Fascism is not just about Mussolini or Hitler. It is an ideology that divides humanity into “superior” and “inferior” groups — with catastrophic consequences. In this video, I explain what fascism really means, why its essence is exclusion, and why true democracy depends on equality and respect for all.
This is the audio version:
This is the transcript:
What is fascism? I mean, what is fascism really? What does it actually mean when we say that somebody is a fascist, or an ideology is fascist?
There have been a lot of lists produced over time, and some of them are really quite useful. Have a look at the one by Umberto Eco, for example.
But I saw a definition recently, which I thought was really good. It was written by a chap whom I vaguely know called Umair Haque, and he suggested that fascism divides humanity into superhuman and subhuman groups, and that's all that we need to know to define whether a person is fascist or not, or whether an ideology is fascist or not.
Now, I don't think that the idea is completely unique to Umair. I think that actually it comes from others. David Graeber and David Wengrow, for example, did work around this idea as well. But the point is that if this is the case, the true opposite of fascism is respect for all human beings as equals, and it is not democracy as such. It is deeper than that. It's about literally our human relationships.
And understanding this matters now, because what this says is that fascism is not really Mussolini's corporate state. Nor is it Hitler's national socialism or Nazi Party. And it's not just strong leaders dominating weak parliaments that are subject to their will. These are symptoms, but they're not the core disease that fascism represents.
The essence of fascism is eugenic. It is its claim that there are people who have worth over others as a fact of nature, when there's absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support that claim at all.
Fascism tries to split humanity into categories of worth.
Rights are made conditional and not universal.
And from this division, the horrors of fascism naturally follow.
The rule of law is suspended as a consequence of this division. It's suspended for the subhuman.
Violence against those subhumans is then justified and celebrated.
And conflict becomes permanent proof of the worth of the superhuman.
Fascism persists not as a passing aberration, but on the basis of its compounding of cruelty.
How then do we build an opposition to this ideology of cruelty?
Let's be clear, democracy is important, but it is only an institutional form in that sense because, without values, democracy is hollow. There can be no true democracy unless it is based upon the belief that every person should be equally represented within the society and the political system that democracy claims to represent.
Respect for all humans as equals provides those values that make democracy real.
That respect resists exclusion and affirms universality.
So the principles of respect need to be spelt out.
They are dignity, every person has equal worth.
And there is liberation, the idea that freedom from oppression is inherent within a political ideology.
There is transformation. This is the rejection of the idea that people are naturally born to a state, which they cannot change. Transformation makes clear that people can grow and change and flourish and are not either superhuman or subhuman, but are just simply people on a pathway through life.
These ideas directly oppose the determinism which is inherent in fascism's view of what humanity is. They do essentially respect diversity when fascism deems that we are all fixed to a stereotype, which we cannot change.
And this matters because democracy collapses if rights aren't universal.
Conditional rights corrode equality, and societies can't survive on that basis.
Exclusion hollows out the political system. Fascism thrives when rights are denied.
This also has economic implications. Fascism reduces people to a status and not to dignity.
Neoliberalism echoes this by treating people as costs. Respect for equality requires an economy of care and not one in which people are simply treated as means of production. We are not that. We are people of worth, deserving of public services and redistribution to make sure that we have what we need to survive in the society of which we are a part. And justice is essential inside a system of politics, but also of economics, so that everybody can partake.
So what must we do? We must name fascism for what it is. The division of humanity. That is what fascism's aim is, and it is what it does. It literally says you are superior, you are inferior; we will divide the world so that the spoils go to the superior, and if you are inferior, you are going to be in deep trouble.
We have to call that out because that is happening here in the UK right now, and it's happening in so many other countries as well. In the USA, it's now almost embedded in law. Instead, we need to embed the universal nature of rights into law and policy. And we need to build economics around dignity and inclusion, and not about the exclusion on which it is currently premised.
We must resist the politics of fear and exclusion. Fascism divides us. The respect for all humans as equals amongst others unites us, and democracy depends upon that universal equality. The choice is between exclusion and fear, or dignity and equality. Humanising economics and politics is our only choice now.
What do you think? Do you think we're all equal? Or do you think we should build our society on the basis of division? Do you think there are some people who are superior and others who are inferior? And do you think some should be rewarded just because of who they are, and others should be punished?
Let us know. There's a poll below. This is a matter which affects you and one with which you must engage.
Poll
Loading ...Comments
When commenting, please take note of this blog's comment policy, which is available here. Contravening this policy will result in comments being deleted before or after initial publication at the editor's sole discretion and without explanation being required or offered.
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!
Taking a liberty with Orwell All people are equal just some more so. Seems to fit well into Reforrm and the current situation we find ourselves in.
The simplified definition of fascism presented here made it possible for me to clarify why I believe the UK is – and always has been – a fascist state: our insistence on dividing the population into those that deserve more (the monarchy, the aristocracy, inheritors of intergenerational wealth, etc.) and those that deserve less (almost everyone else, but especially refugees, immigrants, those with disabilities, and so on).
If we (as a society) genuinely believed all people are equal, and equally deserving, surely we’d have a classless/casteless system and both economic systems and democratic structures that reflect this?
But, time and again, we chose to persist and entrench division based on classifications of people as super-normal vs sub-normal.
Well said.
I call it the Boots or the Doormat British social convention. It works as a political conflictual dynamo between classes. In general terms, the higher righteously scorn the bottom. The lower righteously scorn the top. The middle are made up of those who aspire to rise to the top, those who are proud to have risen from the lower and those who just want everyone to get along. An identity politics rooted in class conflict.
This structural social bullying template is culturally reinforced by both the British Monarchy and its cult of celebrities.
In many ways POTUS Trump and his allies in The Heritage Foundation are taking their historical lead from Britain.
Well said.
I call it the Boots or the Doormat British social convention. It works as a political conflictual dynamo between classes. In general terms, the higher righteously scorn the bottom. The lower righteously scorn the top. The middle are made up of those who aspire to rise to the top, those who are proud to have risen from the lower and those who just want everyone to get along with each other. An identity politics rooted in perpetual class conflict.
This structural social bullying template is culturally reinforced by both the British Monarchy and its cult of celebrities.
In many ways POTUS Trump and his allies in The Heritage Foundation are taking their historical lead from Britain.
Thank you, Richard. What you’ve said feels especially relevant today. I completely agree that real democracy can only exist when it is built on equality and respect for all.
The problem is that equality has always been difficult to achieve. Colonialism divided the world into developed and underdeveloped nations, allowing colonial powers to prosper while leaving behind systems that still disadvantage others. Even today, the U.S. and the West often rely on economic and political dominance—through tariffs, pressure, or even wars—to protect their own interests. This undermines fairness and continues to widen the gap between rich and poor nations. And while the West speaks loudly about democracy, it has also supported corrupt or authoritarian regimes whenever doing so served its own prosperity. The ongoing situation in the Middle East is hard to ignore.
Within developed countries, neoliberalism has produced similar effects to colonialism. The wealthy grow richer and set the rules in their favor, while the poor are increasingly left behind. Powerful economic interests have come to shape government policy, slowly eroding fairness, weakening societies, and deepening inequality. Slower economic growth may be part of the reason, but the result is that these pressures, long familiar to Africa and Asia are now being felt more widely in the West itself.
If we are truly committed to equality at home, we must extend that principle globally by treating all nations and peoples with equal respect.
But this leaves us with a difficult question: can we really hope for strong democracies with fair and just societies in the West while continuing to pursue policies abroad – especially in Africa and the Global South – that remain so unequal and undemocratic?
I agree with you.
Which is why I got into all my campaigning because of a concern about the Global South.
You clear think neoliberals are inferior, so my definition you are a fascist.
I have never said any such thing. Being wrong does not imply inferiority. I have erred in my time. Being prejudiced, as you clearly are is, however, not a good sign.
Looking at the poll results so far, I wonder whether some people are misreading an absent ”should” into the question. Or maybe I have misunderstood an ellipsis, and should have inferred a “should” myself. Reading the news, and listening to people’s stories in conversation, paints a picture of an increasingly unfair and unequal society. True equality has never existed, is unachievable, and not even particularly desirable, but we have done better with fairness in our lifetimes than we are right now.
I am not sure this morning’s polls are my best. Sorry.
The Conservatives have announced they will leave the ECHR. The reason given is enable deportation. Well, we haven’t seen a British Project 2029 or whenever but it would be naive to assume one is not being written. Human Rights are an obstacle to their agenda.
I struggled a bit with the word equal, and then I wondered why. I think its because equality isnt enough, if it doesnt include being fully human. Neither an oppressor nor the oppressed are being fully human.
My starting point is “shared humanity” (to which my theology adds “made in the image of God”, useful against fascists who weaponise religion).
I suppose we have to try and then decide what someone elses “humanity” obliges ME to do in terms of treating them as human (rather than what I myself am entitled to). I deny my own and another’s humanity, if I oppress them.
That leads us to conventions like ECHR or the UN Declaration of universal human rights.
But then reality kicks in (or what I call the fallen world) and we have to decide what to do about unpleasant situations (forced mass migrations) and people misbehaving (murder, theft, rape), and how/when people might lose certain rights (criminals losing their liberty) but not ALL their rights they are still human – or how one person’s rights impinge on another’s (when two people need housing but only one house is available).
And then we have to agree on some red lines, beyond which we are abusing basic human rights – so a country cannot “defend itself” by obliterating and/or terrorising every citizen of its attacking territory.
We have conventions for such things, although they are under serious threat. But at the more mundane level, housing, health and social care, disability, poverty, hunger, we see less discussion – but enormous suffering, discrimination, and failure to respect human rights. We write these “subhumans” off, ignore them, try not to think of them, and they suffer and die quietly in substantial numbers almost invisible to most of us. Discussions about their needs, which are rare in public, especially nowadays, are pragmatic, based on what we can afford, or what they deserve (hard working? contributing? native born?) and don’t often draw on “rights” language.
Sorry, that was a ramble.
On a worthwhile issue.
An interesting take on division when I was about 10/11 years old (early 60s) came from the Church of Scotland Hymn Book used 3 mornings per week at assembly in our small village school.
From “All Things Bright and Beautiful
The rich man in his castle,
The poor man at his gate-
God made them high and and lowly
And ordered their estate”
As I recall this verse was never sung, but I often wondered about it because at R.E. we were told that “we are all equal in the eyes of the Lord……. “
Now I wonder if that verse is still around or if anyone else knows about it? Or has it just been quietly removed??
It’s certainly part of my rejection of organised religion because it never made sense to me! However I expect there are still plenty of folk who would happily subscribe to that thought.
I loathed that hymn. It was everything bad about church as organised oppression.
Has there ever been a female fascist leader? I know 2 of the Mitford girls were prominent admirers of Hitler, but that’s not the same.
I am sure some in Reform would differ with you.
Giorgia Meloni is pretty openly neo-fascist, her party symbol includes the post-war Italian fascist symbol, the tricolour flame. Marine Le Pen might not claim to be neo-fascist now but that’s certainly her origin. Both denounce the worst excesses of 20thC fascism, Meloni has denounced Mussolini’s adoption of Nazi racial ideas in 1938 though not Mussolini personally. Whether they would meet the definition above is a different question.
Might it help to use a new word to describe the current socio-political state of our/their country?
Might such a word be “Fascish”?
🙂
When I was voting I hesitated over the question “What do you think about how we organise our society?”. I think we organise our society with people being regarded as superior and inferior. But if the question were to say “how should we organise our society” I would say treat all people equally.
Sorry
I voted to reflect what I believe, but our society does have privileged groups; opportunity and justice are not equally available for all. We have a history of centuries of feudalism morphing into an industrial age, when most people lived in poverty and most privilege came through family or patronage. Absolute monarchy was reined (reigned?) in, democracy slowly (and painfully – chartists, suffragettes) grew until all adults had the vote just over a century ago. Democracy needs its roots protecting and nourishing as they are not very deep, and grow in soil that has fed a very unequal and static society for a long time. We need to know our history and be alert to rewrites.
Mainstream films love to depict disasters, where the populace is helpless, and a superhero or a few brave, smart individuals take action. A genre I avoid, but it never seems to go away.
Your poll is ambiguous. Do you mean how things are or how things should be?
Apologies. Should be.
There are two types of people in the world: those who divide the world into two types of people and those who don’t!
🙂
Isn’t fascism a “run-away from reality” ideology? Run-away from acknowledging that with the invention of money this has allowed the two-sided system of market capitalism which whilst beneficial in many ways is also adversarial in that it allows gross disparity of incomes whilst also damaging the sustainability of the planet.
The super human – sub-human distinction seems entirely consistent with Neo-liberal attitudes to authoritarianism, wealth and the law.
Thinking about that gives Haque’s thesis a lot of credibility and I think that you are in the right ball park.
The history of it though is all there. The Nazis were the biggest capitalists of all – charging German firms for slave labour from the camps, their theft of art, resources, creating markets out of brutality, seizing assets (the biggest being land).
David Graeber and David Wengrow suggest that throughout history, those that that see themselves as the ‘exception’ along the lines of Carl Schmitt simply help it all to end in violence.
It tells us something about the true nature of authentic democracy that I think modern Liberalism cannot deal with? Democracy cannot be imposed, but at the same time it has to set limits on bad human behaviour. It is a real challenge, dealing with a liberty that mus also set limits on that liberty. Liberty for so long has been enabling individualism at the expense of the collective.
And a new era of fascism seems set to uphold that.
Just what we don’t need at the moment.
Your definition that fascism tries to split humanity into categories of worth is excellent.
Camus wrote a novel “L’Etranger/The Outsider” about a man whose behaviour is rational but does not conform to the conventions of social norms.
The new Fascists are claiming their targets to be either criminals,illegal,terrorists or “spongers”.The conclusion is that they are disruptors of our civil life and standards.
Not subhuman/untermenschen as used by the Nazis because Trump and his UK equivalents want these claims to be broadcast in the media and discussed in “polite” society where such accusations of fascism would be deemed hysterical.
As you point out,these targeted groups would not be worthy of the normal rules of law but some politicians and the media will try to justify this.
As a teenager I was made acutely aware of divisions in society, between those with privilege and those without (as fairly poor even by Northern standards, I was a ‘without’). UK has forever been split between the privileged (often inherited, with their own schools and social orbits) and the rest, and with the privileged acting to preserve that very situation. All the conflicts here are created and exploited by them. I see no solution while they can ally with outside interests, buy off or remove anyone with power, and engender conflict in the populace, at this point in time.
I was brought up in fear of the class system, influenced by my father’s fear of being outed for his Irish name and my mother’s fear of the poverty she had been brought up in. I was told by them to keep my head down and never discuss politics or religion. Then I might survive in polite society without being noticed, I was told. I ignored them, to their horror. But this division, created by fear and oppression ,permeates the lives of so many now, perpetrated by the actions of a few. I hate it.
Hi Richard, I’m not seeing your updates on Mastodon any more. Have you given up on that?
I fund it very clunky. I pretty much have up on it. Should I not have done so?
I think Mastodon reaches a different audience. Personally I avoid the commercial social media platforms. I did like to see your updates there.
Ok, I will look again.
It might be less hassle to set up a bridge between your Mastodon and Bluesky accounts, see: https://fed.brid.gy/docs .
That assumes you want the same message everywhere.
Two recent articles that resonate with this discussion of division and inequality, social and economic justice.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2025/sep/30/study-links-greater-inequality-to-structural-changes-in-childrens-brains
“The study of more than 10,000 young people in the US discovered altered brain development in children from wealthy and lower-income families in areas with higher rates of inequality …”
“The findings suggest “inequality creates a toxic social environment” that “literally shapes how young minds develop.”
“Using scan images, researchers studied the surface area and thickness of regions of the cortex – the wrinkly outer layer of the brain – including the areas used for memory, attention, emotion and language.”
“Both children from wealthy and lower-income families showed altered neurodevelopment and we established that this has a lasting impact on wellbeing.”
““Progressive taxation, increased social safety nets and universal healthcare could help alleviate the stressors that disproportionately affect children in more unequal societies. Community-building initiatives and investments in public infrastructure could also mitigate the detrimental effects of inequality by promoting trust and social cohesion.”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/oct/03/asad-rehman-journey-from-antiracism-campaigner-in-burnley-to-head-of-friends-of-the-earth
“It’s an interconnected crisis of climate, [of] inequality, of economic systems that have been rigged against ordinary people. It’s ultimately a crisis of justice … ” Asad Rehman, just appointed chief executive of the environmental charity Friends of the Earth, has been at the forefront of campaigning on economic and social rights, when Amnesty International for instance campaigned only on civil and political rights which has “coalesced into the counter-globalisation movement against neoliberalism.”
I read it.
Interesting.
Read “Determined” by Robert Sapolsky. A difficult read but well worth the effort.
Thanks for that clear, simple definition. I’ve tended to few fascism as an economic system (corporatism) and Naziism as the evil you describe and the ultimate result of capitalism and fascism. Your explanation is, I think, more accurate in its inclusions. As iread your article immediately what came to mind were the principles on which two nations were founded: Zionism and American exceptionalism.
I don’t think it’s about equality v superiority, I think it’s about inclusion v exclusion.
Democracy is about including everyone. Fascism is about excluding some.
Correct
But aren’t they two views of the same thing?
Possibly, but not in terms of the question in the poll which asks if we are all equal or some are superior. We are clearly not all equal in terms of being the same, born equal, of equal value, yes, but that needs unpacking and meaning can get lost in definition and arguments , whereas an inclusive society vs an exclusive society is self defining
OK
I note now why you said what you did.
Yes it’s anti-democratic, but it’s the super-rich who are most threatened by a democratic society that could take away their privileges and use society’s resources for providing universal basic services and supporting the foundational economy. That’s why the super-rich support divide-and-rule/the politics of distraction/scapegoating and Reform. They may still allow elections, but now we have the ‘broligarchy’ controlling so much of social media, AI and the internet, they are more able to shape what people think.
(Now I might being throwing the cat amongst the pigeons but here goes….)
Maybe this description has more universal applicability. Consider that a person’s politics is plotted in a 2-dimensional plot: horizontal axis – the left-right divide and vertical axis – respect for some authority.
[take the test — https://www.politicalcompass.org/test%5D
Then we could describe the right wing as follows — (notice the transitions)
Libertarian — No respect for authority or the law or a belief that they don’t need to.
Liberal — respect for the rule of law.
Conservative — Varies from respect for the law – to respect for merit – to respect for class or genetic superiority.
Fascist — Respect only for superiority (genetic or some proxy for genetics)
The complete opposite of a fascist is an anarchist or left wing libertarian such as Kropotkin/Goldman/Chomsky or a marxian communist because each believes in universal solidarity and rejects centralised authority.
I say that these are opposite in the sense of https://fee.org/wp-content/uploads/articles/may-16-18-grid-compare.jpg
Equal in rights but not in capacity.
Superiority would in that sense mean an obligation to do more than the average, not to receive more than the average.
There will be those who through no fault of their own will be net recipients from the state – not least including children who die from childhood cancer and never reach working adulthood. Any debt or obligation is not theirs.
Many would agree that incentives can help, so some reward for hard work can be argued. However, equality in rights means supporting a baseline of support for all, regardless of capacity.
That means – child benefit for all (in some form), adequate pensions, adequate care provision, unemployment benefits, etc. Paid for by redistribution, which requires addressing the sources of inequality, from under-taxation of capital gains, intergenerational wealth transfer, loop-holes, etc.
We would do well to adopt ideas like ‘noblesse oblige’ – that nobility is obliged to be supportive. All too often, it seems those who consider themselves ‘elite’ currently take the opposite view, considering themselves untethered by the rules and obligations attached to others.