The issue is that when people start abusing words like "fascism" out of context they make those words lose meaning.
The US is definitely undergoing authoritarian tendencies, but it remains structurally constrained by separation of powers, federalism, and independent courts and media, features that fascist regimes systematically dismantle.
If you start calling everything fascism you are essentially helping those you call fascists because they can easily refute your thesis and gaslight you on the very realities of the authoritarian descent the country is going through.
Thank heavens for that separation of powers, otherwise the President would be declaring wars and levying tariffs willy-nilly, without even bothering to check with Congress first.
What do you call it when the authoritarians start, then? Are we not allowed to call it that until we’re not allowed to go to the courts or to speak about what’s happening?
Checks and balances have almost completely collapsed, we've got masked, lawless paramilitary forces executing citizens in the streets, kicking in doors without warrants, spending billions of dollars building concentration camps, ignoring habeas corpus, accelerating media capture by friendly oligarchs, the national security apparatus labeling anyone who criticizes this stuff as domestic terrorists, and you're here quibbling over semantics.
> The issue is that when people start abusing words like "fascism" out of context they make those words lose meaning.
So, rhetorical question: was Hitler a fascist during the failed Munich coup? Or did he suddenly became one when he was appointed chancellor? Are we not allowed to see what’s in front of our eyes until they build gas chambers?
> it remains structurally constrained by separation of powers, federalism, and independent courts and media, features that fascist regimes systematically dismantle.
But the Trump administration (a.k.a. the executive branch) is trying to systematically dismantle these things. When people refer to fascism in the U.S. government, they don’t mean the entire government. They mean the Trump administration, which is the face of the U.S. government, has a great deal of the share of power, and is seeking more. The brand of far right nationalism, that the nation is in decline and violence must be used to restore it, along with the economic policies and deference to corporations and the wealthy, are things that make them more fascist than just authoritarian.
Saying that we cannot call it fascism until the transformation is complete doesn’t make sense - if a group of people have beliefs and goals that align with fascism, and are taking steps to impose them, you can call them fascist, even if they have not yet realized the full set of conditions that make the government fully fascist.
The US is not significantly constrained - the current SCOTUS is more like an agreived clerical council than serious arbiter of the Constitution, while Trump has clearly been hoping to do away with meaningful elections (and the failures are more so because of how oddly ineffective/silly his faction can be than real systemic resilience). Similarly, he has majorities in Congress, which are just enough to let him do whatever he wants. I will grant that these MAGATs haven't fully succeeded, but it's more like they're 2/3ds of the way there and oddly bad at parts of the game than separation of powers, the courts, etc., working.
On a different level I've been unsure whether it'sgood to call it facsism. But it's effectively at least a stepchild.
Fascist mythos is simple: you're in the greatest nation, and the greatest "type" of human (genetics for the nazis, cultural for the Italian fascists, christian for some South american fascists early 20th century, your choice, but but beware one type of superiority easily bleed into others), but yet, inferior humans (neighbors) seems to have better lives. It's because of internal traitors(jews and communists mostly, "judeoblochevism" as a word exist for a reason, and it isn't because it was a material reality) that are bringing their own country down. We must purge them to finally take our rightfull place.
Fascism cannot exist without internal enemies, nationalist authoritarianism can. If your president/dictator is whining about internal enemies that infiltrated the government and capitalist society to bring it down, congratulation, it's not simple nationalist authoritarian tendencies, it's fascist tendencies.
Basically: if you add an "interior enemy" narrative to a right-wing authoritarism, you have fascism.
> when people start abusing words like "fascism" out of context they make those words lose meaning
The thing is, fascism has always been a bit of a loose term. It doesn't have a strict meaning. It was invented by one guy to name his government, not describe it analytically.
Mussolini invented the word "fascismo" to describe his movement, Fasci Italiani di Combattimeto.
So any use of "fascism" outside this one instance is by loose comparison to his government (because tight comparison would inevitably be unproductive: no government is exact the same as another).
The best we can do in a literalist manner is identify that the etymology is related to fasces, a bundle of rods tied together in Roman times (tying rods together make them far more difficult to snap in half), and recognize that the implication here is that a fascist government is focused on strength through unity.
It was then broadly adopted by Mussolini's adherents.
So, unless we only want to restrict "fascist" to an identifier for Mussolini's party and government, we have motivation to come up with elements of similar politics/government/partisanship by looking at the elements that made up Mussolini's movement:
He elucidates fourteen elements that make up fascism:
1. cult of tradition
2. rejection of modernism
3. cult of action for its own sake (i.e., intellectual reflection doesn't contribute value)
4. disagreement is treason
5. fear of difference
6. appeal to frustrated middle class
7. obsession with a plot (e.g., "there is a plot by foreigners to destroy us from within)
8. cast their enemies as both too weak and too strong
9. life is permanent warfare (i.e., there is always an enemy to fight)
10. contempt for the weak
11. everyone is educated to become a hero
12. machismo
13. selective populism
14. newspeak
I honestly feel like #11 is the only one we don't definitely have in the US right now. I wold prefer not to waste my time giving examples of the other thirteen, but if someone doesn't think it's obvious, I will respond at some point.
At its essence, if you take these fourteen points holistically, the vibe is "the 'right kind of' citizenry is in a constant state of hatred toward some other, and they should be pressured to take action without thought"
> You call it for what it is: an executive with authoritarian tendencies.
I think you misunderstand fascism. Fascism is not gassing certain minority group of people in concentration camps, that's called crimes against humanity. It might be an endgame to fascism if you are government that is allowed to commit those crimes without consequences, but the road to it is still fascism regardless whether you historically know how it ends. Calling press "the enemy of the people" as Trump did (also known as "Lügenpresse") IS a form of fascism. You don't need to push Democrats and immigrants into gas chambers to be full blown fascist. Overwhelming amount of actions taken by this democratic government ARE what most historians call fascism.
That word makes a lot of people uncomfortable and many will shut their brains off when they see it. It's a perfect word to describe what's happening, but sometimes describing the characteristics of it is better for engagement.
There are a lot of reactionaries in today's political landscape.
Fascism isn't really a form of government though, it's a political ideology and aesthetics that we see echoed through different regimes. You can be a democracy on paper while in practice being a single party corporate oligarchy with a cult of personality surrounding the head of state.
Ur-Fascism describes the ideology of MAGA exactly. Clearly there's some apprehension admitting this, it's a strong-man political ideology that has evolved many times organically throughout history. It doesn't necessarily imply that the regime is bad or evil or anything but the problem ends up being that the term exists because governments that adopt this ideology end up converging on the same unsavory behaviors despite any initial differences. That convergence is I think what a lot of Americans are afraid of because we're already doing most of them.
> You just don’t like anything else than your ideas, because you don’t like us. Sorry to be born.
Why do you think political ideology is an inborn trait? People don't like you because you actively choose to vote for things that bring about pain and suffering. Not because of your innate attributes.
You don’t like me because I’m male or white, and I can prove it.
I’ve done thousands of good things in my life, things that are in values you pretend to have. I was vegan, I was CO2-aware, sold my car even, I donated dozens of thousands to charities, your charities, I was gender-aware, I am gay, I am nonviolent, I am Charlie, I was there, with you, at your protests. Helped refugees too.
But I was born white, and your groups didn’t choose to include me.
You'll notice that The same dude was in charge in 2016 as 2026. The people warning about fascism were the ones who know what happens to the rhetoric and policies of 2016 when not countered.
Your usage of "Your side" is telling. It seems like this is a team sport for you and you've picked a side. Unfortunately you might have sided with fascists.
Yeah the other side doesn’t over use socialism or communism or terrorist. And conservatives haven’t been refusing to make concessions in Congress and the Senate for decades.
If you forewarn about a developing Fascist movement, you're simply taking away the meaning from the word until it's too late and the Fascists take power.
You cannot call anything Fascist, for there may be something more Fascist that may need the power of the word.
But ah! We couldn't call out their fledgling movement full of dog whistles and double speak so no one was aware enough to stop them as a fledgling movement!
How's it working out for you, spending a third of your income on rent but not actually having any rights to stay in the property you rent, and a further third on "health insurance" that'll take your money and run, leaving you to choose between a lifetime of debt or just plain dying if you ever get ill?
There are generous ways to interpret a critique of "redditification".
1. An increase in comments that aim to gather social approval as opposed to advancing a conversation or sharing knowledge -- often including meta commentary on threads e.g., "reddit moment".
2. Topics start to become more general and lose the tech/startup scene focus of the site.
These are legitimate. Reddit threads are stereotypically full of noise and HN should avoid that.
However there's a third form of the critique that I think should be avoided.
3. Too many comments seem to reflect values and worldviews rooted in [socially] liberal ideals.
Because of this, it's probably useful to give some context for what in particular constitutes "redditifcation". That way dang and any other mods can try to address it with particular policy decisions.
The irony is that almost every single one of the countries these foreigners come from would do exactly the same thing were the shoe on the other foot. If running government-funded research to maximize the opportunities for native born people is “fascism,” then every country in Asia, Africa, and the Middle East is “fascist.” Borderless universalism is a niche idea even in the west, and virtually non-existent outside it.
> The irony is that almost every single one of the countries these foreigners come from would do exactly the same thing were the shoe on the other foot.
I'm having a hard imagining Canada, Australia, New Zealand, France, Norway, Switzerland, Germany, the UK, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, or Italy, to name a few countries of the countries from which scientists have come to work on NIST projects putting these kind of restrictions on American scientists coming to work on non-classified research at their labs.
Got to love the fact that a large amount of users of HN still refuse to see the truth before their very eyes.
The issue is that when people start abusing words like "fascism" out of context they make those words lose meaning.
The US is definitely undergoing authoritarian tendencies, but it remains structurally constrained by separation of powers, federalism, and independent courts and media, features that fascist regimes systematically dismantle.
If you start calling everything fascism you are essentially helping those you call fascists because they can easily refute your thesis and gaslight you on the very realities of the authoritarian descent the country is going through.
Thank heavens for that separation of powers, otherwise the President would be declaring wars and levying tariffs willy-nilly, without even bothering to check with Congress first.
3 replies →
What do you call it when the authoritarians start, then? Are we not allowed to call it that until we’re not allowed to go to the courts or to speak about what’s happening?
8 replies →
Checks and balances have almost completely collapsed, we've got masked, lawless paramilitary forces executing citizens in the streets, kicking in doors without warrants, spending billions of dollars building concentration camps, ignoring habeas corpus, accelerating media capture by friendly oligarchs, the national security apparatus labeling anyone who criticizes this stuff as domestic terrorists, and you're here quibbling over semantics.
> The issue is that when people start abusing words like "fascism" out of context they make those words lose meaning.
So, rhetorical question: was Hitler a fascist during the failed Munich coup? Or did he suddenly became one when he was appointed chancellor? Are we not allowed to see what’s in front of our eyes until they build gas chambers?
1 reply →
> it remains structurally constrained by separation of powers, federalism, and independent courts and media, features that fascist regimes systematically dismantle.
But the Trump administration (a.k.a. the executive branch) is trying to systematically dismantle these things. When people refer to fascism in the U.S. government, they don’t mean the entire government. They mean the Trump administration, which is the face of the U.S. government, has a great deal of the share of power, and is seeking more. The brand of far right nationalism, that the nation is in decline and violence must be used to restore it, along with the economic policies and deference to corporations and the wealthy, are things that make them more fascist than just authoritarian.
Saying that we cannot call it fascism until the transformation is complete doesn’t make sense - if a group of people have beliefs and goals that align with fascism, and are taking steps to impose them, you can call them fascist, even if they have not yet realized the full set of conditions that make the government fully fascist.
> If you start calling everything fascism
Ok, but who is calling everything fascism? He's talking about one particular country at a particular time.
Then better stop them before it comes to that stage.
14 replies →
The US is not significantly constrained - the current SCOTUS is more like an agreived clerical council than serious arbiter of the Constitution, while Trump has clearly been hoping to do away with meaningful elections (and the failures are more so because of how oddly ineffective/silly his faction can be than real systemic resilience). Similarly, he has majorities in Congress, which are just enough to let him do whatever he wants. I will grant that these MAGATs haven't fully succeeded, but it's more like they're 2/3ds of the way there and oddly bad at parts of the game than separation of powers, the courts, etc., working.
On a different level I've been unsure whether it'sgood to call it facsism. But it's effectively at least a stepchild.
Fascist mythos is simple: you're in the greatest nation, and the greatest "type" of human (genetics for the nazis, cultural for the Italian fascists, christian for some South american fascists early 20th century, your choice, but but beware one type of superiority easily bleed into others), but yet, inferior humans (neighbors) seems to have better lives. It's because of internal traitors(jews and communists mostly, "judeoblochevism" as a word exist for a reason, and it isn't because it was a material reality) that are bringing their own country down. We must purge them to finally take our rightfull place.
Fascism cannot exist without internal enemies, nationalist authoritarianism can. If your president/dictator is whining about internal enemies that infiltrated the government and capitalist society to bring it down, congratulation, it's not simple nationalist authoritarian tendencies, it's fascist tendencies.
Basically: if you add an "interior enemy" narrative to a right-wing authoritarism, you have fascism.
> when people start abusing words like "fascism" out of context they make those words lose meaning
The thing is, fascism has always been a bit of a loose term. It doesn't have a strict meaning. It was invented by one guy to name his government, not describe it analytically.
Mussolini invented the word "fascismo" to describe his movement, Fasci Italiani di Combattimeto.
So any use of "fascism" outside this one instance is by loose comparison to his government (because tight comparison would inevitably be unproductive: no government is exact the same as another).
The best we can do in a literalist manner is identify that the etymology is related to fasces, a bundle of rods tied together in Roman times (tying rods together make them far more difficult to snap in half), and recognize that the implication here is that a fascist government is focused on strength through unity.
It was then broadly adopted by Mussolini's adherents.
So, unless we only want to restrict "fascist" to an identifier for Mussolini's party and government, we have motivation to come up with elements of similar politics/government/partisanship by looking at the elements that made up Mussolini's movement:
- nationalism
- right-wing
- totalitarian
- violence as a means of control
etc.
Personally, I like Umberto Eco's delineation of what makes fascism (because he was an intellectual and grew up in Mussolini's Italy): https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/umberto-eco-ur-fasci...
He elucidates fourteen elements that make up fascism:
1. cult of tradition
2. rejection of modernism
3. cult of action for its own sake (i.e., intellectual reflection doesn't contribute value)
4. disagreement is treason
5. fear of difference
6. appeal to frustrated middle class
7. obsession with a plot (e.g., "there is a plot by foreigners to destroy us from within)
8. cast their enemies as both too weak and too strong
9. life is permanent warfare (i.e., there is always an enemy to fight)
10. contempt for the weak
11. everyone is educated to become a hero
12. machismo
13. selective populism
14. newspeak
I honestly feel like #11 is the only one we don't definitely have in the US right now. I wold prefer not to waste my time giving examples of the other thirteen, but if someone doesn't think it's obvious, I will respond at some point.
At its essence, if you take these fourteen points holistically, the vibe is "the 'right kind of' citizenry is in a constant state of hatred toward some other, and they should be pressured to take action without thought"
2 replies →
> You call it for what it is: an executive with authoritarian tendencies.
I think you misunderstand fascism. Fascism is not gassing certain minority group of people in concentration camps, that's called crimes against humanity. It might be an endgame to fascism if you are government that is allowed to commit those crimes without consequences, but the road to it is still fascism regardless whether you historically know how it ends. Calling press "the enemy of the people" as Trump did (also known as "Lügenpresse") IS a form of fascism. You don't need to push Democrats and immigrants into gas chambers to be full blown fascist. Overwhelming amount of actions taken by this democratic government ARE what most historians call fascism.
6 replies →
As an example of the likely future of science in the USA, read about Trofim Lysenko.
That word makes a lot of people uncomfortable and many will shut their brains off when they see it. It's a perfect word to describe what's happening, but sometimes describing the characteristics of it is better for engagement.
There are a lot of reactionaries in today's political landscape.
> It's a perfect word to describe what's happening
I don't think it really fits, but the US is sliding towards illiberal democracy.
Fascism isn't really a form of government though, it's a political ideology and aesthetics that we see echoed through different regimes. You can be a democracy on paper while in practice being a single party corporate oligarchy with a cult of personality surrounding the head of state.
Ur-Fascism describes the ideology of MAGA exactly. Clearly there's some apprehension admitting this, it's a strong-man political ideology that has evolved many times organically throughout history. It doesn't necessarily imply that the regime is bad or evil or anything but the problem ends up being that the term exists because governments that adopt this ideology end up converging on the same unsavory behaviors despite any initial differences. That convergence is I think what a lot of Americans are afraid of because we're already doing most of them.
Ultra nationalist, cult of personality, using violence to suppress opposition... you don't see any parallels, really?
EDIT: Illiberalism is a tenet of fascism as well.
11 replies →
[flagged]
> You just don’t like anything else than your ideas, because you don’t like us. Sorry to be born.
Why do you think political ideology is an inborn trait? People don't like you because you actively choose to vote for things that bring about pain and suffering. Not because of your innate attributes.
You don’t like me because I’m male or white, and I can prove it.
I’ve done thousands of good things in my life, things that are in values you pretend to have. I was vegan, I was CO2-aware, sold my car even, I donated dozens of thousands to charities, your charities, I was gender-aware, I am gay, I am nonviolent, I am Charlie, I was there, with you, at your protests. Helped refugees too.
But I was born white, and your groups didn’t choose to include me.
It does sound like you *hate* me by birth.
3 replies →
You'll notice that The same dude was in charge in 2016 as 2026. The people warning about fascism were the ones who know what happens to the rhetoric and policies of 2016 when not countered.
If you're talking about the president, no. Obama was the president in 2016.
Your usage of "Your side" is telling. It seems like this is a team sport for you and you've picked a side. Unfortunately you might have sided with fascists.
"Your side"
So how do we respect each other’s ideals AND make peace?
1 reply →
Yeah the other side doesn’t over use socialism or communism or terrorist. And conservatives haven’t been refusing to make concessions in Congress and the Senate for decades.
Isn't this a delightful Catch-22.
If you forewarn about a developing Fascist movement, you're simply taking away the meaning from the word until it's too late and the Fascists take power.
You cannot call anything Fascist, for there may be something more Fascist that may need the power of the word.
But ah! We couldn't call out their fledgling movement full of dog whistles and double speak so no one was aware enough to stop them as a fledgling movement!
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45349597
Ah, yes, let's concede just a bit of fascism, not a lot.
[flagged]
No man, that's called an oligarchy.
Sounds like you're not a fan of socialism.
How's it working out for you, spending a third of your income on rent but not actually having any rights to stay in the property you rent, and a further third on "health insurance" that'll take your money and run, leaving you to choose between a lifetime of debt or just plain dying if you ever get ill?
> Government interference in people's lives is socialism.
No, that's called 'governance'. Literally the whole job of government is interfering in people's lives.
the redditfication of HN continues
There are generous ways to interpret a critique of "redditification".
1. An increase in comments that aim to gather social approval as opposed to advancing a conversation or sharing knowledge -- often including meta commentary on threads e.g., "reddit moment".
2. Topics start to become more general and lose the tech/startup scene focus of the site.
These are legitimate. Reddit threads are stereotypically full of noise and HN should avoid that.
However there's a third form of the critique that I think should be avoided.
3. Too many comments seem to reflect values and worldviews rooted in [socially] liberal ideals.
Because of this, it's probably useful to give some context for what in particular constitutes "redditifcation". That way dang and any other mods can try to address it with particular policy decisions.
The irony is that almost every single one of the countries these foreigners come from would do exactly the same thing were the shoe on the other foot. If running government-funded research to maximize the opportunities for native born people is “fascism,” then every country in Asia, Africa, and the Middle East is “fascist.” Borderless universalism is a niche idea even in the west, and virtually non-existent outside it.
> The irony is that almost every single one of the countries these foreigners come from would do exactly the same thing were the shoe on the other foot.
I'm having a hard imagining Canada, Australia, New Zealand, France, Norway, Switzerland, Germany, the UK, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, or Italy, to name a few countries of the countries from which scientists have come to work on NIST projects putting these kind of restrictions on American scientists coming to work on non-classified research at their labs.
Imagine using this logic in the 1930s when scientists from Germany, Hungary, and Italy were flocking to the US.
Did the advances they helped spur actually maximize opportunities for native born people in the long run?
Would we be better off if we had blocked them from researching in the US?
you present a lot of conviction yet there is not a single source for your opinion that was presented.
He's from one of those countries.