by John Ellis
Googling “fascism definition,” turns up the result, “An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.” If Google’s AI generated definition of fascism is too vague for you, how about this dense, academic definition offered by Alberto Toscano in his 2023 book Late Fascism: “To the extent that we can speak of fascism today, it is a fascism largely emptied (albeit with important exceptions) of mass movement and utopia; a fascism shorn of what Ernst Bloch called non-contemporaneity and Georges Bataille termed heterogeneity; a fascism that is not reacting to the imminent threat of revolutionary politics, but which retains the racial fantasy of national rebirth and the frantic circulation of pseudo-class discourse [emphasis kept].”[1]
Alberto Toscano, if you haven’t bothered to look him up, is an Italian Marxist philosopher who specializes in social critiques of authoritarian systems. So, you, at least some of you, may want to disregard his definition (and book) out of hand. For the record, while not agreeing with everything Toscano argues in his book, I do not dismiss his definition nor his book; I find him interesting and trenchant. But I want to acknowledge the temptation for dismissal because on the surface you may find (I don’t) a Marxist critiquing authoritarianism a bit of a contradiction, even though I believe that in doing so, you’ll be making a mistake.[2] Before doing that, though, before dismissing Toscano’s definition, consider Langston Hughes. For many conservatives, the Black activist and poet, since he was a socialist and often used Marxist themes while writing, is also suspect. For what it’s worth, I believe Hughes spoke truth while delivering a speech to the Third U.S. Congress Against War and Fascism in 1936 when he asserted, “Fascism is a new name for that kind of terror the Negro has always faced in America.”
To provide some epistemological teeth to Hughes’ accusation, a history excursus is in order.
A widely held misunderstanding about the Nuremberg Trials is that they were about the Holocaust. They weren’t. At least, not directly. The lead prosecutor, Robert Jackson, who was also a Supreme Court Justice at the time, charged the Nazis with a crime against humanity because of their “aggressive war.” The problem was that Jackson had to invent the concept of “aggressive war” out of basically thin air. This explains why Chief Justice Harlan Fiske Stone was opposed to the Nuremberg Trials. Not because he was a fan of the Nazis, he wasn’t, but because “Jackson and the team of Americans, Russians, French, and British lawyers who designed the tribunals were making up rules of law and holding the Germans responsible for them after the fact.”[3] To be fair to Chief Justice Stone, he did add, “I don’t mind what [Jackson] does to the Nazis, but I hate to see the pretense that he is running a court and proceeding according to common law. This is a little too sanctimonious a fraud to meet my old-fashioned ideas.”[4]
For us, raised as we’ve been, especially by Hollywood, to view the Nuremberg trials in a very specific, Holocaust-specific manner, the legal disconnect between Jackson and Stone might seem odd. We’re likely tempted to ask, why didn’t they just charge the Nazis with crimes against humanity based solely on the Holocaust? Well, for a few reasons.
For starters, and not really important, it wasn’t referred to the Holocaust at that point in history. Related, the full horrors of what the Nazis did to achieve their objective of exterminating the Jews had yet to be revealed in 1945. Atrocities had been exposed, mind you. Which is why the following reasons are more relevant. Secondly, the contemporary legal concept of human rights was in the beginning stages of its development. The U.N. was chartered the same year that the Nuremberg Trials began. The European Court of Human Rights wasn’t established until 1959. The consensus at the time, though changing, was that what a government did to its own people, no matter how atrocious, wasn’t the business of other governments. And that “mind your own business” approach was an important self-serving position for the U.S. because of the third, and most pertinent reason, which is the point I’m driving towards: the US delegation, led by chief prosecutor Robert Jackson, found it necessary to tread very carefully here. Hitler had self-consciously patterned his infamous Nuremberg Laws after the Jim Crow laws of the American South. Lesser known is that Hitler drew direct inspiration for the Holocaust, specifically the forced removal of people and their confinement in concentration camps, from the United States’ Indian policies. If Jackson made too much prosecutorial hay out of the Holocaust, he ran the risk of exposing wide swaths of America’s own cultural fields to ethical (and legal) critiques. So, for my part, I believe that summarily dismissing Langston Hughes’ definition of fascism places you on quite shaky, racist footing. While susceptible to the charge of oversimplification, certainly, Langston Hughes’ definition scores an ethical bullseye.
But fine, some people are going to respond negatively no matter what because of, you know, descriptors like socialist and Marxist attached to Hughes. So maybe I can find a definition of fascism that we – or most of us – can agree on.
Hannah Arendt famously and somewhat controversially saw a distinction between Italian fascism and German Nazism.[5] An important distinction she argued for is that fascism is nationalistic authoritarianism while Nazism is totalitarianism. Totalitarianism, specifically Nazism in Arendt’s argument, iron-fistedly controls every aspect of the life of the polis. Fascism, since it lacks the sheer number of supporters necessary for total control, focuses on political domination by delegitimizing political opponents/parties, reducing civil liberties, specifically for outsiders or those deemed a threat to the program, and the weaponization of the legal system to protect and advance what they believe should be the political and cultural status quo. Importantly, for Arendt, fascism, alongside other courses of action, accomplishes its objectives via a type of stealth.
This stealth isn’t necessarily one of actions accomplished in secret behind closed doors, although that is an aspect of it at times. Rather it’s mostly a type of stealth that provides plausible deniability against accusations of fascism (remember this point when you get to the section on the FCC and Brendan Carr below). For one example, it relies on coded words that aren’t overtly racist but are, as we all know, racist.[6] This is done in order to propagate the belief of cultural superiority, an important aspect of fascism, but while still providing cover for those who mostly agree with the program but don’t want to be tainted with explicit bigotry. One recent demonstration of this was the use of a video in which Black faces were superimposed on the bodies of apes, a well-known racist trope. But the denial of racist intent, no matter how contorted or flimsy it may be, is what’s important for the regime. The denial allows the program to continue while providing the true believers dialectical cover at the dinner table.[7] Another current example of how fascism relies on Arendt’s stealth is the weaponization of the “rule of law,” an odd way to phrase it, which is the point. Black and Brown people can be deported under the rule of law, allowing a praxis birthed out of the Great Replacement Theory to continue while they wash their hands of any blood that may otherwise stain them. Any criticism is immediately denied nuance, much less a hearing, via charges of being guilty of undermining law and order. Other contemporary examples abound across the cultural, political, and legal spectrums, but I want to remain focused on developing a definition of fascism before looking at the creeping fascism of the FCC.
Moving on from Arendt, the philosopher Karl Popper, in his celebrated book The Open Society and Its Enemies, offers a definition, of sorts, for fascism. While long, I’m going to quote it in full because I believe it is instructive. It may help to keep in mind that instead of a definition in the strict sense, Popper is offering an explanation that helps place fascism (nationalism) into what he argues is the totalitarian stream emanating from Hegel. He writes:
“(a) Nationalism, in the form of the historicist idea that the state is the incarnation of the Spirit (or now, of the Blood) of the state-creating nation (or race); one chosen nation (now, the chosen race) is destined for world domination. (b) The state as the natural enemy of all other states must assert its existence in war. (c) The state is exempt from any kind of moral obligation; history, that is, historical success, is the sole judge; collective utility is the sole principle of personal conduct; propagandist lying and distortion of the truth is permissible. (d) The ‘ethical’ idea of war (total and collectivist), particularly of young nations against the older ones; war, fate and fame as most desirable good. (e) The creative role of the Great Man, the world-historical personality, the man of deep knowledge and great passion (now, the principle of leadership). (f) The ideal of the heroic life (‘live dangerously’) and of the ‘heroic man’ as opposed to the petty bourgeois and his life of shallow mediocrity. … (a) According to modern totalitarian doctrines, the state as such is not the highest end. This is, rather, the Blood, and the People, the Race. The higher races possess the power to create states. The highest aim of a race or nation is to form a mighty state which can serve as a powerful instrument of its self-preservation.”[8]
The Open Society’s main text runs just over 500 pages and includes over 200 pages of detailed, complex yet interesting and helpful endnotes. It’s considered one of the 21st century’s most important works defending liberal democracy. And it would’ve been nice if Popper had left us a concise, quotable definition of fascism in his tome instead of the paragraph above. He didn’t, so allow me to unpack his paragraph enough to at least expose the contours of his argument.
In the “Introduction” to The Philosophy of History, Hegel writes, “The only Thought which Philosophy brings with it to the contemplation of History is the simple conception of Reason; that Reason is the Sovereign of the World; that the history of the world, therefore, presents us with a rational process.” Skipping to the end of the paragraph, he adds, “While [Reason] is exclusively its own basis of existence, and absolute final aim, it is also the energizing power realizing this aim; developing it not only in phenomena of the Natural, but also of the Spiritual Universe – the History of the World.”[9]
So, what does Hegel mean by Reason and History of the World? Possibly more importantly, why am I attempting to explain one complex passage with an even more opaque one? To answer the second question first, understanding Popper requires a basic knowledge of Hegel. Furthermore, I want you, if you aren’t already conversant in Hegelian thought, to be confronted with how seemingly open-endedly mystical and religious Hegel can be and, ergo, how mystical and religious the various Hegelian streams can be, even if self-described as secular/materialist.[10] Quasi-religious notes course through nationalism/fascism, and that’s not accidental. It’s also a helpful entrance into a basic understanding of Hegel.
Hegel believed that History progresses deterministically through stages culminating in an eschatological utopia. As you can see, I’m already folding my own specific religious terminology into the explanation. The deterministic element is connected to Hegel’s Geist, most often translated in English to Spirit. It’s not necessary to attempt to explain why that’s a poor translation because the problematic elements of the translation are part of Popper’s point. Within the march of History, humanity reaches its full flowering via its complete connection to Reason – or Geist/Spirit. And Geist/Spirit oversees(?) its own self-actualization which, by extension, includes the self-actualization of humanity/History. The conflicts (antithesis) in History move History into better syntheses leading to further conflict (antitheses), culminating in the final synthesis that sees the unity of all with Geist/Spirit. Charles Taylor explains it better, and more poetically, by writing, “History moves to heal the wounds it made.”[11]
In layman’s terms, and returning to Karl Popper and fascism, the timeline of history is one of progress. That’s a Hegelian belief that permeates, or least frames, most contemporary political theories. The belief that the arc of history bends towards justice is Hegelian.[12] Because of that progress through the stages of history, the Spirit “healing” itself in stages, *my* society is superior to its previous iteration. This belief overlays well with the advent of social Darwinism in the latter half of the 19th century, which also helped the nascent European nationalist movements coming out of the fateful year of 1848 to have both a philosophical and anthropological footing. Add in the religious element of Geist/Spirit, and the flourishing of *my* culture/state is vital for history’s march towards utopia. Any opposition becomes existential, not just ideological. So, scroll back up and reread the Popper quote. Seriously, with my oversimplified, undercooked explanation of Hegel fresh in your mind, reread the Popper quote. In fact, because this is important, allow me to help. Here’s the quote again:
“(a) Nationalism, in the form of the historicist idea that the state is the incarnation of the Spirit (or now, of the Blood) of the state-creating nation (or race); one chosen nation (now, the chosen race) is destined for world domination. (b) The state as the natural enemy of all other states must assert its existence in war. (c) The state is exempt from any kind of moral obligation; history, that is, historical success, is the sole judge; collective utility is the sole principle of personal conduct; propagandist lying and distortion of the truth is permissible. (d) The ‘ethical’ idea of war (total and collectivist), particularly of young nations against the older ones; war, fate and fame as most desirable good. (e) The creative role of the Great Man, the world-historical personality, the man of deep knowledge and great passion (now, the principle of leadership). (f) The ideal of the heroic life (‘live dangerously’) and of the ‘heroic man’ as opposed to the petty bourgeois and his life of shallow mediocrity. … (a) According to modern totalitarian doctrines, the state as such is not the highest end. This is, rather, the Blood, and the People, the Race. The higher races possess the power to create states. The highest aim of a race or nation is to form a mighty state which can serve as a powerful instrument of its self-preservation.”
Having reread it, does the definition of fascism, especially in light of contemporary events, ring some alarm bells for you? This is one of those times when I believe that any attempt on my part to further explain something is beyond unnecessary; in fact, it would get in the way.[13]
Before moving to the FCC and Brendan Carr, I’m going to include one more definition of fascism. I found this one in a textbook for an undergraduate level government class. It defines fascism as, “A totalitarian political system that is headed by a popular charismatic leader and in which a single political party and carefully controlled violence form the basis of complete social and political control.”[14]
I’ve offered six definitions of fascism. Some are more undercooked than others; some more ideologically driven than others. But I do believe that there are common elements they all share that sit at the core of all six definitions, including Langston Hughes’. The end of Toscano’s definition is a good starting point: national rebirth.
A commonality among “great” fascists is the dogma that society – their society – has been knocked off track. The Hegelian historical progression has been thwarted by bad actors, they believe. This means that their culture’s birthright has been usurped. If this is true, then they are justified in the means used to achieve their desired end. It’s not a matter of civil liberties; it’s an existential fight, often, from their perspective, a fight blessed by God. To fold Langston Hughes’ definition into this, the Jim Crow laws were the South’s tactics to fight back against Reconstruction. Blacks and Northern carpetbaggers had colluded to undermine Southern culture, and Southerners were determined to reclaim and restore their culture – their God-given culture that served as an expression of the best flowering of human social dynamics.[15]
The twin beliefs in cultural superiority and that culture’s birthright being thwarted by bad actors sit at the center of fascism. The rest of it – the authoritarian, charismatic strong man (quasi-savior), the demonization of their opponents, weaponization of the legal system, running roughshod over the civil liberties of the “other” – is all downstream from those twin beliefs. And that brings me to Brendan Carr and the FCC’s strongman tactics.
On Monday evening (2/16/26), Stephen Colbert delivered a scathing monologue on his late-night talk show The Late Show With Stephen Colbert excoriating his bosses at CBS and Brendan Carr, chair of the FCC. At issue was the directive from the network’s lawyers that The Late Show couldn’t air an interview with Texas State Representative James Talarico. The reason given was Carr’s threat to remove the exemption for the FCC’s longstanding equal time rule given to talk shows. And this is where Arendt’s “stealth” comes to play. Remember, I asked you to remember it for this very section.
You can watch the video below. I’ve also included Colbert’s follow-up video responding to CBS’s response. You’ll notice that Carr hasn’t officially removed the exemption for talk shows, yet CBS complied as if he already had. Over the last year+, CBS has openly courted Trump’s favor. Which is fine, that’s their right. But in doing so, in the ways in which they’ve done so, they’ve empowered the Trump administration’s erosion of the First Amendment. This is an example of that, providing a near textbook illustration of how fascism controls the levers of private industry without actually exercising ownership over industry. Furthermore, it provides cover for the administration’s official moves. When (if) Carr does officially remove the exemption, the line will have already been moved by CBS. And that line – the First Amendment line – is one that demands a deft touch to move.
As much as Donald Trump may want to, he can’t (yet) send his goons marching into Studio 8H at 30 Rockefeller Plaza to shut down Saturday Night Live. That would be moving the line too far, too quickly. Better to use stealth. If you watch the first video below, you’ll see a clip of Carr on FOX News Digital responding to Colbert and Jimmy Kimmel’s complaints/mocking of the threat to remove the exemption. In the clip, Carr speaks as if the exemption has, indeed, been removed. It hasn’t, at least not officially. Based on Carr’s words in that recent interview, the Trump administration’s past words and actions, and CBS’ compliance, the exemption has, in effect, been removed. Trump’s march to silence voices he doesn’t like continues forward.
The response will, of course, be akin to Carr’s in the FOX News Digital clip. Critical voices haven’t really been silenced. If you want to criticize Trump or the MAGA program, you are free to do so in a variety of places, including in an article on a WordPress blog. But this is also part of what Hannah Arendt warned about. If someone is willing to only look in one direction while ignoring past/ongoing words and actions from the other direction, those who are sounding the warning bell about fascism appear to be Chicken Littles.
Here’s a direction to look towards: Trump’s stated belief that the FCC should be allowed to revoke the license of broadcasters who give him too much bad publicity. Trump’s denying media outlets access to the White House press pool because he dislikes their coverage. Trump suing media outlets into submission. During Jimmy Kimmel’s suspension, Carr warned that it would “not be the last shoe to drop.” The Trump administration has openly expressed the desire to suppress free speech, and they have taken steps to do so.
In a previous article, I wrote, “Some of the current conversations can become tricky, though. Take, for example, CBS’s cancellation of The Late Show with Stephen Colbert. While the cancellation appears to be politically motivated, there is no proof of that, as far as I know. CBS claims it was purely a financial decision. Some, like me, believe it’s evidence that something is rotten in the state of this country. Trump’s using the White House platform from which to dance on the (soon-to-be) grave of The Late Show with Stephen Colbert adds to the stench. The President’s language before and after the fact should be a huge, bright red warning sign flashing in the cultural night sky.”
The problem is that people need to be willing to turn around before they can see that bright red warning sign flashing in the cultural night sky. And some of y’all better turn around before you’re surprised to find yourself on the wrong side of the line that has been moving all along, whether you currently want to admit it or not.
[1] Alberto Toscano, Late Fascism (New York: Verso, 2023). 2.
[2] One of those mistakes is that you’ve accepted the Cold War ideology that preaches that Marxism and the Soviet Union are synonyms.
[3] Noah Feldman, Scorpions: The Battles and Triumphs of FDR’s Great Supreme Court Justices (New York: Twelve, 2010), 277.
[4] Feldman, Scorpions, 279.
[5] In the issue of full disclosure, I cannot find my copy of The Origins of Totalitarianism, meaning I unfortunately am unable to cite Arendt in this section. Regular readers of this blog can attest to how religiously I cite my sources. I even went to a Barnes & Noble to buy a second copy. They had several Arendt books but, surprisingly, not TOoT. Since citing sources is so important to me, I considered leaving the section on Arendt out but have concluded that it is too important to my argument to cut. I’m also confident in my understanding of her arguments in TOoT.
[6] I think that here is where you can see Arendt’s distinction between Italian fascism and German Nazism. Hitler and company did not shy away from being overtly racist. This also speaks to the “controversial” part of Arendt’s argument. While I believe that Arendt is highly instructive, I do believe that fascists are willing to and do use explicitly racist language. Her distinction, I think, speaks to cultural/social nuances that demand levels of flexibility from fascists. Parsing out the Trump administration, and you’ll find different language games from the likes of Stephen Miller than from Marco Rubio, for example.
[7] The denial is akin to the Big Lie, another aspect of Arendt’s understanding of fascism. In this country, the Big Lie was seemingly perfected by Joe McCarthy. Turns out, though, Roy Cohn, McCarthy’s right-hand man, taught the art of the Big Lie to another self-aggrandizing showman. The GOP/MAGA no longer even pretends to political civility and norms. Truth is fungible and subservient to the Big Lie.
[8][8] Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1994), 274.
[9] Hegel, The Philosophy of History trans. J. Sibree (New York: Dover Publications, 1956), 9.
[10] I’m looking at you, Karl Marx.
[11] Charles Taylor, Hegel (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1975), 69.
[12] Unless, of course, by it the speaker means the eschaton. It’s still problematic in that case, I think, but workable.
[13] Not that I don’t think that an in-depth treatment of Popper would be helpful. It would be. But the key word is “in-depth.”
[14] Thomas M. Magstadt, Understanding Politics: Ideas, Institutions & Issues (Belmont, CA: Cengage Learning, 2013), 555.
[15] You can still see this in the Lost Cause Myth adherents. It’s not accidental that some of the loudest MAGA voices, like Douglas Wilson and Pete Hegseth, embrace and teach the Lost Cause.
Practically Known Theology 