Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
What are the core ideological features that define fascism?
Executive summary
Scholars and commentators treat fascism as a distinct, historically rooted cluster of practices—mass mobilization around a unifying myth, centralization of state power, vilification of scapegoats, and fusion of political, cultural and economic elites—rather than a single tidy ideology [1] [2]. Contemporary writers link modern policy projects like “Project 2025” to many of those features—centralizing power, privileging loyalty over merit, excluding minorities, and subordinating institutions to a political program—but debates remain about how directly to apply “fascism” to 21st‑century movements [3] [4] [5].
1. What historians mean when they define fascism: core patterns, not a strict creed
Historians warn against looking for one coherent doctrine; fascist leaders often rejected systematic ideology and instead assembled a “philosophical bricolage” that prioritized action, myth and mobilization—Mussolini famously called fascism “the church of all heresies”—so scholars extract a minimal core of recurring features (mass mobilization, authoritarian statism, mythic national rebirth, and suppression of pluralism) rather than a tidy manifesto [1] [2].
2. Authoritarian statism and the merger of private power with the state
A recurring analytic formulation describes fascism as “authoritarian statism”: a merger of government, corporate and cultural power under a unifying ideology enforced through hierarchy and coercion, often promising national renewal; this captures both classic 20th‑century fascisms and many modern warnings about similar dynamics [6] [3].
3. Us-vs-them politics, scapegoating and the politics of exclusion
Central to recent definitions is the construction of an internal enemy and the vilification of out‑groups. Analysts emphasize that fascist politics weaponize identity—racial, religious or cultural—to legitimate exclusionary policies and mobilize followers [2] [4]. Contemporary reporting connects that template to efforts targeting migrants, transgender people, or other minorities as political scapegoats [4].
4. Centralization of power, loyalty over expertise, and institutional capture
Multiple commentators see fascism’s practical operation in plans to concentrate power in the executive, purge institutional expertise, and replace civil servants with loyalists—features highlighted in critiques of Project 2025, which critics say emphasizes centralized control and staffing based on loyalty [3] [7]. Civic‑freedom monitors likewise report executive moves that they argue threaten institutional checks and balances [4].
5. Mobilization, mythic renewal and millenarian impulses
Classic fascisms offered a narrative of national rebirth after crisis; recent analyses argue some contemporary movements blend millenarian or apocalyptic thinking (end‑times rhetoric, survivalist planning) with technocratic and transhumanist ideas, producing a modernized narrative of selective survival and renewal rather than a hopeful universal future [8].
6. Varieties of contemporary contention: populism, technocratic opportunism, and legalistic strategies
Scholars caution that populism, authoritarianism and fascism overlap but are not identical. Populism’s “us vs. them” rhetoric can be a vehicle for fascist dynamics, yet some modern efforts are more legalistic or technocratic—aiming to achieve control via bureaucracy, courts, and policy blueprints rather than mass paramilitary mobilization [1] [9]. Debates persist over whether such strategies are best described as “fascist” or as another form of anti‑institutional authoritarianism [9] [2].
7. Disagreement in the commentary: moral charge vs. analytic precision
Conservative commentators argue the term “fascism” has become a moral bludgeon used to label political opponents broadly, conflating disagreement with existential threat [6]. Other analysts and watchdogs insist the label is analytically useful when specific markers—centralization, scapegoating, institutional capture—are present and demonstrable [4] [3]. Both positions are present in contemporary debate [6] [4].
8. How to apply these features responsibly today
Responsible usage requires matching claims to observable features identified in the literature: evidence of systematic institutional capture, loyalty‑based staffing, suppression of minority rights, coordinated propaganda or media control, and organized scapegoating. Several contemporary reports and commentaries point to Project 2025 and related governance moves as embodying many of these features, while scholars continue to debate the degree to which 21st‑century variants map onto classical fascism [3] [10] [2].
Limitations: available sources do not present a single, universally accepted checklist for declaring a movement “fascist,” and the examples above come from a mix of scholarly pieces, advocacy reporting, and opinion commentary—each with different aims and evaluative standards [1] [6] [3].