During the 2024 American president election, Democrats and others on the left decried the Republican candidate, Donald Trump, as a fascist. However, some socialist theorists and commentators have criticised the loose use of this word – warning that when the real thing gains power, people will not be prepared. However, is this based on an analysis of fascism that needs updating?
Let’s take a deep dive into 20th century history first…
Fascism – the traditional orthodox Marxist position
Among orthodox Marxists, there has always been a reticence to use the term ‘fascist’ to describe political opponents. In a 1969 introduction to Leon Trotsky’s polemic, Fascism: What is it and how to fight it?, the American socialist George Lavan Weissman was critical of those at the time labelling politicians like Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and George Wallace as fascists. He wrote:
“Indiscriminate use of the term really reflects vagueness about its meaning. Asked to define fascism, the liberal replies in such terms as dictatorship, mass neurosis, anti-Semitism, the power of unscrupulous propaganda, the hypnotic effect of a mad-genius orator on the masses, etc. Impressionism and confusion on the part of liberals is not surprising.”
When Trotsky wrote his article in the 1930s, during the rise of fascism (he didn’t live to see its fall), the Soviet leader – Joseph Stalin – had ordered communists in Europe to shun all other political parties as fascist and especially the social democratic parties (mainstream left-of-centre), which were dubbed ‘social-fascist’. While Trotsky had no time for the reformists and ‘evolutionary’ socialists, he regarded the ‘social-fascist’ position as an insane response to the emerging danger of fascist parties. The left needed to be united – not split apart.
When the real fascists came to power in Germany – in the shape of Hitler and the Nazis – Stalin performed an astonishing U-turn, urging the formation of popular fronts, comprised of the entire left as well as capitalist parties. This was dictated by his fear of German rearmament under Hitler and the threat that would pose to the Soviet Union – something realised horrifically in the second world war. These ‘popular fronts’ proved unable to stop the Third Reich invading the continent in the years that followed.
In his very last writings, around 1939, Trotsky then noted how Stalin took to the political stage with a third act to this tragedy when he started making overtures to Hitler – hoping he could charm the Nazis into leaving him alone. As two totalitarian dictators, they may have formed a connection at some level. But the system that Stalin represented – communism – was anathema to Hitler. The central mission of fascism was to uproot socialism and Marxism by destroying liberal democracy and then annihilating the Left and trades unions.
Trotsky defines fascism
Trotsky was keen to differentiate between fascism and authoritarian dictatorships. So, for example, the seven year regime that ruled Spain from 1923 to 1930 under General Miguel Primo de Rivera was not fascist. Rivera crushed democracy; was an extreme nationalist; colonialist; reactionary; censored the media; and embarked on major infrastructure projects to woo the public. All hallmarks of fascism. Yet he was not a fascist in Trotsky’s view. He was an aristocratic military officer whose power rested on the armed forces and the monarchy.
So what did he believe were the traits of a genuine fascist? Let’s list them and see if they apply to Donald Trump:
- A crisis in capitalist society means that the usual parliamentary, military, and police arms of the state are no long sufficient to defend private property and the bourgeoisie
- Fascist parties organise a movement that is separate from the usual state forces and employs violence against the Left – made up of the ‘crazed’ petit-bourgeoisie (lower middle class), lumpenproletariat (unemployed, underclass), and even some workers seduced by fascist arguments
- Capitalism demands of fascism a thorough, and most likely bloody, clear out of the Left and the sweeping away of the usual parliamentary institutions, agencies of the state, and trades unions
- A state structure is introduced with one legal political party whose roots reach deep into the population monitoring all aspects of daily life. Membership of other parties and trades unions is illegal. The working class as a political force is destroyed
Marxists in the 1960s and 1970s condemned those on the Left calling Richard Nixon a fascist because he had not overthrown the constitution of the United States or unleashed a semi-militarised thug army against liberals, socialists, and the trades unions. Therefore, he was not a fascist. And in 1973, he resigned from office with liberal democracy very much intact – some observers claiming that the Watergate scandal proved the enduring strength of American democracy.
It also should be said that by the orthodox Marxist definition, being a racist, white supremacist, or inciting hatred are not enough to make a politician a fascist. Mussolini was the architect of fascism yet did not embrace anti-Semitism as Hitler did. What he introduced though was a ‘corporate state’ that controlled all areas of life and deployed ultra-violence to wipe out his enemies.
But is Donald Trump different?
What could not have been anticipated in the Nixon era of the 1970s or the Reagan era of the 1980s was the transformation of the Republican Party in the US into a cult of the personality centred on Donald Trump. Neither would any political crystal ball in those decades have predicted the Capitol Hill Riots of January 6, 2021 – an insurrectionary attempt to halt the democratic process.
So how does Trump differ from Nixon and Reagan – and does it justify calling him a fascist? Let’s list some differences:
- Trump has been willing to incite a mob to attack the centre of political power in the United States to derail the result of a presidential election
- That mob included militia groups such as the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers
- Trump has indicated that he would be prepared to use the military to suppress dissent and has called for his political opponents to be locked up and silenced
- Trump has shown no regard for the freedom of the press or other constitutional freedoms
- He has identified himself with other global authoritarians – including non-elected ones – while deriding democratically elected governments
Has fascism changed?
Across the world, right-wing authoritarian leaders have come to power in India, Egypt, Hungary, Brazil, and other countries in recent years. The democratic process has continued – for example, leading to the ejection of Jair Bolsonaro from power in Brazil in 2023 after four years in office. The ballot box brought him in and the ballot box threw him out. That would be inconceivable if he had been a fascist dictator.
However, trying to neatly compartmentalise far right authoritarians from thoroughbred fascists is getting harder. Why?
- Right-wing authoritarians have used their power to hollow out democratic institutions, undermine press freedom, and crack down on political opponents in a way that blurs the boundary with fascism – while the facade of parliamentary democracy endures….for now
- They have also shown a willingness to use already existing neo-fascist militias as auxiliaries to get their way – with Donald Trump even talking about the Proud Boys stepping down but being ready for action
- Digital and social media have created ‘leaderless’ insurgents and terrorists who can be activated through targeted messaging – dog whistle taunts that goad them into action
If Trotsky was alive today, he would be analysing the neo-fascist ‘leaderless resistance’ phenomenon, first articulated by the white supremacist Louis Beam in 1983 – when social media was still a concept and not a reality. He once said that when ballots fail, bullets will prevail – articulating a strategy long pursued by fascists of engaging with the democratic process for periods but then reverting to street-based thuggery when they didn’t get the votes.
Beam took this a stage further, arguing that ‘white revolutionaries’ should form small cells – as many terrorist groups have done – instead of aspiring to create mass movements. This would prevent infiltration by law enforcement and the intelligence agencies as well as costly court actions. Social media has enabled this ‘lone wolf’ strategy to become a very effective reality where individuals can commit terror acts in the name of a group without having received direct orders – like a franchise operation. The Islamist jihadi group ISIS used this tactic to devastating effect in the 2010s.
Hitler came to power with an organised group of street thugs – the brown-shirted SA (Sturmabeilung) – and the more elite force, the black-shirted SS (Schutztaffel). Once firmly in control of Germany, Hitler brutally purged the SA, some of whose members had believed his anti-capitalist rhetoric. However, does fascism today need to create these kind of structures? Instead – can they seize the state by tapping into more informal terror networks using social media and the dark web?
Donald Trump is not Richard Nixon
Donald Trump is not Richard Nixon or Ronald Reagan. He has knowingly deployed the language of fascism, even casually remarking at a rally that he had never read Hitler’s manifesto – Mein Kampf. There has been a qualitative shift in the Republican Party towards something far more sinister than yesteryear. The question is – does it constitute fascism?
The Greek left-wing politician Yanis Varoufakis told Unherd in November 2024 that it was a mistake to call Trump a fascist and that Democrats wouldn’t know one if it poked them with a barge pole. Fascism, he said, is a very ‘specific ideology’. He defined fascism as a movement that does three things:
- Addresses the misery of the masses under capitalism – even blaming the capitalist system – and introduces welfare measures to improve their lot on condition that they forsake democracy – all powers will be vested in the dictator
- While attacking finance capital, the fascists have a line of communication open to capitalism saying that while higher wages may have to be paid out – you will be able to manage your workplaces without opposition, ie no organised labour
- A corporate state that brings together all classes is created and embarks on imperialist/colonialist war abroad
All of which assumes a moment where capitalism formally breaks with parliamentary democracy and supports a fascist takeover. The danger today is of an almost imperceptible slippage from democracy into fascism. Anybody who wants to understand how that could happen should study how Salazar became dictator of Portugal – little wonder that many American conservatives have shown an increasing interest in Salazar.
The next four years will show whether Donald Trump deserves the term ‘fascist’ or not.
Marxism Explained 
Leave a comment