citizens can be presented and accepted as the Voice of the People.
- Ur-Fascism speaks Newspeak. All the Nazi or Fascist schoolbooks made use of an impoverished vocabulary and an elementary syntax in order to limit the instruments for complex and critical reasoning.
This list is not the same as that published later by Laurence Britt in 2003:
- Powerful and Continuing Nationalism
Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays. - Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights
Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc. - Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause
The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial, ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists; terrorists, etc. - Supremacy of the Military
Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorised. - Rampant Sexism
The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Opposition to abortion is high, as is homophobia and anti-gay legislation and national policy. - Controlled Mass Media
Sometimes, the media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in wartime, is very common. - Obsession with National Security
Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses. - Religion and Government are Intertwined
Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions. - Corporate Power is Protected
The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and a power elite. - Labour Power is Suppressed
Because the organising power of labour is the only real threat to a fascist government, labour unions are either eliminated entirely or severely suppressed. - Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts
Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts is openly attacked, and governments often refuse to fund the arts. - Obsession with Crime and Punishment
Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations. - Rampant Cronyism and Corruption
Fascist regimes are almost always governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders. - Fraudulent Elections
Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times, elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even the assassination of opposition candidates, the use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and the manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciary to manipulate or control elections.
Neither list is perfect. It is also not true that all characteristics need to be found for fascism to be identified. Precisely because fascism is amorphous, the lists should be seen as indicative. They are, nonetheless, considered helpful in association with the more broadly based definitions.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Robert O Paxton, an American scholar of Fascism, makes the point that as nationalism is at the heart of Fascism, each version will reflect its country of origin. More than varieties of socialism (or neo-liberalism?)
Many of these factors can also be found to an extent in non-Fascist countries. It is both the number and the degree to which they are implemented that define a Fascist state.
Eco’s list is a useful guide. Sadly the world is giving us modern examples.
I agree with that suggestion
My O-level History final exam paper 1968:
“”Fascism is conservatism pretending to be revolutionary.” Discuss with reference to Italy 1918-1939.”
Today I finally tracked down the author – it’s generally attributed to Robert Paxton, but I can’t find any published work of his before 1972 and “Vichy France”. My search is still incomplete. Serendipity has Ian Stevenson’s mention of Paxton!
Meanwhile, for anyone who has access to the NYT online, here’s an article about Paxton’s reaction to 6 January at the Capitol. Some less-assertive definitions and reasoning appear to be helpful in avoiding the “misses” if one tries to apply Eco or Britt’s list approach.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/23/magazine/robert-paxton-facism.html
Thanks
Good work – the outcome for me is that I think that I have been living in a country that has been descending in fascism for some time. The obsession with socialism being the lubrication.
One of the best things about your posts is that they provide access to information that I and others would not otherwise be able to normally or readily access. This defining of fascism is a classic example. Your depth of delving into that access, research, and knowledge is truly amazing. Thank you for your diligence and grace, in sharing all of this with others. It is truly appreciated.
Thanks
Benito Mussolini, the founder of fascism, described it as:
*The Primacy of the State: “Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State.”
*Totalitarianism: Permeating all aspects of life—economic, social, intellectual, and moral.
*Rejection of Liberalism, Democracy, and Socialism
*The Importance of Action and Struggle: War and conflict were essential for bringing out the highest potential in humanity
*A “Spiritual” Conception of Life
“It is worth noting what I say there about the way the far-right and fascists use DARVO — deny, attack, and reverse victim and offender — as a deliberate gaslighting technique. When accused of authoritarianism, they reject the allegation and then attack those who raise the charge, and finally claim victimhood themselves. This not only confuses the public but also shifts the burden onto those trying to hold them to account.”
This describes the entire Anti-Woke movement; they paint themselves as resisting cancel culture, championing free speech, standing up to the, allegedly, all-powerful woke mob, and before you know it, they are pulling down pride flags and making it unsafe for trans people to go to the toilet. Victory for the “oppressed”, they can now be free to be utter pricks while their former “oppressors” are now in genuine physical danger.
I think you wanting the State to annex private property at below market value has all the hallmarks of Stalin and is deeply authoritarian. The far left is as bad as the far right.
Why not read what I had to say in fascism morning?
You are doing DARVO
Tell me old chap: do you include in your comment wrt private property e.g. the privately owned monopoly water companies? you know, the ones that were going to invest so much to prevent leaks and fix ageing sewage systems & which instead have enhanced the amount of sewage in your local river. Or, the profit gouging electricity network companies, gas companies, rail companies………..etc. Tufton St having a quiet day is it?
I think there’s a problem with definitions of fascism focused mainly on its political and cultural aspects. Look through the lists of characteristics here – can’t you think of at least one monarchy in history, or indeed now, where they apply ? You might say: but then those monarchies, or indeed avowedly ‘communist’ regimes that have shared such characteristics, are ‘really’ fascism. But that’s a game: anyone can think up a definition and make the world fit it.
I think a better definition is the simple one: ‘the continuation of capitalism by undemocratic means’. This has the great advantage of incorporating the economic dimension, which is, in fact, central to fascism as it appears in history. In Spain in the 1930s and Chile in the 1970s fascism was very clearly, specifically, a response to the election of governments that were perceived as an existential threat to capitalism – and I think any careful analysis of the background to the triumph of fascists in Italy, Germany Hungary, Austria – even France – and other countries – will conclude that reaction to the Russian Revolution and the fear of a ‘domino effect’, and the reality of growing popularity of anti-capitalist movements and political parties, was the main factor in the rise of fascism.
And this more economic definition has another important consequence: it enables us to see clearly the turn to Trump, etc, in the context of the same kind of capitalist oligarchy, along with economic and political instability, that formerly gave rise to Mussolini, Hitler, Franco, Pinochet, etc.. And the existential threat to capitalism ? Then it was socialist revolution, now it is climate-ecological breakdown.
I think economics clearly has a role.
But I also think you seriously overstate it. For Mussolini you might be right: otherwise, I am not nearly so sure.
While I dislike using the term “capitalism” — for it inevitably invites the words “Marxism” and “socialism” into the discussion; and it is many times not necessary to speak in such broad, blurry, and controversial terms — I think there is merit to the idea that when power feels existentially threatened, it lashes out. Whether you call that power capitalism, or oligarchy, or something else, is your choice.
In the U.S., I would say our oligarchs are motivated by both fear and greed. They’ll easily own up to the greed, if you read what they say. They think competition is for the chumps who believe in fair play, the NPCs. They want to make their own games and their own rules. If you insist on regulating the existing tools of the financial sector, they’ll create a new vehicle, one which isn’t regulated. They want growth all the time, a new startup every day. They don’t want democracy, because democracy impinges on their freedom to do whatever they want.
The fear is less explicit, and sometimes difficult to parse out from their pandering to racists and extremists. But if we can guess at their fears second-hand (by what the state as a whole seems concerned with), I would say they fear being left out of a pan-Asian alliance. They fear climate change less than they fear who controls the chip factories, mineral commodities, and energy markets (which by extension includes renewables). If the EU is going to let itself be exploited, they want to be first in line, not last.
Thank you Richard.
It is tricky.
We don’t live in a fascist country, but we have many leading politicians who are deliberately pressing many of the fascist buttons you list in these different definitions.
Jenrick Badenoch and Farage ‘fearing’ – ie inciting – a summer of rioting outside asylum hotels :
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/aug/10/rightwingers-summer-riots-britain-labour-civil-war
But walking to Downing Street among tens of thousands of Gaza demonstrators a couple of weeks ago as a few relaxed police looked on without much concern – made one appreciative that we still live in a ‘free country’.
But one also realised this massive passionate peaceful turnout would not be mentioned by the BBC (unlike the tiny turnout the next day’s pro Israel demo also at Downing Street).
As usual, the tiny but potent static ‘anti -genocide pro P.A.’ sit-down in Parliament Square was headlined because it involved ‘trouble’, even though it was not the BBC’s favourite kind of trouble , but the somewhat awkward arrests of 80 year-olds.
One doesn’t want to bandy the ‘fascism’ label sbout so much as to devalue it.
We seem to be in a ‘corrupt democracy’- one that is bought and sold to international corporate interests. This is a system which is using some of the elements of fascism to maintain control – especially the ultra nationalist, anti-migrant stuff.
But its unstable – that’s why we are apprehensive …
Your statement about Fascists is exactly what the left do, now your blaming it on the right wing, is that the soft right or the hard right or people that think discipline and family life is good or anyone slightly right of centre?
James
DARVO, again. You are so predicatble.
But where is this so-called left? And who are they? I would in 1975 have been well to the right in the Labour Party. A social democrat. A firm believer in the mixed economy, and personal freedoms. I have not changed since then. So where precisely do you find these left wingers who scare you so much because I can’t see them anywhere – and I have looked – but I can see fascists in Reform, the Tories and Labour.
Might you just be guilty of fixating about ‘reds under beds’?
Thank-you for these lists and the research involved in finding them. It seems quite obvious to me that Trump meets the definition of being a fascist. He ticked every box on the second list. For Farage we have less evidence because, of course, he has never been in power, but on the second list I would say he or Reform could tick several. 1-3, 5,6,11,13,14. Like Trump Farage seeks to manipulate the mass media and is very skilled at doing so which would bode ill, should he ever come to power. There are areas of policy where we have no idea what Farage thinks- on the military for instance. I have never heard him utter anything about the constitution or the role of the crown. Farage is clearly a work in progress. I can easily imagine him strutting about in a WW2 German uniform, but have never actually seen him in one, unless you could call that ghastly coat of his a uniform of sorts.
Thanks
A majority already then
OK – how’s this one – Clara Mattei (The Capital Order 2022), seemed to find austerity in the fascism of Mussolini’s Italy, used to de-stabilise workers capacity for self organisation. When you think about austerity, it does have that sort of ‘thuggery’ about it that often comes with fascism, an element of pleasure in making people struggle.
Agreed
You can see it in the Truimp entourage as well
While Mussolini’s first period of government imposed significant austerity that changed by the late 1920’s with programmes being introduced for food supplementary assistance, infant care, maternity assistance, general healthcare, wage supplements, paid vacations, unemployment benefits, illness insurance, occupational disease insurance, general family assistance, public housing and old age and disability insurance. and large scale infrastructure and education spending.
“Fascist social welfare legislation compared favorably with the more advanced European nations and in some respects was more progressive.” – A. James Gregor p. 263 – Italian Fascism and Developmental Dictatorship, 1979.
That’s not to say they didn’t make significant economic mistakes as well.
The Nazis were also noted for infrastructure health and education spending and work programmes, many of the those programmes, the autobahns for example, were started or planned by the previous Weimar Regime but the NAZI’s continued them with significant enthusiasm. Of course, all their programmes were conducted within the frame of their racist and eugenic notions and Germany had long had better health and pension provision that most European countries. They also had strict wage controls. The So-called “German economic miracle” of the 1930’s was not built on austerity, Hitler had no interest in economics himself, at least in part they copied Mussolini but also a respected banker, Hjalmar Schacht, played a big part.
https://www.theholocaustexplained.org/life-in-nazi-occupied-europe/economic-policy/economic-recovery/
The rich in both countries generally did do well out of fascism, they wanted to keep workers onside but had no problem at all with the rich, and of course themselves, getting richer.
Both countries also had very high military spending.
Suppression of unions and their replacement by a state controlled Union was as much about control as anything. Of course, international markets also represent a potential threat to state power, so they aimed, without much success, for self-sufficiency and were generally anti-globalisation
Trying to pin austerity as a fascist notion really doesn’t work
Accepted.
Austerity is a neoliberal idea – and fascism opposes neoliberalism.
It was is an ideology that denies that it is an ideology. It wants to destroy all ideologies and remove them memory. In place of this state is a return to a past that never happened, led by a leader who claims to represent tradition and revolution.
Try Blair Fix – https://economicsfromthetopdown.com/2025/04/15/the-deep-roots-of-fascist-thought/
I found that fascinating. Thank you.
What a pleasure to read, and I almost missed it!
AI aims to turn reverse the linguistic trend. Like guns, AI projects power disproportionate to the number of those who wield it. It is a force multiplier.
I can quibble somewhat about male-dominated Enlightenment thought being an answer to fascism — after all, the culmination of reason and science might be seen as the atomic bomb, which (monstrous as it was) became our answer to fascism in WWII — but on the whole, there is much to appreciate.
Agreed
I actually listened to this last night as I as really tired, and it was well worth the time.
I ike to use a very simple description. Fascism is capitalism in panic mode. When capitalism is threatened, the gloves come off and the luxuries of liberal democracy and a market economy are dispensed with.
I remain unconvinced. Capitalism is overall a small theme in fascism, I think.
But I am open to persuasion.
While Michael Parenti’s macroeconomics is crap (government as a household) he is one of the most perceptive analysts of geopolitical economics and how the aggressively and constantly self-proclaiming great democracies, be that Britain or the USA, employ fascism to preserve their status quo: “It is the heart of US policy, ladies and gentlemen, to use fascism to preserve capitalism, while claiming to be saving democracy from communism.”
It’s in our faces today. And, of course, a capitalist democracy is the practice of socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor.
Hmm…
This sounds >exactly< like the Trump regime in AmeriKKKa. ☹️
Why is it telling me that I'm posting comments too quickly?
[…] and would appear to be a perfect example of the commonplace right-wing technique that I noted yesterday when […]
This is a truly useful, insightful post and commentary. I will be writing about fascism, what Putin wants, and what Russians want later today. I will cite you and I thank you in advance.